College Sports (Basketball)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#228      
Calvin
Who told him this was a good idea?
Click to expand...

Ha, guy reminds me of Josh Meyers. For those of you who aren't familiar with him, he impersonates Gavin Newsom on Jimmy Kimmel. Comes across as super slick, hey relax, I fix everything kind of guy.
 
#231      
Mobi
chrisRunner7 said:
He may have a reputation of being a goober, but I am impressed that he actually responded to a couple of negative questions about Kentucky's portal failures.
Click to expand...
Glad Brad doesn't need to do this.
 
#234      
lstewart53x3
Dan said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2052466156309545038
Click to expand...
This encompasses my total thoughts:

I Dont Season 8 GIF by Friends
 
#239      
Battle89
mysterio2525 said:
here is the first ESPN bracketology with the new format. Illinois got a 1 seed but I still hate the expansion

www.espn.com

Men's Bracketology: Florida debuts as No. 1 overall seed for 2026-27

The Gators return their leading scorer to top the first forecasted field for next season's NCAA tournament.
www.espn.com
Click to expand...
All the changes, all the time passed, and we still end playing Kentucky in Kentucky.

1778190932850.png


Edit: and what a loaded region! 1 - Illinois 2 - Arizona 3 - Gonzaga 4 - Alabama 5 - Iowa State
 
#240      
wc_illini
Dan said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2052466156309545038
Click to expand...
This is really helpful for me to visualize what the changes actually mean.

TL/DR: I think this system improves the 10-16 seeds compared to what they would be under the system that's been in place.

The extra 15/16 play-ins weed out more of the worst autobid teams, bump the ~12-14 seeds one spot to ~13-15, and create room for 4 additional at-large teams in the R64 as ~12 seeds. If teams are (theoretically) selected by resume but seeded more in line with efficiency, the extra 11/12 play-ins shift more teams with good resumes but poor metrics into these play-ins, leaving better teams as 10/11 seeds (some of the additional 8 at-large teams will likely have better efficiency ranks than a bunch of the teams ahead of them in the resume rankings used for selection).

If I'm thinking about this correctly, it also creates an awkward void for autobid teams around the 12 seed line- they are exempt from the 11/12-seed at-large play-in games, right? If so, they have to be moved to either 13 or 11.
 
#241      
wc_illini
grue2 said:
Summary: All the 16s and 12s play in. Half the 11s and 15s play in.

Any idea why they put the play in 11s and 15s in the same brackets? I would expect each play in game to make the bracket stronger, so this feels unbalanced v.s one 11 or 15 play in game per bracket.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure an 11- or 15-seed play-in game makes a region stronger. Even if the better team wins, those are theoretically among the lower half of the 11-seeds and lower half of the 15-seeds.
 
#245      
wc_illini
Bucktown said:
Like many I don't understand most of this, by why do the so called 11 seeds play each other instead of playing the worst of the 12 seeds? It gives the 12 seeds an easier path to playing in the real tournament.
Click to expand...
I think the priority is ensuring appropriate matchups for the 5 and 6 seeds (want all the 12 seeds to be "worse" than all the 11 seeds).

The way to get the best teams all seeded correctly into the R64 would be to have the worst 24 teams (regardless of at-large or autobid) play each other (seeded so the best of these plays the worst, etc), then sort the winners and place them in the R64 as the 14-16 seeds. But that's not happening.
 
#246      
grue2
wc_illini said:
I'm not sure an 11- or 15-seed play-in game makes a region stronger. Even if the better team wins, those are theoretically among the lower half of the 11-seeds and lower half of the 15-seeds.
Click to expand...
I think the 11/12 games may make a significant difference.
- The 5-11 game is won by the 11 35% of the time.
- The 4-12 game is won by the 12 20% of the time.
The stronger 11/12 seed should have an even better chance of advancing. Look at how the last 4 in winners have done thus far.

The stronger 15 seed in the 2/15 game is pretty unlikely to matter. I still don't understand why they were not spread out more.
 
#247      
The Sprouting Divot
I think the 11/12 games may make a significant difference.
- The 5-11 game is won by the 11 35% of the time.
- The 4-12 game is won by the 12 20% of the time.
The stronger 11/12 seed should have an even better chance of advancing. Look at how the last 4 in winners have done thus far.

The stronger 15 seed in the 2/15 game is pretty unlikely to matter. I still don't understand why they were not spread out more.
Click to expand...
5s play 12s and 4s play 13s.

~~~~~~

I hate this new paradigm and I hope that those responsible for it will die of syphilis quickly and painfully.
 
#248      
Vinegarben
The NCAA is ruining the tournament. I know it is all about MONEY! The thing is we will see teams in the big 4 conferences get more team in with losing records and the Mid conferences still getting the shaft. Why don't they just say all the SEC, BIG, Big 12 and the ACC teams automatically qualify. This is Bull-sh-----------------eet. Eliminate the conference tournaments. They already play 18-20 games. If they don't prove they are quality team after that they don't deserve to get in. This is nothing but a money grift!
 
#250      
Fighter of the Nightman
fatboyslim said:
Will never like 15 and 16 seeds, who won their conference tournaments, having to play their way into the field of 64. All of the opening round games should be bubble teams truly having to win their way into the field of 64.
Click to expand...
Amen. The pursuit of the “better” teams at the expense of what separates March Madness unique among all postseason formats is so unspeakably stupid and short sighted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back