ADVERTISEMENT

Official NCAA Selection Show thread

As a backup UVA fan because of my oldest I am happy they made it. That said I am really surprised one of the Big Eats teams didn’t bump them.
Fair enough. But I’m fine with UVA over those teams based on their overall resume. The two BE teams weren’t all that special when you place them under the microscope. SHU was inconsistent and SJU benefited from NY media love over a suspect winning streak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
Folks fell in love with that season-ending win streak but the best win was Creighton. The bulk of it was DePaul, GTown, and a middling Butler. SHU was a good win but not enough with the other results. No credit is given for “hanging” with UConn.

People forget one game is just 1 of 33..3%

Its body of work
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUPete
Fair enough. But I’m fine with UVA over those teams based on their overall resume. The two BE teams weren’t all that special when you place them under the microscope. SHU was inconsistent and SJU benefited from NY media love over a suspect winning streak.

Yeah - I think SJU was a media fabrication. But, I think SHU had some really good wins to overcome a choppy preseason
 
Why would you say that the work was done last week? While committee members do research on their own, none of the work starts until they convene on Wednesday.
pretty obvious conference tourney runs dont matter unless you win the whole thing and bad losses do not matter..see FAU
 
What about it is pretty clear? I think that the conference tournament games mean almost nothing once we've hit Friday and they are well on the way to building the bracket. But people get overly swayed by the results of them...they are still just one game in a 30+ game data point, and mean nothing more than a game played in November.

The committee doesn't start voting or building the bracket until they convene on Wednesday...while each member has their opinions coming in, it's not like they've actually done anything to select or bracket teams, outside of each filling in their top 36, and all teams they think should get at-large consideration.
The committee comes in with their list...bid stealers chopped a few off
 
Providence losing Bryce Hopkins derailed their season, he was a 1st team all Big East player. They probably needed 2 more wins along the way to make it, losing Hopkins was a lot of overcome.

Yes and the committee knew he was out. I know they played outstanding in the BE tourney without him but they jad already dug a hole in his absence
 
  • Like
Reactions: shields
Well we lost to them at home and overall they were not that good

A bad loss for a team who wants to be an at large
Is it though?
You’re talking about a team that went 9-11 in conference and had about 6 wins against the field. By the NET, yeah it’s a bad loss, but sometimes a team is bipolar. The Seton Hall loss on the other hand, that was bad.
I guess my point is, it’s easy to go this team had x number of quad 1 wins and x number quad three losses. But there’s more to it.
I’m not saying this because I think we should have gotten in. I just think the NET is very flawed when it comes to pointing out what’s a quad 1 win and what’s a bad loss
 
the net does not corrrelate to seeding...it just doesnt...auburn is a 4 seed but was 5 OVERALL in net
Not trying to bust balls, but haven’t you said it correlates to neither selection nor seeding. Honestly trying to understand.
 
Not trying to bust balls, but haven’t you said it correlates to neither selection nor seeding. Honestly trying to understand.

Net does not matter for selection...it can be used for seeding but SOR seems to be playing a greater role now..see New Mexico. Its always a combo of criteria.

Rutgers had like a 77 net and got in because their wins were so good but got dinged in seeding and were sent to play in games
 
  • Like
Reactions: DennisHajekRC84
Why would you say that the work was done last week? While committee members do research on their own, none of the work starts until they convene on Wednesday.
That’s what I meant. The work was done before the major league tournaments even started. It discounts the idea that a team may need one or two more wins in their conference tournament to secure an at-large bid. In fact, these teams need to win the entire tournament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
Why is it a cop out? Geography has always been a primary driver to placing the teams in the bracket.
Because up and down East Coast would always make East Coast most difficult bracket. Big 12 champ, SEC champ, three of last years Final Four. Loaded.
 
Net does not matter for selection...it can be used for seeding but SOR seems to be playing a greater role now..see New Mexico. Its always a combo of criteria.

Rutgers had like a 77 net and got in because their wins were so good but got dinged in seeding and were sent to play in games
Okay, net is irrelevant to selection (and quite at variance with selection). If it is so at odds it seems ridiculous that it then becomes a valid measure for seeding, even if a secondary consideration. And if not used for seeding, either, why bother with it? It seems not only illogical, but subversive.
 
the official seed list

GI6UdYYXUAAdM1b
 
Do BYU was 17th overall which should be a 5 and Gonzaga 21 which should be a 6 and they were switched...i guess because of the no games on sunday rule for byu...thats bs for bracketologists

do a better job figuring it out

also note Colorado State was even behind Oregon in seeding.
 
