Bracketology - Let's Do This

[Deleted member 2897]

Just for some more detailed fun, this article is 1 hour old from ESPN, taking into account yesterday's games.

NCAA Tournament bracketology: Illinois surges in as new No. 1 seed, replacing Ohio State

Iowa's win over Ohio State pushed the Buckeyes out of their final top seed, and Big Ten rival Illinois surged in to nab a projected No. 1 seed.

www.usatoday.com

(In Parenthesis is NET Ranking)

Last 4 in:
Seton Hall (53)
Georgia Tech (40)
VCU (37)
Connecticut (36)

First 4 out:
Michigan State (77)
Duke (53)
St. John's (73)
SMU (55)

These don't look so bad. We seem to fit in nicely to this group appropriately. But here is where it gets funny, when you look at the at-large seeds. I'm going to highlight everyone who has a worse rating yet is in above us.

12: Seton Hall (53) / Georgia Tech (40)
12: Western Kentucky (74)
12: Toledo (58)
11: Drake (42)
11: Colorado State (43)
10: Oregon (44)
10: Xavier (48)
10: Wichita State (66)
10: Louisville (46)
9: North Carolina (41)
6: Virginia Tech (45)
6: Missouri (47)

12 teams rated worse than their supposed main metric they use are in ahead of us. And of course note that we are rated higher than 3 of the 12 seeds, 2 of the 11 seeds, all damned 4 of the 10 seeds, higher than a 9 seed, and even higher than 2 of the damned 6 seeds.

This **** is crazy.

 

[D-man44]

 

[D-man44]

Hey we are in the top 10!

 

[CuseJacket]

Just for some more detailed fun, this article is 1 hour old from ESPN, taking into account yesterday's games.

NCAA Tournament bracketology: Illinois surges in as new No. 1 seed, replacing Ohio State

Iowa's win over Ohio State pushed the Buckeyes out of their final top seed, and Big Ten rival Illinois surged in to nab a projected No. 1 seed.

www.usatoday.com

(In Parenthesis is NET Ranking)

Last 4 in:
Seton Hall (53)
Georgia Tech (40)
VCU (37)
Connecticut (36)

First 4 out:
Michigan State (77)
Duke (53)
St. John's (73)
SMU (55)

These don't look so bad. We seem to fit in nicely to this group appropriately. But here is where it gets funny, when you look at the at-large seeds. I'm going to highlight everyone who has a worse rating yet is in above us.

12: Seton Hall (53) / Georgia Tech (40)
12: Western Kentucky (74)
12: Toledo (58)
11: Drake (42)
11: Colorado State (43)
10: Oregon (44)
10: Xavier (48)
10: Wichita State (66)
10: Louisville (46)
9: North Carolina (41)
6: Virginia Tech (45)
6: Missouri (47)

12 teams rated worse than their supposed main metric they use are in ahead of us. And of course note that we are rated higher than 3 of the 12 seeds, 2 of the 11 seeds, all damned 4 of the 10 seeds, higher than a 9 seed, and even higher than 2 of the damned 6 seeds.

This **** is crazy.

I suspect you're being partly facetious. As you've pointed out, the NET has flaws all years, let alone this year. It's never been the sole metric used to determine selection or seeding. So if it's most egregious this year in terms of reliability., why would we expect prognosticators to project selection and seeding on a linear NET rating basis?

Toledo and Western Kentucky would be auto-bids in this USA Today projection. Outside of Wichita State, you're comparing a bunch of teams ranked in the 40's.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I suspect you're being partly facetious. As you've pointed out, the NET has flaws all years, let alone this year. It's never been the sole metric used to determine selection or seeding. So if it's most egregious this year in terms of reliability., why would we expect prognosticators to project selection and seeding on a linear NET rating basis?

Toledo and Western Kentucky would be auto-bids in this USA Today projection. Outside of Wichita State, you're comparing a bunch of teams ranked in the 40's.

Yes, partly facetious. But this is utterly hilarious and I feel embarrassed for whoever comes up with us being in a 12-seed play-in game at a NET of 40, when:
10: Oregon (44)
10: Xavier (48)
10: Wichita State (66)
10: Louisville (46)
9: North Carolina (41)
6: Virginia Tech (45)
6: Missouri (47)

 

[RyanS12]

Yea these people are drunk - tell us your metrics you use.

My metrics? Pretty simple. I watch college basketball. A lot of it. Lol.

 

[dtm1997]

There's only 1 goal right now (beat ****bag dook), but wanted to spread awareness of this happening.

 

[RyanS12]

There's only 1 goal right now (beat ****bag dook), but wanted to spread awareness of this happening.

There could be some really big name schools in this. That is if they want to participate.

 

[D-man44]

Rutgers down by 18 vs Nebraska at half

 

[GTbball2016]

St. Bonnie losing has to help

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Rutgers down by 18 vs Nebraska at half

But Nebraska is Big Ten, so they should get a bump for losing.

 

[gt24]

 

[JDjacket]

Damn. If Nebraska closes out this game and maybe beats NW (assuming they lose to Iowa), might be able to add to our Q2 resume.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

But Nebraska is Big Ten, so they should get a bump for losing.

We might be #29 KenPom before daylight. That’s easily second 4 out.

/

 

[D-man44]

But Nebraska is Big Ten, so they should get a bump for losing.

They are down by 30 now

Damn. If Nebraska closes out this game and maybe beats NW (assuming they lose to Iowa), might be able to add to our Q2 resume.

they are 130+ so long way to go

 

[CINCYMETJACKET]

But Nebraska is Big Ten, so they should get a bump for losing.

I hope so, since we beat them on the road.

 

[JDjacket]

they are 130+ so long way to go

Luckily we played them @Nebraska. Q2 away starts at 135 and they’re 138

 

[jbix80]

Down goes Carolina to Syracuse!

 

[Fatmike91]

Thank you Syracuse. We’re up to 6th now in the ACC. Those optics help us.

I wonder if UNC is on the wrong side of the bubble now.

Rutgers and St Bonn awful losses.

Look for a hot NC St to take out Clemson next.

/

 

[D-man44]

now let’s go Arizona!