+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: Bracketology from Palm (/thread-868266.html)
Bracketology from Palm - Foreverandever - 01-12-2019 12:52 AM
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-no-1-overall-seed-michigan-leads-10-big-ten-teams-in-updated-ncaa-tournament-bracket/
Mentions how he predicts the field as if the tourney was today.
AQ's are decided by the standings, tie broke by most recent NET ranking.
Some tidbits about the NET in there too.
Houston 4 seed West, Des Moines, Iowa vs 13 seed Liberty
1 seed is Duke
2 seed is Gonzaga
Temple 10 seed Midwest, Tulsa (BOK center) vs 7 seed Auburn
2 seed is Kansas
1 seed is Tennessee
UCF 10 seed South, Tulsa (BOK center) vs 7 seed Nebraska
2 seed is Texas Tech
Cincinnati 11 seed South, Jacksonville vs 6 seed Nova
1 seed is Michigan (Overall)
East
1 seed is Virginia
2 seed is Michigan St
RE: Bracketology from Palm - bearcatlawjd2 - 01-12-2019 08:41 AM
NET needs a fix due to running up the score being an easy way to climb up the rankings. Almost like the RPI better.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - Tiger1983 - 01-12-2019 09:24 AM
(01-12-2019 08:41 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: NET needs a fix due to running up the score being an easy way to climb up the rankings. Almost like the RPI better.
The NET "Scoring Margin" factor explicitly caps regulation games at ten points, but in effect the Net Efficiency factor encourages running up the score.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - HuskyU - 01-12-2019 09:37 AM
That Jerry Palm...
![[Image: rhoafullofshitgif.gif]](https://maddisonbateswillis.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/rhoafullofshitgif.gif)
RE: Bracketology from Palm - sfink16 - 01-12-2019 10:06 AM
(01-12-2019 09:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 08:41 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: NET needs a fix due to running up the score being an easy way to climb up the rankings. Almost like the RPI better.
The NET "Scoring Margin" factor explicitly caps regulation games at ten points, but in effect the Net Efficiency factor encourages running up the score.
For this reason I think the NET is broken.
Purdue finally won on the road but are now 1 and 4 on the road. They are 10 and 6 overall, having lost against every good team they've played. Yes, they have no bad losses but still have a lot of them. Sure the Big 10 is great, but that shouldn't give Purdue an 18th NET just because of the conference they play in. Shouldn't they have to win to receive that high a rating? 18th is a really high rating for that many losses.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - Tiger1983 - 01-12-2019 10:25 AM
(01-12-2019 10:06 AM)sfink16 Wrote:(01-12-2019 09:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 08:41 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: NET needs a fix due to running up the score being an easy way to climb up the rankings. Almost like the RPI better.
The NET "Scoring Margin" factor explicitly caps regulation games at ten points, but in effect the Net Efficiency factor encourages running up the score.
For this reason I think the NET is broken.
Purdue finally won on the road but are now 1 and 4 on the road. They are 10 and 6 overall, having lost against every good team they've played. Yes, they have no bad losses but still have a lot of them. Sure the Big 10 is great, but that shouldn't give Purdue an 18th NET just because of the conference they play in. Shouldn't they have to win to receive that high a rating? 18th is a really high rating for that many losses.
As Patrick Henry said, I smell a rat.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - Foreverandever - 01-12-2019 12:43 PM
(01-12-2019 10:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 10:06 AM)sfink16 Wrote:(01-12-2019 09:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 08:41 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: NET needs a fix due to running up the score being an easy way to climb up the rankings. Almost like the RPI better.
The NET "Scoring Margin" factor explicitly caps regulation games at ten points, but in effect the Net Efficiency factor encourages running up the score.
For this reason I think the NET is broken.
Purdue finally won on the road but are now 1 and 4 on the road. They are 10 and 6 overall, having lost against every good team they've played. Yes, they have no bad losses but still have a lot of them. Sure the Big 10 is great, but that shouldn't give Purdue an 18th NET just because of the conference they play in. Shouldn't they have to win to receive that high a rating? 18th is a really high rating for that many losses.
As Patrick Henry said, I smell a rat.
This was always the intent. They told us exactly what they did if you pay attention.
They reversed engineered to pick up all those P5 schools they had to leave out with RPI and well established norms.
Now with out releasing the formula they can do what ever little tweaks they need to move a team in the rankings with out anyone knowing.
They don't have anymore hard lines to explain away, no more top >35 RPI and you are in type stuff. This means they can recycle tired old excuses about the eye test, big wins, etc. without all the usual criticism of the numbers guys.
Fortunately for the AAC they can't forsee every out come and thus it also benefits us. It will be tweaked next year to try and eliminate us and to keep people guessing.
This will be the next decade, then tweaking it so they can't be checked by outside people, using it however they want, and P5 teams getting every at large bid.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - vick mike - 01-12-2019 12:45 PM
(01-12-2019 12:43 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:This.(01-12-2019 10:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 10:06 AM)sfink16 Wrote:(01-12-2019 09:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 08:41 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: NET needs a fix due to running up the score being an easy way to climb up the rankings. Almost like the RPI better.
The NET "Scoring Margin" factor explicitly caps regulation games at ten points, but in effect the Net Efficiency factor encourages running up the score.
For this reason I think the NET is broken.
Purdue finally won on the road but are now 1 and 4 on the road. They are 10 and 6 overall, having lost against every good team they've played. Yes, they have no bad losses but still have a lot of them. Sure the Big 10 is great, but that shouldn't give Purdue an 18th NET just because of the conference they play in. Shouldn't they have to win to receive that high a rating? 18th is a really high rating for that many losses.
As Patrick Henry said, I smell a rat.
This was always the intent. They told us exactly what they did if you pay attention.
They reversed engineered to pick up all those P5 schools they had to leave out with RPI and well established norms.
Now with out releasing the formula they can do what ever little tweaks they need to move a team in the rankings with out anyone knowing.
They don't have anymore hard lines to explain away, no more top >35 RPI and you are in type stuff. This means they can recycle tired old excuses about the eye test, big wins, etc. without all the usual criticism of the numbers guys.
Fortunately for the AAC they can't forsee every out come and thus it also benefits us. It will be tweaked next year to try and eliminate us and to keep people guessing.
This will be the next decade, then tweaking it so they can't be checked by outside people, using it however they want, and P5 teams getting every at large bid.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - robertfoshizzle - 01-12-2019 01:19 PM
(01-12-2019 12:45 PM)vick mike Wrote:(01-12-2019 12:43 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:This.(01-12-2019 10:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 10:06 AM)sfink16 Wrote:(01-12-2019 09:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote: The NET "Scoring Margin" factor explicitly caps regulation games at ten points, but in effect the Net Efficiency factor encourages running up the score.
For this reason I think the NET is broken.
Purdue finally won on the road but are now 1 and 4 on the road. They are 10 and 6 overall, having lost against every good team they've played. Yes, they have no bad losses but still have a lot of them. Sure the Big 10 is great, but that shouldn't give Purdue an 18th NET just because of the conference they play in. Shouldn't they have to win to receive that high a rating? 18th is a really high rating for that many losses.
As Patrick Henry said, I smell a rat.
This was always the intent. They told us exactly what they did if you pay attention.
They reversed engineered to pick up all those P5 schools they had to leave out with RPI and well established norms.
Now with out releasing the formula they can do what ever little tweaks they need to move a team in the rankings with out anyone knowing.
They don't have anymore hard lines to explain away, no more top >35 RPI and you are in type stuff. This means they can recycle tired old excuses about the eye test, big wins, etc. without all the usual criticism of the numbers guys.
Fortunately for the AAC they can't forsee every out come and thus it also benefits us. It will be tweaked next year to try and eliminate us and to keep people guessing.
This will be the next decade, then tweaking it so they can't be checked by outside people, using it however they want, and P5 teams getting every at large bid.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few hundred-thousand dollar handshakes going on behind the scenes to prop up the P5 in NET rankings. With the way things are set up, they hold all the money and power, and as the saying goes: absolute power absolutely corrupts.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - bearcatlawjd2 - 01-12-2019 01:27 PM
(01-12-2019 01:19 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:(01-12-2019 12:45 PM)vick mike Wrote:(01-12-2019 12:43 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:This.(01-12-2019 10:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 10:06 AM)sfink16 Wrote: For this reason I think the NET is broken.
Purdue finally won on the road but are now 1 and 4 on the road. They are 10 and 6 overall, having lost against every good team they've played. Yes, they have no bad losses but still have a lot of them. Sure the Big 10 is great, but that shouldn't give Purdue an 18th NET just because of the conference they play in. Shouldn't they have to win to receive that high a rating? 18th is a really high rating for that many losses.
As Patrick Henry said, I smell a rat.
This was always the intent. They told us exactly what they did if you pay attention.
They reversed engineered to pick up all those P5 schools they had to leave out with RPI and well established norms.
Now with out releasing the formula they can do what ever little tweaks they need to move a team in the rankings with out anyone knowing.
They don't have anymore hard lines to explain away, no more top >35 RPI and you are in type stuff. This means they can recycle tired old excuses about the eye test, big wins, etc. without all the usual criticism of the numbers guys.
Fortunately for the AAC they can't forsee every out come and thus it also benefits us. It will be tweaked next year to try and eliminate us and to keep people guessing.
This will be the next decade, then tweaking it so they can't be checked by outside people, using it however they want, and P5 teams getting every at large bid.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few hundred-thousand dollar handshakes going on behind the scenes to prop up the P5 in NET rankings. With the way things are set up, they hold all the money and power, and as the saying goes: absolute power absolutely corrupts.
But it also helps the American vs the other mid-major leagues. There are just some problems with the NET. They should have gone with a Kenpom, RPI, BPI, and Sagarin composite. Good news is that the A-10, PAC-12, and Mountain West are really down. While the other power conferences are up there still is limit on how many teams without winning conference records make the tournament due to the fact that have 10 plus league loss don’t get in a very high rate.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - CougarRed - 01-12-2019 06:20 PM
Composite bracket matrix usually better than any one bracket.
http://www.bracketmatrix.com
4 Houston
9 Cincy
10 UCF
First four out Temple
RE: Bracketology from Palm - HuskyU - 01-12-2019 06:24 PM
Temple has a better resume than UCF IMO.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - ShockerFever - 01-12-2019 06:35 PM
(01-12-2019 06:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote: Temple has a better resume than UCF IMO.
I was gonna say the same thing but didn't wanna ruffle up any feathers. Temple should be in over Creighton (lol) and Arizona. Not even close.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - KNIGHTTIME - 01-12-2019 06:55 PM
(01-12-2019 06:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote: Temple has a better resume than UCF IMO.
We beat Temple?
RE: Bracketology from Palm - Foreverandever - 01-12-2019 06:58 PM
(01-12-2019 06:55 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:(01-12-2019 06:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote: Temple has a better resume than UCF IMO.
We beat Temple?
But your resume lacks the needed wins at the moment although Alabama is doing it's best to help you out.
When selecting tourney teams head to head is rarely if ever used to decide who is in and who is out.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - HuskyU - 01-12-2019 06:59 PM
(01-12-2019 06:55 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:(01-12-2019 06:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote: Temple has a better resume than UCF IMO.
We beat Temple?
Temple has the best win (Houston).
UCF has the worst loss (FAU).
RE: Bracketology from Palm - stever20 - 01-12-2019 10:56 PM
(01-12-2019 10:06 AM)sfink16 Wrote:(01-12-2019 09:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 08:41 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: NET needs a fix due to running up the score being an easy way to climb up the rankings. Almost like the RPI better.
The NET "Scoring Margin" factor explicitly caps regulation games at ten points, but in effect the Net Efficiency factor encourages running up the score.
For this reason I think the NET is broken.
Purdue finally won on the road but are now 1 and 4 on the road. They are 10 and 6 overall, having lost against every good team they've played. Yes, they have no bad losses but still have a lot of them. Sure the Big 10 is great, but that shouldn't give Purdue an 18th NET just because of the conference they play in. Shouldn't they have to win to receive that high a rating? 18th is a really high rating for that many losses.
Purdue has #13 RPI currently.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - Stickboy46 - 01-12-2019 11:06 PM
I don't care what they choose, but the formula HAS to be public for it to gain confidence.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - Tigersmoke4 - 01-12-2019 11:07 PM
(01-12-2019 01:27 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:(01-12-2019 01:19 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:(01-12-2019 12:45 PM)vick mike Wrote:(01-12-2019 12:43 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:This.(01-12-2019 10:25 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote: As Patrick Henry said, I smell a rat.
This was always the intent. They told us exactly what they did if you pay attention.
They reversed engineered to pick up all those P5 schools they had to leave out with RPI and well established norms.
Now with out releasing the formula they can do what ever little tweaks they need to move a team in the rankings with out anyone knowing.
They don't have anymore hard lines to explain away, no more top >35 RPI and you are in type stuff. This means they can recycle tired old excuses about the eye test, big wins, etc. without all the usual criticism of the numbers guys.
Fortunately for the AAC they can't forsee every out come and thus it also benefits us. It will be tweaked next year to try and eliminate us and to keep people guessing.
This will be the next decade, then tweaking it so they can't be checked by outside people, using it however they want, and P5 teams getting every at large bid.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few hundred-thousand dollar handshakes going on behind the scenes to prop up the P5 in NET rankings. With the way things are set up, they hold all the money and power, and as the saying goes: absolute power absolutely corrupts.
But it also helps the American vs the other mid-major leagues. There are just some problems with the NET. They should have gone with a Kenpom, RPI, BPI, and Sagarin composite. Good news is that the A-10, PAC-12, and Mountain West are really down. While the other power conferences are up there still is limit on how many teams without winning conference records make the tournament due to the fact that have 10 plus league loss don’t get in a very high rate.
So another low self esteem fan with the mid-major tag ,,, huh. Any league with Cincy, UCONN, Memphis will never be mid-major. That alone with UH, Temple is legit enough, but you're welcome to your to nothing opinion about nothing, but I'll advise you to move on and stop hating your conference.
RE: Bracketology from Palm - UofMstateU - 01-12-2019 11:11 PM
(01-12-2019 10:56 PM)stever20 Wrote:(01-12-2019 10:06 AM)sfink16 Wrote:(01-12-2019 09:24 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:(01-12-2019 08:41 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: NET needs a fix due to running up the score being an easy way to climb up the rankings. Almost like the RPI better.
The NET "Scoring Margin" factor explicitly caps regulation games at ten points, but in effect the Net Efficiency factor encourages running up the score.
For this reason I think the NET is broken.
Purdue finally won on the road but are now 1 and 4 on the road. They are 10 and 6 overall, having lost against every good team they've played. Yes, they have no bad losses but still have a lot of them. Sure the Big 10 is great, but that shouldn't give Purdue an 18th NET just because of the conference they play in. Shouldn't they have to win to receive that high a rating? 18th is a really high rating for that many losses.
Purdue has #13 RPI currently.
Purdue also has one of the top SOS's, which is why their RPI and NET is as high as they are. Which is how it should be. What that means is that if they end up 20-12, and another team ends up 25-7, but with a NET and RPI thats considerably better then the other team, Purdue will likely get the nod to get into the tournament. As they should, because you shouldnt get punished for playing a tough schedule while others get rewarded for playing a cupcake schedule.
Purdue's conference SOS is sick, but their OOC schedule is sick as well. Of the teams they have played, only 3 have losing records. In OOC they have played Davidson, VaTech, Florida St, Texas, Notre Dame, and Belmont, who are a combined 70-22. That is tough as nails for OOC.