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

Grading the Committee


This was probably my best year predicting the bracket. I nailed every team in the tournament. I had half the field on their exact seed line and 63/68 within one seed line. Honestly, the ones I missed on I’m mostly OK with as it was the committee to give a little weight to predictive metrics where they often seemed to ignore them. In fact, I’d argue that though the committee still largely based their field on the resume factors of Q1/Q2 wins/record, they seemed to balance outliers by giving some weight to predictive metrics. That’s good. We should value overall performance and that sometimes isn’t just a win/loss thing. You need to get wins. Texas is probably an at large caliber team, but the committee appropriately left them out…it’s nice to see some adjustments that seem predictive metric driven.

For example only big misses on the bracket were Iowa (I had as an 8, given a 10), Seton Hall (I had as an 8, given a 10), Ole Miss (I had as an 11, given an 8), Oklahoma (I had as an 11, given a 9) and Northeastern (I had as a 15, given a 13). Let’s look at these teams:

Iowa- Finished 36 kenpom and 42 Sagarin. Predictive metrics have them about a 10 seed quality. They struggled late in the year. I thought their overall resume was a bit stronger, but have no issue with them as an 10.

Seton Hall- Predictive metrics like Sagarin and Kenpom have them as one of the worst teams in the field. They had great wins, probably the best wins among the bubble type teams that made it. I thought their resume wins would move them up. It wasn’t the case and I’m good with it.

Ole Miss- My biggest miss. They were dreadful down the stretch. Their resume looks like a bubble team and they were somehow an 8 seed. I think this is probably the worst seed in the bracket. Their predictive metrics aren’t even in line. I don’t know what the committee was doing with Ole Miss.

Oklahoma- 31 Sagarin, 38 kenpom. They have solid wins. I thought this was high but the predictive metrics are good so it’s not a miss.

Northeastern- It’s just sometimes hard to differentiate some of these small conference champions. No issue with this one either.

As far as Cincinnati’s seed, I’m good with it, though I thought they’d be a six. I had 22 teams I thought definitively had better resumes than Cincinnati. That means UC is starting at the 3rd 6 seed. I had 5 other teams UC had a resume close to, where the committee could go any direction. Those teams were Buffalo, Wofford, Nevada, Louisville and Maryland. The committee gave Maryland and Buffalo those two six seed spots and put UC, Nevada, Wofford and Louisville on the 7 line. This seems completely reasonable and they did UC the favor of putting them in Columbus. Not bad and not unfair.

https://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2019/03...ittee.html

(03-18-2019 11:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Grading the Committee


This was probably my best year predicting the bracket. I nailed every team in the tournament. I had half the field on their exact seed line and 63/68 within one seed line. Honestly, the ones I missed on I’m mostly OK with as it was the committee to give a little weight to predictive metrics where they often seemed to ignore them. In fact, I’d argue that though the committee still largely based their field on the resume factors of Q1/Q2 wins/record, they seemed to balance outliers by giving some weight to predictive metrics. That’s good. We should value overall performance and that sometimes isn’t just a win/loss thing. You need to get wins. Texas is probably an at large caliber team, but the committee appropriately left them out…it’s nice to see some adjustments that seem predictive metric driven.

For example only big misses on the bracket were Iowa (I had as an 8, given a 10), Seton Hall (I had as an 8, given a 10), Ole Miss (I had as an 11, given an 8), Oklahoma (I had as an 11, given a 9) and Northeastern (I had as a 15, given a 13). Let’s look at these teams:

Iowa- Finished 36 kenpom and 42 Sagarin. Predictive metrics have them about a 10 seed quality. They struggled late in the year. I thought their overall resume was a bit stronger, but have no issue with them as an 10.

Seton Hall- Predictive metrics like Sagarin and Kenpom have them as one of the worst teams in the field. They had great wins, probably the best wins among the bubble type teams that made it. I thought their resume wins would move them up. It wasn’t the case and I’m good with it.

Ole Miss- My biggest miss. They were dreadful down the stretch. Their resume looks like a bubble team and they were somehow an 8 seed. I think this is probably the worst seed in the bracket. Their predictive metrics aren’t even in line. I don’t know what the committee was doing with Ole Miss.

Oklahoma- 31 Sagarin, 38 kenpom. They have solid wins. I thought this was high but the predictive metrics are good so it’s not a miss.

Northeastern- It’s just sometimes hard to differentiate some of these small conference champions. No issue with this one either.

