• 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!

Consolidated Bracketology Thread 3/12/23 updates

Wakeforest22890 said:
Clemson now Q3 win at home. Sad
Click to expand...
And Wisconsin back to Q2 after they blew a double digit lead at Nebraska yesterday. Not great.

The silver lining with both of those teams dropping is that maybe we can get to the point where we just pass them for bids even if beating them doesn’t count as a big win.
 
deaconson said:
No credit for being the beginning of their demise.
Click to expand...
Does "how you're playing now" not count? They used to reward teams who were hot at the end of the year because they peaked at the right time.

If Clemson was a top 20 team when we beat them, shouldn't that be a point in time accomplishment, not minimized because how they ended up?
 
bym051d said:
Does "how you're playing now" not count? They used to reward teams who were hot at the end of the year because they peaked at the right time.

If Clemson was a top 20 team when we beat them, shouldn't that be a point in time accomplishment, not minimized because how they ended up?
Click to expand...
All the games are rated equally in the system. Maybe the committee gives more credit to teams coming on strong at the end of the year but they decided not to have more recent games count more for the NET analysis. So you don't really get "point in time accomplishments" since we look back at the win relative to how the team performed over the entire season (so if you beat a 10-0 team that was ranked 10th in the country and subsequently finish 10-20, you get credit for beating a 10-20 team not a top 10 10-0 team)
 
I really hate these Quad metrics and that they are not static or based off of how well a team was actually playing at a given point in a season. When did Quad metrics become the standard?
 
Do bracketologists take into account teams that are likely to win the conference? College of Charleston keeps getting listed as a bubble team, but that obviously has to be referencing the case in which they do not win the CAA and get an auto-bid.

For them to be a bubble team means they lose a CAA tournament game, which should cause a drop in their metrics/rating. Are bracketologists accounting for that drop when they place them within the bubble teams? If not, I'd assume teams like that need to be well clear of the bubble during conference tournament time in order to get an at-large bid.
 
deacon14 said:
Do bracketologists take into account teams that are likely to win the conference? College of Charleston keeps getting listed as a bubble team, but that obviously has to be referencing the case in which they do not win the CAA and get an auto-bid.

For them to be a bubble team means they lose a CAA tournament game, which should cause a drop in their metrics/rating. Are bracketologists accounting for that drop when they place them within the bubble teams? If not, I'd assume teams like that need to be well clear of the bubble during conference tournament time in order to get an at-large bid.
Click to expand...
The current prevailing wisdom has CoC in as a 12 seed. The lowest at-large entrants are 11 seeds.

So the current wisdom is, CoC must win the conference tournament to get in and would be on the wrong side of the bubble if they don’t. Obviously things can change over the next 4 weeks.

 
Wakeforest22890 said:
All the games are rated equally in the system. Maybe the committee gives more credit to teams coming on strong at the end of the year but they decided not to have more recent games count more for the NET analysis. So you don't really get "point in time accomplishments" since we look back at the win relative to how the team performed over the entire season (so if you beat a 10-0 team that was ranked 10th in the country and subsequently finish 10-20, you get credit for beating a 10-20 team not a top 10 10-0 team)
Click to expand...

Games are not rated equally in the system if where an opponent ranks now superceded where the opponent was ranked when a team played them.
 
thatguy2016 said:
The current prevailing wisdom has CoC in as a 12 seed. The lowest at-large entrants are 11 seeds.

So the current wisdom is, CoC must win the conference tournament to get in and would be on the wrong side of the bubble if they don’t. Obviously things can change over the next 4 weeks.

Click to expand...
I understand where CofC is currently, that wasn't really my question.

When teams from weak conferences are considered within a discussion of the bubble, the obvious underlying assumption is that they did not win their conference. So, if we are going to talk about them in regard to the at-large bubble, do people view it through the lens of them having an additional loss, likely to a non-NCAAT at-large quality team?
 
If they lose on the conference tournament, then yes, the committee will take that loss into consideration when deciding whether they deserve an at-large bid.

Right now, today, people are probably looking at their record today, the same way people are looking at WF’s record today, without considering WF losing to somebody (maybe a quad 4 team, maybe a Quad 1) in the ACC tournament.
 
I assume mid-major teams get listed as at-large if they are projected to be an 11 seed or higher.
 
PhDeac said:
I assume mid-major teams get listed as at-large if they are projected to be an 11 seed or higher.
Click to expand...
This is my whole point. It's silly to list mid-majors on the 11 seed line as at-large, knowing that they will almost certainly have taken a bad loss in order to be in the at-large conversation and out of the auto-bid conversation.

What I'm suggesting is more speculative than just using today's resume to evaluate bubble teams. But I think it would be informative to be able to say: "This team is currently worthy of an 11 seed based on their resume, but if they are in the at-large conversation they took a loss that likely makes bumps them down significantly. Therefore we are not projecting them as a team capable of having an at-large bid without further clearance from the at-large bubble."

As the proxy example for this year, CofC is currently 24-3. A loss would affect their metrics a lot, almost regardless of which CAA team they lose to. Come conference tournament time if they are sitting on a projected 10/11 seed it will look as they they are competing for an at-large bid, but in reality a loss would very likely knock them entirely out of the conversation for an at-large bid.

And yeah, I understand it's possible for P5 teams to have bad losses in their conference tournaments as well (see WFU 2022), but it's a lot less likely considering the majority of P5 conference tournaments are filled with good teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top