Bracketology - Let's Do This

[CuseJacket]

Is that really the question? I think what people are grousing about is the lack of a rational consistency, no matter how one tries to understand the seeding or what method is purportedly used.

But yeah I think Tech is better than a lot of the teams ranked ahead of us and certainly better than several teams that got a better seeding.

It was the first question.

Can you tell me how you think bracketologists forecasted the selection and seedings so well? If the seeding was irrational, it is hard for me to fathom how they all seemed to figure it out so well.

http://bracketmatrix.com/

 

[CuseJacket]

It is common in basketball and football to be slightly ranked below a team you've beaten by just the way the schedules and wins and losses work out. I know under the covers how Virginia Tech has skipped most of their most difficult games and have lost to nearly all the ones they kept. But it is what it is. They finished 3rd in the ACC. Nobody in the entire conference had fewer overall losses than Virginia Tech. Only 6 teams out of the top 25 have fewer losses than Virginia Tech. The #2 team in the entire country has 6 losses. So I can certainly see why they're ranked there.

So the people that "are really plugged in" are correct? Or they aren't?

 

[CuseJacket]

Colgate isn't ranked. Loyola is ranked #17 and has been ranked all season. I think those two teams are ranked fairly at Unranked and #17 respectively, yes.

Do you prefer top 25 or NET for seeding?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It was the first question.

Can you tell me how you think bracketologists forecasted the selection and seedings so well? If the seeding was irrational, it is hard for me to fathom how they all seemed to figure it out so well.

http://bracketmatrix.com/

They didn't. Looking at predictions on the same day the brackets came out is not representative of what the bracketologists had been saying. Go back and look Friday or Saturday and you'll see what we mean.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

So the people that "are really plugged in" are correct? Or they aren't?

I think its great when our own Mods troll our members. Stop putting words into other people's mouths.

 

[lauraee]

Do you prefer top 25 or NET for seeding?

Whichever would have gotten us a 7 seed.

 

[CuseJacket]

I think its great when our own Mods troll our members. Stop putting words into other people's mouths.

I'm not putting words in your mouth nor trolling. I'm asking a follow-up question. You said the top 25 reflects the opinions of those that "are really plugged in". I'm asking if you think they were correct in both labeling VT a top 25 team and putting them ahead of us.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I'm not putting words in your mouth nor trolling. I'm asking a follow-up question. You said the top 25 reflects the opinions of those that "are really plugged in". I'm asking if you think they were correct in both labeling VT a top 25 team and putting them ahead of us.

And I answered that question that I can see why yes in both cases.

 

[CuseJacket]

They didn't. Looking at predictions on the same day the brackets came out is not representative of what the bracketologists had been saying. Go back and look Friday or Saturday and you'll see what we mean.

Their projections changed as a result of games and outcomes. The site I gave you includes the fact that more bracketologists had Louisville in the field than Utah State, Drake, Syracuse and Wichita State. That was proven wrong. On the same view you can see they pegged us as a 9 and Loyola as an 8, on average. Look at the rest. Same deal.

 

[lv20gt]

I'm more surprised about the surprise here on the board. It's what the committee has always done. Bracketologists pinpointed with fairly good accuracy this year what the seed lines would be, based on history. But maybe it's due to lack of us flexing our NCAAT muscle that lends itself to the surprise.

I don't think the committee has always done things this way, although I agree that Bracketologists are probably plugged in to the way things are going on more than I had believed. I think there are two reasons I was surprised.

1) I bought into the idea of the committee looking at extenuating circumstances more than I probably should have. To me, the first two games this year really stand out as outliers for us and I expected them to consider that if they were indeed looking at circumstances. It appears they didn't, or at least not for us. Maybe they really only focused on the middle of the year cases like clemson and oregon.

2) It's been a decade since I cared or looked much into the seeding process. IMO 10 years ago with this performance we don't get a 9 seed. I do think things have changed and that recent play is less heavily differentiated than play at the beginning of the year. So I thought bracketologists were likely to be wrong if we kept winning and we'd see a bigger jump. I compare it to the 2014 Uconn team. They were 21-9, 9-9 before their conference tournament run. Now they beat more ranked teams down the stretch for sure, but they also got a 3 seed. Now maybe I put too much stock in that late run in earning them that 3 seed but I do believe recent play was a bigger factor in years past.

 

[CuseJacket]

And I answered that question that I can see why yes in both cases.

I perceived your answer as an explanation for "why" it was that way but not personally believing the result.

So, at the risk of getting caught in a game of semantics, I have never considered the AP voters to be "really plugged in". There was evidence that Kentucky was a terrible team when we played them, but we got to celebrate a "top 25" win at the time.

I don't personally believe VT is better than us nor are they a top 25 team right now. I'd also think North Carolina, who just beat them, would have received a vote and been in the ballpark.

If you're ok with the top 25, then we would have been a 7 seed. The coaches poll has us as an 8 seed (#30).

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If you want to read up more about how teams are selected for the NCAA Basketball Tournament, you can read it right from the NCAA here:

NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA

www.ncaa.org

Some of the more entertaining parts of learning how you get selected and what your seed might be include "player and coach availability"

 

[CuseJacket]

I don't think the committee has always done things this way, although I agree that Bracketologists are probably plugged in to the way things are going on more than I had believed. I think there are two reasons I was surprised.

1) I bought into the idea of the committee looking at extenuating circumstances more than I probably should have. To me, the first two games this year really stand out as outliers for us and I expected them to consider that if they were indeed looking at circumstances. It appears they didn't, or at least not for us. Maybe they really only focused on the middle of the year cases like clemson and oregon.

2) It's been a decade since I cared or looked much into the seeding process. IMO 10 years ago with this performance we don't get a 9 seed. I do think things have changed and that recent play is less heavily differentiated than play at the beginning of the year. So I thought bracketologists were likely to be wrong if we kept winning and we'd see a bigger jump. I compare it to the 2014 Uconn team. They were 21-9, 9-9 before their conference tournament run. Now they beat more ranked teams down the stretch for sure, but they also got a 3 seed. Now maybe I put too much stock in that late run in earning them that 3 seed but I do believe recent play was a bigger factor in years past.

All fair points.

Re: #1, it's hard for me to imagine, even if the committee considered extenuating circumstances, that they would have been sympathetic to a coach's choice (Pastner's) to not be ready, vs. actual players out with Covid and dealing with the repercussions, both immediate and lingering. Way oversimplified, but I see the counterargument to us as fans.

Re: #2, the last 10 games and such has been washed away for a while. The point was to not diminish early season wins, for better and for worse, so that teams were appropriately rewarded for strong out-of-conference scheduling. Syracuse also had a run in the Big East tournament that earned them a 4 or 5, don't recall, but by today's standards would have probably put them 7 at the highest.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It was the first question.

Can you tell me how you think bracketologists forecasted the selection and seedings so well? If the seeding was irrational, it is hard for me to fathom how they all seemed to figure it out so well.

http://bracketmatrix.com/

It’s a fair question but I am reminded of the Challenger disaster where over 20 different experts said is was good to launch and all their data was predictive of each other’s outcome whereas only one person said over and over your numbers don’t match and this thing is going to blow up.

Forgive the hyperbolic response but it looks like group think to me where they have all bought into each other’s starting premise and they can no longer see what is right in front of their eyes. Like Clemson having a better seed for instance.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Clearly Loyola was placed here so that they have the opportunity to play the Illini in the 2nd round. This should be a really interesting game. Loyola big man is the Conference Player of the year. Loyola guard is the Conference Defensive Player of the Year. Good story lines - their CPOY vs our CPOY and their CDPOY vs out CDPOY. I like it.

 

[orientalnc]

Do you and @bwelbo believe Colgate and Loyola are two of the top 10 teams in the country?

I do not. If the NCAA selection committee is going to use the NET (I am not sure it has much relevance this year due to reasons stated earlier) then do not deviate so greatly at times and defend its rankings at others. Because Loyola has played only one P6 team (a 14 point loss to Wisconsin, which lost 12 games), it is difficult to know if their record is simply a result of not playing good competition. Perhaps that is what the NCAA is saying with their #8 seed. GT played good competition and does not seem to have benefitted from it. So, what does it all mean.

But, Colgate is really the poster child of the flaws in this year's NET.

I would feel much better about the basis of the seedings if the NCAA announced they sorta put the NET aside this year. Is KenPom any better this year? He has Loyola at #9 and Wisconsin at #10.

 

[Techster]

Clearly Loyola was placed here so that they have the opportunity to play the Illini in the 2nd round. This should be a really interesting game. Loyola big man is the Conference Player of the year. Loyola guard is the Conference Defensive Player of the Year. Good story lines - their CPOY vs our CPOY and their CDPOY vs out CDPOY. I like it.

Sounds a LOT like a team named Georgia Tech

 

[CuseJacket]

It’s a fair question but I am reminded of the Challenger disaster where over 20 different experts said is was good to launch and all their data was predictive of each other’s outcome whereas only one person said over and over your numbers don’t match and this thing is going to blow up.

Forgive the hyperbolic response but it looks like group think to me where they have all bought into each other’s starting premise and they can no longer see what is right in front of their eyes. Like Clemson having a better seed for instance.

I totally believe ESPN and CBB talking heads influence the committee, regardless of what the numbers say. At some level I agree that the more informed people people in CBB should be considered. At the same point I fully acknowledge the issues.

I'm not sure the bracketologists are informing much of anything, rather they are responding to the same advertising/public perception cues as the committee, though they may have an influence.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I totally believe ESPN and CBB talking heads influence the committee, regardless of what the numbers say. At some level I agree that the more informed people people in CBB should be considered. At the same point I fully acknowledge the issues.

I'm not sure the bracketologists are informing much of anything, rather they are responding to the same advertising/public perception cues as the committee, though they may have an influence.

I buy that. For better or for worse.

 

[CuseJacket]

I do not. If the NCAA selection committee is going to use the NET (I am not sure it has much relevance this year due to reasons stated earlier) then do not deviate so greatly at times and defend its rankings at others. Because Loyola has played only one P6 team (a 14 point loss to Wisconsin, which lost 12 games), it is difficult to know if their record is simply a result of not playing good competition. Perhaps that is what the NCAA is saying with their #8 seed. GT played good competition and does not seem to have benefitted from it. So, what does it all mean.

But, Colgate is really the poster child of the flaws in this year's NET.

I would feel much better about the basis of the seedings if the NCAA announced they sorta put the NET aside this year. Is KenPom any better this year? He has Loyola at #9 and Wisconsin at #10.

The issue is the premise you're stating. Never in the history of the NET has the committee stated it's used as THE gauge for seeding. It's a consideration among many other variables. As I understand it, really the only public confirmation of the use of NET is to use it as a starting point to group teams for discussion. It doesn't mean teams end in the same grouping or anything of the sort.