As far as Cincinnati’s seed, I’m good with it, though I thought they’d be a six. I had 22 teams I thought definitively had better resumes than Cincinnati. That means UC is starting at the 3rd 6 seed. I had 5 other teams UC had a resume close to, where the committee could go any direction. Those teams were Buffalo, Wofford, Nevada, Louisville and Maryland. The committee gave Maryland and Buffalo those two six seed spots and put UC, Nevada, Wofford and Louisville on the 7 line. This seems completely reasonable and they did UC the favor of putting them in Columbus. Not bad and not unfair.

https://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2019/03...ittee.html

Going ahead, UC needs to adjust to earn a higher seed. In my view this means blowing out mediocre competition and not just playing for the win. In the old days UC would be have a four seed with this type of resume. Probably over seeded but still an easier path. Uc still isn’t going to have the quad 1 opportunities that come with the power conferences. Non-conference scheduling has greatly improved but you can’t always predict down years.

WSU and Memphis got NIT invites. USF paid to do CBI.

Eggsaver is NIT v Toledo. Go Rockets!

The NCAA should just let Mark do the bracket next year and save themselves a headache.

So since it looks as if the committee paid no attention to the results of the AAC title game. Should the AAC take note and consider changing the format to have their Championship on Saturday as opposed to Sunday? The old BE Championship was Saturday night. The ACC made the change from Sunday to Saturday in 2015. I know the B1G and SEC are still on Sunday, but I think it would serve the AAC better to have their Champion slotted earlier than later. Just my .2 cents.

(03-18-2019 11:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Grading the Committee


This was probably my best year predicting the bracket. I nailed every team in the tournament. I had half the field on their exact seed line and 63/68 within one seed line. Honestly, the ones I missed on I’m mostly OK with as it was the committee to give a little weight to predictive metrics where they often seemed to ignore them. In fact, I’d argue that though the committee still largely based their field on the resume factors of Q1/Q2 wins/record, they seemed to balance outliers by giving some weight to predictive metrics. That’s good. We should value overall performance and that sometimes isn’t just a win/loss thing. You need to get wins. Texas is probably an at large caliber team, but the committee appropriately left them out…it’s nice to see some adjustments that seem predictive metric driven.

For example only big misses on the bracket were Iowa (I had as an 8, given a 10), Seton Hall (I had as an 8, given a 10), Ole Miss (I had as an 11, given an 8), Oklahoma (I had as an 11, given a 9) and Northeastern (I had as a 15, given a 13). Let’s look at these teams:

Iowa- Finished 36 kenpom and 42 Sagarin. Predictive metrics have them about a 10 seed quality. They struggled late in the year. I thought their overall resume was a bit stronger, but have no issue with them as an 10.

Seton Hall- Predictive metrics like Sagarin and Kenpom have them as one of the worst teams in the field. They had great wins, probably the best wins among the bubble type teams that made it. I thought their resume wins would move them up. It wasn’t the case and I’m good with it.

Ole Miss- My biggest miss. They were dreadful down the stretch. Their resume looks like a bubble team and they were somehow an 8 seed. I think this is probably the worst seed in the bracket. Their predictive metrics aren’t even in line. I don’t know what the committee was doing with Ole Miss.

Oklahoma- 31 Sagarin, 38 kenpom. They have solid wins. I thought this was high but the predictive metrics are good so it’s not a miss.

Northeastern- It’s just sometimes hard to differentiate some of these small conference champions. No issue with this one either.

As far as Cincinnati’s seed, I’m good with it, though I thought they’d be a six. I had 22 teams I thought definitively had better resumes than Cincinnati. That means UC is starting at the 3rd 6 seed. I had 5 other teams UC had a resume close to, where the committee could go any direction. Those teams were Buffalo, Wofford, Nevada, Louisville and Maryland. The committee gave Maryland and Buffalo those two six seed spots and put UC, Nevada, Wofford and Louisville on the 7 line. This seems completely reasonable and they did UC the favor of putting them in Columbus. Not bad and not unfair.

https://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2019/03...ittee.html

#hottestbracketologistinamerica

Does that mean you'll be moving to Canada anytime soon?

^^^^ we can only hope

(03-18-2019 11:56 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  So since it looks as if the committee paid no attention to the results of the AAC title game. Should the AAC take note and consider changing the format to have their Championship on Saturday as opposed to Sunday? The old BE Championship was Saturday night. The ACC made the change from Sunday to Saturday in 2015. I know the B1G and SEC are still on Sunday, but I think it would serve the AAC better to have their Champion slotted earlier than later. Just my .2 cents.

And that's exactly what the AAC would get in TV revenue for their title game - .2cents - for moving it to Saturday.

