And The Bubble Bursts…(Major 3/18 Update)

Home Forums All StateFansNation And The Bubble Bursts…(Major 3/18 Update)

Viewing 24 posts - 76 through 99 (of 99 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47439
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    I must say I (and many others) continue to not understand why Lville is a 4 seed, whilst UVA garnered a 1.

    Did you post this before or after reading my addition to the main blog entry?

    #47442
    Wulfpack
    Participant

    It was before I saw your update, but it still seems skewed. No way there should be that much separation between a UVA and Lville. Lville is darn good, and it has nothing to do with what they did last year. I’m just not seeing Wellman’s rhetoric match-up on this one, and it is a widely shared opinion.

    #47443
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    There are alot of people that believe in alien abductions, Bigfoot, and shooters on the Grassy knoll. In other words, the people that are confused aren’t looking at the facts.

    Against the RPI Top 50
    (#3) Kansas…12-7 (insanely difficult schedule)
    (#6) Wiscy…..7-5
    (#5) “Nova…..6-3
    (#11) Mich…..10-5

    Which of these #2 seeds would you like to move down for (#19) Louisville @ 5-5?

    #47444
    BJD95
    Keymaster

    Again, would you rather have Duke or Michigan’s 2/3 seed, or be #4 and have regional games in your backyard?

    Don’t shed a tear for the Ville.

    #47446
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    The Selection Committee can either argue opinions or discuss facts. The only thing that I’ve seen used to support Louisville is opinion.

    #47447
    Wulfpack
    Participant

    It’s just the spread that has me. UVA beat no one out of conference. Nor did Ville. Both won their conference, and are very good teams. Wellman said it was the non-conference performance, and admitted Lville was considered as a 1. If non conference performance matters so much, as he stated, how in the heck is UVA a 1?

    #47450
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    Louisville’s OOC scheduling sucked in comparison to the top seeds (other than Wichita St).
    The Selection Committee doesn’t want to reward teams for playing weak OOC schedules.
    I don’t see the issue.

    I say again, “a really good team” would do better than 0.500 against the RPI Top-50. Being considered as one of the top 16 in the country is hardly a screw job.

    #47457
    BJD95
    Keymaster

    UVA won a better conference, too. At 16-2. It’s clear the committee found the AAC rather meh.

    #47458
    BJD95
    Keymaster

    Frankly, UConn only getting a 7 surprised me more. Figured the Ville was likely a 3, UConn a 5.

    #47463
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    The bottom half of the AAC was bad and provided alot of easy wins for the top-half. I saw one article where the writer said that the huge drop-off made the AAC teams hard to evaluate.

    I’m surprised (but not concerned) with Kentucky as an 8-seed.
    RPI………..17
    SOS…………3
    OOC SOS…9

    5 or 6 seed I would take without a second thought. But 8?

    #47464
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    Frankly, UConn only getting a 7 surprised me more.

    RPI = 22, so a 6 seed +/- 1
    Not enough difference for me to worry about

    #47466
    BJD95
    Keymaster

    I’m convinced the UK seed was part of the “screw Greg Marshall” plan, too.

    Oh, and here’s my album dedication to the “bracketologists” at ESPN:

    #47472
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    I’m convinced the UK seed was part of the “screw Greg Marshall” plan, too.

    LOL. A conspiracy theorist would certainly claim that “irony” is a key ingredient in the seeding and bracketing.

    One thing that complicates post-selection seeding discussions are the rules about rematches that force teams to be moved away from where the Selection Committee actually put them. In any event, I would like to move from studying bubble discussions to more in-depth seeding discussions one day. But like chop, I’m not very optimistic about that happening.

    #47474
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    Las Vegas’ take on brackets

    “The committee is a bunch of frauds. The way they do this thing makes no sense.”

    Key difference between selection committee and odds-makers:

    The selection committee attempts to seed teams best on what it’s proven in the schedule, not what it thinks it will do in March. The NCAA tournament field is supposed to be reflective, not predictive. And that’s why we can have inconsistencies with teams’ placement in relation to their title/Final Four/game-by-game odds. There’s also the issue of geography, which plays into the top four seeds’ location. In an effort to keep the best teams as close to home/their fan base as possible, you can have situations where one bracket acts as a magnet for disparity because too many good teams happen to be all fairly close to one region.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24490065/vegas-ncaas-seeding-over-the-top-insane-committee-a-bunch-of-frauds

    #47508
    wufpup76
    Keymaster

    The Selection Committee can either argue opinions or discuss facts. The only thing that I’ve seen used to support Louisville is opinion.

