Bracketology and Team Resumes

[LIHoosier]

Ha ha! Morrie got beat by high school kids!...and a slew of other bracketeers as well.

http://bracketmatrix.com/

[Uspshoosier]

Top 64 team? 
NET-90

25-4

Q1- didn’t play one 

Q2- 0-1(Loss @121)

Q3-8-2(Loss 121, @152),  0 wins against the top 120. 
Q4- 17-1(loss at home to 267)

SOS- 337

im all for Mid majors getting at large bids when they are deserving of one.    25 wins looks good but when you actually look at where those 25 wins came from and the fact that all their losses came to teams over 100 Belmont wasn’t even close to the cut line this year and shouldn’t of been.   
 

Now the last First 4 games I went to in Dayton Belmont earned an at-large bid because their resume deserved to be included. Not so much this year 

[RaceToTheTop]

13 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

Top 64 team? 
NET-90

25-4

Q1- didn’t play one 

Q2- 0-1(Loss @121)

Q3-8-2(Loss 121, @152),  0 wins against the top 120. 
Q4- 17-1(loss at home to 267)

SOS- 337

im all for Mid majors getting at large bids when they are deserving of one.    25 wins looks good but when you actually look at where those 25 wins came from and the fact that all their losses came to teams over 100 Belmont wasn’t even close to the cut line this year and shouldn’t of been.   
 

Now the last First 4 games I went to in Dayton Belmont earned an at-large bid because their resume deserved to be included. Not so much this year 

Yeah, my adjusted NET rating didn't like them any better -- had them at 91.  Other than the Colgate anomaly, the only small conference school I had that might be deserving of an at large bid had they lost their conference tournament was UC Santa-Barbara -- they were at 58.

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

23 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

Top 64 team? 
NET-90

25-4

Q1- didn’t play one 

Q2- 0-1(Loss @121)

Q3-8-2(Loss 121, @152),  0 wins against the top 120. 
Q4- 17-1(loss at home to 267)

SOS- 337

im all for Mid majors getting at large bids when they are deserving of one.    25 wins looks good but when you actually look at where those 25 wins came from and the fact that all their losses came to teams over 100 Belmont wasn’t even close to the cut line this year and shouldn’t of been.   
 

Now the last First 4 games I went to in Dayton Belmont earned an at-large bid because their resume deserved to be included. Not so much this year 

Eye test > Trash NET

[Uspshoosier]

1 hour ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Eye test > Trash NET

Cool.  Since I actually watched them play this year unlike most then my eye test backed up what the numbers said and they weren’t close or deserving of being a at-large team 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

10 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Cool.  Since I actually watched them play this year unlike most then my eye test backed up what the numbers said and they weren’t close or deserving of being a at-large team 

The NCAAs creation of the NET was just a way to put a monopoly on things and to fully control everything. It's clear as well that they really don't even stick that closely to it. If they believed in it, they'd just S-Curve the tourney directly off the NET rankings. But even the committee knows it's shortcomings. There is a reason the NCAA hasn't let anyone in on the equation of how they come up with it. It would likely been torn to shreds within a couple hours. 

[Uspshoosier]

1 hour ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

The NCAAs creation of the NET was just a way to put a monopoly on things and to fully control everything. It's clear as well that they really don't even stick that closely to it. If they believed in it, they'd just S-Curve the tourney directly off the NET rankings. But even the committee knows it's shortcomings. There is a reason the NCAA hasn't let anyone in on the equation of how they come up with it. It would likely been torn to shreds within a couple hours. 

They could never do a true S-Curve.  Too many geographical and conference rules set in place that the committee would have to follow.   Same rules they followed with RPI.  

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

1 hour ago, Uspshoosier said:

They could never do a true S-Curve.  Too many geographical and conference rules set in place that the committee would have to follow.   Same rules they followed with RPI.  

Geography shouldn't matter at all outside of setting the 1 seeds. 

[Uspshoosier]

1 hour ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Geography shouldn't matter at all outside of setting the 1 seeds. 

It does matter so until they change the rules you are just going to have to come on here every year and bash the system 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

31 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

It does matter so until they change the rules you are just going to have to come on here every year and bash the system 

I thought they did change that this year? 

[IU Scott]

2 hours ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Geography shouldn't matter at all outside of setting the 1 seeds. 

They don't want teams from the same conference to play early in the tournament so they might play around with the seeding a little.  They try to balance out the brackets do that is why you see tea.s sent out west.  This year was different because the tournament was in one location.

[Uspshoosier]

34 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

I thought they did change that this year? 

For this year only.  It goes back to normal next year 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

2 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

For this year only.  It goes back to normal next year 

Seems silly to change it. Let the pieces fall where they do. Geography only needs set with the 1 seeds and then after that, outside of conference regulations, let it flow. 

[RaceToTheTop]

LCS -- I guess I don't get why you are so quick to throw out geography but perfectly willing to keep conference regulations.  Seems like the opposite of 'let pieces fall where they may' to keep conference regulations.

IMO, cutting down on travel/venturing far from your time zone is a positive.  I've stated some issues I have with the tournament selection, but what regions teams are seeded in isn't one of them.

[HoosierAloha]

23 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

LCS -- I guess I don't get why you are so quick to throw out geography but perfectly willing to keep conference regulations.  Seems like the opposite of 'let pieces fall where they may' to keep conference regulations.

IMO, cutting down on travel/venturing far from your time zone is a positive.  I've stated some issues I have with the tournament selection, but what regions teams are seeded in isn't one of them.

It kind of makes sense as a business decision too.  Cuts down on travel cost while increasing attendance but I'm sure that's not why the NCAA does it.

[Uspshoosier]

https://bracketville.wordpress.com/s-curve/

This was before Wednesday’s results 

Yearly reminder If you want to follow Bracketology this is the guy to follow.  Best in the business year in and year out 

[RaceToTheTop]

1 hour ago, Uspshoosier said:

https://bracketville.wordpress.com/s-curve/

This was before Wednesday’s results 

Yearly reminder If you want to follow Bracketology this is the guy to follow.  Best in the business year in and year out 

So right now they have us as the top rated 8 seed, playing the lowest rated 9 seed on the S curve (Seton Hall).

Of note:  They have St. John's also as an 8 seed (third rated 8 seed), so the victory over them would considered a pretty good one.

Also of note that this was their S-curve on Nov 15, so the St. John's win likely would have them putting as a 7 seed now.  There are 9 Big Ten teams they list in the tournament -- BUT Rutgers would certainly have fell from the list as they were an 11 seed but lost to DePaul;  also likely Iowa would have fallen off of their list as they were the last at large team on the curve and have only played a couple cupcakes since then while Providence was the last team out but has since posted a road win at Wisky.

[Uspshoosier]

https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/22483

[IUc2016]

IU's best win to date is St. John's (108). Good for a quad 3 win.

IU is 0-1 in quad 2 and has yet to play a quad 1. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

16 minutes ago, IUc2016 said:

IU's best win to date is St. John's (108). Good for a quad 3 win.

IU is 0-1 in quad 2 and has yet to play a quad 1. 

Syracuse loss hurt us IMO. Just because our non conference schedule is so weak. Gonna hurt come seeding time. Especially if we are on the bubble, which I expect we will be.