• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Bracketology and Selection Sunday Discussion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Went 15/16 I missed the final team I did say 2 of 4 teams would via for last 2 spots got 1 right (Arizona) got 1 wrong (Had Rhode Island who I didn't feel should be a 4 but I didn't think WVU or Oklahoma should get there but I thought it was still possible)

Got Ohio State exactly right #14 overall
 
Upvote 0
I understand why Michigan State was so low I only pushed them up so high because I thought the committee would fall into the trap of the name and overall ranking and overall record but glad to be wrong as I really felt they didn't deserve a 2 seed based on resume.

Their resume isn't that great. Only 6 quad 1/2 wins which is the lowest of any of the 16 teams that made it.
 
Upvote 0
Michigan State actually has 5 quad 2 wins (they had 3 as of Friday) A couple teams must have played their way up into a quad 2 win for them.

So they had 8 quad 1/2 wins not the 6 I thought they had so that was not as few as I thought.

Their non conf SOS was awful though that might been why so low.
 
Upvote 0
IiK121.gif
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye said:
I don't even understand the frickin' name recognition. Yes, they make the tournament ever year, but they go home the first weekend ever year too. They've been to one Final Four in the last 54 years. And those two titles are about as relevant as the two that San Francisco has.
Click to expand...

Huggins had them at a top-ten level program from 1992 to 2005, and Cronin has earned 23 wins a year for eight years in a row. It is going to be awfully hard, psychologically, for the committee to seed a 2 or 3 loss UC team at 3 or lower. I suspect that there isn't much more to these Bearcats than there is to any of the others that left early, but the rest of college basketball isn't doing a whole lot to prevent it from happening. Talent-wise, you are probably right. They probably are more of in the 4/5 range, at best.
 
Upvote 0
HenryMuto said:
Michigan State actually has 5 quad 2 wins (they had 3 as of Friday) A couple teams must have played their way up into a quad 2 win for them.

So they had 8 quad 1/2 wins not the 6 I thought they had so that was not as few as I thought.

Their non conf SOS was awful though that might been why so low.
Click to expand...

This exemplifies why the tier system is a poor choice for the committee to use. Whats better, beating #1 or #30? The tier system doesn't differentiate.
- First, scrap using only the RPI for team comparisons. ITs not a bad system to use, but combine it with the other metrics like SOR, BPI, KenPom, etc to come up with an average computer ranking for each team.
- Second, all of these ranking systems already compensate for location of the games. RPI for example gives you a 1.4 credit for road wins and a .6 credit for home wins, so no need to make your tiers up by giving extra credit because the rnakings have already raised their ranking accordingly.
- Third, get rid of the tiers all together and use an average ranking of best 5 wins, best 10 wins and overall record. For example, if Team A has a best 5 wins of 2,7,8,13,20 and team B has a best 5 wins of 12,15,18,25,30, Team A would have an average ranking of 10 and team B would have an average ranking of 20. Isn't that metric better for comparison than saying both have 5 Tier 1 wins? IF you think winning on the road or neutral needs to be rewarded more than the computer models already provide, then take 25% off a teams ranking for a neutral win and 50% off for a road win (ie, beating #40 at a neutral site would mean using 30 when computing that wins value or 20 if it were a true road win).
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
I checked last night, Joe Lunardi has 9 B1G, 8 ACC, 8 SEC, and 8 Big 12 teams in the field. Nebraska is not going to make it, though. So those four power conferences are probably going to combine for roughly half of the teams in the tournament this season.
Click to expand...
If that happens, there is going to be a lot of bitching from the mid-majors but I do not care who makes the tournament as long as Ohio State does.
 
Upvote 0
LitlBuck said:
If that happens, there is going to be a lot of bitching from the mid-majors but I do not care who makes the tournament as long as Ohio State does.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I have little sympathy for teams that miss the tournament now that the field is 68 teams. We are at the point when a team gets 3 wins against top-50 opponents at any point throughout the year, wins the games they are supposed to and simply avoids losing to opponents outside of the top-100, they are probably going to make the tournament. I know there are always people who complain about mids being slighted to an extent based on overall record, but simply compiling a gaudy record against bad teams isn't enough to be selected.
 
Upvote 0
DZ83CK said:
Yeah, I have little sympathy for teams that miss the tournament now that the field is 68 teams. We are at the point when a team gets 3 wins against top-50 opponents at any point throughout the year, wins the games they are supposed to and simply avoids losing to opponents outside of the top-100, they are probably going to make the tournament. I know there are always people who complain about mids being slighted to an extent based on overall record, but simply compiling a gaudy record against bad teams isn't enough to be selected.
Click to expand...

Conversely, when a team gets 12 chances to beat a top-50 opponent and wins 3 of them I'm not exactly impressed, especially when it comes with a .500 conference record, double digit losses, and an 8th place finish. But the tournament wasn't expanded to 68 for mid-majors. It was so the power 5 can get more teams in and make more money.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top