Okay, net is irrelevant to selection (and quite at variance with selection). If it is so at odds it seems ridiculous that it then becomes a valid measure for seeding, even if a secondary consideration. And if not used for seeding, either, why bother with it? It seems not only illogical, but subversive.
its a sorting tool to seperate schools
 
#44 CSU Q1 6-7 Q2 3-2 (9-9) Q3 7-1 (16-10)
#41 UVA Q1 2-7 Q2 8-3 (10-10) Q3 7-0 (17-10)
#39 CU Q1 4-5 Q2 6-5 (10-10) Q3 7-0 (17-10)
#38 BSU Q1 6-5 Q2 3-4 (10-9) Q3 3-1 (13-10)
#37 NEV Q1 6-6 Q2 2-0 (8-6) Q3 8-1 (16-8)
#36 NW Q1 4-7 Q2 5-3 (9-10) Q3 5-0 (14-10) 1 Q4
#35 TCU Q1 5-11 Q2 3-1 (8-12) Q3 5-0 (13-12)
#34 TAMU Q1 7-7 Q2 6-3 (13-10) Q3 2-4 (15-14)

First 4 out,
OU 4-12 5-0 (9-12) 3-0 (12-12)
SHU 5-8 4-3 (9-11) 2-1 (11-12)
IndSt 1-4 4-1 (5-5) 10-0 (15-5) 1 Q4
Pitt 4-6 5-3 (9-9) 6-2 (15-11)
 
#44 CSU Q1 6-7 Q2 3-2 (9-9) Q3 7-1 (16-10)
#41 UVA Q1 2-7 Q2 8-3 (10-10) Q3 7-0 (17-10)
#39 CU Q1 4-5 Q2 6-5 (10-10) Q3 7-0 (17-10)
#38 BSU Q1 6-5 Q2 3-4 (10-9) Q3 3-1 (13-10)
#37 NEV Q1 6-6 Q2 2-0 (8-6) Q3 8-1 (16-8)
#36 NW Q1 4-7 Q2 5-3 (9-10) Q3 5-0 (14-10) 1 Q4
#35 TCU Q1 5-11 Q2 3-1 (8-12) Q3 5-0 (13-12)
#34 TAMU Q1 7-7 Q2 6-3 (13-10) Q3 2-4 (15-14)

First 4 out,
OU 4-12 5-0 (9-12) 3-0 (12-12)
SHU 5-8 4-3 (9-11) 2-1 (11-12)
IndSt 1-4 4-1 (5-5) 10-0 (15-5) 1 Q4
Pitt 4-6 5-3 (9-9) 6-2 (15-11)
do you have their sor listing...curious i believe the mountain west teams all have bad sor
 
SHU board saying they are playing Princeton at Walsh gym. Good for them for not declining like Pitt/Indiana/St Johns, I guess
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
Tom Crean doing NIT show again. Pretty sure I was drunk this time last year.

Seton Hall hosting St Joes
 
do you have their sor listing...curious i believe the mountain west teams all have bad sor
#44 CSU Q1 6-7 Q2 3-2 (9-9) Q3 7-1 (16-10) SOR 56
#41 UVA Q1 2-7 Q2 8-3 (10-10) Q3 7-0 (17-10) SOR 32
#39 CU Q1 4-5 Q2 6-5 (10-10) Q3 7-0 (17-10) SOR 35
#38 BSU Q1 6-5 Q2 3-4 (10-9) Q3 3-1 (13-10) SOR 58
#37 NEV Q1 6-6 Q2 2-0 (8-6) Q3 8-1 (16-8) SOR 31
#36 NW Q1 4-7 Q2 5-3 (9-10) Q3 5-0 (14-10) 1 Q4 SOR 30
#35 TCU Q1 5-11 Q2 3-1 (8-12) Q3 5-0 (13-12) SOR 27
#34 TAMU Q1 7-7 Q2 6-3 (13-10) Q3 2-4 (15-14) SOR 44

First 4 out,
OU 4-12 5-0 (9-12) 3-0 (12-12) SOR 28
SHU 5-8 4-3 (9-11) 2-1 (11-12) SOR 42
IndSt 1-4 4-1 (5-5) 10-0 (15-5) 1 Q4 SOR 40
Pitt 4-6 5-3 (9-9) 6-2 (15-11) SOR 48

ESPN BPI is the best place to find it under the resume tab.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bac2therac
So they definitely penalized csu and bsu for their sor but its arbitrary because uva and col were penalized for not have q1 wins of quality..ie wins vs field
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatsam98
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT