Official NCAA Selection Show thread

[bac2therac]

The #1 mistake bracketologists make is working super hard to be consistent with their seeding principles. That's impossible in a committee where one guy really cares about Metric X and stands up for the mid major so they compromise and give Dayton a 7 and another guy is adamant that the ACC was a better league than everyone thinks so Clemson gets a 6.

Im also horrified that early on his statements the guy from the ncaa mentioned checking the Matrix all weekend😬😬😬

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

net is not for selection its a sorting tool and can be used for seeding...I think the SOR was used to ding the Mountain West across the board

ok. I thought it was one of the key selection metrics. Not sure why so much focus on it upfront then. Thanks.

 

[Erial_Lion]

What about taking Byu from highest 5th to highest 6th while moving Gonzaga up a full seed line

They didn't want to do the work to figure how to move byu to avoid Sunday play

Then they just figured we will make up for it by moving Duquense up a full seed so BYU really gets to play the 12 afterall

When I looked at the bracket last night, I didn't see many other options with BYU. They aren't going to move any of the top 16 out of their best geographical fit to account for it, and you're already only able to slot them into 2 regions. It seemed like the best option in the end.

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

And because you have watched college bb that long, you remember when Ray Meyer was coach at DePaul.

I do... yikes

 

[zebnatto]

ok. I thought it was one of the key selection metrics. Not sure why so much focus on it upfront then. Thanks.

bac tried to explain this to me yesterday, as he did above: bac2therac said: "net is not for selection its a sorting tool and can be used for seeding." He knows his stuff, so I take his statement as accurate, but that leaves me thinking the system is nonsensical. To me it indicates that selection and seeding are unrelated. It also leaves me wondering what the distinction is between "sorting" and "seeding." It's a sorting tool; if you want to use it for seeding you can/may, but if not that's cool, too.

Again I appreciate what bac does and his patience, but to me it seems he's stuck explaining a methodology at odds with itself.

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

bac tried to explain this to me yesterday, as he did above: bac2therac said: "net is not for selection its a sorting tool and can be used for seeding." He knows his stuff, so I take his statement as accurate, but that leaves me thinking the system is nonsensical. To me it indicates that selection and seeding are unrelated. It also leaves me wondering what the distinction is between "sorting" and "seeding." It's a sorting tool; if you want to use it for seeding you can/may, but if not that's cool, too.

Again I appreciate what bac does and his patience, but to me it seems he's stuck explaining a methodology at odds with itself.

100% on all points.

It's Q1 wins
No it's Q1+2 wins
No it's no bad losses
No its SOS
No its OOC SOS
And then it's metrics that are circular
(That's not a quote on BAC but how I see the logic used)

I actually think it was better when it was just you're record, your SOS, the RPI, etc.
Now it is just another subjective method based on another mathematical scorecard that folks get to choose which parts matter.
Why I feel like the NIT should go and just incorporate it into a 96 team field. Removes many more "so close but not close enough" discussion even though there will always be them for the teams out. BUT if you're arguing you should be in because you're the 95th best team that's a little less concerning than the argument for being 65th.

(sorry, that was looong winded ).

 

[bac2therac]

100% on all points.

It's Q1 wins
No it's Q1+2 wins
No it's no bad losses
No its SOS
No its OOC SOS
And then it's metrics that are circular
(That's not a quote on BAC but how I see the logic used)

I actually think it was better when it was just you're record, your SOS, the RPI, etc.
Now it is just another subjective method based on another mathematical scorecard that folks get to choose which parts matter.
Why I feel like the NIT should go and just incorporate it into a 96 team field. Removes many more "so close but not close enough" discussion even though there will always be them for the teams out. BUT if you're arguing you should be in because you're the 95th best team that's a little less concerning than the argument for being 65th.

(sorry, that was looong winded ).

Its all of it

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

Its all of it

yes. But the more elements you put in there the more people can focus on individual parts they deem more important and the more excuses you can make.
As clearly a big scorecard guy...I'd just be happier if you let the math/scorecard define the 90% and then say well yes we'll give each team a 10% subjective score and the top 68 teams closest to 100 get in. .

 

[fluoxetine]

bac tried to explain this to me yesterday, as he did above: bac2therac said: "net is not for selection its a sorting tool and can be used for seeding." He knows his stuff, so I take his statement as accurate, but that leaves me thinking the system is nonsensical. To me it indicates that selection and seeding are unrelated. It also leaves me wondering what the distinction is between "sorting" and "seeding." It's a sorting tool; if you want to use it for seeding you can/may, but if not that's cool, too.

Again I appreciate what bac does and his patience, but to me it seems he's stuck explaining a methodology at odds with itself.

