(03-18-2019 03:03 PM)stever20 Wrote:  for all those that like to rag on Lunardi....

he finished tied for 12th... out of 195.

Loos like Palm was tied for 101st

3 of 195 got all 68 teams right. Most got 67. Of course we were the one most got wrong. 182 of 195 brackets. Biggest upset of the tournament!

the Matrix had by far their best year overall ever.....

(03-18-2019 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  all the talk about 20 conference games impacting things so much I think got proven to be bunk.

Until the committee starts taking teams like Indiana at 17-15, I'll continue to doubt the importance of 20 games. In at least 26 years- only 1 team that was fewer than 4 games over .500 has made the tourney at large. 2000 Georgia at 16-14.

IIRC that Georgia team had the toughest schedule by far that year and the committee basically said they were rewarded for that SOS

The important takeaway is not to play the top 3 teams 5 times or the top 25 teams 9 times. Play 3-4 games against teams ranked 35-50. That's the ticket.

(03-18-2019 05:45 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The important takeaway is not to play the top 3 teams 5 times or the top 25 teams 9 times. Play 3-4 games against teams ranked 35-50. That's the ticket.

This was the best job the committee’s done in 7 years if not ever.

(03-18-2019 06:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 05:45 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The important takeaway is not to play the top 3 teams 5 times or the top 25 teams 9 times. Play 3-4 games against teams ranked 35-50. That's the ticket.

This was the best job the committee’s done in 7 years if not ever.

I think they did a really good job too other than putting Michigan St in the Duke bracket

(03-18-2019 05:45 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The important takeaway is not to play the top 3 teams 5 times or the top 25 teams 9 times. Play 3-4 games against teams ranked 35-50. That's the ticket.

Or maybe NOT play 9 Q4 games OOC. That might have something to do with it.....

You can have a bad OOC schedule and not have it kill you. St John's and Temple didn't have great ones and they still got in.

Temple had 223 SOS OOC and they only had 5 Q4 games.
St John's had 219 SOS OOC and they had 8 Q4 games. But even their Q4 games weren't as horrible as NC State. NC State played 8 teams 281 or worse. St John's only had 4 of those.

(03-18-2019 06:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 06:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 05:45 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The important takeaway is not to play the top 3 teams 5 times or the top 25 teams 9 times. Play 3-4 games against teams ranked 35-50. That's the ticket.

This was the best job the committee’s done in 7 years if not ever.

I think they did a really good job too other than putting Michigan St in the Duke bracket

unfortunately they followed the rules that they were told they had to follow.

Have a feeling we may see those rules change after this year.

What is the real difference between a team ranked 250 and 350? Both teams stink, but RPI double counts them. I know NC State played some bad teams early but Auburn was not a bad team, nor Penn State, nor Wisconsin. We got jobbed at Wisky. We missed a win over UVa on two missed free throws. We had a great season going until Pitt injured our starting guard.

The bottom line is that the committee put in who they wanted to put in and used both sides of the NET and RPI argument to justify their actions.

My issue is they said they were using the NET. They did not.

(03-18-2019 06:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  What is the real difference between a team ranked 250 and 350? Both teams stink, but RPI double counts them. I know NC State played some bad teams early but Auburn was not a bad team, nor Penn State, nor Wisconsin. We got jobbed at Wisky. We missed a win over UVa on two missed free throws. We had a great season going until Pitt injured our starting guard.

The bottom line is that the committee put in who they wanted to put in and used both sides of the NET and RPI argument to justify their actions.

My issue is they said they were using the NET. They did not.

They said they would use the NET just like the used the RPI. And they did just that.

NC State's best win away from home was against Clemson- their only win away from home against a winning team. Sorry but that's just NIT.

(03-18-2019 11:59 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 10:18 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Not to beat a dead horse but there are now 180 final bracket guesses out there by pundits:

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

Here are the number of brackets each bubble team made:

Made it teams-
Florida- 174 brackets
Ohio State- 161
Arizona state- 145
Temple- 124
St john's- 117
Belmont- 53

Didn't make it-
TCU 167 NIT 1 seed
NCst- 71 NIT 2 seed
Indiana- 25 NIT 1 seed
Clemson- 18 NIT 2 seed
Texas- 13 NIT 2 seed
Alabama- 9 NIT 1 seed
UNC Greensboro- 8 NIT 1 seed

If UNC Greensboro was the first team out, "bracketologists" really underestimated how the committee valued successful midmajors. According to the consensus, Belmont was the 2nd team out and UNC-greensboro was 7th team out. I think that's a good thing, but would like to see that bias acknowledged.

Cant really blame them. This committee valued mid majors like the George Mason committee. Not all committees have done that

Those 7 you listed were NIT 1 or 2 seeds. Creighton was the other NIT 2 seed.

(03-18-2019 06:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 06:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  What is the real difference between a team ranked 250 and 350? Both teams stink, but RPI double counts them. I know NC State played some bad teams early but Auburn was not a bad team, nor Penn State, nor Wisconsin. We got jobbed at Wisky. We missed a win over UVa on two missed free throws. We had a great season going until Pitt injured our starting guard.

The bottom line is that the committee put in who they wanted to put in and used both sides of the NET and RPI argument to justify their actions.

My issue is they said they were using the NET. They did not.

They said they would use the NET just like the used the RPI. And they did just that.

NC State's best win away from home was against Clemson- their only win away from home against a winning team. Sorry but that's just NIT.

As pack fan, the team placed themselves on the bubble by losing to Wake and GT and not have enough quality wins to compensate in the committee eyes. I am not going to complain about not being on the right side of bubble this time, we have ended up on the right side the past few years. Teams could not always count on the RPI, so I don't see why they think the NET would be any different.

Congrats to the last four team in.

(03-18-2019 06:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 06:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 05:45 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The important takeaway is not to play the top 3 teams 5 times or the top 25 teams 9 times. Play 3-4 games against teams ranked 35-50. That's the ticket.

This was the best job the committee’s done in 7 years if not ever.

I think they did a really good job too other than putting Michigan St in the Duke bracket

Yeah, can we talk about how the top overall seed draws the Big Ten champ, but also could play another NC team its first game in SC, and its second against someone from either Virginia or Florida? How is that protecting the top seed? And it’s not like the second seed is protected, either, playing closer to the home of Bradley and potentially Minnesota? Illogical.

Meanwhile, UNC is playing in SC against a team north of NYC and either one from either Utah or Washington the next. THAT is protecting a top seed.

(03-18-2019 07:19 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 06:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 06:00 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 05:45 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The important takeaway is not to play the top 3 teams 5 times or the top 25 teams 9 times. Play 3-4 games against teams ranked 35-50. That's the ticket.

This was the best job the committee’s done in 7 years if not ever.

I think they did a really good job too other than putting Michigan St in the Duke bracket

Yeah, can we talk about how the top overall seed draws the Big Ten champ, but also could play another NC team its first game in SC, and its second against someone from either Virginia or Florida? How is that protecting the top seed? And it’s not like the second seed is protected, either, playing closer to the home of Bradley and potentially Minnesota? Illogical.

Meanwhile, UNC is playing in SC against a team north of NYC and either one from either Utah or Washington the next. THAT is protecting a top seed.

Historically, no program has ever had more protection - in terms of seeding or draws or playing close to home - than North Carolina. That has been going on for almost 50 years.

No question, Duke has a harder path.

(03-18-2019 07:19 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Meanwhile, UNC is playing in SC against a team north of NYC and either one from either Utah or Washington the next. THAT is protecting a top seed.

Wow. That is amazing.

I know the SEC has a lot of clout, but I didn't realize they had enough clout to move The Ohio State University to South Carolina.

(03-18-2019 11:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 07:19 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Meanwhile, UNC is playing in SC against a team north of NYC and either one from either Utah or Washington the next. THAT is protecting a top seed.

Wow. That is amazing.

I know the SEC has a lot of clout, but I didn't realize they had enough clout to move The Ohio State University to South Carolina.

Games in Columbia and Columbus. D’oh.

Still, considering the travel, how UNC was paired...it’s not like they could have swapped 8/9’s across the bracket? Give them the VCU/UCF pair?

It could be worse (well, Duke and MSU have it pretty bad), but there are some odd pairings in the bracket. Purdue may as well be in Big East territory if it gets Nova. Oregon and Irvine scoring games close to home, and that potential Tenn-Cincy game in Columbus.

(03-18-2019 06:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 06:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  What is the real difference between a team ranked 250 and 350? Both teams stink, but RPI double counts them. I know NC State played some bad teams early but Auburn was not a bad team, nor Penn State, nor Wisconsin. We got jobbed at Wisky. We missed a win over UVa on two missed free throws. We had a great season going until Pitt injured our starting guard.

The bottom line is that the committee put in who they wanted to put in and used both sides of the NET and RPI argument to justify their actions.

My issue is they said they were using the NET. They did not.

They said they would use the NET just like the used the RPI. And they did just that.

NC State's best win away from home was against Clemson- their only win away from home against a winning team. Sorry but that's just NIT.

Which is to say, hardly at all. Like any ranking system, the closer you get to the top the more consistency you will see compared to other ranking systems. The further from the top you go, the more variation you will see.

