Bracketology (11/6)

[trojansc]

Nov 6, 2024 18:25:53 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

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.

On one hand - I want to agree. In an ideal world, if the methods used to create the bracket and fair and applied in a consistent manner, it should be fine to let the chips fall how they do.

But OTOH, I see other arguments. Also, this is how men's basketball does their bracket re: bracketing principles.

When you talk about conference manipulation - IMO - that's a reason to place teams in different regions. If a conference has teams that are underrated OR overrated, it makes sense to split them up to prevent re-matches, so those teams can get early eliminated  or late eliminated if they are significantly over or underseeded. Like when the PAC-12 chose to play 22 conference matches and the entire conference's RPI took a tank, it hurt those teams, which is why the AVCA saw USC as #1 but the committee did not.     


Does this mean you wouldn't mind teams from the same conference playing in the 1st or 2nd round either?

[maigrey]

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?)?

As long as they stayed on the same seed line, I think this would be good.

I know I root for all the big ten teams when tourney time comes along, and war h as many matches of those that I can. I'm assuming that's true for most other fans. It would keep ratings up for those cross conference rivals, too.

[ay2013]

Nov 6, 2024 18:48:03 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Does this mean you wouldn't mind teams from the same conference playing in the 1st or 2nd round either?

So long as the ranking of the field is fair and objective, I don't mind conference teams playing in the 1st or 2nd round. Regarding this question, either you don't care about conference affiliation's impact on the bracket (I do not), or you do, and if you do, you create some arbitrary line on WHEN conference teams can meet each other. Unless the goal is to determine the best conference for some monetary reason, I prefer a world where conference affiliation doesn't matter (conference SOS/RPI rank notwithstanding).

In my world view, give us the criteria for selection, rank the teams 1-64 based on that criteria, and let the chips fall where they may. Get rid of the travel restriction nonsense as well.

[ay2013]

Nov 6, 2024 19:23:58 GMT -5 maigrey said:

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

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?)?

As long as they stayed on the same seed line, I think this would be good.

I know I root for all the big ten teams when tourney time comes along, and war h as many matches of those that I can. I'm assuming that's true for most other fans. It would keep ratings up for those cross conference rivals, too.

If we were doing it for "ratings", cross-conference rivalries only go but so far. I can assure you that in a ratings world view, keeping Wisconsin as the 8 seed and playing @ Nebraska in the elite 8 would generate a lot more ratings than manipulating the bracket to make sure Wisconsin DOESN'T play Nebraska before the final four and substituting a team like SMU or ASU instead.

[ay2013]

Something else I'd like to know is WHO gets the deference when manipulating the seeds to avoid conference matchups in regional play?

For example, in trojansc's most recent bracketology we have the following regional:

(1) Nebraska (Big 10) v. (16) Utah (Big 12)
(8) Kansas (Big 12) v. (9) Wisconsin (Big 10)

There are TWO teams that would need to move to avoid conference matchup's in regionals. Which two teams get moved and why? And what happens when one conference has more than 4 seeded teams?

[trojansc]

Nov 6, 2024 21:02:57 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

Something else I'd like to know is WHO gets the deference when manipulating the seeds to avoid conference matchups in regional play?

For example, in trojansc's most recent bracketology we have the following regional:

(1) Nebraska (Big 10) v. (16) Utah (Big 12)
(8) Kansas (Big 12) v. (9) Wisconsin (Big 10)

There are TWO teams that would need to move to avoid conference matchup's in regionals. Which two teams get moved and why? And what happens when one conference has more than 4 seeded teams?

www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public-s3/files/2023-24%20Principles%20and%20Procedures_0.pdf

Who gets moved depends on the principles. I'm not sure if that document is completely accurate for the latest season, but I do think they try to keep each team as close to its true seed line as possible.

I think n00b knows more about men's basketball bracketing principles than me though so asking him to chime in here

[n00b]

Nov 6, 2024 21:15:37 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 6, 2024 21:02:57 GMT -5 ay2013 said:

Something else I'd like to know is WHO gets the deference when manipulating the seeds to avoid conference matchups in regional play?

For example, in trojansc 's most recent bracketology we have the following regional:

(1) Nebraska (Big 10) v. (16) Utah (Big 12)
(8) Kansas (Big 12) v. (9) Wisconsin (Big 10)

There are TWO teams that would need to move to avoid conference matchup's in regionals. Which two teams get moved and why? And what happens when one conference has more than 4 seeded teams?

www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public-s3/files/2023-24%20Principles%20and%20Procedures_0.pdf

Who gets moved depends on the principles. I'm not sure if that document is completely accurate for the latest season, but I do think they try to keep each team as close to its true seed line as possible.

