NCAA Basketball 24-25

[brian]

I don’t care what the O/U is on SEC wins in the tournament. Give me the under.

[Rush2112]

I always enjoy selection Sunday!

Glad to see UNC have to play in the first 4, but it should be all the 3rd or whatever teams from a conference. If you have an auto matrix big you should be in the big dance .

[Giff]

It feels to me that since the SEC had an underwhelming football season that the media decided they were going to go over the top for them being good in basketball. 14 teams is a joke.

[brian]

If you (the royal you) thinks the 14th best team in the SEC is better than the second best team in the Missouri Valley Conference then you are an idiot.

[sancarlos]

If you (the royal you) thinks the 14th best team in the SEC is better than the second best team in the Missouri Valley Conference then you are an idiot.

And, even if they are “better”, they aren’t more deserving.

[A_B]

If you (the royal you) thinks the 14th best team in the SEC is better than the second best team in the Missouri Valley Conference then you are an idiot.

And, even if they are “better”, they aren’t more deserving.

9 trillón percent agree and I’d like to think I’d feel the same if it was my team that got the benefit of the doubt. Really ridiculous shit.

[A_B]

It feels to me that since the SEC had an underwhelming football season that the media decided they were going to go over the top for them being good in basketball. 14 teams is a joke.

Sec is good at top. Couple of other strong to good(I’d put UK here) then maybe 1-2 borderline. That said , the acc was so down this year they just transferred it seems. But I would have much preferred bubble teams to be mid majors. It’s so much better of an experience for the casual fan. I won’t root for a single sec team other than the one true king of the sec (wink) but I would pull for those second place confeeence teams against big conferences. NCAA fucks it up again!


This is just the plan to get to 96 teams.

[DSafetyGuy]

Sancarlos as expert now that Colorado State is a 2.5-point favorite in their opener as a 12-seed.

(I kid. Not about the Rams being favored.)

[sancarlos]

Sancarlos as expert now that Colorado State is a 2.5-point favorite in their opener as a 12-seed.

(I kid. Not about the Rams being favored.)

Oh, yeah. Me, a college basketball expert! Heh.

It is fun though, ramping up and reading a bunch of stuff right before the tournament as I start to fill out a bracket or two.

As far as the CSU game, the line is greatly affected by whether they oddsmakers believe the Memphis star will be healthy enough to play, is that right?

[DSafetyGuy]

Sancarlos as expert now that Colorado State is a 2.5-point favorite in their opener as a 12-seed.

(I kid. Not about the Rams being favored.)

Oh, yeah. Me, a college basketball expert! Heh.

It is fun though, ramping up and reading a bunch of stuff right before the tournament as I start to fill out a bracket or two.

As far as the CSU game, the line is greatly affected by whether they oddsmakers believe the Memphis star will be healthy enough to play, is that right?

Memphis is massively overseeded compared to their advanced statistical profile (KenPom #51, T-Rank #60 - Colorado State is #42 and #38, in comparison) and they turn the ball over a lot. The Rams don't force a lot of turnovers, but their offense has been exceptional since New Year's and they have been playing great basketball for a month. T-Rank has a stat called Game Score, where a team's performance is graded on a 1-100 scale. CSU's last ten games have all rated 80 or higher, including 91 or better in the last six (four 97 or better).

[mister d]

I feel like the kenpom overseed wins atleast their first round matchup every year and fucks me up.

[DSafetyGuy]

I feel like the kenpom overseed wins atleast their first round matchup every year and fucks me up.

They're all sets of one and you know how probability works.

[Giff]

[+] spoiler

Don’t click if haven’t watched this week’s White Lotus.

[Nonlinear FC]

The committee chair not exactly making a great case in his comments to the press about MI's 5 seed:

On Michigan being a 5 seed and in the same region as MI ST.
"Well, Michigan State obviously had a great year, winning the regular season, and Coach Izzo in for his 26th time is truly remarkable. Michigan playing Wisconsin in the conference championship today, we did contingency brackets last night, and we actually moved Michigan up on the seed list on the contingency that they won. We also scrubbed Wisconsin. Should they have won, we had them in a different position.

"Ultimately what we've tried to do this year, and quite frankly with 14 teams from the SEC, is we generally bracket more based on geography. This year with 14, we had to make sure that we didn't have too many of the SEC teams playing each other early, and so we kept all of the teams on the same seed line, but we were paying a little bit more attention to that distribution and a little bit less on geography.

And

On if Michigan winning the Big Ten Tournament title mattered in its seeding
Cunningham: "Yeah, I think every game matters all year long, and I think Michigan was a little bit inconsistent in my mind this year as I was watching them play. They had a great year, not quite as consistent as we may have thought. They had some early losses in the non-conference. As I mentioned, we moved them into the tournament, and then we got them -- they were in the championship game, so we had two contingency brackets. We did scrub them up if they won, and then we had done the same thing with Wisconsin. But it's a tough field. When I looked at this tournament bracket, there are so many teams in the eight and nine that have won national championships. We've got Hall of Fame coaches. This is a really, really competitive field, and we think we were very fair to Michigan's seeding."

