• 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

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.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Tie goes the runner, so whoever scores the most points obviously.
 
Another question is do folks think metrics suck and don't give any real information at all, or just that the NCAA shouldn't be relying so heavily on predictive elements when selecting teams and instead should lean more on resume-based elements? Because I think these are two totally different things. The latter I find to be an interesting conversation, the former makes me wonder if kids these days take statistics courses anymore
 
I think I have heard Kenny Pom himself say the committee should look at resumes (wins and losses) more than his rankings.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Another question is do folks think metrics suck and don't give any real information at all, or just that the NCAA shouldn't be relying so heavily on predictive elements when selecting teams and instead should lean more on resume-based elements? Because I think these are two totally different things. The latter I find to be an interesting conversation, the former makes me wonder if kids these days take statistics courses anymore
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m much more interested in NCAA selection based on what a team has accomplished vs selection based on predictive elements.

Similar to CFP, I do not care if there were 6+ teams that would have outperformed TCU and were better teams in predictive models. TCU earned the right to be there.
 
I would not select the field by going down the kenpom rankings or any other similar ranking system. At the same time I would find it difficult to select one team over another if the various metrics consistently had that team 30-40 spots below the other, barring unusual circumstances.
 
KennyRogersRoast said:
I would not select the field by going down the kenpom rankings or any other similar ranking system. At the same time I would find it difficult to select one team over another if the various metrics consistently had that team 30-40 spots below the other, barring unusual circumstances.
Click to expand...
Yeah and from the conversations in how they put the NET together (got all these analytics guys to come in and sit down a few times with the NCAA folks), I suspect this was the aim for the NET. Again, I find this conversation far more fruitful than "metrics suck because they say Florida Atlantic is a top 35 team."
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I also would not select teams solely by KenPom, as his model does not care at all if you win or lose games.
Click to expand...
You don't see a problem with that? At a certain point we get a little too cute with selections and ignore this important part of atheltics.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
You don't see a problem with that? At a certain point we get a little too cute with selections and ignore this important part of atheltics.
Click to expand...
Well his model is predictive not resume based so no, if you're not picking the tournament at large teams solely by metric rankings (which the committee isn't), then I don't see the issue since winning close games hasn't proven to be predictive over the tens of thousands of data points that we have since advanced metrics have gone more live/mainstream.

But that's a whole different rabbit hole which I suspect will engender the same type of "debate" as to whether winning margin is predictive or not.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
You don't see a problem with that? At a certain point we get a little too cute with selections and ignore this important part of atheltics.
Click to expand...
Not at all, as his model is for predictive purposes, not picking a field of 68.

It literally takes offensive and defensive efficiencies from every game, slightly adjusts them based on who the other team is, and then spits out a final number.

Wins and losses don't matter to him because they don't impact offensive/defensive efficiencies at all. It's also shown fairly frequently that there is no "skill" to winning close games. It almost always balances out. The only way you avoid a fairly even split of wins and losses in close games is to not play close games. That's why teams who win games by 20 are better than teams who do not.
 
KennyRogersRoast said:
I am just bitter because last year we had the wins and the predictives. Yes we had a terrible non conference SOS, but that was baked into the metrics already.
Click to expand...
Another great point. Punishing a team for a bad OOC if they have solid adjusted metrics is definitely double counting.
 
What is the most number of ACC wins/highest ACC Win% a team has had and not made the NCAA tourney (since expansion)
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah and from the conversations in how they put the NET together (got all these analytics guys to come in and sit down a few times with the NCAA folks), I suspect this was the aim for the NET. Again, I find this conversation far more fruitful than "metrics suck because they say Florida Atlantic is a top 35 team."
Click to expand...

I think it's the same conversation. I can't speak for everyone bringing up the examples, but I'm pretty sure nobody here cares if Texas Tech would be favored over WF at a neutral site. They do care that Texas Tech was ahead in NET until last night (and is still ahead in KP), since NET Is the official NCAA selection analytics tool, and since TT has zero wins over the top 200 with the exception of home games vs. Eastern Washington and Louisiana Tech
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top