• 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

At least by finishing out of the cellar we get to face one of the Big 10s stable of stud squads in the challenge. It's gonna be Iowa right?
 
PhDeac said:
So the lesson is to schedule tougher games to give your team more of a chance to pull off that high profile upset. That's a better deal for fans. It's better to get 19 wins against a tough schedule than 23 wins against a weak schedule.
Click to expand...

The problem is that this team would have lost those games in November/ December.
 
2022-2023 opponents

Some preseason tournament
ACC/B10 Challenge - Rutgers?
@Xavier (Skip Prosser classic returns? doesn't look like we completed the second-leg of what is supposed to be 2 years on, 2 years off. Last matchup was home in Mannequin's final season)
Need to fill 7 games. Local mid-majors from A10 or SOCON. National mid-majors from AAC or WCC. A B12 or SEC team. A (not terrible) local team or two.

The current 3-year run of the unbalanced ACC schedule is over. Are they just going to run it back? If so:
Duke, @Duke
State, @State
BC, @BC
Clemson, @Clemson
UNC, @UNC
ND, @ND
FSU, GT, UVA, VT
@Louisville, @Miami, @Cuse, @Pitt

Already, that looks like a much tougher schedule.
 
DeacLaw05 said:
But it wouldn’t have mattered. Michigan lost all of those games, went .500 in conference, and waltzed in.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Losing to good teams is better than beating bad teams.
 
Someone posted about this earlier if POY/COY combo had ever missed NCAAT.

 
PaddyWF said:
Someone posted about this earlier if POY/COY combo had ever missed NCAAT.

Click to expand...

In the 64+ team era, the worst any team did in this situation was a 4 seed-1987 Clemson (Horace Grant and Cliff Ellis) and 2010 Maryland (Greivis Vazquez and Gary Williams).
 
Last edited:
buckets said:
why the hell is rutgers in the tournament
Click to expand...

Losing to bad, even awful, teams doesn't matter as long as you are in a "strong" conference and win enough games there.

The lesson seems to be
1) you have to have strong occ, strong conference or both.
2) You don't even have to win all that much, if you satisfy 1.
3) Great losses are significantly better than bad wins.
4) A few bad-to-awful losses are acceptable if 1 is in order
 
I get what our blemishes are, but when, not just us, but the experts had us pretty much in and they we are 5th team out. There was plenty to say Wake doesn't make it because ....

If our OOC SOS was it then look at

Rutgers 355 18-13, 12-8 in conf, 4-9 on the road
Iowa St 328 20-12 7-11 in conf, 4-6 on the road
Indiana 321 20-13, 9-11 in conf 3-8 on the road
Wake 351 23-9, 13-7 in conf, 5-5 on the road

I think what the NCAA has learned over the years is that having one metric they use paints them into a corner (i.e. RPI), so now they 'consider' lots of metrics, NET, KP, Quad wins, road wins, SOS, this allows them to justify whatever the decide.

My main issue with the results is that it was surprising how far off we were. Maybe Forbes knew this but my sense was he thought beating BC would have had us in the field.

We are the Swiss.
 
We exceeded expectations all season until the BC game. It is borderline criminal that all three of Rutgers, Indiana and Michigan got into the tournament. However, even if they had done what was right, the Deacs would not have been the team that snuck in. It would have been someone else, after the BC fiasco. Let's appreciate the fact that we are still playing in March. I'd love to win the NIT, and springboard it to a great year next year!
 
Bad non-conference schedules and lack of quality wins have and will always be reasons for getting punished by the committee, so we hit quite the double whammy there.

We absolutely need the ACC to improve. It's something I've posted about before -- in basketball particularly we shouldn't look at our conference mates as much as our competitors as their success very much helps us out. The phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" is perhaps never truer than in CBB -- being able to pluck quality wins off of each other based on work done by the conference in Nov/Dec is the surest way to mutually benefit and get a ton of teams into the tournament.

The ACC was great in 2016-17, we finished in 10th place (and scheduled up in the non-con), and danced. It was bad this year, we finished fifth, and we did not and apparently did not come all that close
 
Last edited:
Also, let's all remember to not assume we're in if/when Jay Bilas says we're "definitely in" in the future
 
wsc8521s said:
Bad non-conference schedules and lack of quality wins have and will always be reasons for getting punished by the committee, so we hit quite the double whammy there.

We absolutely need the ACC to improve. It's something I've posted about before -- in basketball particularly we shouldn't look at our conference mates as much as our competitors as their success very much helps us out. The phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats" is perhaps never truer than in CBB -- being able to pluck quality wins off of each other based on work done by the conference in Nov/Dec is the surest way to mutually benefit and get a ton of teams into the tournament.

The ACC was great in 2016-17, we finished in 10th place (and scheduled up in the non-con), and danced. It was bad this year, we finished fifth, and we did not and apparently did not come all that close
Click to expand...

Yep. Root for ACC teams out of conference.
 
Deac83 said:
Lunardi seems ticked. Had Wyoming in and Texas A&M out.

His last 12-16 teams was crap when you add seeding in.

Ironically he dropped Wake to 5th team out.
Click to expand...

And, magically, we are a 2 seed in NIT.
 
Deac83 said:
I get what our blemishes are, but when, not just us, but the experts had us pretty much in and they we are 5th team out. There was plenty to say Wake doesn't make it because ....

If our OOC SOS was it then look at

Rutgers 355 18-13, 12-8 in conf, 4-9 on the road
Iowa St 328 20-12 7-11 in conf, 4-6 on the road
Indiana 321 20-13, 9-11 in conf 3-8 on the road
Wake 351 23-9, 13-7 in conf, 5-5 on the road

I think what the NCAA has learned over the years is that having one metric they use paints them into a corner (i.e. RPI), so now they 'consider' lots of metrics, NET, KP, Quad wins, road wins, SOS, this allows them to justify whatever the decide.

My main issue with the results is that it was surprising how far off we were. Maybe Forbes knew this but my sense was he thought beating BC would have had us in the field.

We are the Swiss.
Click to expand...

Look how many Q1 wins those teams had though. I think Iowa State had 9. We had 1.
 
Agree with most of the commentary - committee is obsessed with “marquee” wins. Let’s say Monsanto’s prayer went in and was before the buzzer in Durham. I bet we’re a 8/9 seed just on that alone. If you take away the Duke win, is UNCs profile really better than ours?
 
Looking at the Bracket Matrix consensus from Friday morning (first post of this thread), it was pretty accurate:

Consensus Last 4 Byes:
Michigan - season over; lost to IU
Miami - plays Duke tonight
Notre Dame - season over; lost to VT
Wyoming - plays tonight MWC semis vs. Boise (other 3 semifinalists in MWC are by consensus in)

Consensus Dayton-Bound:
Wake Forest
Xavier - season over; lost to Butler
Rutgers - B1G quarters 2:00 vs. Iowa
SMU - AAC quarters 7:00 vs. Tulsa

Next 6, in no particular order:
VCU - A10 quarters, Richmond, 8:30
Indiana - vs. Illinois, B1G quarters, now
VT - ACC semis, UNC, tonight
Texas A&M - vs. Auburn, SEC quarters, now
Dayton - A10 quarters, UMass, 6:00 pm
Oklahoma - Big XII semis, Texas Tech, 9:30

BracketMatrix last 4 byes as of Friday am all hung on.

Three of the teams slated for Dayton according to consensus had their bids taken by VT (earned an autobid), Indiana (moved into Dayton), and Richmond (earned an autobid). The only movement that wasn't "earned", so to speak, was Rutgers jumping WF despite losing.
 
Last edited:
No way of knowing but beat 2 of three down the stretch, Miami at home, Clemson away, BC in tournament (or 1st opponent) and we probably were in. Looking horrible against BC got us no style points. It was in our hands to get in. Great turn around for us but no tourney could have been that much better. And our schedule was what we needed- so very weak. Time to dump that if we want to be taken seriously. Still have to concentrate on the positive. Most did not think we would be here now. Let's get better.
 
Moral of the story, bubble teams can't fail to make the quarterfinals of their conference tournament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top