Bracketology - Let's Do This

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,412
yeah, I don't buy that. The match-ups are based on last year's outcomes, not the quality of the teams this year.
I realize that. Doesn’t change the fact that the B1G beat 5 ACC teams with winning records, while the ACC only beat 1 B1G team with a winning record. The combined conference records of the B1G teams that the ACC beat is 29-48. Compared to combined conference records of 45-38 that B1G teams beat.
 

bwelbo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,779
I realize that. Doesn’t change the fact that the B1G beat 5 ACC teams with winning records, while the ACC only beat 1 B1G team with a winning record. The combined conference records of the B1G teams that the ACC beat is 29-48. Compared to combined conference records of 45-38 that B1G teams beat.

So to recap:

The ACC beat #5, 7, 9, 13, 14.
The Big 10 beat #3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15.

Do you see it? Let me repost:


The ACC beat #5, 7, 9, 13, 14.
The Big 10 beat #5, 7, 8, 11, 15 and 3 and 4.

So yes, all this hub bun when we in fact played 2 games worse than even. These things come and go.

Also, keep in mind VT and UNC have 8 wins. (The 3 and 4 who lost). Duke is in 8th and has 8 wins. Those 2 teams are not elite - they are middle ACC teams. We don’t have many elite teams this year. But we have a very strong middle.
 
Last edited:

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,412
So to recap:

The ACC beat #5, 7, 9, 13, 14.
The Big 10 beat #3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15.

Do you see it? Let me repost:


The ACC beat #5, 7, 9, 13, 14.
The Big 10 beat #5, 7, 8, 11, 15 and 3 and 4.

So yes, all this hub bun when we in fact played 2 games worse than even. These things come and go.

Also, keep in mind VT and UNC have 8 wins. (The 3 and 4 who lost). Duke is in 8th and has 8 wins. Those 2 teams are not elite - they are middle ACC teams. We don’t have many elite teams this year. But we have a very strong middle.
I’m genuinely confused about what the point of this post is. That the #3 and 4 teams in the ACC aren’t elite? Good. Then we agree the ACC isn’t strong this year, and that the Big 10 is likely better both at the top, and through the field.
 

bwelbo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,779
I’m genuinely confused about what the point of this post is. That the #3 and 4 teams in the ACC aren’t elite? Good. Then we agree the ACC isn’t strong this year, and that the Big 10 is likely better both at the top, and through the field.

The point is what I said it was. The Big 10 is better than the ACC this year. But they aren't 4 of the top 7 teams in the country, nor 8 of the top 31 as NET says. Teams with losing records like 7-12 Penn State aren't the 40th best teams. They don't deserve 12 teams in the NCAAT as the NET ratings predict.

They have 6 conference teams over 0.500. We have 9. 1-loss Michigan is excellent and probably comparable to Florida State. But the Big 10 only has 4 teams with fewer than 8 losses. We have 7 teams with fewer than 8 losses. For how good they are, they are incredibly overrated. For how poorly we are regarded by NET, we are incredibly underrated.

Once you get past team 6 in the Big 10, you're looking at records like 14-10 and 13-10. They shouldn't be looking at more than 7 or 8 teams in the NCAAT maximum right now. We should have 7 or 8 get in as well. If the committee follows NET and ~12 get in for them (with losing records LOLOLOL) and ~5 for us it will be a farce.
 

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,412
The point is what I said it was. The Big 10 is better than the ACC this year. But they aren't 4 of the top 7 teams in the country, nor 8 of the top 31 as NET says. Teams with losing records like 7-12 Penn State aren't the 40th best teams. They don't deserve 12 teams in the NCAAT as the NET ratings predict.

They have 6 conference teams over 0.500. We have 9. 1-loss Michigan is excellent and probably comparable to Florida State. But the Big 10 only has 4 teams with fewer than 8 losses. We have 7 teams with fewer than 8 losses. For how good they are, they are incredibly overrated. For how poorly we are regarded by NET, we are incredibly underrated.

