• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bracketology 2017

RJKarl said:
MTSU played VCU, Vandy, Ole Miss and UNC-W. They played two dregs of P5 conferences.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call those dregs. Every single one of these teams is either in the tournament or on the bubble (on the outer-most fringes in Ole Miss' case). Crushing Belmont at their place is impressive, as well.

They did play one D2 opponent which the committee accounts for to some degree, but they made a clear effort to schedule up in the non-con
 
Funny how he states that ratings already show nobody wants to watch Wake, Arkansas, etc, but then goes on a rant about mid majors like the world is tuning in to see them play. Yes people love the big upsets, but rarely are those watched until the final four minutes. He is dogging the likely play in game participants, but apparently believes the country would be tuning in on Wednesday night to watch Vermont play UT Arlington to get a 12 seed on the bracket. Silly shit.
 
I would love to see the ratings of Wake Forest vs. *insert middle of the road ACC team here* against even the Friday night primetime ratings of mid majors.
 
For what it's worth I have friends with no affiliation to Wake that have told me they love watching this team play (as opposed to say a successful, but slow/defensive team like UVA) so I don't know what that fool is talking about.
 
You know who really loves watching us play ? Fans of good teams at home in the last ten minutes.
 
CantStandYa said:
Some donk shits out this same exact article every year around this time, defaulting to references to Mason, VCU, etc.
Click to expand...

Which is funny when the most recent example of a bubble team making the Final Four is... boring old ACC member Syracuse just last fucking year.
 
Pilchard said:
G'town has wins over Oregon, Creighton and Butler (and Cuse and Marquette) under Reffs logic they should be in too.
Click to expand...

Pilch, we shall see in about 2 weeks time. But at this point there are a bunch of question marks. What is helping everybody stay in the game is that the selection committee has to put 68 teams in the NCAA tourney. There are 32 automatic berths--32 from conference tourney winners [even the Ivy has a 4 team tourney this year!] There are 36 at-large seeds coming. You also have the NCAA selection committee choosing the 32 team NIT bracket with regular season champs who didn't win their tourney and not receiving an NCAA bid automatically qualifying for this. Again if we lose out this week, we need to hope that a lot of regular season winners keep winning their tourney's so we can get in the NIT. Just saying that a 7-11 ACC record & 16-14 regular season record is cutting it close for even the NIT selection committee.

We will all see what logic prevails at the end when the committee decides won't we?
 
If we don't make the NCAA then we will be the favorite or the second favorite for the NIT title. I think we are safely in unless we lose our final three games.
 
TheReff said:
Again if we lose out this week, we need to hope that a lot of regular season winners keep winning their tourney's so we can get in the NIT. Just saying that a 7-11 ACC record & 16-14 regular season record is cutting it close for even the NIT selection committee.
Click to expand...

No. Wake is in the NIT. In the first NIT bracketology, Wake is a one seed.

We're either going to be one of the last teams into the NCAA or a top 2 seed in the NIT. I'd say the odds on NIT placement are heavily leaning towards a one seed. Depending on the NIT draw, we are likely the favorite to win it and certainly a top 3 choice.
 
Well the good news is we are on a list that implies we are getting in. The guy just pulled a.few bubble teams that most of the country know nothing about and clearly was not researching who would be exciting. We all know we are more likely to go down in a 91-90 game than almost any other team in the country.
 
Any team we play in the first couple of rounds is going to be shellshocked at how easily they're scoring and then confused as hell that they can't keep up.
 
Yup. Wake has played 16 ACC games and one team has scored 80 in 12 of them. Two others a team got to 79, and then there's Clemson here and Pitt here (73 and 63 respectively for the winning team).
 
Saw where Dancecard has Wake as the 7th team out and at a 0.02% resume percentile.

Win against UL would spike your resume percentile significantly.
 
DanceCard is a pretty useless tool. They haven't adjusted the RPI to the current version -- a change that took place 12 years ago -- so every team's is substantially different
 
Right now, we have played the toughest OOC schedule in the ACC by KP standards.

The two other teams that are very close are UNC and Louisville, teams that were certain to make the tournament. Most of the mid-tier types played lol bad schedules.

If a team like Georgia Tech, USC, or Cal gets in and we don't assuming we win at least 1 game against Louisville or VT, is it worth rethinking that method? I thought for sure it was a net positive, but maybe it's not if you are in a top conference.
 
wsc8521s said:
DanceCard is a pretty useless tool. They haven't adjusted the RPI to the current version -- a change that took place 12 years ago -- so every team's is substantially different
Click to expand...

While they do still use the older RPI formula (which I believe they have compared their formula with both the old/new RPI metrics and found that using the old formula was more accurate), one of its main purposes is to show how a team compares to the at-larges of the past 30 years, which is what I think makes it so interesting and a neat think to track. There is no bias with the percentile ranking, that is all based off of at-large teams of the past.
 
They're also using '09-13 data of who got selected to predict bids this year, which fails to account for teams that got bids based off good metrics -- a trend that has popped up in the last few years, and a position Wake finds itself in.

Perhaps not coincidentally they were wrong about Wichita and Vandy last year, and UCLA the year before, each of which had good metrics. And on the flip side, they had '14-15 Temple and '15-16 St. Bonaventure in the field, and they both missed, and they both had bad metrics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top