Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Bracketology 2024

clone52 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is basically how I read it as well, start with area of "natural interest".

But they pay attention to the S-curve as they go (in case of similar geography, like say Auburn vs Tenn in a given region) and then they test it with the 5-point rule in the end once its done.
 
QBEagles said:
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.
Click to expand...
You'd think by now they have the bubble teams ranked in order and every bid steal just bursts the lowest teams bubble.

Are any of the 5 CC today between one team that would get an at large v. a team that isn't?
 
Cyforce said:
You'd think by now they have the bubble teams ranked in order and every bid steal just bursts the lowest teams bubble.

Are any of the 5 CC today between one team that would get an at large v. a team that isn't?
Click to expand...

Nope, the field is set. So, in theory the committee has time to look at us and UNC and decide who should be the #1. Lunardi claimed they've had the #1's set for a few days and they don't go back and adjust. But since there isn't a whole lot of movement today, they have time.
 
CascadeClone said:
That is basically how I read it as well, start with area of "natural interest".

But they pay attention to the S-curve as they go (in case of similar geography, like say Auburn vs Tenn in a given region) and then they test it with the 5-point rule in the end once its done.
Click to expand...
The seed list is used to determine the order of selection. The S-curve would mean the seed list order determines matchups, 1-8-9-6, 2-7-10-15, 3-6-11-14, 4-5-12-13.

I think it's just a difference in terminology between the seed list and S-curve.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mctallerton
jsb said:
Nope, the field is set. So, in theory the committee has time to look at us and UNC and decide who should be the #1. Lunardi claimed they've had the #1's set for a few days and they don't go back and adjust. But since there isn't a whole lot of movement today, they have time.
Click to expand...
Lunardi is dumb. Before the conference tournaments, Arizona or Tennessee or both may have been ahead of UNC.
 
Dante said:
View attachment 125771
From CBS (Jerry Palm), imagine the insanity..
Click to expand...
Non con SOS is a cop out that will likely be the justification for screwing us. The ACC has 9 or 10 teams that won't make the tournament. Why would it matter our Q1 wins are in conference. I would think if the Clemson coach watched the Houston dismantling last night he'd pipe down about our out of con SOS. 80 % of your conference is garbage.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SolarGarlic
Pope said:
Couldn't agree more! Looking at a team's overall strength of schedule is very valid, but looking at the strength of schedule for only a fraction of the team's schedule is beyond stupid. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
As I’ve thought about this, I wonder if this was to give teams like Gonzaga a chance at a 1 seed. We have a much stronger resume than most of their teams had.
 
Cyforce said:
Non con SOS is a cop out that will likely be the justification for screwing us. The ACC has 9 or 10 teams that won't make the tournament. Why would it matter our Q1 wins are in conference. I would think if the Clemson coach watched the Houston dismantling last night he'd pipe down about our out of con SOS. 80 % of your conference is garbage.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The one thing that I always wonder about is if a top conference kind of becomes a self-fulfilling thing at times. Like the Big 12 was good from the start so when we all beat each other up no one gets dinged much.
 
jsb said:
Nope, the field is set. So, in theory the committee has time to look at us and UNC and decide who should be the #1. Lunardi claimed they've had the #1's set for a few days and they don't go back and adjust. But since there isn't a whole lot of movement today, they have time.
Click to expand...
Which part are you noping?
 
clone52 said:
Lunardi is dumb. Before the conference tournaments, Arizona or Tennessee or both may have been ahead of UNC.
Click to expand...
This is 1000% true. Talk about UNC being a lock for #1 started exactly when Tennessee and Arizona lost.

But then ESPN starts in with the “this was all set in stone before the tournament”.

Both of these things cannot be true.
 
alarson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Add in games like Iowa and DePaul too… We can’t control those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom