• 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!

2023-2024 NCAA Men's Basketball Thread

myDeaconmyhand said:
Why wouldn’t they play without him?
Click to expand...
Can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, but Pitt is like 1-8 against non-trash teams when Hinson scores 15 or less. Without Hinson there's probably not a team in the NIT field Pitt could beat. Borderline 2nd rounder and he's old, just no point in him playing the NIT. Without him I could see other guys opting out.

I'm all for them selling it as a fuck-the-selection-committee stand though.

16 teams outside Kenpom top #100 in the tourney this year. Still say instead of expansion they should all play-in for the 8 16/15 spots. UVA may not have "deserved" a bid but they sure as hell shouldn't have to be in a play-in before #218 Stetson.
 
That disrupts the whole reward structure of college hoops. You win your conference, you used to make the round of 64. Then they forced four of those teams into a play-in. If you’re one of the best teams in the nation, you get to play one of those teams outside the top 100.
 
PhDeac said:
That disrupts the whole reward structure of college hoops. You win your conference, you used to make the round of 64. Then they forced four of those teams into a play-in. If you’re one of the best teams in the nation, you get to play one of those teams outside the top 100.
Click to expand...
Eh, if you didn't get a 1/2 seed I'm not sure how entitled you are to a cakewalk first round game.
 
FWIW Pitino says the NET and KenPom are fraudulent.

Providence coach says the metrics are "BS" and he believes the way to go is to schedule bad teams and beat them by 50-60 points. In his words, not part of the "gentlemen's agreement" which used to be, once you are up by x points with y to play, you put in your backups and walk-ons. Not anymore.

That needs to change.
 
Complacent Deac said:
FWIW Pitino says the NET and KenPom are fraudulent.

Providence coach says the metrics are "BS" and he believes the way to go is to schedule bad teams and beat them by 50-60 points. In his words, not part of the "gentlemen's agreement" which used to be, once you are up by x points with y to play, you put in your backups and walk-ons. Not anymore.

That needs to change.
Click to expand...
Kind of hypocritical for Pitino as KP rates St. Johns as #25, the higest rated team to not receive an NCAA bid. If the committee had just seeded based on KP, not only would St. John's made the NCAA, they would be a #7 seed. The committee ignored KP when it kept the Johnnies out.
 
I'm not sure what the point of NET is, unless the committee gives an exact definition of how it is used to evaluate teams. Just saying "it's part of the consideration" means nothing. Then its just horsetrading like it's always been and it can be used to justify any decision.

But it helps seed NIT, so there's that.
 
Pilchard said:
Kind of hypocritical for Pitino as KP rates St. Johns as #25, the higest rated team to not receive an NCAA bid. If the committee had just seeded based on KP, not only would St. John's made the NCAA, they would be a #7 seed. The committee ignored KP when it kept the Johnnies out.
Click to expand...
Right, he should actually be their biggest defenders. His comment gave the impression of "KenPom, whoever he is" - you mean the guy who sees your team more accurately than the committee, is that the guy you're referring to?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Putting tournament winners in the first four is pretty fucked - you are either auto-qualified or you aren’t. The play-in isn’t the first round of the tournament.
Click to expand...
The only advantage is it gives a lot of these schools the chance to notch their "first-ever NCAA Tournament win." But then, did you really? I agree that all play-ins should the last at-larges to make it.
 
Pilchard said:
Kind of hypocritical for Pitino as KP rates St. Johns as #25, the higest rated team to not receive an NCAA bid. If the committee had just seeded based on KP, not only would St. John's made the NCAA, they would be a #7 seed. The committee ignored KP when it kept the Johnnies out.
Click to expand...
I think he’s saying it’s fraudulent because it doesn’t determine or predict who makes the tournament.
 
Isn't Pitino's point - If the analytics mattered that much in determining bids, they would have easily been in the field?
 
Definitely sad when coaches have to track live efficiency numbers during blowouts to figure out whether they can put in a walk-on or not...

As for conference winner play-ins, they already have 4. I don't understand why good teams are blasted for not playing a tough enough OOC schedule while teams not even close to the top 100 due to a weak conference aren't expected to do the same. Stetson lost by 30+ to Houston and I don't think they played anyone else top 60. They played 6 Quad 1-3 games total and 25 Quad 4's. They lost 8 games to 250 or worse teams. And the argument is they deserve to make the field of 64 without a play-in instead of UVA? Or they belong in the field more than Pitt?

