You want our road to the Final 4 to be tougher because you personally get upset by morons on the internet?
You know you don’t have to listen to these people or care what they say? Or even get on Twitter.
Bracketology 2024
- Thread starter CoachHines3
- Start date
You know you don’t have to listen to these people or care what they say? Or even get on Twitter.
So that says they DO create a 1-68 seed list, to determine overall seeds. Then use that to place teams in the brackets.
But the following point implies to me that they start with "natural region" but then the S-curve concept can (or should?) trump that natural region to avoid overloading. That's the top 16 teams "5-point rule".
The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order. The committee may relax the principle of keeping teams as close to their area of natural interest for seeding teams on the No. 2 line to avoid, for example, the overall No. 5 seed being sent to the same region as the overall No. 1 seed.
Honestly, it sounds to me like they take both the S-curve AND the geography into account, which gives them enough wiggle room to do whatever tf they want. Except put same conference teams together, that's the one big no-no.
This is the kind of assertion that conflicts with so much other information on here?
I’m not trying to be argumentative but can you point to a source that says there is no S Curve for 1-4 seeds?
And most of the same arguments for why that shouldn't count against Gonzaga work for NCSOS as well. You really don't have much control over what neutral site tournaments you're invited to or what conference challenge games you are scheduled in. And those two things are the meat of the resume-builders in the noncon.
Fwiw, I went back 10 years in KenPom and, minus the COVID tournament, the worst NCSOS to get a 1 seed was Virginia in 2019 at 258.
Start with geography and then add up the top 4 seeds and make sure regions are no more than 5 apart.
1-5-9-13 would add up to 28
4-8-12-16 would add up to 40
That would be a no go.
1-5-12-16 adds up to 34 and would be just fine.
Thought I just posted this but can't find it.
If UNC gets the final 1 seed. Arizona will stay west as LA is the further distance of the other 3 in contention.
After that it's us Tennessee and Marquette all closer to Detroit then any other region. Highest seed of the 3 gets MW.
The final 2 locations will be determined by conference affiliation. We can't go South. Marquette can't go East.
I honestly think these bracketologist are missing if we earn the choice we go MW. They just see it's easier to place us there. But unless Tennessee or Marquette are a higher overall seed we should get Detroit.
I don't think it matters where we are seeded. I love reading twitter and watching sports shows when ISU does well. I'll admit I'm over-sensitive when people are negative about my team when they don't deserve it.
It won't do anything to our metrics. Any SOS bump would be negligible, and they're solidly a Quad 2 win either way. And more practically if the committee had discussions about the last #1 seed, they likely already happened. They're probably dealing with the bid thief chaos and bracketing today.
I think it's close between us and UNC for the last #1, but brand name and non-con scheduling are working against us. I don't think either should matter, but us being #11 overall during the committee's first reveal was lower than most thought, so I don't have high hopes. Getting ahead of Marquette and Tennessee to get Detroit and avoid UConn is probably the more realistic goal.
Yeah it's weird they only mention O1 and the O5 seeds. I believe the 1-68 is for placement and making sure their is competitive balance. So after seeding the top 16 seeds they will add up the seeds and make sure there is not one that is at say 28 (1,5,9,13) and one at 40 (4,8,12,16), and I think the hey try to balance them a lot closer than that. I think someone said they try to have the biggest different 5 points.
Doesn't make it any less of an idiotic measurement.
Yea, the conversation on the last 1 seed is already over. It’s now too late to really do any crazy changes. They’re watching these last games and scrubbing the bracket
Any 2 seeds that had a weak non-con schedule kept out of a 1 seed because of that?
That says "for example" so it applies in general wrt the top 16 overall - that's my understanding of that language. I have seed more than one person claim it is the ONLY exception that can be made, which I think is incorrect.
Call me crazy, but I think the teams success should come before your need for a safe space on Twitter. With success comes haters - enjoy being on top, and screw the jealous haters!
Sorry the original quote in the thread said we had to be a 5 to avoid UCONN, I am saying we could avoid UCONN as the 6 if Arizona is the 5. I think you are saying the same thing?
It's based on the rules for assignment the bracketologist that's a clone fan posted here earlier today.
Best overall seed gets first choice then the next overall seed and so forth. The exception is as a 2 you won't be seeded with a 1 from your conference. 3s avoid conference affiliates as well. I would say the competitive advantage placement starts on the 3 line.
Not to mention that all the coverage I've seen on it today brings it up, thinks we will be a two, but doesn't act like a 1 is crazy. It's more like "huh, Iowa State. Who would have thought?". And until yesterday at about 4, I think all of us were like "huh..." when we started thinking about the #1 seed. Things had to fall pretty perfectly this weekend for this to be an option today.
Last edited:
Yeah but it's just the only example, it does not expand on if the best 3 should avoid the best 4 or that the weakest 2 should get the best 3. It's kind of open to interpretation and hasn't really been clarified what they mean since they have made a point to say they want geographic based seeds first.
