The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-11-2018 08:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 02:09 PM)Nobones Wrote:  Nice how we get NKU in the first round. It is always about the match up and Money.

But we've all been told that it's all happenstance...
the committee doesn't set up story lines...
it's just how the S curve falls.

And I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.

You're aware this isn't a real bracket, yeah?

(02-11-2018 08:48 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 08:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 02:09 PM)Nobones Wrote:  Nice how we get NKU in the first round. It is always about the match up and Money.

But we've all been told that it's all happenstance...
the committee doesn't set up story lines...
it's just how the S curve falls.

And I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.

You're aware this isn't a real bracket, yeah?

Of course. Selection Sunday is still a few weeks away after conference tourneys.
But in past years when "interesting" match ups have occurred pairing coach against protege or rivals who won't play each other etc. we're told by the committee that it just happened with the S curve...they don't set up storylines, etc.

(02-11-2018 08:48 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 08:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 02:09 PM)Nobones Wrote:  Nice how we get NKU in the first round. It is always about the match up and Money.

But we've all been told that it's all happenstance...
the committee doesn't set up story lines...
it's just how the S curve falls.

And I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.

You're aware this isn't a real bracket, yeah?

Yeah. I get it.

(02-11-2018 09:13 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 08:48 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 08:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 02:09 PM)Nobones Wrote:  Nice how we get NKU in the first round. It is always about the match up and Money.

But we've all been told that it's all happenstance...
the committee doesn't set up story lines...
it's just how the S curve falls.

And I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.

You're aware this isn't a real bracket, yeah?

Yeah. I get it.

Yeah I think we all understand that.

Probably not worth getting worked up about our matchups on a hypothetical bracket

It isn't you just got to think it is funny that the committed always says they don't do stuff like that and here you have them putting out a Bracket that has that match up and you just got to see it for what it is worth. Not getting worked up about it at all.

(02-11-2018 09:34 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Probably not worth getting worked up about our matchups on a hypothetical bracket

I thought it was nice to see UC tentatively projected as a #2 seed in someone else's mind outside of the fanbase.

It's like the poll numbers... They don't really matter at all at this point. But people get excited over seeing a little number "5" next to our name.

So yeah... This "bracket" doesn't matter at all. Yup. But it's exciting all the same to see UC projected in a good seed. Dream a little. Enjoy the ride.

Yeah well I'm excited. It shows we're trending in the right direction and gives us a reasonable projection/expectation. Plus, when was the last time we were even sniffing this close to such a seed line?

I’m not sure a 1 seed is a realistic possibility, but honestly a 2 or 3 is just as good.

(02-11-2018 10:27 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  I’m not sure a 1 seed is a realistic possibility, but honestly a 2 or 3 is just as good.

I am just shocked that you would say that Billy.

FYI:

I have to be honest, i'm more curious right now to see how we fair in this stretch with Houston down there and Witch. St. back here than looking forward to the tourney. Still a month of ball to play, much, much can happen all up and down the line.

(02-11-2018 08:28 PM)Nobones Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 08:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 02:09 PM)Nobones Wrote:  Nice how we get NKU in the first round. It is always about the match up and Money.

But we've all been told that it's all happenstance...
the committee doesn't set up story lines...
it's just how the S curve falls.

And I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.

So true

I dunno. I have a feeling that most people on the committee barely even know that NKU and Cincinnati are in bordering states. These are career college administrators, and they're in the athletic department - sure some of them are bright, but most of them aren't exactly the sharpest spoons in the drawer.

(02-11-2018 09:07 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 08:48 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 08:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 02:09 PM)Nobones Wrote:  Nice how we get NKU in the first round. It is always about the match up and Money.

But we've all been told that it's all happenstance...
the committee doesn't set up story lines...
it's just how the S curve falls.

And I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn.

You're aware this isn't a real bracket, yeah?

Of course. Selection Sunday is still a few weeks away after conference tourneys.
But in past years when "interesting" match ups have occurred pairing coach against protege or rivals who won't play each other etc. we're told by the committee that it just happened with the S curve...they don't set up storylines, etc.

As I understand the S curve - it is used as a base, and then teams are moved as many as 2 spots up or down to make the brackets work. At least this is how the committee has explained it in the past.

In fact, the bracket projections this time of year are probably closer to an "S" curve than anything the committee has ever claimed to use for final brackets.

