Bracketology

[jacobkdoyle]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

Blind resume test:

Team A: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses
Team B: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses

Team UC

[sedziobs]

...and team Duke.

[kskenyon4]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

...and team Duke.

Lunardi moves Cincy to the 3 lines this morning.

I REALLY want us to be 22-2 on Feb 11 and see what seed they peg us at.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

Blind resume test:

Team A: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses
Team B: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses

So this is the obvious starting point. We have to consider who might be in the same columns by years end. What the average rank is. Does one team have top 10 wins vs maybe top 25. What is the road/neutral record. etc

I am trying to understand the committee but the only good way to do that would be researching 2-3 years of selections, team sheets and seeds to see what the major preferences are.

I would imagine column 1 is huge and column 2 is next. I really doubt column 3 and 4 matter much at all unless you have 2-3 losses there. The committee isn't going to be impressed by column 3 or 4...but it could hurt.

Column 2 is going to be important for the mid majors this year. We will likely see a few more of these teams get in...and some of the lower "power" conference teams left out. In the end it's probably a small impact...but the overriding principles of committee selection will remain.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by kskenyon4

Lunardi moves Cincy to the 3 lines this morning.

I REALLY want us to be 22-2 on Feb 11 and see what seed they peg us at.

Slowly but surely...

I would love a 3 seed. 2 or 3 doesn't matter. So much better than 4. We aren't getting a 1.

[jacobkdoyle]

Originally Posted by kskenyon4

Lunardi moves Cincy to the 3 lines this morning.

I REALLY want us to be 22-2 on Feb 11 and see what seed they peg us at.

That would be 3 22-2 starts in the last 5 years. Insane.

[ThomasMac]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-bas...l/bracketology

3 seed in Joe's updated bracketology

[sedziobs]

I took a look at the resumes for last year's protected seeds, even though the criteria are different now.

Seed list rank, top 50, 50-100, 101+ losses

1 Villanova 12-2, 5-1, 0
2 Kansas 8-2, 7-2, 0
3 UNC 10-5, 7-2, 0
4 Gonzaga 5-0, 6-1, 0
5 Kentucky 8-4, 10-1, 0
6 Arizona 6-4, 6-0, 0
7 Duke 13-6, 4-1, 1
8 Louisville 7-8, 7-0, 0
9 Oregon 4-3, 10-0, 2
10 Fla St 11-4, 6-2, 1
11 UCLA 6-4, 4-0, 0
12 Baylor 9-4, 5-2, 2
13 Butler 10-4, 6-1, 3
14 Florida 6-8, 9-0, 0
15 WVU 6-4, 7-1, 3
16 Purdue 7-5, 5-1, 1

One thing that sticks out to me is that all of the 1 and 2 seeds had two losses or less outside the top 50. Also, there are two protected seeds who had losing records against the top 50.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

I took a look at the resumes for last year's protected seeds, even though the criteria are different now.

Seed list rank, top 50, 50-100, 101+ losses

1 Villanova 12-2, 5-1, 0
2 Kansas 8-2, 7-2, 0
3 UNC 10-5, 7-2, 0
4 Gonzaga 5-0, 6-1, 0
5 Kentucky 8-4, 10-1, 0
6 Arizona 6-4, 6-0, 0
7 Duke 13-6, 4-1, 1
8 Louisville 7-8, 7-0, 0
9 Oregon 4-3, 10-0, 2
10 Fla St 11-4, 6-2, 1
11 UCLA 6-4, 4-0, 0
12 Baylor 9-4, 5-2, 2
13 Butler 10-4, 6-1, 3
14 Florida 6-8, 9-0, 0
15 WVU 6-4, 7-1, 3
16 Purdue 7-5, 5-1, 1

One thing that sticks out to me is that all of the 1 and 2 seeds had two losses or less outside the top 50. Also, there are two protected seeds who had losing records against the top 50.

I think we were 3-4 in column 1 (including conference tourney) and 3-1 in column 2. No other losses. But our resume was screaming we can't win the big ones and I think we got docked for it. 3-4 is worse than every team in there or tied at best.

We were 6-5 in column 1 and 2 last year. That is worse than all the teams up there I think. 12-6 was Purdue at 16. Did I read that right?

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by waterhead

I think we were 3-4 in column 1 (including conference tourney) and 3-1 in column 2. No other losses. But our resume was screaming we can't win the big ones and I think we got docked for it. 3-4 is worse than every team in there or tied at best.

We were 6-5 in column 1 and 2 last year. That is worse than all the teams up there I think. 12-6 was Purdue at 16. Did I read that right?

We aren't going to get the heavy totals the P6 gets. We have to take care of the % of column 1 and 2 wins to make an impression. Somewhere around 50% is not going to get it done.