Bracketology and Team Resumes

[woodenshoemanHoosierfan 6,100]

Crazy, no recollection— looks like senility has set in :)

I know the feeling

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,194]

11 hours ago, HoosierAloha said:

Didn't that happen with UMBC over Virginia the year before Virginia won the whole thing?

 

11 hours ago, HoosierHoopster said:

Haven’t looked it up but don’t think a 1 has ever lost to a 16. Am i wrong?  I’m pretty sure

Not only did UMBC beat 1 seed Virginia, they freaking TORCHED Virginia 74-54.

[RaceToTheTop 23,610]

USPS had a score of 358 on the bracketmatrix scoring system (mine was 352).  That score would have put him tied for 36th out of 148 in the bracketmatrix rankings using last year's results (mine was 65th).

[Uspshoosier 44,225]

20 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

Princeton will probably just take Yales spot in the bracket but they probably should be seeded lower but my guess is committee will put them where they had Yale 

Glad the committee did this.   Shows that this committee actually did have a contingency bracket.   Princeton should have been a 15 and they were seeded properly.   If they just plugged them into the bracket in Yales spot it would have been 13 or 14.  

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,194]

45 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

USPS had a score of 358 on the bracketmatrix scoring system (mine was 352).  That score would have put him tied for 36th out of 148 in the bracketmatrix rankings using last year's results (mine was 65th).

I believe that's puts you both ahead of Lunardi?

[Hoosier Guy 7,472]

4 hours ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

 

Not only did UMBC beat 1 seed Virginia, they freaking TORCHED Virginia 74-54.

Virginia then went on to win the national championship the next season. Talk about mental fortitude

[RaceToTheTop 23,610]

3 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

Glad the committee did this.   Shows that this committee actually did have a contingency bracket.   Princeton should have been a 15 and they were seeded properly.   If they just plugged them into the bracket in Yales spot it would have been 13 or 14.  

Screwed us in Bracketmatrix points, though.

[RaceToTheTop 23,610]

2 hours ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

I believe that's puts you both ahead of Lunardi?

They haven’t posted 2023 scores yet, but Lunardi’s high in the last 5 years is 357 and his average is 346.6.

[Uspshoosier 44,225]

52 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Screwed us in Bracketmatrix points, though.

Lol I don’t worry about that stuff.  I would rather they get it right.   

[woodenshoemanHoosierfan 6,100]

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

[Stuhoo 75,564]

6 minutes ago, woodenshoemanHoosierfan said:

 

 

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
 

 

I think this was a tongue in cheek post.

[HoosierHoopster 6,040]

26 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

I think this was a tongue in cheek post.

Dang it. I was hoping to take on that representation, then commit malpractice, just to add to their misery.

[LIHoosier 24,997]

16 minutes ago, HoosierHoopster said:

Dang it. I was hoping to take on that representation, then commit malpractice, just to add to their misery.

I'd go for a double or nothing.

Win; they're in the tourney. Lose; they're still out of the tourney AND get relegated to the AAC where they belong.

[OliviaPope40 6,297]

I thought Chris Reynolds did a good job with the committee. 

[RaceToTheTop 23,610]

4 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

Lol I don’t worry about that stuff.  I would rather they get it right.   

Obviously -- was just saying it as a side note.

[RaceToTheTop 23,610]

22 minutes ago, OliviaPope40 said:

I thought Chris Reynolds did a good job with the committee. 

I hated hated HATED Rutgers resume.  Horrible non-conference resume.  Thought they didn't deserve to be in the field but thought based on past practices they would be in. Think the committee got it right.

[Uspshoosier 44,225]

2 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

I hated hated HATED Rutgers resume.  Horrible non-conference resume.  Thought they didn't deserve to be in the field but thought based on past practices they would be in. Think the committee got it right.

I went against almost everything that keeps teams out and still had Rutgers in.   I knew better but put them in anyway.     They had the worst non con sos at 314.  Usually anytime over 300 and you’re on the bubble means no bid.    Take away Q4 games and they were 12-14.   Not being over .500 for Q1-Q3 means no bid. 3-7 since Mag injury and only 1 Q1 win    I ignored these and put them in anyway.  This year needed bid stealers in the worst way.     

[OliviaPope40 6,297]

18 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

I hated hated HATED Rutgers resume.  Horrible non-conference resume.  Thought they didn't deserve to be in the field but thought based on past practices they would be in. Think the committee got it right.

https://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/2023/03/selection-committee-chairman-explains-why-rutgers-did-not-make-ncaa-tournament.html

He gave a good explanation of why they didn't now had that injury to Mag not happen might have been a different story but they lost games down the stretch that would've helped their case.

[RaceToTheTop 23,610]

4 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

I think this was a tongue in cheek post.

I don't think it was.  The dude has over 35,000 posts on a Rutgers.message.board.

His follow-up gem later in the thread was:

I would be happy to accept our fate if the process was impartial and fair. In this case, the NCAA tournament selection process has proven to be flawed, resulting in irreparable harm to Rutgers if this result stands. This could adversely affect recruiting going forward. We should not accept results from an inaccurate/flawed process.

- The crux of the issue is this:

The committee improperly weighted our Quad 3 losses while discounting our significant wins, especially our Victory over #1 Seed Purdue. This was reported to be the biggest reason we were excluded. The selection committee should taking into account the totality of our resume, and not cherry-picking data points they think relevant.

[HoosierHoopster 6,040]

3 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

I don't think it was.  The dude has over 35,000 posts on a Rutgers.message.board.

His follow-up gem later in the thread was:

I would be happy to accept our fate if the process was impartial and fair. In this case, the NCAA tournament selection process has proven to be flawed, resulting in irreparable harm to Rutgers if this result stands. This could adversely affect recruiting going forward. We should not accept results from an inaccurate/flawed process.

- The crux of the issue is this:

The committee improperly weighted our Quad 3 losses while discounting our significant wins, especially our Victory over #1 Seed Purdue. This was reported to be the biggest reason we were excluded. The selection committee should taking into account the totality of our resume, and not cherry-picking data points they think relevant.

= Delusional