This is fucking ridiculous. So, tenure is a criteria? Past national championships is a factor? What the fuck is this guy talking about?

ETA - I get that Fancystats and Kenpom are factors, but when you finish 3rd in the league and then win the G-D BTT, and three of the teams you beat to do that are seeded higher (MD, Purdue and Wisconsin)... It's just pretty obvious that there's some bias coming into this.

[brian]

I would argue bias isn’t the right word as much as incompetence.

[brian]

If the committee was really paying attention they’d see how much MSU shits the bed in the tourney the last 15 years.

[Nonlinear FC]

I would argue bias isn’t the right word as much as incompetence.

I mean, somewhat fair... Though it's REALLY bizarre that they have ADs who have a financial stake in their team getting bid on this "Committee." And yes, I'm talking about UNC.

[Nonlinear FC]

I always point to College Hockey, which uses something called Pairwise to rank every team. The formula is understood by the nerds that dig into that stuff and it's just accepted as reality. You have a certain number of automatic qualifiers for winning their leagues and then a set number of at-large bids. Your team needs to be at around #14 or lower to be assured of an at-large. (16 team field)

And that's just the way it is. It's very rare to hear college hockey fans bitching about getting left out of the tournament because by the time you get to March, you know exactly where you stand and you know what you DIDN'T do to put you in that situation.

Now, what they get totally wrong is geography, but that's a different issue.

[mister d]

The one thing that fucks up any sort of hands-off calculation (although its not like its un-fucked now) is scheduling. It always strikes me as shit that a major conference team can get credit for 6 Q1 wins without noting they got to play 15 Q1 games. If you're in a mid-major, your access to Q1 games is extremely limited and, when you do get them, often at an inherent disadvantage. George Mason got two non-conference Q1s this year, at Duke and at Marquette. The refrain is always "well then go out and win those games" without any consideration for how many major conference teams skated into the tourney despite loses to Duke and Marquette because they still had other chances to beat lesser Q1s. Which isn't to say that straight up record should be used or anything like that, but there should be consideration given to teams that lose any ability for an at-large because they're too dangerous for a major to risk scheduling.

[Nonlinear FC]

Totally get that, but I also feel like the super nerds could figure out how to adjust for that.

The other thing that I think should be a rule, if they are going to keep this dumb set-up: If you are under .500 in conference play, fuck off to the NIT.

The SEC getting 14 teams in has already been called out. Everyone below Ole Miss has a losing record in the conference. Texas and Oklahoma are 6-12!!

And, brian, that's what I'm talking about in terms of bias. Absolutely ridiculous. And per the quote from the chairman, it absolutely fucked with other seedings because they had to accommodate not having all those stupid SEC shit teams playing each other early. Fuck that. If you want to place all but 2 teams in one conference in the tournament; you don't also get to fuck with teams and arbitrarily lower their seed and give them a much harder road than is warranted.

[Steve of phpBB]

I always point to College Hockey, which uses something called Pairwise to rank every team. The formula is understood by the nerds that dig into that stuff and it's just accepted as reality. You have a certain number of automatic qualifiers for winning their leagues and then a set number of at-large bids. Your team needs to be at around #14 or lower to be assured of an at-large. (16 team field)

And that's just the way it is. It's very rare to hear college hockey fans bitching about getting left out of the tournament because by the time you get to March, you know exactly where you stand and you know what you DIDN'T do to put you in that situation.

Now, what they get totally wrong is geography, but that's a different issue.

How does that compare to the coefficient systems UEFA uses? I’ve always thought that was a good model.

[Nonlinear FC]

I always point to College Hockey, which uses something called Pairwise to rank every team. The formula is understood by the nerds that dig into that stuff and it's just accepted as reality. You have a certain number of automatic qualifiers for winning their leagues and then a set number of at-large bids. Your team needs to be at around #14 or lower to be assured of an at-large. (16 team field)

And that's just the way it is. It's very rare to hear college hockey fans bitching about getting left out of the tournament because by the time you get to March, you know exactly where you stand and you know what you DIDN'T do to put you in that situation.

Now, what they get totally wrong is geography, but that's a different issue.

How does that compare to the coefficient systems UEFA uses? I’ve always thought that was a good model.

I have no idea, tbh. I don't really fully understand Pairwise because I don't math. I just know that the nerds I trust in the MI fanbase are totally fine with it... And MI fans are pretty notorious for bitching about perceived slights. (Please see my posts the last 2 days.)

[Steve of phpBB]

I always point to College Hockey, which uses something called Pairwise to rank every team. The formula is understood by the nerds that dig into that stuff and it's just accepted as reality. You have a certain number of automatic qualifiers for winning their leagues and then a set number of at-large bids. Your team needs to be at around #14 or lower to be assured of an at-large. (16 team field)

And that's just the way it is. It's very rare to hear college hockey fans bitching about getting left out of the tournament because by the time you get to March, you know exactly where you stand and you know what you DIDN'T do to put you in that situation.

Now, what they get totally wrong is geography, but that's a different issue.

How does that compare to the coefficient systems UEFA uses? I’ve always thought that was a good model.

