Bracketology - Let's Do This

[Southpawmac]

Is anyone else tired of hearing that the first two games of the season negated all of our quality wins and our near miraculous winning streak to end our regular season? This is when I worry that we really have let computer generated data override our ability to think rationally.

Yes, my view is biased but I honestly would give a lot of teams the benefit of the doubt for anomalies that occurred in their record during a Covid season.

It’s complete BS. For the committee to put Michigan St. in solely because of their recent wins and disregarding the entire first half of their schedule, but hold our first two games against us and not weight our final games the same is so infuriating.

 

[lv20gt]

Is anyone else tired of hearing that the first two games of the season negated all of our quality wins and our near miraculous winning streak to end our regular season? This is when I worry that we really have let computer generated data override our ability to think rationally.

Yes, my view is biased but I honestly would give a lot of teams the benefit of the doubt for anomalies that occurred in their record during a Covid season.

I don't mind getting punished for those losses especially in relation to out of conference teams. It's not so much the 9 seed that I mind, although I think it still short changes us. What I do mind is us being behind Clemson and UNC despite finishing ahead of them in conference with a harder conference schedule and winning the conference championship. I think when it comes to seeding of teams in the same conference the OOC shouldn't be nearly as important.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Is anyone else tired of hearing that the first two games of the season negated all of our quality wins and our near miraculous winning streak to end our regular season? This is when I worry that we really have let computer generated data override our ability to think rationally.

Yes, my view is biased but I honestly would give a lot of teams the benefit of the doubt for anomalies that occurred in their record during a Covid season.

My bigger beef is the inconsistency in that. They absolutely did override the computer generated data to make their own subjective decisions regarding who should get in and what the seedings should be and its incredibly inconsistent.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

In real time, as Tech went on the board, practically the first thing out of the talking heads was about the match up between Loyola and Illinois. Hello! Tech appears on our TV screen and your first comment is how exciting a Loyola/Illinois game will be!

 

[JacketRacket]

2021 March Madness Predictions

FiveThirtyEight’s men’s and women’s NCAA Tournament forecasting models calculate the chance of each team reaching each round.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

 

[D-man44]

Didn’t know where to put this but final AP top 25 is posted at noon

 

[Techster]

2021 March Madness Predictions

FiveThirtyEight’s men’s and women’s NCAA Tournament forecasting models calculate the chance of each team reaching each round.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

45% chance of beating LC, and 2% chance of making Final 4. 1% chance of winning it all.

Challenge accepted.

 

[CuseJacket]

My bigger beef is the inconsistency in that. They absolutely did override the computer generated data to make their own subjective decisions regarding who should get in and what the seedings should be and its incredibly inconsistent.

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.

We also know and have pointed out how context is missing from the computer generated data (hi Colgate!). So we can't have it both ways. And certainly talking about our own circumstances in a vacuum doesn't help. I like the points being made about the relative comparison to Clemson, and while I agree we should have been seeded higher than them, I can see an argument for their relative placement based on their resume.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

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.

We also know and have pointed out how context is missing from the computer generated data (hi Colgate!). So we can't have it both ways. And certainly talking about our own circumstances in a vacuum doesn't help. I like the points being made about the relative comparison to Clemson, and while I agree we should have been seeded higher than them, I can see an argument for their relative placement based on their resume.

I don't think anybody here is surprised that the committee points to certain metrics that they use but then don't follow and apply them evenly (even remotely) across the board. We're just pointing out how the silliness of it all. If you're not going to follow certain metrics then don't say you are.

 

[CuseJacket]

I don't think anybody here is surprised that the committee points to certain metrics that they use but then don't follow and apply them evenly (even remotely) across the board. We're just pointing out how the silliness of it all. If you're not going to follow certain metrics then don't say you are.

This reads like expectations were off then. The committee has never set the expectation that seeding would be based on NET or any two or three variables. It is more of a grouping methodology for discussion. Then they try to evaluate team sheets with all other factors included, including extenuating circumstances.

There are a couple of outliers every year that are difficult to explain, and this year was more difficult than any other year. The seed lines were actually pretty close to what bracketologists projected based on prior committee precedent. So while there is no written methodology that folks are seeking, it's not like the committee picked names out of a hat. The ability to forecast relatively well this year suggests there is a somewhat predictable weighting of selection considerations and therefore outcomes.

Having said all that, I recognize that GT fans are going to be particularly attuned to lack of black and white calculations and algorithms. It upsets other fanbases as it is, even though everyone has the opportunity to understand the rules of engagement going in.

 

[orientalnc]

My beef with the NCAA this year is all about the NET and whether it has the importance they allege.

Looking at the EOD March 14 version of the NET, 1-4 all got #1 seeds and 5-8 all got #2 seeds. So far, so good.

Then 9th ranked Colgate gets a 14 seed and #10 Loyola gets an 8 seed. Why deviate so much after following the program so closely for the top seeds? Kansas and UVA are ranked 11 & 12. KU gets a #3 and UVA a #4. In the same bracket!!!