Right now, bracketologists do not have to worry about game sites (lower seeds should not have the advantage), early round rematches (they try to avoid these), and which days the games are played (Sundays ~ BYU).

(02-11-2018 11:19 PM)dsquare Wrote:  I have to be honest, i'm more curious right now to see how we fair in this stretch with Houston down there and Witch. St. back here than looking forward to the tourney. Still a month of ball to play, much, much can happen all up and down the line.

Well said. UC's strength of schedule, while improving here late in the season, may have a big impact on seeding should the team drop two or three games down the stretch. The good news for the Bearcats is they've fought their way to nearly the top of the seeding and have a real chance to stay up there with zero or perhaps even one loss the rest of the way.

Regarding that team across town, I feel they'll fall from a one seed in the next month. given both their upcoming games and recent improbable wins in close games. Odds are, winning or losing by a point or two or three is often a 50/50 proposition and those have all gone their way to date.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...cincinnati

Bracket Watch: Top Line Teams Hold Firm, But a Surprise Contender Lurks

Cincinnati lurks as a No. 1 seed contender

The committee placed Virginia, Villanova, Xavier and Purdue on the top line. A consensus had formed around the Cavaliers, Wildcats and Boilermakers some time ago, and even though they all suffered losses this week, they deserved to remain No. 1 seeds. Xavier emerged as a possible top seed after losses by Duke and Kansas two weekends ago, and the Musketeers confirmed their No. 1-seed fitness with wins at Butler and Creighton last week.

Should any of them falter over the next month, however, Cincinnati will be ready to swoop in and move up to the top line. The Bearcats earned the fourth and final No. 2 seed, a bit of a surprise given that their four Q1 wins were over Buffalo, Temple, UCLA and UCF. Still, the committee gave the Bearcats credit for dominating the AAC and racking up a gaudy 23-2 record, No. 10 RPI and average computer ranking of 4.33.


Cincinnati may be the No. 8 overall seed, behind Auburn, Kansas and Duke on the No. 2-line, but they may have the best chance of the four to get to the top of the field, thanks to their respective conferences. The Bearcats still have two games remaining with Wichita State in the regular season, but their schedule (including the conference tournaments) is far easier than what Auburn, Kansas and Duke will deal with the rest of the way. The same goes for the current No. 1 seeds, which will have to get through more tournament-quality competition than Cincinnati to maintain their spots. If the top line looks different one month from now, the bet here is that Cincinnati will be on it.

(02-11-2018 01:56 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The committee ignoring predictive metrics continues to be my biggest complaint. By kenpom the Midwest would have by far the weakest 1, the 2nd weakest 2, the weakest 3 and the weakest 4. Kenpom 13, 9, 15 and 28. I like valuing wins, but they are too often slaves to team sheets

Metrics are used extensively throughout the overall process. It's just that your metric is not deemed important--except as it relates to judging your opponents' quality of wins/losses.

According to those who have been on past committees and many in the press who have gone through the process, YOUR metric ranking is virtually never used in determining your seeding. But metrics are heavily used when trying to determine the quality of your opponents.

(02-12-2018 02:07 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 01:56 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The committee ignoring predictive metrics continues to be my biggest complaint. By kenpom the Midwest would have by far the weakest 1, the 2nd weakest 2, the weakest 3 and the weakest 4. Kenpom 13, 9, 15 and 28. I like valuing wins, but they are too often slaves to team sheets

Metrics are used extensively throughout the overall process. It's just that your metric is not deemed important--except as it relates to judging your opponents' quality of wins/losses.

According to those who have been on past committees and many in the press who have gone through the process, YOUR metric ranking is virtually never used in determining your seeding. But metrics are heavily used when trying to determine the quality of your opponents.

1. I don't have a metric.
2. The only metric you can consistently use to predict what the tournament committee will do is counting wins based on how committee divides them on their teams sheets. It used to be top 50, top 100 RPI, now its tier 1, tier 2 wins (and they are grouped by RPI). The other metrics are given to the committee members, but they offer no predictive value to what the committee does. They are virtually irrelevant. That is stupid. We have these great measures of team quality that are largely ignored.
3. The only metric heavily used to determine the quality of your opponents is RPI. It's insane that the most flawed, least useful metric we have is the one the committee consistently focuses on.