It's on Sunday because as a P7 conference in basketball (as defined by CBS yesterday) we have to whore ourselves out to get as much revenue as possible even though it makes the game worthless to the Selection Committee.

(03-18-2019 11:56 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Grading the Committee


This was probably my best year predicting the bracket. I nailed every team in the tournament. I had half the field on their exact seed line and 63/68 within one seed line. Honestly, the ones I missed on I’m mostly OK with as it was the committee to give a little weight to predictive metrics where they often seemed to ignore them. In fact, I’d argue that though the committee still largely based their field on the resume factors of Q1/Q2 wins/record, they seemed to balance outliers by giving some weight to predictive metrics. That’s good. We should value overall performance and that sometimes isn’t just a win/loss thing. You need to get wins. Texas is probably an at large caliber team, but the committee appropriately left them out…it’s nice to see some adjustments that seem predictive metric driven.

For example only big misses on the bracket were Iowa (I had as an 8, given a 10), Seton Hall (I had as an 8, given a 10), Ole Miss (I had as an 11, given an 8), Oklahoma (I had as an 11, given a 9) and Northeastern (I had as a 15, given a 13). Let’s look at these teams:

Iowa- Finished 36 kenpom and 42 Sagarin. Predictive metrics have them about a 10 seed quality. They struggled late in the year. I thought their overall resume was a bit stronger, but have no issue with them as an 10.

Seton Hall- Predictive metrics like Sagarin and Kenpom have them as one of the worst teams in the field. They had great wins, probably the best wins among the bubble type teams that made it. I thought their resume wins would move them up. It wasn’t the case and I’m good with it.

Ole Miss- My biggest miss. They were dreadful down the stretch. Their resume looks like a bubble team and they were somehow an 8 seed. I think this is probably the worst seed in the bracket. Their predictive metrics aren’t even in line. I don’t know what the committee was doing with Ole Miss.

Oklahoma- 31 Sagarin, 38 kenpom. They have solid wins. I thought this was high but the predictive metrics are good so it’s not a miss.

Northeastern- It’s just sometimes hard to differentiate some of these small conference champions. No issue with this one either.

As far as Cincinnati’s seed, I’m good with it, though I thought they’d be a six. I had 22 teams I thought definitively had better resumes than Cincinnati. That means UC is starting at the 3rd 6 seed. I had 5 other teams UC had a resume close to, where the committee could go any direction. Those teams were Buffalo, Wofford, Nevada, Louisville and Maryland. The committee gave Maryland and Buffalo those two six seed spots and put UC, Nevada, Wofford and Louisville on the 7 line. This seems completely reasonable and they did UC the favor of putting them in Columbus. Not bad and not unfair.

https://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2019/03...ittee.html

#hottestbracketologistinamerica

Does that mean you'll be moving to Canada anytime soon?

Hey Mark! Life is good up here in the Great Northwest. Want to come work for me? I need a risk assessor and statistician with a law background. I've been given your name by a few people I trust. Send me a PM if interested.

Best,
Santa O

(03-18-2019 12:00 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:56 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  So since it looks as if the committee paid no attention to the results of the AAC title game. Should the AAC take note and consider changing the format to have their Championship on Saturday as opposed to Sunday? The old BE Championship was Saturday night. The ACC made the change from Sunday to Saturday in 2015. I know the B1G and SEC are still on Sunday, but I think it would serve the AAC better to have their Champion slotted earlier than later. Just my .2 cents.

And that's exactly what the AAC would get in TV revenue for their title game - .2cents - for moving it to Saturday.

It's on Sunday because as a P7 conference in basketball (as defined by CBS yesterday) we have to whore ourselves out to get as much revenue as possible even though it makes the game worthless to the Selection Committee.

GREAT POINT. You are exactly right. Which explains why the Big 10 and SEC, the two most profitable conferences, both refuse to play their conference championships on Sunday.

(03-18-2019 12:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:00 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:56 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  So since it looks as if the committee paid no attention to the results of the AAC title game. Should the AAC take note and consider changing the format to have their Championship on Saturday as opposed to Sunday? The old BE Championship was Saturday night. The ACC made the change from Sunday to Saturday in 2015. I know the B1G and SEC are still on Sunday, but I think it would serve the AAC better to have their Champion slotted earlier than later. Just my .2 cents.

And that's exactly what the AAC would get in TV revenue for their title game - .2cents - for moving it to Saturday.

It's on Sunday because as a P7 conference in basketball (as defined by CBS yesterday) we have to whore ourselves out to get as much revenue as possible even though it makes the game worthless to the Selection Committee.

