• 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

Vegas sets the initial line based on what they believe (based mostly on metrics) the final will be. That’s…..obviously how they aim to “get money on both sides”
 
The RPI is absolutely awful BTW. Using that as any evidence of ranking is silly. It included no margin of victory component and rewarded teams just for playing good teams even if they got blown out (since the bulk of the formula was based on SOS)
 
I think DeacMan should focus on SOR or KPI because they try to measure what he seems to be looking for from a W/L perspective. They are also the main metrics used by the committee to evaluate resumes. NET/KP/Torvik aren’t trying to serve that purpose and don’t.
 
Temple beats #1 Houston. Is there a better time to expand the Tournament to 90 teams?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Very opposed to expanding the tourney. Love basketball and I’m sure it would still be fun but that’s overkill.
Click to expand...
It’s almost guaranteed to happen. The NCAA wants 25% of all sports that have over 200 schools playing in the postseason.
 
deacdixieboy said:
It’s almost guaranteed to happen. The NCAA wants 25% of all sports that have over 200 schools playing in the postseason.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a given in basketball. There would be too much outrage. Though again, American sports fans don't seem to understand the role we can have in preventing change we don't want, and we roll over for the corporations to do whatever they want to maximize revenue even if it's against our or the players' best wishes. Would be interesting to see if the NCAA would directly make a decision to prioritize the health of the sport over money. So far, the individual conferences and the companies involved (Disney, FOX) have shown they value money far more than the health of the sport and its student-athletes.
 
NJDeac’22 said:
I don't think it's a given in basketball. There would be too much outrage. Though again, American sports fans don't seem to understand the role we can have in preventing change we don't want, and we roll over for the corporations to do whatever they want to maximize revenue even if it's against our or the players' best wishes. Would be interesting to see if the NCAA would directly make a decision to prioritize the health of the sport over money. So far, the individual conferences and the companies involved (Disney, FOX) have shown they value money far more than the health of the sport and its student-athletes.
Click to expand...
I heard Phillips on K’s XM show last week. It certainly sounds like a guarantee.
 
It seems like people are assuming an expanded NCAA Tournament means more at-large bids. Isn’t it also possible it would just mean adding the current NIT to the current NCAAT field? Regular season champs would get an autobid.
 
As of Sunday night 1/22 the Bracket Matrix and Torvik still have 7 ACC teams in, with WF and VT on the wrong side of the bubble. Torvik likes VT’s chances better than WF as of now. Details on first post.
 
Just win every freaking game and the rest will take care of itself. And hopefully future scheduling will better benefit wake
 
thatguy2016 said:
As of Sunday night 1/22 the Bracket Matrix and Torvik still have 7 ACC teams in, with WF and VT on the wrong side of the bubble. Torvik likes VT’s chances better than WF as of now. Details on first post.
Click to expand...
If 7 teams from the ACC go, I feel very confident that Wake will be in the top 7 by the end of the season.
 
The NCAAT probably doesn’t exist as we know it in the next 20 years. The two big tv contracts will be the death of it.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The RPI is absolutely awful BTW. Using that as any evidence of ranking is silly. It included no margin of victory component and rewarded teams just for playing good teams even if they got blown out (since the bulk of the formula was based on SOS)
Click to expand...
And yet it is still a vastly better measure than NET. NET is like giving people an award just for trying really, really hard. Not only that it doesn't care what time of year the game was played. It all counts the same. Outcomes matter.
 
1) NET is a sorting tool used primarily for seeding purposes by the committee, not so much for selection.
2) Anyone who lauds the virtues of RPI over anything other than casting runes has surrendered all credibility they might have on the subject.
3) Any singular ranking of college basketball teams is going to be full of contradictions and rife for argument. So, please, post your personal rankings so they can be torn apart, too. If folks want to focus their criticisms on the flawed abstraction of Quads and how reliant the committee is on them, then go ahead.
 
I know thatguy2016 updated the front page with the Bracket Matrix, but I just checked in on it for the first time in a while.

As he mentioned, we are the 4th team out, ahead of us is: Kentucky, Penn State, and Nevada.

Teams in the field right now as the last four in are: Memphis, WVU, Oklahoma, and Northwestern. Pitt is one above that.

A good rooting guide here. Starting to get into "pull hard against all these teams" territory as we close in on a month left in the season.

Wednesday night is really big for us.

For all the consternation about teams like Oklahoma and West Virginia and where they model currently, last year, nobody with a worse conference record than 8-10 (TCU) and Indiana (9-11) got into the Big Dance. Wins still count for a lot with the committee, and these teams need to put in work to get into the bracket. Oklahoma is 2-5 in Big 12 play, and WVU is 1-6. They are projected to go 7-11 and 6-12 respectively in the league. That's not going to get them into the tournament.
 
I plan to update the first post of the thread every Sunday night between now and Selection Sunday, 7 weeks from yesterday, keeping each week's results in there. It is interesting to me to track where the consensus forecast is and has been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top