Race for 1 Seed (2/5) | Page 14 | The Boneyard

Race for 1 Seed (2/5)

RuffRuff said:
I'm not sure that's automatic. And Houston will not be the best 2 seed. I doubt you can reward them.

I'd personally want to avoid Florida at all costs if they get to the 2 line. I can see it landing something like this.

Expand ...

Wouldn't mind Vanderbilt as a 4 or 5 in UConn's bracket, rather than Virginia.

Surprised Villanova and St Johns both get a 6.

All the 4s and 5s, minus Vanderbilt, concern me more than 3 Gonzaga
 
  • Like
Reactions: caw
Travelman6 said:
Wouldn't mind Vanderbilt as a 4 or 5 in UConn's bracket, rather than Virginia.

Surprised Villanova and St Johns both get a 6.

All the 4s and 5s, minus Vanderbilt, concern me more than 3 Gonzaga
Expand ...
If Vandy is losing in the second round regardless it won’t make a difference to us. Maybe MSU bumps the zags off the 3 line. Arkansas is the most talented 5 seed.
 
bendm said:
If Vandy is losing in the second round regardless it won’t make a difference to us. Maybe MSU bumps the zags off the 3 line. Arkansas is the most talented 5 seed.
Expand ...
100% - Ark the only team not in the top 4 seeds that I think have a chance of making a run, maybe even top 3 seeds. Their issue is they play no defense.

For a second I thought StJ could be interesting, until we pistol whipped them and you could seem something really off in their makeup.
 
bendm said:
It’s not about rewarding anyone it’s about selling tickets. If Houston is a 1 or 2 seed they’ll be in the south. We have to hope they keep losing and fall to a 3. Although Houston in Houston doesn’t really scare me anymore. Would rather that than a rematch against Florida Illinois Kansas. Indifferent on ISU and Purdue.
Expand ...
Do you know the tickets aren’t already sold? If so, is your theory that it’s about the NCAA wanting to reward scalpers?
 
businesslawyer said:
Do you know the tickets aren’t already sold? If so, is your theory that it’s about the NCAA wanting to reward scalpers?
Expand ...
Geographic preference = having more of your fans at the game. If you disagree take it up with auror he explained how the committee balances the s curve with geographic preference.
 
.-.
businesslawyer said:
Do you know the tickets aren’t already sold? If so, is your theory that it’s about the NCAA wanting to reward scalpers?
Expand ...
The schools get ticket packages to sell, and it's less likely they will sell them all if people have to travel several thousand miles away. And just in general, you WILL have more fans there if the game is closer, whether it is secondary or primary ticket sales. So obviously schools prefer that. It also keeps travel costs down, which because it is a championship event the NCAA pays for, so that is a big incentive on the NCAA's side.
 
auror said:
The committee says they value the conference tournaments. Every year they say it. But the results don't seem to move the needle much, especially the Sunday games, but also the Saturday games at times.
Expand ...
I think it's the pressure of time for the Sunday games. If the teams in the conference tournament finals would have made it in as an at large then the result of the conference game probably doesn't their seeding or tournament location all that much. But if you have some teams that were not close to being at large teams win their conference tournaments-that's probably when the committee says "or f.. uu...cc...k" we got some adjustments to make.
 
BFieldHusky said:
Last Saturday (before the weekend games) here were the Top 10:

1. Michigan
2. Duke
3. Arizona
4. Iowa St.
5. UConn
6. Houston
7. Illinois
8. Purdue
9. Florida
10. Kansas

Based on results since then until this morning, I would say:

1. Duke (beat Michigan on a neutral court)
2. Michigan (could be Arizona here)
3. Arizona (could be Michigan)
4. UConn (Two Q1 wins since Sat)
5. Iowa St. (lost on the road to borderline Top 25 BYU)
6. Illinois (lost in OT)
7. Purdue (lost to Michigan St)
8. Florida (2nd hottest team in the country)
9. Houston (lost 2x)
10. Nebraska

I think is a 3-4 team race between UConn, Iowa St and Illinois. I wouldn't completely rule Houston out only because they have a favorable schedule and then the Big 12 tournament, but the lack of big wins means they need to win out and get a lot of help along the way.
Expand ...
That’s based on a poll….which means nothing. Focus on WAB.
 
navery12 said:
You are correct that you don't get any WAB for beating a D2 team, but the subsequent logic is a bit off. The 25 wins for an expected bubble team is coming from their 28-0 record and them having a WAB of 3 (so an average bubble team would be expected to be 25-3). So if you then exclude those 3 D2 games you'd also have to adjust the expected wins down as well. So they'd be 25-0 and a bubble team would be 22-3
Expand ...
Thank you for clarifying. Makes a lot more sense thinking about it as their WAB is 3 instead of looking at it from a standpoint of expected wins against their schedule. I think had it been phrased that way in the post I read I may not have even posed the question (not saying it wasn't phrased that way somewhere earlier in the thread, but the specific post I was responding to.)

I like WAB overall, but every metric has flaws and I guess this specific example kind of exposes one of the flaws with WAB. They've played only 1 game against Q2, so it's saying a team on the cut line with this schedule would be expected to be 1-0 against Q2 with 3 losses against Q3, or 0-1 against Q2 with 2 losses against Q3. Whereas we all know a team with 0-1 Q2 wins and multiple losses in Q3 would never be seriously considered for an at large. The cumulative aspect of stacking together those Q3 and Q4 wins seems to inflate their WAB a bit.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,337
Messages
4,518,991
Members
10,398
Latest member
southcampus
Top Bottom