Bracketology (11/6)

[trojansc]

Nov 6, 2024 16:52:39 GMT -5 naujack85 said:

4 of the top 8 seeds from the ACC all on one side for the bracket?

Say it aint so

This is interesting, and I've seen this come up many times on this board, so, I created a poll, but there is limited text, so I should add more context:

Should the NCAA do their best efforts to spread across teams from the same conference to different regions when possible?

Basically, ensure that Pittsburgh, SMU, Louisville, Stanford are all in different regionals? Same with Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue, Penn State.

Would people be OK if this meant Wisconsin gets changed from a 9-seed overall to a 12-seed (still on the same 3-seed line?)?

[storyteller]

Nov 6, 2024 16:22:04 GMT -5 knapplc said:

Nov 6, 2024 16:15:05 GMT -5 trojansc said:

(1) I will never, ever consider AVCA rankings

(2) Wisconsin "true seed" in this bracket is #9 overall, and with Kansas at #8, that could really go either way. It does not matter in this instance.

(3) Texas "true seed" is #12 overall in this bracket.

Does the committee consider that this would be a third Wisconsin/Nebraska match and shuffle to avoid that?

In the Spring 2021 tournament, they put Texas and Baylor in the same regional even though they'd already played 4 times. The 5th matchup didn't happen, but given how easy it would've been to avoid, I don't think the committee considers previous matchups when seeding.

[trojansc]

What if the committee intentionally avoids re-matches one year but not the next if not for no other reasons but to:

(1) make my projections less accurate

and

(2) piss me off (i.e High Point)

[WahineFan44]

Nov 6, 2024 17:40:31 GMT -5 trojansc said:

What if the committee intentionally avoids re-matches one year but not the next if not for no other reasons but to:

(1) make my projections less accurate

and

(2) piss me off (i.e High Point)

Is that truly the worse thing the comittee has done? (minus EWU in 2004? which by all accounts was a freak accident)

[trojansc]

Nov 6, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Nov 6, 2024 17:40:31 GMT -5 trojansc said:

What if the committee intentionally avoids re-matches one year but not the next if not for no other reasons but to:

(1) make my projections less accurate

and

(2) piss me off (i.e High Point)

Is that truly the worse thing the comittee has done? (minus EWU in 2004? which by all accounts was a freak accident)

Meh. I mean, they gave it to Stephen F. Austin last year too. It depends on what you define as worst. I think not including Tennessee and Ole Miss as 'last 4 ins' with RPI's in the 50s and sketchy profiles is also really bad when those teams arguably should/could have not gotten in the tournament.

Some people seem to think it's OK to get an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament, even if the best team you beat all season was ranked #76.

[WahineFan44]

Nov 6, 2024 17:46:45 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 6, 2024 17:42:50 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Is that truly the worse thing the comittee has done? (minus EWU in 2004? which by all accounts was a freak accident)

Meh. I mean, they gave it to Stephen F. Austin last year too. It depends on what you define as worst. I think not including Tennessee and Ole Miss as 'last 4 ins' with RPI's in the 50s and sketchy profiles is also really bad when those teams arguably should/could have not gotten in the tournament.

Some people seem to think it's OK to get an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament, even if the best team you beat all season was ranked #76.

Cal is the one who lost a chance with high point right? 

[trojansc]

Nov 6, 2024 17:48:39 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Nov 6, 2024 17:46:45 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Meh. I mean, they gave it to Stephen F. Austin last year too. It depends on what you define as worst. I think not including Tennessee and Ole Miss as 'last 4 ins' with RPI's in the 50s and sketchy profiles is also really bad when those teams arguably should/could have not gotten in the tournament.

Some people seem to think it's OK to get an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament, even if the best team you beat all season was ranked #76.

Cal is the one who lost a chance with high point right? 

No, it was Maryland and North Texas. I had both of those in - I had LSU and High Point out. LSU had one Top 50 win, ironically.... it was against High Point. High Point had zero top 50 wins.

[WahineFan44]

Nov 6, 2024 17:52:03 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 6, 2024 17:48:39 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Cal is the one who lost a chance with high point right? 

No, it was Maryland and North Texas. I had both of those in - I had LSU and High Point out. LSU had one Top 50 win, ironically.... it was against High Point. High Point had zero top 50 wins.

Which team was Cal left off for recently? I remember you being kinda pissed/shocked they did not make it

[huskersoftroy]

Nov 6, 2024 16:45:43 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 6, 2024 16:39:57 GMT -5 Resident Bitchy Canadian Fan said:

it’s funny this was brought up because it seems like some years they avoid conference rematches in the regionals and other years they don’t. For example, in 2019 with how they seeded Pitt, Wisconsin and Nebraska. I do not recall what the RPI was at selection time, but I could’ve sworn Pitt was higher than both but got shafted while the committee went with the conference matchup in the 4/5 regional. I really thought Pitt and Wisconsin were going to be the 4/5 pairing that year, and Nebraska was going to be sent to Stanford lol

.
They gave an at-large to Illinois, who didn't have better wins and has a worse RPI than Cal (though I thought Illinois should have stayed in the field, it was VCU who should have been left out).

