NCAA Tournament Bracketology

Status
Not open for further replies.
The committee might not use conference affiliation, and conference record on the team sheet, or as part of the official discussion, but let's face it - these guys know all of these teams very well, and undoubtedly have been following this season closely. I'd bet that most if not all come to the final meeting with their own seeding defined as part of their homework or notes. Any numbers of factors or bias can influence their opinions prior to meeting.

For what its worth I read a site that compared a couple metrics and found that ESPN's SOR (strength of record) ranking was most accurate in predicting the seeding.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/dir/asc/view/overview/sort/sorrank
 
New York
That SOR most closely matches seeding makes a ton of sense. SOR also mirrors our position in the polls- which basically reflect people looking at who you’ve played and who you’ve beat and not margin of victory, efficiency, etc. this is the same exercise that the committee undertakes and what our NET resume sheet shows - people looking at who you’ve beaten and who you’ve lost to.


The committee might not use conference affiliation, and conference record on the team sheet, or as part of the official discussion, but let's face it - these guys know all of these teams very well, and undoubtedly have been following this season closely. I'd bet that most if not all come to the final meeting with their own seeding defined as part of their homework or notes. Any numbers of factors or bias can influence their opinions prior to meeting.

For what its worth I read a site that compared a couple metrics and found that ESPN's SOR (strength of record) ranking was most accurate in predicting the seeding.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/dir/asc/view/overview/sort/sorrank
 
M tipping over
Pdx
Really impressed by the work done by Robert on the tourney sheets. Super impressive how many top half "away" quad one wins we have. Might have to throw some money his way if he still has the change jug out.

On a separate note, it seems the B1G resume heading into conference play worked to our advantage at least.
 
Invisible and Bulletproof
Miracle Mile
Just glad to be needing to buy an annual USA Today again with all the teams breakdowns, so I can over think both my brackets as well as my wagers on the first 2 days of the tournament.
I also used to look forward to my annual USA Today purchase, but over the last ~10 years or so, it's become increasingly difficult to find one for sale. And the quality and breadth of the March Madness section has been getting lousier each of the past 3-4 years. In fact, I have a feeling that last year (maybe even in 2018, too?) the Monday edition didn't even have that section - I'm pretty sure that it was in Tuesday's edition, and that it was near-useless garbage.

Can anyone else confirm whether the "worthwhile" edition is on Tuesdays now?
 
Charleston
How can Michigan receive a better seed than Illinois when we beat them twice and are substantially ahead of them in the conference standing? It seems as though those putting these mock brackets together put more stock in what teams did in November and December than what they have done in January and February which doesn't make sense to me. Isn't the whole idea supposed to be to improve as the season progresses. It appears that one basket at the end of the Miami game in December could be the difference between an 8 seed and a 5 or 6 seed. Frustrating!
Also, it’s possible that teams get a boost from recent successful season.
 
How can Michigan receive a better seed than Illinois when we beat them twice and are substantially ahead of them in the conference standing? It seems as though those putting these mock brackets together put more stock in what teams did in November and December than what they have done in January and February which doesn't make sense to me. Isn't the whole idea supposed to be to improve as the season progresses. It appears that one basket at the end of the Miami game in December could be the difference between an 8 seed and a 5 or 6 seed. Frustrating!
Because Michigan has quality out of conference wins such as iowa state, Creighton, gonzaga and North Carolina. We also are going to have 2 quad 3 loses while Michigan really doesn't have a bad lose. We played no one until the conference started and lost to all 3 "real games" non-con to unranked teams, Michigan lost to Oregon and Louisville during that stretch. Also the committee doesn't even look at conference rankings, you are graded on a scorecard without recency or injuries considered.
 
Because Michigan has quality out of conference wins such as iowa state, Creighton, gonzaga and North Carolina. We also are going to have 2 quad 3 loses while Michigan really doesn't have a bad lose. We played no one until the conference started and lost to all 3 "real games" non-con to unranked teams, Michigan lost to Oregon and Louisville during that stretch. Also the committee doesn't even look at conference rankings, you are graded on a scorecard without recency or injuries considered.
Calling the wins over Iowa State and North Carolina quality wins is a bit of stretch this season, don't you think?
 
I do not question that what you are saying is accurate. Your explanation makes sense. I can see that Michigan's non-conference resume is much better. I am surprised at what I am hearing about the committee's view of non-conference and conference wins and losses. Though both are important it would seem to me that results in January - March should tip the scales more than results in November-December.
 
The Villages, FL
If we win both of the next 2, I see us as a 5/6 possibility. 1 of the next 2, 6/7 possibility. 0 of the next 2, 8/9 possibility.
If we win the next two games and are a Big Ten co-champion, you can mark down the Illini as a 3-4 seed. All the rating systems in the world become garbage when the first place team in the best conference in the US is considered by actual human beings in "the Room." You simply do not put 16 teams ahead of the co-champion of the undisputed best conference. As Hawk says: "You can put in on the Board!" And, I just did...
 
A win tonight would be another Quad 1A win (@OSU - #15 NET) on the road. That would go a long way towards getting our NET ranking into the 20's and the perception that we aren't a top 20 team.
 
I do not question that what you are saying is accurate. Your explanation makes sense. I can see that Michigan's non-conference resume is much better. I am surprised at what I am hearing about the committee's view of non-conference and conference wins and losses. Though both are important it would seem to me that results in January - March should tip the scales more than results in November-December.
I agree that recency should factor but that isn't how things are viewed. WE played a really weak non-con and will pay the price when it comes to seeding.
 
I saw we are now a 7-seed in the bracket matrix ... after having played no games since being an 8- or 9-seed, lol. I honestly believe there is a lag factor, and fans here are trying to rationalize why we aren't underseeded to not look like homers and be *objective* ... but for God's sake, Lunardi had us as an 8-seed before we went on our current four-game winning streak, including a win on the road over a top ten team. Even if you think we currently sit as an 8-seed if the Tournament started today, there is no way four straight wins - two of which are over probable Tournament teams, one of which is a Quad 1A win on the road! - there is no way we were in the exact same position four wins ago, and that loses him credibility...
 
Forgottonia
The thing is, everyone can puff their chest, make crazy predictions, absolute locks, guarantees, no way this happens, etc., and none of it matters. Because as Daniel has pointed out, there are so many combinations of things that can still happen, no one knows what the set of criteria the decisions will be based on are yet. Even once we do know, few if any will get the seeds right. But I enjoy watching the free for all anyway. 😁

Carry on.
 
South Carolina
Recency bias should not play into who gets into the tourney; however, it may affect seeding. NET has us sitting as a 8 or 9 seed, but I think we get a higher seed based on how we've played since January and the teams we beat especially on the road. Could be wrong though as my wife reminds me constantly.
Historically, the Selection Committee has been very kind to us. I feel like we'll be very pleased with our official seeding in another 10 days.
 
I agree that recency should factor but that isn't how things are viewed. WE played a really weak non-con and will pay the price when it comes to seeding.
Non con doesn't matter. If they don't look at conference games as more important than non con, then the reverse applies, they are no more important. Our six current road wins is huge and we have a chance to make it 5 Quad 1A wins tonight 7 road wins overall. Who can match that?
 
If we win both of the next 2, I see us as a 5/6 possibility. 1 of the next 2, 6/7 possibility. 0 of the next 2, 8/9 possibility.
I must say I do not see us getting worse than a 5 seed. It will mean that we share the conference title in the toughest conference out there. A road win and a home win to two teams ranked above us will move the needle. As others have stated we are a six seed now which seems about right.
 
Likes: Illinifan533
Status
Not open for further replies.