Bracketology 2024

[SolterraCyclone]

Stop looking at ESPN and CBS for brackets.. There are 100 better places to look

See here for the best bracket makers: http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

Here is my favorite bracket to look at: https://bracketville.wordpress.com/bracketology/

Dan's site updates daily as well: https://bracketville.wordpress.com/

Sign me up for that one. It would be a tough second game between either St Mary’s or Indiana State, but we get Omaha in first round, Tennessee as The 2 seed (favorable), Purdue as the 1 seed (favorable) and Detroit as the regional.

No thank you to Lunardi’s bracket. I want no part of Kentucky in the second round or the East region with UConn and UNC as the 1 and 2 seeds

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

This is from an Athletic article today:

"We caught up with the chairman this week to discuss some pertinent issues (and nominate ourselves for future committee membership … still waiting to hear back on that one).

How about the notion that certain leagues, like the Big 12, have gamed the system by playing soft nonconference schedules and then simply racking up quality wins against one another? Iowa State, for example, played the No. 323 nonconference schedule per the NET, yet had five Quad 1 wins before the reveal. (The Cyclones added another Saturday against Texas Tech before losing to Houston on Monday.) They were awarded an early No. 3 seed by the committee, 12th overall.

“We spend a significant amount of time discussing this exact topic,” McClelland said. “It’s always good for the game to play good nonconference schedules. If teams are going to play a weak nonconference schedule, it makes it critically important for them to do well in their league games. Even in the loss at Houston, it was a hard-fought game, and I think the nation could see, even if they watched just that one game and not the entirety of the season like we do, that Iowa State is a very good team and certainly deserving of the seed we gave them. But if you do play a weak nonconference schedule and then you get into the league and don’t win those games against the best teams and are just kind of floating there at let’s say 9-9 … just because you have a tremendous amount of wins doesn’t necessarily guarantee you a way into the tournament.”

Bracket Watch: The selection committee chairman speaks!

Big 12 gaming the system? Importance of road wins? Those sliding quads? Commitee chair Charles McClelland answers our questions.

theathletic.com

The issue I have with the whole "Big 12 teams gamed the system" take is that no other conference plays the schedule that we all do top to bottom. You can make the same argument and say that the B1G and ACC are gaming the system by having 65% of their teams sucking. From the end of December to March there is no break for this conference.

 

[NoCreativity]

How about the notion that certain leagues, like the Big 12, have gamed the system by playing soft nonconference schedules and then simply racking up quality wins against one another? Iowa State, for example, played the No. 323 nonconference schedule per the NET, yet had five Quad 1 wins before the reveal. (The Cyclones added another Saturday against Texas Tech before losing to Houston on Monday.) They were awarded an early No. 3 seed by the committee, 12th overall.

This is total bs. FAU and Boise are both tournament teams that we just missed on the wrong side of the bracket. A&M was projected to make the Sweet 16 this year, the Iowa game is usually a Quad 1, and it's not our fault we drew DePaul from the Big East.

 

[jdoggivjc]

I don't disagree. But when you are on ESPN and see his updates it's hard not to look.

I don't get us being a 3 seed right now. In fact, I think it's a tough argument to make.

I agree we're probably more a 2 than a 3 at this point, but it's also kind of hard to argue when they (was that the selection committee - or was that CBS acting "official"?) did the release of the "official" top 16 seeds if the season were to end now, ISU was at a 3 and 11 overall. Granted, things change in a week, and us losing at Houston didn't hurt us at all and probably made us even more respectable, but still.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Sign me up for that one. It would be a tough second game between either St Mary’s or Indiana State, but we get Omaha in first round, Tennessee as The 2 seed (favorable), Purdue as the 1 seed (favorable) and Detroit as the regional.

No thank you to Lunardi’s bracket. I want no part of Kentucky in the second round or the East region with UConn and UNC as the 1 and 2 seeds

I couldn't care less about Kentucky (they scream "paper tiger" to me)... but I want no part of the East Region - not with UConn playing anywhere in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast.

 

[CoachHines3]

This is total bs. FAU and Boise are both tournament teams that we just missed on the wrong side of the bracket. A&M was projected to make the Sweet 16 this year, the Iowa game is usually a Quad 1, and it's not our fault we drew DePaul from the Big East.

Yeah, some of it is just bad luck.

Now, you beat A&M and then you get to play FAU, so it would of looked a little better. Losing didn't help us there.