    The NCAA tournament field is supposed to be reflective, not predictive.

    ^I wish someone could paint these quotes in the studios at Espn. In fairness though, ‘bubble discussion’ gives them something to talk about and generate viewing interest with.

    #47514
    GoldenChain
    Participant

    Great piece VA. I was reading it last night and thinking:

    How many guys like Lunardi, the guys who project NFL/NBA draft orders, the preseason pollsters, Jeff Saragin, guys who do power-rankings, h-s recruit rankings, etc make a hellofalot of jack off of pure speculation. Probably most of it more subjective than yours VA.

    Does anyone ever go back and check how these guys do in actuality?

    #47515
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    Does anyone ever go back and check how these guys do in actuality?

    Hi GC, long time no see.

    I know that they brag on themselves if they have a good year, but I don’t check. In the past, Lunardi has released a bracket the day after the championship game for the next year. So I have a hard time taking him seriously.

    #47519
    compsciwolf
    Participant

    Don’t forget that their number one business is to drive eye balls to their respective sites. So while they need to retain some credibility by being mostly accurate, generating a bit of controversy doesn’t hurt their main goal. I would imagine this applies more to ESPN than others, as ESPN has always been more in the business of promoting and ginning up viewership that necessarily being truthful.

    #47521
    Wulfpack
    Participant

    Lunardi has been very accurate:

    Lunardi correctly predicted all 65 teams to appear in the 2008 NCAA Tournament,[1] while correctly selecting 63 out the 65 teams in the 2009 field by placing both Creighton and St. Mary’s incorrectly in his final bracket on March 15.[2] Lunardi correctly selected 64 of the 65 teams in the 2010 NCAA Tournament, believing that Illinois would receive the final at-large bid, while in reality, Florida did.[3] After making mistakes in both 2011 and 2012, Lunardi correctly predicted all 68 teams for the 2013 tournament. For 2014 March Madness, Lunardi came “close enough” by correctly picking 67 of 68 teams, with SMU as the only defect.

    #47526
    wufpup76
    Keymaster

    hellofalot of jack off

    Ohhhh?

    🙂

    #48051
    VaWolf82
    Keymaster

    For future reference. Official NCAA Seeding List
    http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24487953/official-ncaa-1-68-seeding-order

    1. Florida
    2.Arizona
    3.Wichita St.
    4.Virginia
    5.Villanova
    6.Michigan
    7.Kansas
    8.Wisconsin
    9.Duke
    10. Syracuse
    11.Creighton
    12. Iowa St.
    13. Louisville
    14.Michigan St.
    15.UCLA
    16. San Diego St.
    17.Cincinnati
    18. Saint Louis
    19.VCU
    20.Oklahoma
    21.North Carolina
    22.Ohio St.
    23.Massachusetts
    24.Baylor
    25. Texas
    26.UConn
    27.Oregon
    28.New Mexico
    29.Kentucky
    30.Gonzaga
    31.Memphis
    32.Colorado
    33.Kansas St.
    34.George Washington
    35.Oklahoma St.
    36.Pittsburgh
    37. Stanford
    38. Saint Joseph’s
    39.BYU
    40.Arizona St.
    41.Dayton
    42.Nebraska
    43.Providence
    44. Tennessee
    45. Iowa
    46.Xavier
    47.North Carolina St.

    #48052
    Deacon Blues
    Participant

    ^ they got one wrong, Swap 46 and 47….now lets see if we can swap 18….

    #48053
    1.21 Jigawatts
    Keymaster

    Some people just can’t let it go…

    @DanWolken: NC State has no business being in the NCAA Tournament, but they will probably beat Saint Louis on Thursday.

    #48132
    PackFamily
    Participant

    Some people just can’t let it go…
    @DanWolken: NC State has no business being in the NCAA Tournament, but they will probably beat Saint Louis on Thursday.

    Lol! Nor use logic… wouldn’t beating SL after beating Xavier pretty much prove we belong? Or does this guy have some unique criteria (i.e. pulled from his rectum) on who does have “business’ being in the tournament.

    I have no business not being a super hunk………. according to me.

Viewing 24 posts - 76 through 99 (of 99 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.