And who was rewarded for getting Marquette's lost seed? Of course it wasn't Utah who could have been considered better.. it was Purdue.

The 2019 Cal exclusion is literally still too painful to talk about, that was very bad. That Utah team was also snubbed of a seed ( proved it by being the only team to take two sets off the eventual NC Stanford.) I still wonder if the committee just didn’t want to put two subregionals in Utah for budget purposes. The whole thing was sus tbh.

[aardvark]

Nov 6, 2024 17:40:31 GMT -5 trojansc said:

What if the committee intentionally avoids re-matches one year but not the next if not for no other reasons but to:

(1) make my projections less accurate

and

(2) piss me off (i.e High Point)

This brings up a pertinent question. Why does the committee have it in for you? What did you do?

[WahineFan44]

Nov 6, 2024 17:55:03 GMT -5 huskersoftroy said:

Nov 6, 2024 16:45:43 GMT -5 trojansc said:

.
They gave an at-large to Illinois, who didn't have better wins and has a worse RPI than Cal (though I thought Illinois should have stayed in the field, it was VCU who should have been left out).

And who was rewarded for getting Marquette's lost seed? Of course it wasn't Utah who could have been considered better.. it was Purdue.

The 2019 Cal exclusion is literally still too painful to talk about, that was very bad. That Utah team was also snubbed of a seed ( proved it by being the only team to take two sets off the eventual NC Stanford.) I still wonder if the committee just didn’t want to put two subregionals in Utah for budget purposes. The whole thing was sus tbh.

Ooop there is the answer to my question lol

[trojansc]

Nov 6, 2024 17:55:53 GMT -5 aardvark said:

Nov 6, 2024 17:40:31 GMT -5 trojansc said:

What if the committee intentionally avoids re-matches one year but not the next if not for no other reasons but to:

(1) make my projections less accurate

and

(2) piss me off (i.e High Point)

This brings up a pertinent question. Why does the committee have it in for you? What did you do?

I was at USC when the Mick Haley-led #1 Women of Troy were given a #7 overall seed and sent to the #3 ranked Hawaii Rainbow Wahine (seeded #10 overall by the NCAA committee). He was very vocal about his disagreement with that decision and they've been out for us ever since.

They REALLY came down on me hard in 2021. They snubbed USC AND the legendary Polina Shemanova-led Syracuse Orange and decided to let in the entire Big 12 instead. I'm a Shemanova stan.

[trojansc]

Milan Gomillion is still out for Virginia. UVA hosts Virginia Tech today and travels to VA Tech on Friday. They really can't afford a loss in either match. Will be interesting to see how much longer she's out (not dressed at all today).

I thought I saw her with ear plugs last week, so, I assumed concussion and was hopeful she'd be back soon.

[WahineFan44]

Nov 6, 2024 18:10:20 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 6, 2024 17:55:53 GMT -5 aardvark said:

This brings up a pertinent question. Why does the committee have it in for you? What did you do?

I was at USC when the Mick Haley-led #1 Women of Troy were given a #7 overall seed and sent to the #3 ranked Hawaii Rainbow Wahine (seeded #10 overall by the NCAA committee). He was very vocal about his disagreement with that decision and they've been out for us ever since.

They REALLY came down on me hard in 2021. They snubbed USC AND the legendary Polina Shemanova-led Syracuse Orange and decided to let in the entire Big 12 instead. I'm a Shemanova stan.

Hawai’i fans and usc fans can unite in our RAGE of that seeding

1 and 3 meeting in the round of 16? Criminal

[ay2013]

Nov 6, 2024 16:58:55 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 6, 2024 16:52:39 GMT -5 naujack85 said:

4 of the top 8 seeds from the ACC all on one side for the bracket?

Say it aint so

This is interesting, and I've seen this come up many times on this board, so, I created a poll, but there is limited text, so I should add more context:

Should the NCAA do their best efforts to spread across teams from the same conference to different regions when possible?

Basically, ensure that Pittsburgh, SMU, Louisville, Stanford are all in different regionals? Same with Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue, Penn State.

Would people be OK if this meant Wisconsin gets changed from a 9-seed overall to a 12-seed (still on the same 3-seed line?)?

No. What they should do is rank the entire field, based on a set criteria that excludes conference affiliation (but for conference RPI) and let the chips fall where they may. I don't get why conference affiliation or how many times the teams have played throughout the season should matter, in particular when conferences are manipulating RPI and only playing each other once in conference. Indiana played Notre Dame twice, which is double what Notre Dame did against Pitt, SMU, and Stanford. If all of these teams were in contention for a seed, why should Notre Dame get preference to NOT have to play Pitt, SMU, or Stanford whereas Indiana would be fair game?

The purpose of the NCAA tournament is to build a bracket that is as fair and objective as possible and to crown a national champion - it's not to determine the best conference. Manipulating the bracket by conference is antithetical to a fair and objective bracket and given that the purpose of the tournament is to crown one winner, I don't see what conference manipulation achieves.