If only we had evidence of the the ACC being good in the tournament over the last 30 years. Guess that’s not enough for you. Oh well. The lengths people will go to defend the committee will always be wild to me.
BACATOLOGY: 2/20 NCAA TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS...UPDATE RUTGERS NOW A 9 SEED AS OF 2/24
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Ohio state is the second worst team in the conference. Are you somehow denying this? Also no they would not be a double digit favorite at Minnesota. Lol where do you weirdos come from?
Well, pretty much. If you want to argue that seeding is wrong then you need to use information from before the tournament because, get this, the seedings are done before the tournament.
30 years? We're talking about this year (or last year, as the case may be).
So we’ll just ignore the fact that the committee’s job is to focus on what happened THIS season, and give a boost for the play of Sean May, Kyle Guy, and JJ Redick?
So we’re supposed to ignore 80% of the ACC teams wildly outperforming their seed? What would it take for you to admit the committee got it wrong?
If I were to call out issues, I’d be doing them when the bracket was released. Seeing NC make the title game doesn’t wash away what their resume looked like on Selection Sunday.
There is literally nothing a team can do in the tournament to prove the committee wrong. The entire question is a category error. The committee selects/seeds teams based on their performance in the season. They aren't making predictions.
If you want to argue the committee has gotten something wrong you can only use info from the regular season.
If it was just unc that would be a fair point. It wasn’t. But no one will admit maybe the ACC was stronger than they thought so they will act like those seeds were justified.
But perhaps resume was better than perceived because league was better than perceived. Metrics only good as system and system could be screwed up…. Like the NET
Lol so the committee simply can never be questioned and are always right. What a system they got you believing.
A. Who cares?
B. That doesn't change anything about the teams that didn't make the tournament from the conference who were bad
C. A team could have been properly seeded and made a run. Your resume is your resume. A talented team could underperform during the regular season and be playing much better than their resume in the tournament. That doesn't mean they weren't seeded correctly
Maybe those bad teams were only viewed as bad because of wrong perceptions? That’s the whole point.
No, you can argue a seed was wrong. You just can only use the regular season results to support your argument. That's what a seed is based in. It's not a future predictor of who the committee thinks will do the best in the tournament. The seed is earned based on regular season performance
It's not that hard of a concept to grasp
The seeds are based on opinions of how strong a teams regular season was. If those opinions are based on a false assumptions then they can be wrong. The committee assumed the ACC was bad and the mountain west was strong and they were wrong. I agree it’s a rally easy concept to grasp.
I mean, Duke was a 2 seed...is there anyone at all that thought they should have been a 1 last season? Obviously not, but they made a nice run to the Final 4. Notre Dame was right on the bubble (for good reason, based on that resume)...did they show you anything in the Rutgers game to prove that the committee completely under-seeded them? Miami had a really nice run to the Elite 8 as a 10 seed...but their Sweet 16 opponent was the 11 seed, so they caught a nice break there. Virginia Tech lost as an 11 in the 1st round. Carolina had that great run as an 8 seed...I could have seen a 7 seed for them, but didn't seem THAT far off on Selection Sunday.
The ACC had a really good run in the tournament, but the whole "look at the last 30 years" completely ignores the bracketing principles that everything is based upon.
Well yes. The proper seeds for the ACC were:
North Carolina: 1
Duke: 1
Miami: 2
Notre Dame: Anywhere from 5 to 8
Virginia Tech: Anywhere from 9 to 16
That's just math.
The "assumptions" are based on how teams actually did on the court. Conference teams lose a bunch of games during the non-conference and it hurts your conference's strength. Win a bunch of games, and it helps your conference. The committee didn't "assume the ACC was bad" and "assume the Mountain West was strong", they placed teams where they belonged based on their resumes (and as always, "Teams" get bids, not "conferences").
Anyways, I've hijacked Bac's thread enough with this topic so I'm checking out on it.
Last thing...
@fluoxetine - you'll enjoy the comedy in the one I was talking about...
pennstate.forums.rivals.com
@fluoxetine - you'll enjoy the comedy in the one I was talking about...
Basketball - Penn State Hoops defeats Ohio State to win third game in a row
https://pennstate.rivals.com/news/penn-state-hoops-defeats-ohio-state-to-win-third-game-in-a-row
pennstate.forums.rivals.com
What did Rutgers do in non conference play this year to improve 20 spots in both net and kenpom? We all know our move up those rankings were fraudulent as they went 1-3 against non cupcakes. Whatever I’m never gonna win an argument with a guy who still thinks our Ohio state win was a good win.
Finally a buzzer beater that goes the right way for the bubble today!!!
Yeah, we sure made kenpom and NET look pretty stupid for rating us highly in non-conference play when we started the main portion of the conference schedule by embarrassingly.. *checks notes*.. going 7-3 including wins at Purdue and Northwestern.
I didn’t realize kenpom was only predicting the first half of conference season. Also is that the same northwestern that kenpom had ranked in the 50s for most of the year? Super impressive.
That's a substantially more impressive win than Indiana at home, according to your own posts in a different thread.
I think so but your precious kenpom doesn’t. Thank you for helping me prove that these metrics that say the ACC sucks are very faulty.
Why doesn’t his model try to predict the second half of conference play? Seems like a flaw if I’m being honest.
We're currently #35 in kenpom, #37 in NET. Do you, @FinalFourOrBust think these are
(a) too high
(b) about right
(c) too low
and why?
Please bear in mind for your answer that the models obviously have no knowledge of individual player injuries.
(a) too high
(b) about right
(c) too low
and why?
Please bear in mind for your answer that the models obviously have no knowledge of individual player injuries.
Why are you being so obtuse? You said kenpom moving us to 25 was justified cause we started 7-3 (actually was 6-4) in conference play. Why didn’t. They try to predict the second half of conference play?
