• 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

The Bracket Matrix participants are coalescing around:

Last 4 byes: USC, Utah State, Providence, Miss State
Last 4 in (Dayton): Rutgers, NC State, Arizona State, Pitt
First 4 out: Nevada, Ok State, Vanderbilt, Clemson - Vandy and Clemson are barely getting mentioned, in 10 and 3 of 110 brackets, respectively

side note: VCU just tipped off, and is playing for an autobid. They have a better NET rating than Pitt or Vandy, and beat them both.
 
So help me out here. Vandy won 20 games and finished 6th in the SEC. Clemson won 23 games and finished tied for 3rd in ACC. But neither is likely to make the tournament mostly based on games they lost over three months ago?
 
That Louisville loss wasn’t close. That was and should be nail in coffin. My opinion of course.
 
PhDeac said:
So help me out here. Vandy won 20 games and finished 6th in the SEC. Clemson won 23 games and finished tied for 3rd in ACC. But neither is likely to make the tournament mostly based on games they lost over three months ago?
Click to expand...

Great fucking system.
 
I mean when you compare their resumes to other bubble teams it's clear why they might not get in. All bubble resumes are pretty terrible in a vacuum. That's why they are on the bubble to begin with.
 
PhDeac said:
So help me out here. Vandy won 20 games and finished 6th in the SEC. Clemson won 23 games and finished tied for 3rd in ACC. But neither is likely to make the tournament mostly based on games they lost over three months ago?
Click to expand...
If I ruled the world, they’re like 40/41 and would get in. I struggle with the case for State over Clemson. But I don’t rule the world, so who knows…

The bad losses are one thing. Having a non-conference SOS in the 300s, if you’re a veteran squad expecting to be a tournament team, is just…exasperating. What are you doing? Have you learned literally nothing. And I blame them for that piece.
 
Haros said:
If I ruled the world, they’re like 40/41 and would get in. I struggle with the case for State over Clemson. But I don’t rule the world, so who knows…

The bad losses are one thing. Having a non-conference SOS in the 300s, if you’re a veteran squad expecting to be a tournament team, is just…exasperating. What are you doing? Have you learned literally nothing. And I blame them for that piece.
Click to expand...

Pomeroy says Clemson's Noncon SOS is #316, NC State is #306, Pitt is #261. I don't see any real daylight especially compared with NC State's.

Regarding Clemson's SOS, clearly they could have scheduled better. They also had some bad luck:

South Carolina is a rivalry game. They have been in KP's top 100 7 of the last 9 years, top 125 the other two years - #220 this year. WTF.
Richmond is not a terrible game to schedule. Top 100 KP 10 of the last 13 years, beat Iowa in the NCAAT last year - #155 this year. WTF.
Loyola, Chicago - again not a terrible game. I think Clemson thought they were gaming the system here. KP Top 100 4 of last 6 years, Sweet 16, Final Four - #253 this year. WTF.
Clemson's tournament - they played the same 4-team tournament WF did last year. Lost to Iowa by 3. Had they won, they would have played TCU - a Q1 opportunity. Instead they got Cal, a low Q4. WTF.

Of course Clemson compounded the issue by losing two of those games.

Highlights that when WF plays its tournament in Grand Cayman next year, it needs to win the first two games (and hope a decent team wins two on the other side of the bracket)
 
Last edited:
From the women’s side NET #19 Oregon was left out. 0-8 Q1 record.
 
Right. But there should be some standard teams should feel like if they meet they’re in.

And it was 0-8 vs the NET Top 25. They’re 3-14 Q1, 17-14 overall.
 
PhDeac said:
From the women’s side NET #19 Oregon was left out. 0-8 Q1 record.
Click to expand...
So exactly how do you get to #19 in Net if the Q1 record is part of the analysis/ranking? Or is it not for that metric?
 
Seeya said:
So exactly how do you get to #19 in Net if the Q1 record is part of the analysis/ranking? Or is it not for that metric?
Click to expand...
If you lose a bunch of close games to very good teams you will have a good rating in the metrics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top