GREAT POINT. You are exactly right. Which explains why the Big 10 and SEC, the two most profitable conferences, both refuse to play their conference championships on Sunday.

I think the Big Ten Championship game was on at the same time as the AAC Championship.

(03-18-2019 12:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:00 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  And that's exactly what the AAC would get in TV revenue for their title game - .2cents - for moving it to Saturday.

It's on Sunday because as a P7 conference in basketball (as defined by CBS yesterday) we have to whore ourselves out to get as much revenue as possible even though it makes the game worthless to the Selection Committee.

GREAT POINT. You are exactly right. Which explains why the Big 10 and SEC, the two most profitable conferences, both refuse to play their conference championships on Sunday.

Honestly I don't think the date matters. There are other conference title games where the winner did not seem to pick up any movement. People forget there's over 30 data points already and every conference tournament game is a rematch from teams who have already played. They exist for television, not because they have much affect for the NCAA tournament other than promotion of it. Not saying I'm against it because I think it's a great opportunity for teams that aren't in the tournament and also for teams like us being able to have a champoinship attached to this season is meaningful.

(03-18-2019 12:19 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:00 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:56 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  So since it looks as if the committee paid no attention to the results of the AAC title game. Should the AAC take note and consider changing the format to have their Championship on Saturday as opposed to Sunday? The old BE Championship was Saturday night. The ACC made the change from Sunday to Saturday in 2015. I know the B1G and SEC are still on Sunday, but I think it would serve the AAC better to have their Champion slotted earlier than later. Just my .2 cents.

And that's exactly what the AAC would get in TV revenue for their title game - .2cents - for moving it to Saturday.

It's on Sunday because as a P7 conference in basketball (as defined by CBS yesterday) we have to whore ourselves out to get as much revenue as possible even though it makes the game worthless to the Selection Committee.

GREAT POINT. You are exactly right. Which explains why the Big 10 and SEC, the two most profitable conferences, both refuse to play their conference championships on Sunday.

I think the Big Ten Championship game was on at the same time as the AAC Championship.

Yeah it was.

(03-18-2019 12:19 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:00 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:56 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  So since it looks as if the committee paid no attention to the results of the AAC title game. Should the AAC take note and consider changing the format to have their Championship on Saturday as opposed to Sunday? The old BE Championship was Saturday night. The ACC made the change from Sunday to Saturday in 2015. I know the B1G and SEC are still on Sunday, but I think it would serve the AAC better to have their Champion slotted earlier than later. Just my .2 cents.

And that's exactly what the AAC would get in TV revenue for their title game - .2cents - for moving it to Saturday.

It's on Sunday because as a P7 conference in basketball (as defined by CBS yesterday) we have to whore ourselves out to get as much revenue as possible even though it makes the game worthless to the Selection Committee.

GREAT POINT. You are exactly right. Which explains why the Big 10 and SEC, the two most profitable conferences, both refuse to play their conference championships on Sunday.

I think the Big Ten Championship game was on at the same time as the AAC Championship.

You don't say.... and the SEC?

(03-18-2019 12:19 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:00 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:56 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  So since it looks as if the committee paid no attention to the results of the AAC title game. Should the AAC take note and consider changing the format to have their Championship on Saturday as opposed to Sunday? The old BE Championship was Saturday night. The ACC made the change from Sunday to Saturday in 2015. I know the B1G and SEC are still on Sunday, but I think it would serve the AAC better to have their Champion slotted earlier than later. Just my .2 cents.

And that's exactly what the AAC would get in TV revenue for their title game - .2cents - for moving it to Saturday.

It's on Sunday because as a P7 conference in basketball (as defined by CBS yesterday) we have to whore ourselves out to get as much revenue as possible even though it makes the game worthless to the Selection Committee.

GREAT POINT. You are exactly right. Which explains why the Big 10 and SEC, the two most profitable conferences, both refuse to play their conference championships on Sunday.

I think the Big Ten Championship game was on at the same time as the AAC Championship.

I am hoping that bearcatmark was displaying his talent for sarcasm as both the ACC and B10 played yesterday along with UC. I actually think the MSU game may have hurt them more in seeding than even UC's game hurt us. There are many making the argument that MSU could have been the 4th number 1 instead of Gonzaga.

(03-18-2019 12:28 PM)Cal1362 Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:19 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:05 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 12:00 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:56 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  So since it looks as if the committee paid no attention to the results of the AAC title game. Should the AAC take note and consider changing the format to have their Championship on Saturday as opposed to Sunday? The old BE Championship was Saturday night. The ACC made the change from Sunday to Saturday in 2015. I know the B1G and SEC are still on Sunday, but I think it would serve the AAC better to have their Champion slotted earlier than later. Just my .2 cents.

