Exactly. I have been saying this for a while. Stupid formula.
BACATOLOGY: NCAA TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR 3/6 PAGE 23
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Scenario 2 is a Q3 loss. And an extra loss period.
Scenario 1 is a Q2 loss. (Minnesota is outside the top 100 now but would climb in if they beat NW on a neutral).
Much prefer scenario 1.
I realize I'm very late to the discussion, but I have a minute to vent so here it goes. As others have said, we really are a sort of NET buster. It's like the NET program wasn't set up in a way that could account for a team having a home Quad 4 loss and multiple Quad 1 wins. It just doesn't compute. It's like an old Star Trek episode where Kirk or Spock asks the computer a question it can't answer and it blows up. The thing that really annoys me the most though about the selection process is this concept that somehow recency doesn't matter to the committee. How can it be that there is no consideration for the fact that a team can improve between November and March!?!? I mean, isn't that what all teams are trying to do in all sports?
11 sounds great to me. 8/9 sounds okay. Anything but NIT.
So they say…. I think human element is still there and the CBS TV influence is very real. Sssssh can’t talk about that.
there is two ways they can go...big schools against big schools..mid major vs mid major or mix them up, they tend to go big school vs big school
good chance we see...
UMC/Wake/Miami vs RU/Mich/Xavier
Wyoming/San Fran/BYU vs SMU/Memphis/VCU
good chance we see...
UMC/Wake/Miami vs RU/Mich/Xavier
Wyoming/San Fran/BYU vs SMU/Memphis/VCU
That's.... not really true. If you were rockstars in December/January and fell apart in Feb/March you could end with the same exact numbers/quad wins as a team that struggled in Dec/January and were rockstars in Feb/March, because it's about the total resume.
My feeling is that if you end the season with several big wins and no poor losses, that should count for more than if you started the season that way and ended poorly.
not really, RUs profile got better over the last month didnt it. Others like Texas A&M got worse
Recency like you got 5 Quad 1 wins in month is going to improve your profile..thats what I mean or you got 4 Q3 losses...thats recency...yes its a whole body of work, not sure what you are arguing
non conference counts as it should, its a completely different season and that is how conferences are rated basically. Its the only opportunity for head to head outside the league, if not then just schedule 30 conference games
Recency like you got 5 Quad 1 wins in month is going to improve your profile..thats what I mean or you got 4 Q3 losses...thats recency...yes its a whole body of work, not sure what you are arguing
non conference counts as it should, its a completely different season and that is how conferences are rated basically. Its the only opportunity for head to head outside the league, if not then just schedule 30 conference games
I heard one of the talking heads say recently that the committee does take injuries into account when assessing losses. That would certainly apply to the Umass game. Maybe @bac2therac has some further insight here?
He is arguing that everything else being equal when comparing two teams with five Q1 wins, he would favor the one that picked up those wins from Jan 25 to end of season instead of the team that got them from start of season to Jan 25.
I'm not saying that non conference play should be totally discounted, but there has to be some way to recognize that a team can significantly improve after Thanksgiving weekend
Remember Fennis well. He along with Eric Leckner beat UVA and UCLA to the sweet sixteen wearing those crap brown and yellow uniforms. Dembo was a cult hero.
But the profile at any point prior to Selection Sunday isn't meaningful. It doesn't matter if your profile got better or worse from February to March... there's no trend lines provided on the team sheets, just the total resume.
It matters to bracketologists who are adjusting their projected field day to day and week to week... but they aren't involved in the decision making, they're just trying to predict it. And any bracket created prior to the final one is pretty useless other than as a conversation piece.
The fact that one team went from a projected 6 seed to an 11 seed over the final month, or another went from out of the field to an 11 seed isn't supposed to matter to the committee - they only look at the final season result. Those two teams could end up with nearly identical resumes, Q1-Q4 records, home/away records, final SOS, etc... and the trend line isn't supposed to matter.
My feeling is that there should be some trend indicator for the committee on the team sheet showing how a single metric has changed over time (improving or sliding). With two nearly identical final resumes, I think the team that improved throughout the year should be rewarded over one that deteriorated over the year.
Disagree - think you're undervaluing the huge number of high quality wins and the human element of the committee knowing this. I think we're a 10 now and will still be a 10 with a win against PSU and a loss in the tourney. We might actually see...
What I do not understand is that the NET should be a historical and running model. Why dont they take into account the NET ranking at time of game versus the current NET in their model for an modeled score to calcululate the current NET. Maybe they do but sounds to me like it is always based on current NET to determine past W/L
Just keep it simple in an example...Purdue NET ranking at time of playing was 3 and now are currently 13--use both of those rankings in your model so you reward the historical W/L versus current. In this above, both are considered Q1 but what is Purdue is now ranked NET 26...Q1 historical vs Q2 current. that should play into things
Just thinking out loud
Just keep it simple in an example...Purdue NET ranking at time of playing was 3 and now are currently 13--use both of those rankings in your model so you reward the historical W/L versus current. In this above, both are considered Q1 but what is Purdue is now ranked NET 26...Q1 historical vs Q2 current. that should play into things
Just thinking out loud
the committee looks at the results they know who is winning and who isnt. I do not think we actually disagree. Its body of work. Non conference is very important. Its 1/3 of the season, conference play is important too, you play at the end is important...I do not know what I am missing here.
watching a live zoom meeting now with famous bracketologists and DeCourcy will join later
will give you guys a rundown later on what general thoughts are
will give you guys a rundown later on what general thoughts are
Get to the PSU game by 11AM. I heard Bac will be signing seed sheets at a table next to where autism popcorn is sold.
Watching the game and Cincy playing well, SMU not impressive at all. They got bailed out on an awful foul call end of half on a 3 too otherwise Cincy would be up even more.
SMU has 32 FT attempts with 3 minutes left lmao
Iona has zero chance at an at large now with a lost to Manhattan.
Cincinnati stinks. SMU gonna win.
lol these refs refuse to call fouls on SMU too
lol these refs refuse to call fouls on SMU too
Oh well
Win for SMU but does not move the needle. Memphis will meet Houston over the weekend. The fates of both decided in AAC tournament and Memphis has more upside
Win for SMU but does not move the needle. Memphis will meet Houston over the weekend. The fates of both decided in AAC tournament and Memphis has more upside
Oregon down by 10 at the half at Washington
Similar threads
