• 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

Pilchard said:
Doesn't matter because they aren't seeding the tournament this week, WF was projected "in" for all of February last year, and where did that get us?

Just keep winning games.
Click to expand...
I think this is right save the concern is to must folks looking at many of the teams ahead of us the rankings make no fucking sense.
 
Haros said:
They aren’t 40 spots apart is the answer.

#36 is a 9-seed.
Last team in is #46 (12 seed)
Then Lunardi gives all the lower Auto Bids spots 47-68 (so he can hype up 68 team brackets).


Wake 8 teams out puts us around #54-55 on a normal system.

And then I’d guess a fresh side by side vs Pitt closes that gap in both directions.
Click to expand...
Thanks Haros didn't catch that!
 
If we kept it to a 10 point loss to Rutgers and Clemson, where would we be at?
 
PaddyWF said:
If we kept it to a 10 point loss to Rutgers and Clemson, where would we be at?
Click to expand...

24 points, assuming 70 possessions per game for each of 19 games:

roughly 1.8 better efficiency per 100 possessions, 10 places higher in KP, about even with Texas Tech

also Clemson would fall and be roughly equal to us
 
This time last year we were 57th in KP. At that point we were 14-4 with 8 Quad 4 wins and 1 Quad 1 win. We beat Q4 Oregon State by 3 in OT, Q4 Charlotte by 3, and Q4 VMI by 7 but also had 8 double digit wins, including one on the road at Q1 Virginia Tech (our only Q1 win of the entire year). This balanced out, with four losses by a total of 38 points, to move us up from 105 to start the year.

Over the next week we beat Tech on the road, then UNC and BC at home all by double digits and a combined 68 points a game to jump from 57 to 31 before losing to Syracuse by 22 on the road. Entered the ACCT at 33 and missed the tournament with a 23-9 record.

So plenty of time left for sure.
 
deacon14 said:
Another question I had is: Are the number of Q1/Q2 etc teams in an individual conference fairly set once conference play starts? Because for every team that rises in the rankings in conference play, other teams in the conference have to be falling.
Click to expand...
Yes and that is why the metrics are shit and don't work. Nonconference sets the amount of bids each conference gets. It doesn't account for improvement by teams.
 
I do not think the metrics are the end-all be all (despite my defense of them on here). They are flawed and made by imperfect beings.

That being said, for those who think they are "shit and don't work", how would you go about selecting the NCAA Tournament field?

What would you use, what wouldn't you use? Why/why not?

It's easy to criticize what is being used/done, but it's more difficult to provide your own thoughts on how YOU personally would select the field on Selection Sunday.

For instance, how would you compare Boise State's resume to West Virginia's resume if they were the final two teams up for one spot?
 
last year we got stung with Q1 wins because

UVA fell to something like #77, #75 is a Q1 win, but we didn't get credit
UNC fell to something like #34, #30 is a Q1 win, but we didn't get credit

so a sliding scale would be an improvement there
 
Probably just think about "who would win if Boise State played West Virginia" then definitively state that West Virginia would win because they're in the Big 12 and Boise State isn't. But counterpoint, Boise State has 14 wins to West Virginia's 10 so that makes it closer.
 
thatguy2016 said:
last year we got stung with Q1 wins because

UVA fell to something like #77, #75 is a Q1 win, but we didn't get credit
UNC fell to something like #34, #30 is a Q1 win, but we didn't get credit

so a sliding scale would be an improvement there
Click to expand...
Biggest criticism I have with the NET is how the committee uses the NET to create the quadrants. It's a binary system on the fringes which is super weird. If you beat the 29th best team it's Q1 and you get credit just like if you beat the top team in the country but if you beat the 31st best team it's Q2 and you get credit the same as the 75th best team. We need octants.

I get using this as a proxy for making sheets, but the quadrant system is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top