And that's exactly what the AAC would get in TV revenue for their title game - .2cents - for moving it to Saturday.

It's on Sunday because as a P7 conference in basketball (as defined by CBS yesterday) we have to whore ourselves out to get as much revenue as possible even though it makes the game worthless to the Selection Committee.

GREAT POINT. You are exactly right. Which explains why the Big 10 and SEC, the two most profitable conferences, both refuse to play their conference championships on Sunday.

I think the Big Ten Championship game was on at the same time as the AAC Championship.

I am hoping that bearcatmark was displaying his talent for sarcasm as both the ACC and B10 played yesterday along with UC. I actually think the MSU game may have hurt them more in seeding than even UC's game hurt us. There are many making the argument that MSU could have been the 4th number 1 instead of Gonzaga.

Bearcatmark is great at doing brackets and general metric driven analysis. On the other hand, he is crap at giving directions. Or was that intentionally? lol

(03-18-2019 01:10 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Bearcatmark is great at doing brackets and general metric driven analysis. On the other hand, he is crap at giving directions. Or was that intentionally? lol

No you’re crap at taking directions.

(03-18-2019 11:36 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Grading the Committee


This was probably my best year predicting the bracket. I nailed every team in the tournament. I had half the field on their exact seed line and 63/68 within one seed line. Honestly, the ones I missed on I’m mostly OK with as it was the committee to give a little weight to predictive metrics where they often seemed to ignore them. In fact, I’d argue that though the committee still largely based their field on the resume factors of Q1/Q2 wins/record, they seemed to balance outliers by giving some weight to predictive metrics. That’s good. We should value overall performance and that sometimes isn’t just a win/loss thing. You need to get wins. Texas is probably an at large caliber team, but the committee appropriately left them out…it’s nice to see some adjustments that seem predictive metric driven.

For example only big misses on the bracket were Iowa (I had as an 8, given a 10), Seton Hall (I had as an 8, given a 10), Ole Miss (I had as an 11, given an 8), Oklahoma (I had as an 11, given a 9) and Northeastern (I had as a 15, given a 13). Let’s look at these teams:

Iowa- Finished 36 kenpom and 42 Sagarin. Predictive metrics have them about a 10 seed quality. They struggled late in the year. I thought their overall resume was a bit stronger, but have no issue with them as an 10.

Seton Hall- Predictive metrics like Sagarin and Kenpom have them as one of the worst teams in the field. They had great wins, probably the best wins among the bubble type teams that made it. I thought their resume wins would move them up. It wasn’t the case and I’m good with it.

Ole Miss- My biggest miss. They were dreadful down the stretch. Their resume looks like a bubble team and they were somehow an 8 seed. I think this is probably the worst seed in the bracket. Their predictive metrics aren’t even in line. I don’t know what the committee was doing with Ole Miss.

Oklahoma- 31 Sagarin, 38 kenpom. They have solid wins. I thought this was high but the predictive metrics are good so it’s not a miss.

Northeastern- It’s just sometimes hard to differentiate some of these small conference champions. No issue with this one either.

As far as Cincinnati’s seed, I’m good with it, though I thought they’d be a six. I had 22 teams I thought definitively had better resumes than Cincinnati. That means UC is starting at the 3rd 6 seed. I had 5 other teams UC had a resume close to, where the committee could go any direction. Those teams were Buffalo, Wofford, Nevada, Louisville and Maryland. The committee gave Maryland and Buffalo those two six seed spots and put UC, Nevada, Wofford and Louisville on the 7 line. This seems completely reasonable and they did UC the favor of putting them in Columbus. Not bad and not unfair.

https://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2019/03...ittee.html

Going ahead, UC needs to adjust to earn a higher seed. In my view this means blowing out mediocre competition and not just playing for the win. In the old days UC would be have a four seed with this type of resume. Probably over seeded but still an easier path. Uc still isn’t going to have the quad 1 opportunities that come with the power conferences. Non-conference scheduling has greatly improved but you can’t always predict down years.

I would rather grind through your Todge Rodge esque posts any day, then have to listen to that Fish head Lunardi. So at least you got that going for you.

(03-18-2019 01:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 01:10 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Bearcatmark is great at doing brackets and general metric driven analysis. On the other hand, he is crap at giving directions. Or was that intentionally? lol

No you’re crap at taking directions.

no arguments there