AP Poll - Week 17 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

AP Poll - Week 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
auror said:
They go down the s-curve ("true seed list") in order, placing teams by geography in each seedline. After each seedline, they will go back and adjust if the balance is too far out of whack relative to the s-curve (ie top 2 is in the #1 overall bracket).

They also will put the first 4 teams from each conference in a different regional where possible (and then from there on opposite sides of the same regional by bumping up or down a seedline as necessary).
Expand ...
So do we need to be either #5 or #9 overall to be in the east?
 
LOL Dick Vitale had Duke at 17, because, of course. Love DickieV and at this point I give him a pass..................he's an institution (20 years ago he belonged in an institution)

I admire his naked embracing of what we've all known for Decades. He has a stiffy for Duke.
 
JohnnyJr said:
So do we need to be either #5 or #9 overall to be in the east?
Expand ...
Number 9 overall (top 3 seed) is our best semi-realistic scenario to land in the East.

Even still, I’m not sure we can get that high on the committee’s s-curve.
 
.-.
navery12 said:
It's more that we need to be the closest team to the east of our seed group. Which is oversimplifying it a bit, but that's the general idea
Expand ...
Most of the teams in the top 16 aren’t really eastern teams so that’s good right?
 
JohnnyJr said:
Most of the teams in the top 16 aren’t really eastern teams so that’s good right?
Expand ...
Right. I think for getting MSG our main goal should be finishing above Virginia (or finishing a full seed behind). It was a good week in that regard. But Bracket Matrix has us right next to each other currently.
 
navery12 said:
It's more that we need to be the closest team to the east of our seed group. Which is oversimplifying it a bit, but that's the general idea
Expand ...
Problem is (as I’m sure you’re aware), another key bracket principle besides geography is breaking up teams from the same conference on the top 4 seed lines.

So if we’re, say, 11 on the s-curve with K-State and Baylor in front of us on the 3 line, with Kansas already the 1 in Vegas and Texas the 2 in Louisville, then one of K-State or Baylor would likely wind up the 3 in NYC (with the other in KC, of course).

That’s why I think we really need to get to 9 in the s-curve, if possible, to virtually ensure MSG. (E) and even then it might not be enough.
 
Last edited:
JohnnyJr said:
Most of the teams in the top 16 aren’t really eastern teams so that’s good right?
Expand ...
Yeah definitely a good thing. The biggest hindrance in my (uneducated) opinion is going to be something like 2 Big 12 teams like Texas and Baylor both ending up on the 2 line, and them needing to shift one out East because of matchups. So we end up in a different bracket as the worst 2 instead of the top 3 in the East
 
UConNick said:
Problem is (as I’m sure you’re aware), another key bracket principle besides geography is breaking up teams from the same conference on the top 4 seed lines.

So if we’re, say, 11 on the s-curve with K-State and Baylor in front of us on the 3 line, with Kansas already the 1 in Vegas and Texas the 2 in Louisville, then one of K-State or Baylor would likely wind up the 3 in NYC (with the other in KC, of course).

That’s why I think we really need to get to 9 in the s-curve, if possible, to virtually ensure MSG. (E) and even then it might not be enough.
Expand ...
I agree. Hopefully the upside to our ranking being so fluid is that the committee could justify almost any seed between 2-5 (and s-curve placement) to keep us in the East and MSG. I remember how important MSG was in 2014 vs Michigan State, and really want to be in that building again.
 
.-.
Can someone post the spread showing where each voter put us or tell me where you find that ?
 
Seamus84 said:
I agree. Hopefully the upside to our ranking being so fluid is that the committee could justify almost any seed between 2-5 (and s-curve placement) to keep us in the East and MSG. I remember how important MSG was in 2014 vs Michigan State, and really want to be in that building again.
Expand ...
I agree. I’ve done my own bracket projections every two weeks since the new year and I’ve had no trouble placing UConn in the East as a 4. Should be even easier now if we’re on that line and behind the top four XII teams instead of competing with them for regional placement (I’d think we should be well in front of IA State and TCU by now, but who knows).

The problem there is one I’ve seen mentioned a few times on the board, but one I’m frankly not sure what to think of (in either direction): would the committee risk having a top seed, let’s say Purdue, have to play a road game against 4-seed UConn in the S16? I haven’t a clue. It shouldn’t be a consideration. But I haven’t a clue what the committee will think.
 
Last edited:
UConNick said:
I agree. I’ve done my own bracket projections every two weeks since the new year and I’ve had no trouble placing UConn in the East as a 4. Should be even easier now if we’re on that line and behind the top four XII teams instead of competing with them for regional placement (I’d think we should be well in front of IA State and TCU by now, but who knows).

The problem there is one I’ve seen mentioned a few times on the board, but one I’m frankly not sure what to think of (in either direction): would the committee risk having a top seed, let’s say Purdue, have to play a road game against 4-seed UConn in the S16? I haven’t a clue. It shouldn’t be a consideration. But I haven’t a clue what the committee will think.
Expand ...
I thought I saw a rule that top 4 seeds in each bracket are only protected from a road game in the first two rounds. Idk what to think of playing a team like Purdue. I think we could beat them but Clingan would have to play a lot more then he’s used to
 
JohnnyJr said:
I thought I saw a rule that top 4 seeds in each bracket are only protected from a road game in the first two rounds. Idk what to think of playing a team like Purdue. I think we could beat them but Clingan would have to play a lot more then he’s used to
Expand ...
It’s all very complicated.

In theory, the top four seeds aren’t even “protected” from other teams in the first two rounds. There’s a famous case from several years ago when a 3-seed in Milwaukee, because that was their geographic preference (can’t remember who), had to play 6-seed Wisconsin in the second round because the bracket principles landed them there, as well.

I believe that shouldn’t matter - at least for the regionals. Geography and then conference break-ups before everything else. I’m just not sure if the committee will do it (shove 4-seed UConn somewhere else) purposefully to protect whatever power conference team, again, Purdue the highest chance, is the 1 in NYC.

E: it was more than several years ago. 2004, 3-seed Pitt got Milwaukee as their first weekend site with the Badgers as the accompanying 6. Pitt won a close one.
 
.-.
UConNick said:
It’s all very complicated.

In theory, the top four seeds aren’t even “protected” from other teams in the first two rounds. There’s a famous case from several years ago when a 3-seed in Milwaukee, because that was their geographic preference (can’t remember who), had to play 6-seed Wisconsin in the second round because the bracket principles landed them there, as well.

I believe that shouldn’t matter - at least for the regionals. Geography and then conference break-ups before everything else. I’m just not sure if the committee will do it (shove 4-seed UConn somewhere else) purposefully to protect whatever power conference team, again, Purdue the highest chance, is the 1 in NYC.

E: it was more than several years ago. 2004, 3-seed Pitt got Milwaukee as their first weekend site with the Badgers as the accompanying 6. Pitt won a close one.
Expand ...


There was also a case, I think it was 2014, where a team got a 7 seed and the regional semis and finals were at a venue that was only about 2.5 hours from the schools campus. Said venue has also been called that schools home away from home and Storrs South.
 
auror said:
Right. I think for getting MSG our main goal should be finishing above Virginia (or finishing a full seed behind). It was a good week in that regard. But Bracket Matrix has us right next to each other currently.
Expand ...
I genuinely don't understand how. UVa has far worse advanced metrics (including NET), fewer road/neutral wins, fewer Q1 wins, and fewer strong resume wins. They're feasting on that N-Baylor win...which is a good win, to be fair.
 
Ports21 said:
Miami's loss was an absolute collapse but they were without Pack
Expand ...
FSU is a sub-200 NET team. It's like losing do Delaware. Worse than losing to Bryant by about 40 spots, not that we know a Canadian team that lost to such trash.

Regardless, really doesn't matter who you are missing when you are playing sub-200 teams...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,214
Messages
4,557,468
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom