Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Bubble Team discussion
Author Message
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,281
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 217
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #181
RE: Bubble Team discussion
Going with the gut is one thing, but the metrics do make a mess of some of these things. When your top 50 has a healthy share of programs with low counts against top tiers, but wins (probably on the road or on a neutral court) against a struggling major who gets big bumps for their conference schedule.

I’m not going to fault the committee for picks like Temple and St. John’s, even though the numbers didn’t look good for them compared to others. The quality wins were there. Not enough good work, too.

Honestly, as some people look at how badly Wofford and Buffalo translated to seeding, I look at Belmont and VCU and know the mid-majors could have had it worse. I actually thought VCU was toast with their early departure, coupled with Texas and Temple flaming out. But, you see games against other tournament teams in that schedule, and not just UVA or SJU, but Iona, Old Dominion, Gardner Webb, and near misses with scraps against Hofstra, CoC (the likely good teams of CAA), and Wichita State...VCU looks like a bid for an okay team who challenged themselves on paper, but their foes (many of them at least) failed to show. Not too impressive a schedule, weighed down by a bad A10, but good enough to pass a sight test where quality was harder to spot. It would have been easier to give the bids to the NCSU’s, Clemson’s, TCU’s, Indiana’s, etc....clearly, the committee had some different minds in the room this time.
03-21-2019 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #182
RE: Bubble Team discussion
(03-20-2019 10:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So NET 4-0 so far in the tourney.....

12-4 in the NIT
03-21-2019 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,300
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #183
RE: Bubble Team discussion
(03-19-2019 01:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(03-19-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  [quote='The Cutter of Bish' pid='15992805' dateline='1553005574']
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.

IU was pretty close at 17-15. UT was 16-16 and was from #5 to #8 out. If there losses had been more towards the beginning of the conference schedule, they would have moved up a little.

I just can't see giving a .500 team an at large. That just demonstrates the tourney is too large.

Indiana was 3rd team out in a year where we had 4 bid theives.

Texas we really don't know as the NCAA committee doesn't seed the NIT. Just because a team is a 2 seed in the NIT doesn't automatically mean they were the 5th-8th teams out of the tourney.

I think the committee is pretty consistent in that all of your results matter, no matter when they happen. So your comment that Texas would have been closer had the losses happened earlier- sorry but no. 16 losses is still.... 16 losses....
[/qu
Historically, the committee has paid a lot of attention to how teams finished the season.
03-21-2019 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,240
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #184
RE: Bubble Team discussion
(03-21-2019 04:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-19-2019 01:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(03-19-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  [quote='The Cutter of Bish' pid='15992805' dateline='1553005574']
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.

IU was pretty close at 17-15. UT was 16-16 and was from #5 to #8 out. If there losses had been more towards the beginning of the conference schedule, they would have moved up a little.

I just can't see giving a .500 team an at large. That just demonstrates the tourney is too large.

Indiana was 3rd team out in a year where we had 4 bid theives.

Texas we really don't know as the NCAA committee doesn't seed the NIT. Just because a team is a 2 seed in the NIT doesn't automatically mean they were the 5th-8th teams out of the tourney.

I think the committee is pretty consistent in that all of your results matter, no matter when they happen. So your comment that Texas would have been closer had the losses happened earlier- sorry but no. 16 losses is still.... 16 losses....
[/qu
Historically, the committee has paid a lot of attention to how teams finished the season.

They used to, as it was an official criteria up to about 10 years ago. It's not any longer. Why teams like Oklahoma and Arizona St made the tourney last year quite frankly.
03-21-2019 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.