Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Bracketology - Let's Do This
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RamblinRed" data-source="post: 790668" data-attributes="member: 1776"><p>Oregon State recreated the whole Hoosiers scene measuring the baskets. I figured one of the teams playing at Hinkle would do that. </p><p></p><p>Been such a fun tournament to this point.</p><p></p><p>Frankly fans need to stop bitching about the ACC seeds. The ACC didn't look very strong this year. At least to my eye test. Who looked like a really good team in the ACC this season? I'm not sure a single team in the ACC looked like a really good team all season. </p><p>Now the ACC was affected more by COVID then most conferences and I think that really hurt this year - I believe it was something like 23rd out of 31 conferences in terms of games missed. </p><p>As I said before the seeding was released I would have likely put Clemson higher than GT - though not by 2 seeds, they likely would have been on the same seed line for me. The difference in their 2 resumes was that OOC Clemson had wins over AL and Purdue while GT had losses to Mercer and Ga St. </p><p></p><p>This year was always going to be about who got lucky in terms of COVID and who got unlucky. ACC as a conference was very unlucky. And that included going into the NCAA with 2 teams being seriously impacted by COVID. </p><p></p><p>Did the ACC get great seeds? no. But did it deserve better seeds? Overall based on its body of work not really. </p><p></p><p>This year was arguably going to be the hardest year ever for the Committee to seed the Tourney with a greatly reduced number of OOC games that allows you to compare who across conferences. That of course also negatively effects the various metrics.</p><p></p><p>Based on the 6 metrics that the Committee looks at, GT avg out to a 33.5. So the 8/9 slot was exactly where GT should have been based on the metrics. My hope was the Committee would look at who was playing well at the end of the season and adjust, but true to what they have done for the last decade where they did away with the last 10 games metric and said every game counts the same, we didn't get a bump higher. Of course, GT got unlucky with a draw that put them in the first round against a team that was underseeded. Based on those same metrics Loyola should have been a 6. But in the end i'm not sure how much all that would have mattered missing Moses. That was just a killer.</p><p></p><p>B10 was quite clearly overrated. That basically came about because of the ACC-B10 challenge. B10 'best' teams beat up on the ACC 'best' teams (who ended up not really even being the ACC's best teams) and that basically stuck the story for the year. </p><p></p><p>Syracuse and their zone and 3-pt shooting have been something to see these first 2 rounds. It is ironic. If you play in the conference with them and so play against them every year playing against the zone isn't really that big of deal. Like every defense it has weaknesses. But playing it on short notice just seems like it throws teams for loops. Of course their insane shooting is also a huge part of the story. Through 2 games they are taking almost 60% of their shots from three and have hit 50% of them (29-58). Their issue is going to be the game that will come when they don't shoot well from three.</p><p></p><p>Already 3 double digit seeds and an 8 in to the Sweet Sixteen. Only 3 protected seeds (1-4) made it through this half of the bracket. At least one more double digit seed will make it through (we have an 11-14 game today), and as many as 3 could.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RamblinRed, post: 790668, member: 1776"] Oregon State recreated the whole Hoosiers scene measuring the baskets. I figured one of the teams playing at Hinkle would do that. Been such a fun tournament to this point. Frankly fans need to stop bitching about the ACC seeds. The ACC didn't look very strong this year. At least to my eye test. Who looked like a really good team in the ACC this season? I'm not sure a single team in the ACC looked like a really good team all season. Now the ACC was affected more by COVID then most conferences and I think that really hurt this year - I believe it was something like 23rd out of 31 conferences in terms of games missed. As I said before the seeding was released I would have likely put Clemson higher than GT - though not by 2 seeds, they likely would have been on the same seed line for me. The difference in their 2 resumes was that OOC Clemson had wins over AL and Purdue while GT had losses to Mercer and Ga St. This year was always going to be about who got lucky in terms of COVID and who got unlucky. ACC as a conference was very unlucky. And that included going into the NCAA with 2 teams being seriously impacted by COVID. Did the ACC get great seeds? no. But did it deserve better seeds? Overall based on its body of work not really. This year was arguably going to be the hardest year ever for the Committee to seed the Tourney with a greatly reduced number of OOC games that allows you to compare who across conferences. That of course also negatively effects the various metrics. Based on the 6 metrics that the Committee looks at, GT avg out to a 33.5. So the 8/9 slot was exactly where GT should have been based on the metrics. My hope was the Committee would look at who was playing well at the end of the season and adjust, but true to what they have done for the last decade where they did away with the last 10 games metric and said every game counts the same, we didn't get a bump higher. Of course, GT got unlucky with a draw that put them in the first round against a team that was underseeded. Based on those same metrics Loyola should have been a 6. But in the end i'm not sure how much all that would have mattered missing Moses. That was just a killer. B10 was quite clearly overrated. That basically came about because of the ACC-B10 challenge. B10 'best' teams beat up on the ACC 'best' teams (who ended up not really even being the ACC's best teams) and that basically stuck the story for the year. Syracuse and their zone and 3-pt shooting have been something to see these first 2 rounds. It is ironic. If you play in the conference with them and so play against them every year playing against the zone isn't really that big of deal. Like every defense it has weaknesses. But playing it on short notice just seems like it throws teams for loops. Of course their insane shooting is also a huge part of the story. Through 2 games they are taking almost 60% of their shots from three and have hit 50% of them (29-58). Their issue is going to be the game that will come when they don't shoot well from three. Already 3 double digit seeds and an 8 in to the Sweet Sixteen. Only 3 protected seeds (1-4) made it through this half of the bracket. At least one more double digit seed will make it through (we have an 11-14 game today), and as many as 3 could. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Bracketology - Let's Do This
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top