Big 12 Basketblog bracketology

[Cyclonepride]

https://big12basketblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/05/bracketology-march-5-2019-morning-edition/

 

[VeloClone]

I wouldn't complain about having Marquette in the second round. Not enthused about Virginia, but maybe Shayok would play with some extra sauce.

 

[JP4CY]

I wouldn't complain about having Marquette in the second round. Not enthused about Virginia, but maybe Shayok would play with some extra sauce.

Murray is also on the overall 12 line. That could be interesting.

 

[VeloClone]

From the article:

I’ve always assumed the committee will closely follow the NET rankings, as I’m guessing they want their new shiny ranking system to be viewed positively. If they themselves ignore the ranking system, or at least make decisions that would be viewed as incorrect according to the NET, is the new system really that great? And if they’re not following the NET ranking system at all, why did they make the change from the RPI? I guess what I’m arguing is that I think the committee has a personal self-interest in not straying too far from the NET. They need to make their new ranking system look smart and good and better than what we’ve had.

I've been saying this all year, although this guy is a better writer than I am so he did it better. One thing he leaves out is the financial aspect. You don't spend millions of dollars and labor hours developing something, getting all the best minds in the biz together to create it, then basically not use it. The NCAA is a corporation like any other, and there are stakeholders there in the NET rating that don't want to look like buffoons.

This is all fine and good but when you come down to brass tacks, the committee isn't "the NCAA" They are a group of individuals in the sport who are invited to participate by the NCAA and each group has had a little bit of a different spin on what they value and how they use the tools at their disposal. Since this is the first go-around with the NET they don't even have any history to guide them unless they use it like the RPI was previously used. This committee and even the individuals on it will use it how they see fit, not in a way that is best for the NCAA who developed this metric.

 

[ca4cy]

I wouldn't complain about having Marquette in the second round. Not enthused about Virginia, but maybe Shayok would play with some extra sauce.

As evidenced by them losing to a 16 seed last year, anything can happen in March but I absolutely cannot draw up a scenario in my head where we could beat this year's UVA team. They are really freaking good, plus they'll have that chip on their shoulder from last year.

I think there is a clear line of delineation between the top 6 or 8 teams and everyone else.....now watch there be a crapload of upsets and some 6 or 7 seed win the whole thing.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

As evidenced by them losing to a 16 seed last year, anything can happen in March but I absolutely cannot draw up a scenario in my head where we could beat this year's UVA team. They are really freaking good, plus they'll have that chip on their shoulder from last year.

I think there is a clear line of delineation between the top 6 or 8 teams and everyone else.....now watch there be a crapload of upsets and some 6 or 7 seed win the whole thing.

I completely agree with you but weird things happen. Any of those teams can get knocked off on a given night.

 

[Cyclonepride]

From the article:

I’ve always assumed the committee will closely follow the NET rankings, as I’m guessing they want their new shiny ranking system to be viewed positively. If they themselves ignore the ranking system, or at least make decisions that would be viewed as incorrect according to the NET, is the new system really that great? And if they’re not following the NET ranking system at all, why did they make the change from the RPI? I guess what I’m arguing is that I think the committee has a personal self-interest in not straying too far from the NET. They need to make their new ranking system look smart and good and better than what we’ve had.

I've been saying this all year, although this guy is a better writer than I am so he did it better. One thing he leaves out is the financial aspect. You don't spend millions of dollars and labor hours developing something, getting all the best minds in the biz together to create it, then basically not use it. The NCAA is a corporation like any other, and there are stakeholders there in the NET rating that don't want to look like buffoons.

I don't think they'll go all in on the NET rankings just yet, but luckily, we look good in most metrics, so they tend to validate that conclusion.

 

[cycfan1]

Please give me Indiana in round 1... they don't have a win in 2 months nearly.

Big difference between 4 and 5 seed... getting a highly seeded mid major - or a middle of the pack P5 team... which could be a bad matchup problem. Midmajors down quite a bit this year.

 

[SolarGarlic]

Please give me Indiana in round 1... they don't have a win in 2 months nearly.

Big difference between 4 and 5 seed... getting a highly seeded mid major - or a middle of the pack P5 team... which could be a bad matchup problem. Midmajors down quite a bit this year.

I guess you missed Indiana's wins against Wisconsin and Michigan State last week.

 

[joey82]

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your writing last year. Especially the analysis and video break downs. I kept checking your site in Nov/Dec and at the beginning of conference play to see if you would get back to it.

I am glad you have returned. I hope that next year you have the time and willingness to provide the coverage that you did last year.

One question about your bracketology predictions. As a TTU fan I am curious on why you have Tech as a 4 seed. It seems that you like KU, Houston and Purdue higher than them while most other brackets have those teams seeded behind the Raiders.

I realize that the SOS is weak and their non-conference wins against Nebraska, USC and Memphis don't look as good now as they might have before the season started, but they have avoided any bad losses and they seem to be playing their best basketball of the season these last few weeks.


Thanks

 

[Cyclonepride]

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your writing last year. Especially the analysis and video break downs. I kept checking your site in Nov/Dec and at the beginning of conference play to see if you would get back to it.

I am glad you have returned. I hope that next year you have the time and willingness to provide the coverage that you did last year.

One question about your bracketology predictions. As a TTU fan I am curious on why you have Tech as a 4 seed. It seems that you like KU, Houston and Purdue higher than them while most other brackets have those teams seeded behind the Raiders.

I realize that the SOS is weak and their non-conference wins against Nebraska, USC and Memphis don't look as good now as they might have before the season started, but they have avoided any bad losses and they seem to be playing their best basketball of the season these last few weeks.


Thanks

Can't remember what his username was or I'd @ him for you