Once you get past team 6 in the Big 10, you're looking at records like 14-10 and 13-10. They shouldn't be looking at more than 7 or 8 teams in the NCAAT maximum right now. We should have 7 or 8 get in as well. If the committee follows NET and ~12 get in for them (with losing records LOLOLOL) and ~5 for us it will be a farce.
We literally agree on most points. I’m not sure what you’re so adamant about. Ironically though, one of your biggest points is how many games the B1G has lost compared to the ACC, when one of your biggest complaints about rankings/standings/selections throughout both football and basketball seasons has been rewarding teams who play, and punishing those who don’t.

The B1G has 12 teams that have played 20+ games, the ACC has 4.

The fewest number of conference games a B1G team has played is 12, and 11 teams have played 15+ conference games. The ACC only has 11 teams that have played 12 or more conference games, and only 1 that has played 15 or more... Miami at 3-12.

The B1G has 7 teams with 14 or more wins, the ACC has 3. (2 of those 3 lost their games to the B1G FWIW.)

So does playing more games matter? Or does it not? If you’re going to count losses, you’ve gotta count wins too.

Also, where are you getting your NET rankings that says they’ll get 12 teams in? Michigan State is the 12th team in the B1G and they’re at 81. They have 8 in the top 35, Penn State is at 41, and Indiana at 52. Them getting 8, maybe 9 or 10 teams in is fair IMO. They won’t get more than that, definitely not 12 lol. The ACC has 5 in the top 40, Syracuse at 47, Tech at 51, Louisville at 53, and Duke at 56. That puts the ACC on track to get somewhere between 5-7 teams in depending on what happens the rest of the way. That’s also fair IMO.

Feel free to argue otherwise, but I’m out on this one.
 

bwelbo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,779
We literally agree on most points. I’m not sure what you’re so adamant about. Ironically though, one of your biggest points is how many games the B1G has lost compared to the ACC, when one of your biggest complaints about rankings/standings/selections throughout both football and basketball seasons has been rewarding teams who play, and punishing those who don’t.

The B1G has 12 teams that have played 20+ games, the ACC has 4.

The fewest number of conference games a B1G team has played is 12, and 11 teams have played 15+ conference games. The ACC only has 11 teams that have played 12 or more conference games, and only 1 that has played 15 or more... Miami at 3-12.

The B1G has 7 teams with 14 or more wins, the ACC has 3. (2 of those 3 lost their games to the B1G FWIW.)

So does playing more games matter? Or does it not? If you’re going to count losses, you’ve gotta count wins too.

Also, where are you getting your NET rankings that says they’ll get 12 teams in? Michigan State is the 12th team in the B1G and they’re at 81. They have 8 in the top 35, Penn State is at 41, and Indiana at 52. Them getting 8, maybe 9 or 10 teams in is fair IMO. They won’t get more than that, definitely not 12 lol. The ACC has 5 in the top 40, Syracuse at 47, Tech at 51, Louisville at 53, and Duke at 56. That puts the ACC on track to get somewhere between 5-7 teams in depending on what happens the rest of the way. That’s also fair IMO.

Feel free to argue otherwise, but I’m out on this one.

All I am pointing out is how overrated the Big Ten is. Arguing the Big Ten is better because they've lost more because they played more seems weird. And yes, Ohio State with 5 wins shouldn't get into the CFP. But that's not to say they couldn't have a bowl game. Apples and oranges. The bottom line is you're I think reading way way more into this than what it is. Absolutely we're saying almost the exact same thing. My only single point is that the Big Ten is overrated by NET and the ACC is underrated by NET. That's literally all I'm saying. No way 4 of the top 7 and 8 of the top ~30 are Big Ten.
 

bwelbo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,779
It was shared during the Syracuse/Duke postgame. Cuse dropped out, GT slotted in as the 8th team from the NCAAT.