(02-12-2018 03:25 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:07 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 01:56 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The committee ignoring predictive metrics continues to be my biggest complaint. By kenpom the Midwest would have by far the weakest 1, the 2nd weakest 2, the weakest 3 and the weakest 4. Kenpom 13, 9, 15 and 28. I like valuing wins, but they are too often slaves to team sheets

Metrics are used extensively throughout the overall process. It's just that your metric is not deemed important--except as it relates to judging your opponents' quality of wins/losses.

According to those who have been on past committees and many in the press who have gone through the process, YOUR metric ranking is virtually never used in determining your seeding. But metrics are heavily used when trying to determine the quality of your opponents.

1. I don't have a metric.
2. The only metric you can consistently use to predict what the tournament committee will do is counting wins based on how committee divides them on their teams sheets. It used to be top 50, top 100 RPI, now its tier 1, tier 2 wins (and they are grouped by RPI). The other metrics are given to the committee members, but they offer no predictive value to what the committee does. They are virtually irrelevant. That is stupid. We have these great measures of team quality that are largely ignored.
3. The only metric heavily used to determine the quality of your opponents is RPI. It's insane that the most flawed, least useful metric we have is the one the committee consistently focuses on.

Sorry for the confusion. By "YOUR" metric, I didn't mean your (Bearcatmark's) metric. I meant your metric as a team. In other words, UC's metric/ranking (RPI, Kenpom, etc.) doesn't affect UC's seeding, etc.

The committee is permitted to use any metric to determine quality of opponents. Supposedly, they will get sheets with opponent Kenpom rankings on them as well as RPI this season.

I don't ever see them using a metric to gauge an individual team versus their collective opponents. Too many flaws, but when used across a team's entire schedule, the noise gets normalized.

(02-12-2018 03:31 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 03:25 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 02:07 PM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 01:56 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The committee ignoring predictive metrics continues to be my biggest complaint. By kenpom the Midwest would have by far the weakest 1, the 2nd weakest 2, the weakest 3 and the weakest 4. Kenpom 13, 9, 15 and 28. I like valuing wins, but they are too often slaves to team sheets

Metrics are used extensively throughout the overall process. It's just that your metric is not deemed important--except as it relates to judging your opponents' quality of wins/losses.

According to those who have been on past committees and many in the press who have gone through the process, YOUR metric ranking is virtually never used in determining your seeding. But metrics are heavily used when trying to determine the quality of your opponents.

1. I don't have a metric.
2. The only metric you can consistently use to predict what the tournament committee will do is counting wins based on how committee divides them on their teams sheets. It used to be top 50, top 100 RPI, now its tier 1, tier 2 wins (and they are grouped by RPI). The other metrics are given to the committee members, but they offer no predictive value to what the committee does. They are virtually irrelevant. That is stupid. We have these great measures of team quality that are largely ignored.
3. The only metric heavily used to determine the quality of your opponents is RPI. It's insane that the most flawed, least useful metric we have is the one the committee consistently focuses on.

Sorry for the confusion. By "YOUR" metric, I didn't mean your (Bearcatmark's) metric. I meant your metric as a team. In other words, UC's metric/ranking (RPI, Kenpom, etc.) doesn't affect UC's seeding, etc.

The committee is permitted to use any metric to determine quality of opponents. Supposedly, they will get sheets with opponent Kenpom rankings on them as well as RPI this season.

I don't ever see them using a metric to gauge an individual team versus their collective opponents. Too many flaws, but when used across a team's entire schedule, the noise gets normalized.

That's not my understanding. Teamsheets are grouped by RPI. Tier 1 and Tier 2 wins are determined by RPI. Yes the committee is permitted to look at anything they want, in practice its very clear they basically tally Q1, Q2 wins then make some small adjustments best on their own personal preference (with no consistency on what they use to do this).

Committee is permitted to do anything it wants, but their methodology is very clear and predictable. I continue to believe their ignoring of predictive metrics is bad for bracket consistency and properly rating teams. I don't want them to be a slave to kenpom, sagarin, etc, but I want to see that they are paying attention and you can have dominance without necessarily tallying the most Q1, Q2 wins and without having some great RPI SOS. To me the biggest victims of this were Michigan State and Gonzaga (which turns into an issue for the team they get bracketed against). Both of these teams would be nightmares for the higher seeded team that draws them. When you ignore the predictive metrics, you set up a situation where a higher seeded team is getting a matchup that's far more difficult than similarly seeded teams (who may draw a way worse team with the exact same seed).