I have no idea, tbh. I don't really fully understand Pairwise because I don't math. I just know that the nerds I trust in the MI fanbase are totally fine with it... And MI fans are pretty notorious for bitching about perceived slights. (Please see my posts the last 2 days.)

"2 days"?

Heh.

[Nonlinear FC]

I always point to College Hockey, which uses something called Pairwise to rank every team. The formula is understood by the nerds that dig into that stuff and it's just accepted as reality. You have a certain number of automatic qualifiers for winning their leagues and then a set number of at-large bids. Your team needs to be at around #14 or lower to be assured of an at-large. (16 team field)

And that's just the way it is. It's very rare to hear college hockey fans bitching about getting left out of the tournament because by the time you get to March, you know exactly where you stand and you know what you DIDN'T do to put you in that situation.

Now, what they get totally wrong is geography, but that's a different issue.

How does that compare to the coefficient systems UEFA uses? I’ve always thought that was a good model.

I have no idea, tbh. I don't really fully understand Pairwise because I don't math. I just know that the nerds I trust in the MI fanbase are totally fine with it... And MI fans are pretty notorious for bitching about perceived slights. (Please see my posts the last 2 days.)

"2 days"?

Heh.

I know, I know.

[brian]

Pairwise is easier because of the relatively limited number of teams in college hockey. Basically it takes two teams and tries to determine if team A would beat Team B based on common opponents and some other factors but all involving actual results (or on actual head to head matchups)

Which is more doable with only like 65-70 total teams.

I wouldn’t want to go too far down the computer rabbit hole and the committee is supposed to be using some computer formulas like KenPom and others already but basically there needs to be a common sense smell test and going 6-12 in your conference games doesn’t fucking pass it.

[Shirley]

People are getting way too caught up in the Q1 discussion. As MrD pointed out, there's a huge range of difficulty of games in that Q1 bucket. There are 364 D1 teams of varying quality (and that quality changes throughout the year). Splitting them into only 4 quadrants is pretty idiotic, tbh. A home game against 18-14 Baylor is just as much of a Quad 1 game as a road game against Duke in Cameron. It's silly.

If West Virginia wanted a bid, they should have tried not to be ranked #53 in KenPom. Better teams were left out.

[rass]

Madness!

[Rex]

lol good luck Auburn

[sancarlos]

Always a joy when a team from your preferred conference shits the bed on national TV.

[EnochRoot]

You guys are fighting the good fight - aside from ACC Shirley. Just because UNC destroyed SDSU tonight doesn’t mean they deserved to be in the tourney.

[DSafetyGuy]

Always a joy when a team from your preferred conference shits the bed on national TV.

Last year's second first four game - Colorado State 67, Virginia 42. Cavs shot 25% overall and got doubled up on the glass.

These things happen.

[DaveInSeattle]

If West Virginia wanted a bid, they should have tried not to be ranked #53 in KenPom. Better teams were left out.

Tough couple of days for West Virginia...left out of the tournament, Governor makes a jackass of himself about it, and now their coach is leaving for IU, and most likely taking his top recruit (his son) with him.

Fixing that....his son is not a recruit, but a senior who was hurt most of the season and is applying for a medical redshirt.

[brian]

Was thinking about this today while driving and while I will point to the fact that the West Virginia’s of the world can find sympathy between shit and syphillis in the dictionary I think it’s time to expand the tournament a little.

When they went to 64 teams in the mid 80s there was about 300 DI schools. Now there’s about 350-360 or so.

Expansion to 76 teams seems about right and conforms with other NCAA championships as far as percentage of teams involved.

I would make the change to give all conference champs entry into the round of 64 and have the last 24 at-large teams play the first round. This incentivizes and rewards conference titles as well.

Add another pod at Hinkle Fieldhouse in Indy and play 3 first rounds games in Dayton and Indy on Tuesday and Wednesday.

[mister d]

Probably a better chance they adjust it so every major conference team with double digit wins gets in plus four other teams total from every other conference.

[HaulCitgo]

I kinda like that. Better is 64 but if not id sooner rig it up some more and let conference regular season and tournament winners play a one game round to advance to the round of 32 and make at large teams play a two game sectional to move on to 32. Winners play Monday for sweet 16. 3 game week for non auto qualifiers

[DaveInSeattle]

It's great they are getting paid, but its really weird to see current players in ads during March Madness (in this case, the Gatorade commercial with Cooper Flagg, Ju Ju Watkins, and Paige Bueckers).

[wlu_lax6]

I kinda like that. Better is 64 but if not id sooner rig it up some more and let conference regular season and tournament winners play a one game round to advance to the round of 32 and make at large teams play a two game sectional to move on to 32. Winners play Monday for sweet 16. 3 game week for non auto qualifiers

But then the kids will miss more classes

[L-Jam3]

I’m a dumbass. My brackets didn’t take on my big money pool.

[DaveInSeattle]

At the half:

Clemson 13
McNeese St 31

Clemson coach Brad Brownell signed a 6 year contract extension yesterday.

[mister d]

More like Clems-done amiright???