Can't help Iowa is down and that we were given Depaul as our opponent.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Lunardi has the round of 32 match up against Kentucky. Don’t like that

I do. Sure, they have a lot of upside, but if you get the normal Kentucky team, our guys would smoke them

 

[ZRF]

Where have you been? I've missed reading your 1200 word essays.

Banned, home dog.

 

[AuH2O]

The issue I have with the whole "Big 12 teams gamed the system" take is that no other conference plays the schedule that we all do top to bottom. You can make the same argument and say that the B1G and ACC are gaming the system by having 65% of their teams sucking. From the end of December to March there is no break for this conference.

It's dumb for a couple reasons. First, the Athletic guy basically talks about "racking up wins against each other" like there's some gentlemen's agreement that everybody's going to win a certain number of games. It's true, Big 12 teams don't have to schedule tough non-con to have a bunch of Q1 opportunities. But you still have to win some games and that's hard to do in the best conference.

Second, I still hate how there does not seem to be significant diminishing weight in terms of low SOS games. The idea that playing the 323rd SOS or 250th is probably any real practical difference is pretty dumb. For P6 teams, 99% of these 200+SOS games are going to be at home. Any team in tournament consideration is going to win all those games whether they are playing #200 or #340. It's like the opposite version of the old RPI system gaming where teams tried to schedule a bunch in that you should always win, but not so horrible that it craters your SOS range when there really was no tangible difference.

 

[ZRF]

This is from an Athletic article today:

"We caught up with the chairman this week to discuss some pertinent issues (and nominate ourselves for future committee membership … still waiting to hear back on that one).

How about the notion that certain leagues, like the Big 12, have gamed the system by playing soft nonconference schedules and then simply racking up quality wins against one another? Iowa State, for example, played the No. 323 nonconference schedule per the NET, yet had five Quad 1 wins before the reveal. (The Cyclones added another Saturday against Texas Tech before losing to Houston on Monday.) They were awarded an early No. 3 seed by the committee, 12th overall.

“We spend a significant amount of time discussing this exact topic,” McClelland said. “It’s always good for the game to play good nonconference schedules. If teams are going to play a weak nonconference schedule, it makes it critically important for them to do well in their league games. Even in the loss at Houston, it was a hard-fought game, and I think the nation could see, even if they watched just that one game and not the entirety of the season like we do, that Iowa State is a very good team and certainly deserving of the seed we gave them. But if you do play a weak nonconference schedule and then you get into the league and don’t win those games against the best teams and are just kind of floating there at let’s say 9-9 … just because you have a tremendous amount of wins doesn’t necessarily guarantee you a way into the tournament.”

Bracket Watch: The selection committee chairman speaks!

Big 12 gaming the system? Importance of road wins? Those sliding quads? Commitee chair Charles McClelland answers our questions.

theathletic.com

I'm going to be honest. This is pretty bogus and basically applies to this one singular year where, kind of across the board, big 12 scheduling was down. Given that it hasn't really been that way (to this degree) year over year it's a trash argument (it's not like we're the SEC who has been doing this for YEARS and largely riding off the coattails of Saban). I'm also perplexed that the committee doesn't talk about the (positive) SOS bias that schools like Tennessee and especially Wisconsin receive and the relatively negative SOS bias (Noncon) of a school like Kansas. Seriously, take a look at Wiconsin's non-con and Kansas' and objectively tell me which is harder? Kansas played stiffer, elite competition yet Wisconsin's non-con is roughly 30 spots higher as the current formula hammers teams for playing extremely weak opponents. Even though top 50 teams are almost equally as likely to win such games at home (only the margin of victory is affected).

They can say what they want but the eye test, quality and location of wins, as well as advanced metrics largely back that up. I get being hammered for a soft non-con before conference starts and if the wins were only coming against teams in the same pool....those with soft non-cons and weak expectations, I'd get the gripe. But Iowa State has beat KU and Houston, has better (and more) road wins than most of it's peers, and has great metrics. Where's the gripe?

That's why SOS is meaningless without individually looking at schedules and assessing the merit of significant wins and losses. For every gripe about the Big 12 there should be as many if not more for an Alabama, who has one of the weakest collection of wins out of all the top 4 seeds. At least be consistent with the logic and how it's applied instead of simply being a whiner.

