• 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

DeacsATS said:
Exactly. Throw in all the flops against the Deacs and it’s weird. I’ve always thought of him as a tough, bruising big (with skills).
Click to expand...
It all made sense when they explained PJ Hall's dad was a long time college hoops ref.
 
Great that WF won but pretty bad results on the bubble. Cincinnati picking up a cheap win against Kansas too.
 
Clemson fell to 35 but we moved up to 36. Which actually makes it look pretty stupid that they’re a lock and we’re on the bubble, especially after we beat them recently in our only matchup and considering we’ll probably be ahead of them with a win today.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Clemson fell to 35 but we moved up to 36. Which actually makes it look pretty stupid that they’re a lock and we’re on the bubble, especially after we beat them recently in our only matchup and considering we’ll probably be ahead of them with a win today.
Click to expand...

MASSIVE difference between 35 and 29 OBVIOUSLY. It’s a whole QUAD away !!!

What a neat system that impacts the livelihoods of coaches and the careers of players.
 
daaberry said:
It is silly to say the least. Wake is KP 23; Pitt 46 and he predicts WF by 2 points. So if two points is all that separates 23 & 46… splitting hairs from 30-35 is fractions of one point.
Click to expand...
100%

The spread between KP #34 and #39 over the course of the season right now is 6 points. For the season.
 
The committee has access to the actual rankings (with point values)... I don't think they'll look at the arbitrary cut-off of #30 if there is a huge grouping of teams from like #25-35. They aren't complete morons.
 
DeacsATS said:
The committee has access to the actual rankings (with point values)... I don't think they'll look at the arbitrary cut-off of #30 if there is a huge grouping of teams from like #25-35. They aren't complete morons.
Click to expand...

you-sure-about-that-i-think-you-should-leave-with-tim-robinson.gif
 
DeacsATS said:
The committee has access to the actual rankings (with point values)... I don't think they'll look at the arbitrary cut-off of #30 if there is a huge grouping of teams from like #25-35. They aren't complete morons.
Click to expand...
They might be. They're also human. Will they take a team like Indiana State that is 27th in the NET rankings and realize that ranking is built on only three Top 100 wins? Will they leave out that team (which they should) even though it would mean they're the highest ranked NET team, by 10 spots, to miss the tournament if they do? Will you have someone on the committee bitching about how these small conference teams don't get the same opportunities as Power 6 conference teams? Unfortunately, we don't know what they'll do until after the decision is made.
 
DeacsATS said:
The committee has access to the actual rankings (with point values)... I don't think they'll look at the arbitrary cut-off of #30 if there is a huge grouping of teams from like #25-35. They aren't complete morons.
Click to expand...
Right. And when they seed Clemson and Florida (and maybe even UVA) and then move to a discussion of Wake, they'll at least recognize that we beat those teams.

While I'm on the subject of UVA, someone please explain why they are seen as a tournament team while we're on the bubble. The NCAA created the NET, right? It's their tool. UVA is 52 and Wake is 36. The Committee considers Kenpom too. UVA is 68 and Wake is 23. UVA had a better ACC record, but we lost a close game in Charlottesville and blew them out in WS. Plus, UVA played Duke and UNC once and lost both games, while we actually beat one of the top 2 teams in the conference. How can the metrics be used to justify bids to some programs while selectively ignored to put UVA in over Wake?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top