Yeah no thanks to that. I understand we'll never get to a "actual best 64 teams" scenario, but if we're going to put 6 Mountain West metrics darling teams in there has to be some give elsewhere.
 
They won their conference. That’s what matters. Wake could join a one bid conference and try to get that auto bid every year and not worry about metrics. Stetson could schedule a bunch of road major conference games and try to get Q1 wins.
 
DCDeac said:
Definitely sad when coaches have to track live efficiency numbers during blowouts to figure out whether they can put in a walk-on or not...

As for conference winner play-ins, they already have 4. I don't understand why good teams are blasted for not playing a tough enough OOC schedule while teams not even close to the top 100 due to a weak conference aren't expected to do the same. Stetson lost by 30+ to Houston and I don't think they played anyone else top 60. They played 6 Quad 1-3 games total and 25 Quad 4's. They lost 8 games to 250 or worse teams. And the argument is they deserve to make the field of 64 without a play-in instead of UVA? Or they belong in the field more than Pitt?

Yeah no thanks to that. I understand we'll never get to a "actual best 64 teams" scenario, but if we're going to put 6 Mountain West metrics darling teams in there has to be some give elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Thats a perfectly reasonable opinion to have about a field of at-large invites. It fails the definition of “automatic qualifier” to not fully qualify. So either you redefine the terms for conference tournament winner auto qualification, or you officially expand the tournament and get rid of this stupid play in bullshit.
 
PhDeac said:
They won their conference. That’s what matters. Wake could join a one bid conference and try to get that auto bid every year and not worry about metrics. Stetson could schedule a bunch of road major conference games and try to get Q1 wins.
Click to expand...
Who cares?

The NCAA already recognized the 4 crappiest conference winners don't deserve to be there. There's talk of expanding the tournament.

You either belong or you don't. Some folks like participation awards, good for them. I'd like the strongest field possible. Or at least a field where 25% of the field isn't outside the best 100 teams.
 
So you’re arguing that teams that won an actual trophy for winning their conference get the participation trophy?
 
I think individually judging the strength of each conference champion is besides the point - the definition of auto qualifying is pretty straight forward. If the rules for tournament selection stop working then you have to change the rules, not just bend or ignore them out of convenience. That leads to chaos IMO
 
DCDeac said:
Who cares?

The NCAA already recognized the 4 crappiest conference winners don't deserve to be there. There's talk of expanding the tournament.

You either belong or you don't. Some folks like participation awards, good for them. I'd like the strongest field possible. Or at least a field where 25% of the field isn't outside the best 100 teams.
Click to expand...
I just don't get that argument at all. So, you don't want 2022 St. Peter's in the tournament or 2023 Farleigh Dickinson in the tournament? Their wins in the last two tournaments created the drama that made the NCAAT compelling.

As it is, there are 36 at large bids; so, a team essentially has to be top 40 to get an at large bid if they don't win the conference. I love WF basketball, but WF didn't deserve a bid this year. After being poised to get into the tournament, WF fell part the last three weeks of the season going 2-4 (being favored in every game). The NCAAT is not diminished at all by WF not getting a bid.

Oklahoma was the "first team out". They finished the year 2-6, and one of those two wins was in OT over a horrible OK State team. OU finished tied for 9th in the Big 12. They had every chance to play their way into the NCAAT, but TCU lead OU from start to finish in the Big 12 Tournament. Except for the few ardent OU basketball fans, no one is going to miss the 9th place Big 12 Sooners this week,

Power conference teams have every chance to play their way into the NCAAT; those that don't make it have no reason to blame the handful of smaller conference schools hat actually had to win a conference tournament to get into the dance. The best way to destroy the element that makes the NCAAT special and uniqure is to make it a 64 team playoff with just power conference teams. Do you really think a first round game between Utah and tOSU, instead of McNeese v. Gonzaga would make the NCAAT better?
 
Hey Pilch, what are some of your NCAA bracket winners and sleepers? Of course other than JMU getting to the elite 8. All the experts seem to be down on Houston, but I think they cruise to a tough elite 8 game against Kentucky. I like that UConn got maybe the toughest 2 and 4 seeds in Iowa St and Auburn, but the talking heads still like them to win it all. I'm in the Purdon't category but really don't like any other team in their region other than Tennessee. I'm liking Baylor in UNC's region. In terms of double digit seeds, I like Drake, GCU and Oregon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top