It hardly matters which system you use to select the top 8 seeds. Everybody will have them in largely the same order. Then, in the case of the NCAAT, you have roughly 24 autobids. That leaves only about a dozen spots - seeds 9 through 11 - for the committee to mull over. And unless you are in the room, you really don't know who was using what criteria (no matter what they say publicly).

That process is a lot like buying a new car. Few buyers start out with a list of criteria and then search for cars that fit those criteria. For most, a car catches their eye, and then they look for "reasons" why they made a good choice. For the selection committee picking those last 12 teams, you could make just as good a choice taking any of 20 or so teams left on the lot, regardless of where the NET, or RPI or KenPom have them ranked.

If you weren't really a quadrant one team, you put yourself on the bubble. All you can do then is hope you caught the eye of enough committee members to get a golden ticket. NC State, Clemson, TCU and others didn't do that, for reasons we can only speculate about. That won't stop their fans from complaining. They were as "worthy" as Ohio State, Florida, Temple or St John's. They just drew the short straws. That's life.

Houston was #4 NET...got them to the three line. UNC only shares the regular season ACC title, bows out in the semi-final, ends at #7, gets the top line. Even over two very good SEC schools. Wofford is in four territory, gets the 7-10 stew for it (as arbitrary a string of seeds as anything; the only gift is not getting the 8/9 kiss of death). Cincy, hate their NC-SOS all one wants, still should be better than a seven.

If you seed based on more of a composite, it starts to look a little more orderly, but, it still doesn’t expalin all of the lines. Wofford really got hosed when metrics moved to seeding, while Belmont, and especially St. John’s and Temple benefitted.

Not a fan of NET, though. And it looks like KenPom, too, given how you have reachable unreachables, has some issues with its math, like Texas and Penn State overlooked by teams more than 25 spots away in some cases. We got a new metric this year, but I think it only proves that it validates some decisions more than others.

I would say, though, that it may only be a matter of time until a .500 team gets an at-large. A death schedule with enough great wins...a year like this year, valuing strong wins over placement in a conference and the tiers...it may push through.

(03-19-2019 09:26 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Houston was #4 NET...got them to the three line. UNC only shares the regular season ACC title, bows out in the semi-final, ends at #7, gets the top line. Even over two very good SEC schools. Wofford is in four territory, gets the 7-10 stew for it (as arbitrary a string of seeds as anything; the only gift is not getting the 8/9 kiss of death). Cincy, hate their NC-SOS all one wants, still should be better than a seven.

If you seed based on more of a composite, it starts to look a little more orderly, but, it still doesn’t expalin all of the lines. Wofford really got hosed when metrics moved to seeding, while Belmont, and especially St. John’s and Temple benefitted.

Not a fan of NET, though. And it looks like KenPom, too, given how you have reachable unreachables, has some issues with its math, like Texas and Penn State overlooked by teams more than 25 spots away in some cases. We got a new metric this year, but I think it only proves that it validates some decisions more than others.

I would say, though, that it may only be a matter of time until a .500 team gets an at-large. A death schedule with enough great wins...a year like this year, valuing strong wins over placement in a conference and the tiers...it may push through.

There are 36 at large entries. If you take the top 36 teams in the Massey Composite that did not have an autobid, only four of those did not make the cut. One of them, Texas, finished at 16-16 despite having five wins against Top 30 teams.

The other three were NC State, Clemson and TCU. Their Top 30 W-L records weren't so good. NCSU was 1-9, Clemson 2-8 and TCU 2-7.

Three of the teams outside the Massey Top 36 non-champions who did make the field had much better Top 30 records. Arizona State (#41) was 4-1, while Seton Hall (#37) and St John's (#50) were both 4-3. Temple (#43) is the only outlier at 1-4. For the most part, it would appear that the committee rewarded wins against better teams more than they penalized for "bad losses" or weak OOC schedules.

Why Temple got a golden ticket is a mystery to me, but they weren't so low in the Massey as to be indefensible. At least the three lowest ranked teams to make the field have to play their way in to the Round of 64.

It's hard to be too critical of the committee this year.

(03-18-2019 05:23 PM)sugarbuzz Wrote:  

(03-18-2019 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  all the talk about 20 conference games impacting things so much I think got proven to be bunk.

Until the committee starts taking teams like Indiana at 17-15, I'll continue to doubt the importance of 20 games. In at least 26 years- only 1 team that was fewer than 4 games over .500 has made the tourney at large. 2000 Georgia at 16-14.

IIRC that Georgia team had the toughest schedule by far that year and the committee basically said they were rewarded for that SOS

The only team this year with just 4 games over .500 is Florida. They also had a tough schedule with 13 games against Top 30 teams. They lost 10 of those games.