Look at the 10 seeds:
51, Seton Hall
34, Drake
32, Boise State
30, Maryland (13-10)

Notice the NET Ratings of the Last 4 In (if that's what yellow means):
52, Indiana
50, Xavier
60, Minnesota
46, Colorado State

Look at the other 11 seeds:
35, VCU
53, Louisville

Look at the other 12 seeds:
68, Wichita State
63, Belmont
67, Toledo

Notice the NET Ratings of the First 4 Out:
57, Stanford
55, UConn
47, Duke
58, Richmond

Notice the NET Ratings of the Next 4 Out:
49, Georgia Tech
56, Utah State
59, SMU
48, Saint Louis

See anything interesting? LOL.

Our NET rating is better than 3 of the 4 Last 4 In teams.

Our NET rating is decently better than 3 of the 4 first 4 out teams.

Our NET rating is significantly better (~20 points) than the 12 seeds.

Our NET rating is better than half the 11 seeds.

Our NET rating is better than 1 of the 10 seeds.

Bottom Line - its clear to me they are looking well beyond just NET ratings. There are other criteria they're looking at. And they plan on taking only 6 ACC teams if the decision was today.

What is that criteria? I don't know. Its not Quad 1 record. VCU is 0-3 but they're an 11 seed. San Diego State is a 9 seed without a Quad 1 win. North Carolina is 1-6 in Quad 1 and they're a 9 seed. Wisconsin is 3-7 in Quad 1, but they're a 5 seed.

I have no clue how they're coming up with their seeds.
 

CINCYMETJACKET

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
477
Look at the 10 seeds:
51, Seton Hall
34, Drake
32, Boise State
30, Maryland (13-10)

Notice the NET Ratings of the Last 4 In (if that's what yellow means):
52, Indiana
50, Xavier
60, Minnesota
46, Colorado State

Look at the other 11 seeds:
35, VCU
53, Louisville

Look at the other 12 seeds:
68, Wichita State
63, Belmont
67, Toledo

Notice the NET Ratings of the First 4 Out:
57, Stanford
55, UConn
47, Duke
58, Richmond

Notice the NET Ratings of the Next 4 Out:
49, Georgia Tech
56, Utah State
59, SMU
48, Saint Louis

See anything interesting? LOL.

Our NET rating is better than 3 of the 4 Last 4 In teams.

Our NET rating is decently better than 3 of the 4 first 4 out teams.

Our NET rating is significantly better (~20 points) than the 12 seeds.

Our NET rating is better than half the 11 seeds.

Our NET rating is better than 1 of the 10 seeds.

Bottom Line - its clear to me they are looking well beyond just NET ratings. There are other criteria they're looking at. And they plan on taking only 6 ACC teams if the decision was today.

What is that criteria? I don't know. Its not Quad 1 record. VCU is 0-3 but they're an 11 seed. San Diego State is a 9 seed without a Quad 1 win. North Carolina is 1-6 in Quad 1 and they're a 9 seed. Wisconsin is 3-7 in Quad 1, but they're a 5 seed.

I have no clue how they're coming up with their seeds.
I'm assuming they're not saying who would be in if the season ended today. I would assume that they're projecting the rest of the games on team's schedules as well.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,701
This win is about as good a win as you can get as a road double digit win against a Q1 opponent. That should really boost our chances both in terms of NET but also as a resume builder. Cmon UNC, Clemson, and Kentucky. Sneak into those Q1 brackets
 

bensaysitathome

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
194
This win is about as good a win as you can get as a road double digit win against a Q1 opponent. That should really boost our chances both in terms of NET but also as a resume builder. Cmon UNC, Clemson, and Kentucky. Sneak into those Q1 brackets
So many of our wins are on the cusp of the Q1 designation. Our resume could be anywhere from "ok" to "pretty damn good" and we don't have that much control over it.
 

Fatmike91

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,007
We need UNC to beat Marquette and get into the top 30 in NET. That will make our win Q1. They are also playing the ACC bubble teams Syracuse and Duke to end the season. I can't believe I will be rooting for UNC to win out...:spitoutdummy:

/
 
Top