Tennessee is ranked 13th and Arkansas 14th. Arkansas gets #3 and UT gets a #5. At least these two avoided being in the same bracket. Texas and W Virginia got #3 seeds without being ranked in the top 20 in NET.

I don't have any beef with the seeding generally, but there are some strange anomalies relative the NET that simply bogle the mind.

 

[lauraee]

Tadams posted a good article on the tourney as far as what the committee got right and wrong. Here is another one on seeding winners and losers

Selection Sunday winners and losers: Contrasting fortunes for No. 1 seeds

The 2021 men's March Madness bracket reveal was cruel to some and kind to others.

sports.yahoo.com

Selection Sunday losers​

Loyola/Georgia Tech | Seed: 8/9 | Region: Midwest​

KenPom says Loyola is the ninth-best team in college basketball.

Georgia Tech has won eight in a row, and topped off the streak with an ACC tournament crown.

Their rewards?

Each other, in the first round; and a potential second-round matchup with white-hot Illinois. Brutal.



These comments are from the article posted by Tadams

The inability to pair Illinois with another Big Ten team contributed to the Illini getting maybe the weakest No. 2 seed (Houston) and No. 3 seed (West Virginia), but the committee made up for it putting loading Oklahoma State, Tennessee, Loyola Chicago and Georgia Tech into that half of the region.

What the committee got wrong: Seeding blunders​

The committee made a few curious seeding decisions, especially with teams in the Big 12 and ACC.

Equally strange was the committee’s decision to have Clemson seven spots ahead of Georgia Tech on its seed list. The seventh-seeded Tigers and ninth-seeded Yellowjackets have very similar profiles, except Clemson was last seen losing to Miami in its opening ACC tournament game and Georgia Tech was last seen celebrating a championship.

It was also disappointing to see Loyola Chicago settle for a No. 8 seed despite being top 10 in KenPom and in the NCAA’s own NET rankings. The Ramblers (22-4) couldn’t have been a top-four seed — they didn’t have enough quality wins on their resume for that — but seeding them this low only penalizes their opponents, Georgia Tech and potentially Illinois.


I'll add, Loyola-Chicago fans, if anything, are more upset than GT fans about where their team was seeded. They feel their team was greatly disrespected by the committee. Their fans believe they wre purposely seeded lower than they should have been because the committee wanted to bracket them with ILL.

I think Loyola is right about the NCAA purposely seeding them low for the potential of having them play Illinois. Usual committee bs.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

My beef with the NCAA this year is all about the NET and whether it has the importance they allege.

Looking at the EOD March 14 version of the NET, 1-4 all got #1 seeds and 5-8 all got #2 seeds. So far, so good.

Then 9th ranked Colgate gets a 14 seed and #10 Loyola gets an 8 seed. Why deviate so much after following the program so closely for the top seeds? Kansas and UVA are ranked 11 & 12. KU gets a #3 and UVA a #4. In the same bracket!!!

Tennessee is ranked 13th and Arkansas 14th. Arkansas gets #3 and UT gets a #5. At least these two avoided being in the same bracket. Texas and W Virginia got #3 seeds without being ranked in the top 20 in NET.

I don't have any beef with the seeding generally, but there are some strange anomalies relative the NET that simply bogle the mind.

You take all of these things into account, and the rankings that came out today put us at #26 in the country by people really plugged into this stuff. And yet we're a 9 seed. LOL.

 

[Fatmike91]

You take all of these things into account, and the rankings that came out today put us at #26 in the country by people really plugged into this stuff. And yet we're a 9 seed. LOL.

Today's AP poll:

/

 

[Southpawmac]

So based on the final AP poll the 8/9 seed matchup is between the 17th ranked Ramblers and the 26th ranked Jackets. No way these teams should be seeing each other in the first round.

 

[CuseJacket]

You take all of these things into account, and the rankings that came out today put us at #26 in the country by people really plugged into this stuff. And yet we're a 9 seed. LOL.

Do you believe Virginia Tech is better than us and the 25th best team in the country?

 

[CuseJacket]

My beef with the NCAA this year is all about the NET and whether it has the importance they allege.

Looking at the EOD March 14 version of the NET, 1-4 all got #1 seeds and 5-8 all got #2 seeds. So far, so good.

Then 9th ranked Colgate gets a 14 seed and #10 Loyola gets an 8 seed. Why deviate so much after following the program so closely for the top seeds? Kansas and UVA are ranked 11 & 12. KU gets a #3 and UVA a #4. In the same bracket!!!

Tennessee is ranked 13th and Arkansas 14th. Arkansas gets #3 and UT gets a #5. At least these two avoided being in the same bracket. Texas and W Virginia got #3 seeds without being ranked in the top 20 in NET.

I don't have any beef with the seeding generally, but there are some strange anomalies relative the NET that simply bogle the mind.

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

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Do you believe Virginia Tech is better than us and the 25th best team in the country?

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.