I think n00b knows more about men's basketball bracketing principles than me though so asking him to chime in here

In that specific example, both Wisconsin AND Utah would end up in different regions than Nebraska and Kansas.

But for basketball, teams get placed in the bracket in seed order at the regional that is closest to them. So your current Top 16 would look like:

1. Nebraska, 2. Stanford (6)
1. Pittsburgh, 2. SMU (7)
1. Louisville, 2. Creighton (5)
1. Penn State, 2. Kansas (8)

They have a specific carve out to not send #5 overall to the same region as #1 overall. But Creighton would go to Louisville because it's the closest regional site. Then Stanford would go to Lincoln, because it's the closest, SMU to Pittsburgh, then Kansas to State College.

1. Nebraska, 2. Stanford, 3. Arizona State (10)
1. Pittsburgh, 2. SMU, 3. Purdue (11)
1. Louisville, 2. Creighton, 3. Wisconsin (9)
1. Penn State, 2. Kansas, 3. Texas (12)

#9 Wisconsin would go to their closest regional - Louisville. Lincoln is closest for #10 Arizona State. #11 Purdue goes to Pittsburgh and #12 Texas ends up in State College.


1. Nebraska, 2. Stanford, 3. Arizona State, 4. Kentucky (13)
1. Pittsburgh, 2. SMU, 3. Purdue, 4. Utah (16)
1. Louisville, 2. Creighton, 3. Wisconsin, 4. TCU (14)
1. Penn State, 2. Kansas, 3. Texas, 4. Oregon (15)

The 4 seeds get a bit trickier. There are two Big 12 teams on this line and only two regions they can go into - Pittsburgh and Louisville. So #13 Kentucky goes first and can only go to Lincoln to avoid Texas. #14 TCU goes to Louisville, #15 Oregon has to go to State College so #16 Utah can go to Pittsburgh. Only the first 4 teams from a conference are guaranteed to go to different regions, so there is no issue with Oregon playing Penn State in the Sweet 16.

I'll add, the basketball committee WOULD be forced to make some subjective adjustments here. They're instructed to ensure competitive balance by adding the true seed values of the four teams in a region and there shouldn't be a difference of more than 5 (I think) between the toughest and easiest regions. In this case, State College ended up with a value of 39 and Louisville has a value of 31.

[trojansc]

Arizona State is up to #7 in RPI - but they have awful RPI matches remaining. 5 of their 6 remaining opponents have W/L %'s below .500. Cincinnati (12-9) is their best remaining opponent in terms of W/L record, Colorado at #92 is their best remaining opponent in terms of RPI.

Their tournament profile is also interesting. Right now, they have 6 Top 25 wins, all against conference-foes. They can add 2 more Top 50 wins if San Diego and Wichita State (both non-conference) can end up in the Top 50, they are both on the borderline right now. Only losses are at #2 Nebraska, at #18 Baylor.

[horns1]

Nov 6, 2024 16:32:18 GMT -5 trojansc said:

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

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

I don't think there's any conclusive evidence that the committee will or won't do those things. And with committees changing every year, it's even more unpredictable.

I personally don't do those shufflings when I do Bracketology. I shuffle in toss-ups or close call scenarios, but not for avoiding re-matches. I also think like, there's no guarantee that matchup happens.

Pitt/Louisville matched up as a Regional Final last year though... even though I think that was the right call, if the committee WANTED to avoid it, they probably could have found a way to justify it. It wouldn't have been the craziest thing.

I mean, we see so many unhappy posters citing their displeasure when conference foes are seeded to potentially play each other in the regional semi's and regional finals; I'd say the committee does nothing to avoid these matchups.  Last season's bracket had SEC foes Kentucky and Arkansas as the 8/9 national seeds; these teams had met twice in SEC play and the last match was November 22, 2023 (just a few days prior to the bracket reveal).

[trianglevolleyball]

Nov 6, 2024 23:38:11 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Arizona State is up to #7 in RPI - but they have awful RPI matches remaining. 5 of their 6 remaining opponents have W/L %'s below .500. Cincinnati (12-9) is their best remaining opponent in terms of W/L record, Colorado at #92 is their best remaining opponent in terms of RPI.

Their tournament profile is also interesting. Right now, they have 6 Top 25 wins, all against conference-foes. They can add 2 more Top 50 wins if San Diego and Wichita State (both non-conference) can end up in the Top 50, they are both on the borderline right now. Only losses are at #2 Nebraska, at #18 Baylor.

Does it matter really for them? Their ceiling is probably 7 overall. Floor is 9 if they don’t lose again, still seeded if they lose once but dicier if they lose further. 7-10 seems very inconsequential this year.

Has the committee officially said that they seed first then look at geography? If ASU is neck and neck with another team for the 8/9 spot and USC is solidly a 6 seed, is there a chance they’d put ASU at 9 just to save a trip.

[mikegarrison]

I have expressed before that I would prefer completely random seeding over seeding by a committee with a history of manipulation of the brackets.

I think RPI is a poorly designed metric, but I would prefer straight RPI seeding over committee seeding.

I would prefer straight Pablo seeding over committee seeding.

KPI, Massey, whatever ... I would prefer it over committee seeding.

[trojansc]

Nov 7, 2024 0:14:26 GMT -5 trianglevolleyball said:

Nov 6, 2024 23:38:11 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Arizona State is up to #7 in RPI - but they have awful RPI matches remaining. 5 of their 6 remaining opponents have W/L %'s below .500. Cincinnati (12-9) is their best remaining opponent in terms of W/L record, Colorado at #92 is their best remaining opponent in terms of RPI.

Their tournament profile is also interesting. Right now, they have 6 Top 25 wins, all against conference-foes. They can add 2 more Top 50 wins if San Diego and Wichita State (both non-conference) can end up in the Top 50, they are both on the borderline right now. Only losses are at #2 Nebraska, at #18 Baylor.

Does it matter really for them? Their ceiling is probably 7 overall. Floor is 9 if they don’t lose again, still seeded if they lose once but dicier if they lose further. 7-10 seems very inconsequential this year.

Has the committee officially said that they seed first then look at geography? If ASU is neck and neck with another team for the 8/9 spot and USC is solidly a 6 seed, is there a chance they’d put ASU at 9 just to save a trip.

I think it could be 6. Stanford loses two more, SMU loses one more and I could see them in the conversation. But Wisconsin could still jump them even in that scenario.

[trojansc]

Not too many big matches today:

-Oregon could solidify its position as a seed with a shocker tonight against Nebraska.

-Minnesota needs to beat Washington to get back in better RPI position.

-The match of the day though, IMO, is LMU at Pepperdine. Both only have 1-loss in the WCC, LMU lost at San Francisco, Pepperdine lost at LMU. The winner is in the driver's seat for the WCC AQ, though if LMU wins, they have a game lead and would hold the H2H tiebreaker. LMU is in better position for an at-large as well, so, if you want multiple WCC teams in the tournament, I'd root for Pepperdine tonight.

[trojansc]

Virginia is about to close out Virginia Tech for the 2nd time this week. A couple of important matches for Virginia to avoid losing, they had a scare on Wednesday. Milan Gomillion is back for UVA - a great sign for the Cavaliers.


Important Matches for Friday 11/8


USC at Illinois - USC wants a seed, Illinois just wants to be in the tournament. Illinois feels way more comfortable with a win. For USC this is more of a losing hurts, winning doesn't move the needle much.

LSU at Tennessee - LSU desperately needs this. Similar to the USC situation before, Tennessee really needs to win to maintain their RPI, but, another problem is their RPI nitty gritty (wins) just don't look good.

NC State at Miami-FL - NC State could really use a win, they are in at-large trouble. Miami is more comfortable, but still can't take too many losses, they don't have a ton of RPI breathing room.

Wichita State at Rice - Very important for the at-large race. Wichita State definitely needs it more.

Ohio State at Michigan - Ohio State has slim chances at the tournament, Michigan in a much better position but still not great.

Texas A&M at Kentucky - TAMU needs this to get back into seeding contention after their loss to Hail State knocked them down.

BYU at Utah - Holy War part 2 with seeding implications. Winner has the leg up on getting a Top 16 seed. Both teams are probably thrilled to be in this position - I didn't think Utah would be here coming into this year, and BYU didn't have a good start to the season, but they're right there in the mix.

Oklahoma at Ole Miss - Both teams in position to make the tournament, could be OK with a loss, but an important win for both to be in more comfortable position.

South Carolina at Arkansas - Arkansas was trending out of the tournament, but now they're right back in it. Arkansas needs it more than South Carolina.


maybe bonus: North Carolina at Pittsburgh. It would be a shocker for sure - it'd also get UNC in on the hosting conversation. Not sure I wanted to include this as I don't think UNC has much of a shot, but, we'll see!

[n00b]

Nov 8, 2024 13:26:20 GMT -5 trojansc said:

BYU at Utah - Holy War part 2 with seeding implications. Winner has the leg up on getting a Top 16 seed. Both teams are probably thrilled to be in this position - I didn't think Utah would be here coming into this year, and BYU didn't have a good start to the season, but they're right there in the mix.

AND we're guaranteed to not have a Holy War, Part 3 in the first two rounds of the tournament this year! Hooray realignment!