 

[ZRF]

It's dumb for a couple reasons. First, the Athletic guy basically talks about "racking up wins against each other" like there's some gentlemen's agreement that everybody's going to win a certain number of games. It's true, Big 12 teams don't have to schedule tough non-con to have a bunch of Q1 opportunities. But you still have to win some games and that's hard to do in the best conference.

Second, I still hate how there does not seem to be significant diminishing weight in terms of low SOS games. The idea that playing the 323rd SOS or 250th is probably any real practical difference is pretty dumb. For P6 teams, 99% of these 200+SOS games are going to be at home. Any team in tournament consideration is going to win all those games whether they are playing #200 or #340. It's like the opposite version of the old RPI system gaming where teams tried to schedule a bunch in that you should always win, but not so horrible that it craters your SOS range when there really was no tangible difference.

If it was like this year after year I'd buy into the argument. Last year the non-con wasn't weak and the Big 12 objectively performed better than the rest of basketball. It EARNED it's status and largely has the last 7 or so years.

I just hope these same folks are equally mortified when a team like Alabama gets lofty seeding despite only having wins again the Big 10 pretenders (Wisky and Illinois) and losing to everyone else. At some point don't you need to be some good teams outside of Tuscaloosa? But we already know the answer to that question.

 

[JRE1975]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but how can ESPN have South Carolina as a 7 seed when they are 55 in Kenpom and 57 in the Net rankings? I know they are ranked #20, but why are their metrics so poor compared to the way they are being treated?

This what confuses me about the different metrics.

 

[NoCreativity]

Banned, home dog.

Lol, for what? I usually get put in timeout becuase I tend to meltdown in game threads so I usually try to avoid them.

 

[CoachHines3]

well next year when were playing 20 league games we wont have to worry about non-conf SOS.

 

[CoachHines3]

Banned, home dog.

buncha softies around here

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Sign me up for that one. It would be a tough second game between either St Mary’s or Indiana State, but we get Omaha in first round, Tennessee as The 2 seed (favorable), Purdue as the 1 seed (favorable) and Detroit as the regional.

No thank you to Lunardi’s bracket. I want no part of Kentucky in the second round or the East region with UConn and UNC as the 1 and 2 seeds

That East bracket would be a rough path. Kentucky, UNC and Uconn?!?! That's brutal.

 

[ZRF]

Lol, for what? I usually get put in timeout becuase I tend to meltdown in game threads so I usually try to avoid them.

Honest opinion? For being "reported" by the 10 or so people who seem to dumb, hate, or vehemently respond to any post I have regardless of the content. Also, in all honesty, I'm personally attacked more than anyone on this board (and by a large margin). I'm not really crying about that in and of itself, but find it ludicrous people can vehemently attack me for something they don't agree with only to report me for (sometimes) responding to those attacks.

Why not just put me on ignore? Those are questions the posters nor the mods really want to address.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I agree we're probably more a 2 than a 3 at this point, but it's also kind of hard to argue when they (was that the selection committee - or was that CBS acting "official"?) did the release of the "official" top 16 seeds if the season were to end now, ISU was at a 3 and 11 overall. Granted, things change in a week, and us losing at Houston didn't hurt us at all and probably made us even more respectable, but still.

Weren't there rumors that seeding was done earlier in the week and our Cinci road game wasn't even factored in?

 

[SolterraCyclone]

I do. Sure, they have a lot of upside, but if you get the normal Kentucky team, our guys would smoke them

I think we’d win, but they take a lot of 3’s at a good percentage (over 38% last time I checked). That is our defense’s kryptonite. They do turn the ball over a lot which helps us. They play lousy half-court defense, but half-court offense isn’t our strong suit either.

They also have athletes (for whatever that is worth) and their fans travel well too. At least better than other 6-seed opponents which would put a little dent in our Omaha location advantage.

Overall, I think we’d win, cause we’d turn them over and score in transition. But there’s enough tough variables in there that I’d rather see an easier opponent in the Round of 32. If they were our S16 opponent then, yeah, I’d be thrilled

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but how can ESPN have South Carolina as a 7 seed when they are 55 in Kenpom and 57 in the Net rankings? I know they are ranked #20, but why are their metrics so poor compared to the way they are being treated?

This what confuses me about the different metrics.

What's hard to predict is how the committee will use NET. The first coupe of years it was damn near chalk but now I feel like it gets used differently for different teams.