The NET is basically Kenpom. It measures the "best" teams in a more predictive sense but does not measure resumes or "deserving" teams. How much you beat teams by matters more for your NET than the binary win/loss outcome. So it can be useful for looking at the quality of a team's opponents but it will look way off from what you see in the tournament selection when you have teams with W/L records that are far above or below what you would expect from their efficiency metrics.

 

[bac2therac]

yes. But the more elements you put in there the more people can focus on individual parts they deem more important and the more excuses you can make.
As clearly a big scorecard guy...I'd just be happier if you let the math/scorecard define the 90% and then say well yes we'll give each team a 10% subjective score and the top 68 teams closest to 100 get in. .

you want to check as many boxes as you can and avoid red flags

for example last year RU had red flags of 4 Q3 losses, 300 non conference sos, no ooc wins of note, injured player

when you take all those factors, its not really surprising since Rutgers made it easy for them

Now 3-4 were stolen and usually its maybe one or two...so schools like Oklahoma and Seton Hall would have made the field but Oklahoma had only 2 wins vs field and a blinking 4-12 mark in Q1...Providence was 10-13 in Q123. you cannot be 3 games under 500 in those quads

Virginia had a red flag of only 2-7 in Q1 but they were 10-10 overall in Q1/2.....the big thing for them was they went 7-0 in Q123 so when you compare it to Providence or shu you see 17-10 vs 10-13 or 11-12

The SHU wins were massive but the rest of the resume was very ordinary and I keep saying..win games occ, people keep saying it does not matter but it does. SHUs best win was 8-24 Missouri. Virginia beat Florida and Texas A&M

 

[bac2therac]

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

View embedded media

he wasn't a happy camper yesterday.

 

[Erial_Lion]

bac tried to explain this to me yesterday, as he did above: bac2therac said: "net is not for selection its a sorting tool and can be used for seeding." He knows his stuff, so I take his statement as accurate, but that leaves me thinking the system is nonsensical. To me it indicates that selection and seeding are unrelated. It also leaves me wondering what the distinction is between "sorting" and "seeding." It's a sorting tool; if you want to use it for seeding you can/may, but if not that's cool, too.

Again I appreciate what bac does and his patience, but to me it seems he's stuck explaining a methodology at odds with itself.

To me, this is a good way to explain the NET/Pomeroy vs an NCAA resume.

Team A plays 10 games against similar teams, going 8-2, winning the 8 games by between 1-3 points, and getting blown out by 30+ points in the 2 losses.

Team B plays 10 games against similar teams, going 3-7, winning the 3 games in blowouts, and losing the 7 games by between 1-3 points.

If they played tomorrow, Team B would be favored (everything else aside). Team B will have much better predictive metrics, a better NET rating, etc. Team A will have the better NCAA tournament resume.

 

[retired711]

To me, this is a good way to explain the NET/Pomeroy vs an NCAA resume.

Team A plays 10 games against similar teams, going 8-2, winning the 8 games by between 1-3 points, and getting blown out by 30+ points in the 2 losses.

Team B plays 10 games against similar teams, going 3-7, winning the 3 games in blowouts, and losing the 7 games by between 1-3 points.

If they played tomorrow, Team B would be favored (everything else aside). Team B will have much better predictive metrics, a better NET rating, etc. Team A will have the better NCAA tournament resume.

I'm going to show my age . . . In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees won three blow-outs; the PIrates won three squeakers. .. but it was the Pirates that won the seventh game, another one-run decision. Maybe team B would be favored, but there are more close games than blowouts, and I would rather have the team that could win a close game, and so I would go with team A.

 

[rutger80]

I do... yikes

So, since you're going back to the 70's.....this is the first time Duquesne has been in since 1977, when they won the Eastern 8 tournament, of course, following an opening round win over RU. The Dukes had Norm Nixon.

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

So, since you're going back to the 70's.....this is the first time Duquesne has been in since 1977, when they won the Eastern 8 tournament, of course, following an opening round win over RU. The Dukes had Norm Nixon.

I just typed it all out and then the system went "oops" so I'll just re-type the headlines.

6 years from '77 to '82 we ere a #1, #2, or #3 seed and we only won it 1 time.
We got knocked out rd one 3 times and rd. 2 twice.
Great teams but even then our tourney play has lacked.

 

[fatsam98]

 

[DennisHajekRC84]

So, since you're going back to the 70's.....this is the first time Duquesne has been in since 1977, when they won the Eastern 8 tournament, of course, following an opening round win over RU. The Dukes had Norm Nixon.

Lol.. HOW ABOUT THAT OLD TIMER.. WOW. SO COOL. Dukes winning just now like that Sister Mary story.
NOT RETIRED YET LOL.