Bracketology - Let's Do This

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,676
If the gods are with us we will get seeded somewhere between 6-8. If Tech “luck” plays a role we will end up 10 seed.

But I think we may be breaking the curse.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,736
I want to say this about ACC teams. I went back and looked through their team sheets this morning (WarranNolan.com updates them daily) Here is GT's:

Looking at the team sheets for all the ACC team's that are in or on the bubble this is how i would rank them based on their team sheets
1. FSU
2. UVA
3. Clemson
4. GT (Clemson and GT are really tight and it just depends upon what you value more. Their out of conference wins against Purdue and Alabama put them slightly in front of GT for me. Both are 5-4 against liklely NCAA teams and 1-1 against bubble teams. Clemson has a little higher strength of schedule, but GT has a slightly better Road/Neutral record. )
5. UNC
6. VT (imo there is a pretty significant gap here between UNC and VT in terms of their resumes. VT does have three really good wins - Villanova on a neutral court and UVA and Clemson at home, but that is it. IMO I would have them at least 1 seed if not 2 below the Clem/GT/UNC group). VT's wins though are better than Syracuse or L'ville.
7. Syracuse
8. L'ville

Syracuse and L'ville are on the bubble for different reasons. For Syracuse it is its 3-8 Road/Neutral record. It does have three good home wins over UNC, Clemson and VT. G'town's upset in the BE Tourney gives them a 4th home win over a Tourney team). They are bubbly but imo there resume is better than L'ville.
L'ville only has 2 good wins, both at home, GT and VT, W KY losing yesterday cost them a win over a Tourney team. There resume is very bubbly.

I'll also add that I love this quote from Paster after the game last night about seeding, specifically about potentially ending up in an 8/9 game. Great attitude.

“If we’re fortunate enough to win that game, then we’re playing the 1 seed, great,” he said. “Let’s go play ‘em and beat ‘em. Let the opponents have to worry about us. I like our chances. Whomever we play against, I love our team, wherever they seed us, we’ll be ready to play.”
 

jeffgt14

We don't quite suck as much anymore.
Messages
5,789
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
17-10 (9-8), 1 and done in conference tourny, 6th out of 10 in conference, 3-9 against Top 25 = 6 seed

17-8 (11-6), Major Conference Champ, 4th Regular Season, 5-3 against Top 25 = 9 Seed

15-10 (9-8), won play in game only in conference tourny, 7th out of 10 in conference, 5-8 against Top 25 = 9 seed
 

GTLorenzo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,473
I want to say this about ACC teams. I went back and looked through their team sheets this morning (WarranNolan.com updates them daily) Here is GT's:

Looking at the team sheets for all the ACC team's that are in or on the bubble this is how i would rank them based on their team sheets
1. FSU
2. UVA
3. Clemson
4. GT (Clemson and GT are really tight and it just depends upon what you value more. Their out of conference wins against Purdue and Alabama put them slightly in front of GT for me. Both are 5-4 against liklely NCAA teams and 1-1 against bubble teams. Clemson has a little higher strength of schedule, but GT has a slightly better Road/Neutral record. )
5. UNC
6. VT (imo there is a pretty significant gap here between UNC and VT in terms of their resumes. VT does have three really good wins - Villanova on a neutral court and UVA and Clemson at home, but that is it. IMO I would have them at least 1 seed if not 2 below the Clem/GT/UNC group). VT's wins though are better than Syracuse or L'ville.
7. Syracuse
8. L'ville

Syracuse and L'ville are on the bubble for different reasons. For Syracuse it is its 3-8 Road/Neutral record. It does have three good home wins over UNC, Clemson and VT. G'town's upset in the BE Tourney gives them a 4th home win over a Tourney team). They are bubbly but imo there resume is better than L'ville.
L'ville only has 2 good wins, both at home, GT and VT, W KY losing yesterday cost them a win over a Tourney team. There resume is very bubbly.

I'll also add that I love this quote from Paster after the game last night about seeding, specifically about potentially ending up in an 8/9 game. Great attitude.

“If we’re fortunate enough to win that game, then we’re playing the 1 seed, great,” he said. “Let’s go play ‘em and beat ‘em. Let the opponents have to worry about us. I like our chances. Whomever we play against, I love our team, wherever they seed us, we’ll be ready to play.”

So Red, where do you think we’ll be seeded?
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,564
17-10 (9-8), 1 and done in conference tourny, 6th out of 10 in conference, 3-9 against Top 25 = 6 seed

17-8 (11-6), Major Conference Champ, 4th Regular Season, 5-3 against Top 25 = 9 Seed

15-10 (9-8), won play in game only in conference tourny, 7th out of 10 in conference, 5-8 against Top 25 = 9 seed

One thing I would suggest everyone do is to try and play devil's advocate with the other team and make an honest attempt to justify them being ranked higher. Then do the same for us. That gives you a much better picture of where we should be in relation to other teams, than starting out with the idea we should be higher and then searching out pieces of the picture that support that. Also, you should really try to not use things that the committee won't be looking at like record against top 25, and I'm not even sure they are given who is conference champ (I believe the names are hidden from the sheets they are given).

So for Texas Tech, they are 17th in the NE, with all of their other metrics falling between 8 at BPI and 37 at SOR. They have a higher SOS, similar Q1 and Q2 story. They've played more worse teams that have given them a lower average NET rating of opponents in wins, but have avoided the any bad losses which give them a high NET rating in losses. Realistically, Texas Tech is similar to what we would look like without the losses to Mercer and Georgia State.

Oklahoma has a similar story as us as well. They had slightly better wins and we had worse losses but played far more "pretty good" teams. 37th in NET and their other metrics are between 30 and 44. It makes sense that they are seeded similar to us, projection wise.

That isn't to say the committee won't look at things like recent play, although I believe it was removed as an official criteria a few years back, and how they will look at the losses to mercer and state is anyones guess, but I don't think it's really fair to expect people projecting the seedings to be familiar with all the nuances of the schedules as they update them or have a great feeling on how the committee will handle things where there isn't much prior cases to go on.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,736
So Red, where do you think we’ll be seeded?

If I was seeding it would be a 7, similar to this bracket


I think he has the ACC schools really well placed in terms of their profiles. He has GT 7, Clemson 8, UNC 9, VT 10
He has Syracuse and L'ville as the last 2 major conference at large and UVA and FSU as 4's.

My gut is we get an 8/9, but maybe winning the championship will get us to a 7. GT has alot of good metrics. 7-5 Road/Neutral, 6-5 against NCAA Likely/bubble (including @VT and N vs FSU), 9-6 Quad 1&2. The only real negative on GT's profile are the 2 sub 100 losses to GSU and Mercer, i'm hoping they will see those came in Nov (game dates are included on the team sheets) and that they get discounted a little. If the committee does discount them you might see a 7.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,800
Some of the brackets put 4 or 5 ACC teams in the Gonzaga bracket. I know that the NCAA is supposed to spread out the top 4 in a conference to different brackets, but hopefully the tournament committee doesn’t just look at the NET numbers but also flips a few teams around for more fun matchups and to get more cross-conference play.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,822
Yes, we don't want the 8/9 seed, but bright side:

The #1 seed only gets a day to prepare for us, a team they most likely have no clue about. We are the definition of a VERY dangerous team with our style of play. Even teams that see us twice during the season and get multiple days to prepare for us still don't know how to play us. On top of that, we are playing our best basketball all year.

All I'm saying is I'm just glad to be in the NCAAT. The world is a different place in March when GT is dancing.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,199
I do think that we have been able to move past the first 2 games where the committee has a logical reason to discount those games. Whether they do .... ?

I do think we are higher than a 10 seed looking at the wins, etc. I just hope we can move beyond the 8/9 seed. While I love Pastner's comment, the reality of that situation is daunting.
 

jeffgt14

We don't quite suck as much anymore.
Messages
5,789
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
One thing I would suggest everyone do is to try and play devil's advocate with the other team and make an honest attempt to justify them being ranked higher. Then do the same for us. That gives you a much better picture of where we should be in relation to other teams, than starting out with the idea we should be higher and then searching out pieces of the picture that support that. Also, you should really try to not use things that the committee won't be looking at like record against top 25, and I'm not even sure they are given who is conference champ (I believe the names are hidden from the sheets they are given).

So for Texas Tech, they are 17th in the NE, with all of their other metrics falling between 8 at BPI and 37 at SOR. They have a higher SOS, similar Q1 and Q2 story. They've played more worse teams that have given them a lower average NET rating of opponents in wins, but have avoided the any bad losses which give them a high NET rating in losses. Realistically, Texas Tech is similar to what we would look like without the losses to Mercer and Georgia State.

Oklahoma has a similar story as us as well. They had slightly better wins and we had worse losses but played far more "pretty good" teams. 37th in NET and their other metrics are between 30 and 44. It makes sense that they are seeded similar to us, projection wise.

That isn't to say the committee won't look at things like recent play, although I believe it was removed as an official criteria a few years back, and how they will look at the losses to mercer and state is anyones guess, but I don't think it's really fair to expect people projecting the seedings to be familiar with all the nuances of the schedules as they update them or have a great feeling on how the committee will handle things where there isn't much prior cases to go on.
Because the entire Big 10 and Big 12 are in Quad 1. It's impossible to even have an average team in those scenarios.
 
Top