NCAA TOURNAMENT

[Queens_NYC]

I read a reaction thread on an Iowa forum this morning on my way to work. For those that care, here were the reactions that stuck out most to me...

Primary opinions - expressed by many
-They got a raw deal with UC being a 7 seed and given what's practically a "home game"
-A general sense of pessimism based on how poorly they have performed over the past month
-Concerns over UC's athleticism
-Optimism that if they hit their 3s they'll win (and that they'll subsequently lose if they don't)
-UC was impressive vs. Houston and is peaking which make us particularly dangerous
-We make the tournament often and have a history of doing well in the first round
-Surprisingly a lot of reference to when we beat them in the tournament in 2005

Secondary opinions - expressed by fewer people
-We played a weaker schedule in a weak conference which makes us vulnerable
-We're not going to have much of a home court advantage because we're 2 hours from Columbus and we won't travel well.
-We lost to OSU at home (who they don't view as good), lost to ECU, and needed OT to beat UConn. We're not that good.

[Jon Rycek]

Originally Posted by cincyalum2014

They had an absolutely terrible loss to a very bad Rutgers team. What concerns me about Iowa is they are snipers at the 3pt shot. And I will take a 7 seed with essentially two possible home games in Columbus. IMO this is March, there are no more easy games, the seeding is what it is and we can potentially get a shot at Tennessee in Columbus. But the noon start time for Iowa is worrisome in the fact that this team usually comes in sleep walking in the first half of noon games. Hopefully the hype of the tournament has them ready and the extra day off for the Friday game is extra nice.

We went 7-2 in games 3pm or earlier. 1-1 games at noon. And we were winning against Houston the first half of the noon game we lost. Stats say nothing about us being any worse or better in early games.

[Jon Rycek]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

Polls are completely irrelevant to seeding. Our final team sheet shows #35 in Kenpom, #31 in BPI, and #30 in Sagarin. The math is pretty clear.

I’ve read multiple, what the committee did wrong articles, and UC has been mentioned multiple times as underseeded... we aren’t the on ones who think it. And last I checked they don’t go straight down the list to do seeding, there is more to it than that. And I’m sorry I think all of these rankings are BS and weighted way to heavily on where teams start and what conference they play in. Talking up a team because they have 4/5 quad one wins like it’s a good thing, until you realized they play 13/14 quad one games, mostly in their conference. At the end of the day it is what it is, I think we got a pretty tough draw and I would have much rather traveled a little further and play Purdue or LSU in the second round. But as was said before, it’s march, every team is gonna give it their best shot. If we play like we did against Houston we can beat just about anybody.

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by Jon Rycek

I’ve read multiple, what the committee did wrong articles, and UC has been mentioned multiple times as underseeded... we aren’t the on ones who think it.

but who is writing that? guys that make bracket projections or media types that go with their gut? because if you look at bracket matrix, if you follow all the seeding criteria, you get 7 (with some 6 as well).


if you ignore the maths and go with emotion, i guess you can come up with whatever seed you want.


if we were clearly underseeded, what teams are we clearly better than that are a 6?

[TheRealUC]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

NET is the deciding factor for quadrants only. And it's way better than the RPI. As an example, NC St is 33 in both NET and Kenpom. They are 97 in the RPI. Or Washington, who is 45 NET, 51 Kenpom, and 22 RPI. Huge improvement this year.

Using NC state as an example seems odd, especially when they missed the tournament with a NET of 33...

[TheRealUC]

Originally Posted by cincrulz11

but who is writing that? guys that make bracket projections or media types that go with their gut? because if you look at bracket matrix, if you follow all the seeding criteria, you get 7 (with some 6 as well).


if you ignore the maths and go with emotion, i guess you can come up with whatever seed you want.


if we were clearly underseeded, what teams are we clearly better than that are a 6?

I've heard many people talk about how they feel the NET is a mess, and many who feel these advanced metrics are scripture. Personally, the "scripture" proponents irritate the shit out of me, but there's gotta be some middle ground here. Bottom line, if NET, kenpom, etc. were the be all end all, someone needs to explain NC State...

[waterhead]

T-rank has a stat called "Q1-A" which shows our results against the upper echelon of quadrant 1 games.


Q1-A Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Current 1-4 5-4 8-1 9-0 6-1


The rest of our resume seems pretty dam good. I wonder how much the really big games had to play in our seed? Until Sunday we hadn't beaten any one of them.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by waterhead

T-rank has a stat called "Q1-A" which shows our results against the upper echelon of quadrant 1 games.


Q1-A Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Current 1-4 5-4 8-1 9-0 6-1


The rest of our resume seems pretty dam good. I wonder how much the really big games had to play in our seed? Until Sunday we hadn't beaten any one of them.

On a side note on T-rank...our performance against Houston was the best "game score" result we have had tied with Arkansas Pine Bluff. It was basically our best game of the year all things considered. The G-score is basically how we performed compared to outcome expectations.

[sedziobs]

Originally Posted by Jon Rycek

I’ve read multiple, what the committee did wrong articles, and UC has been mentioned multiple times as underseeded... we aren’t the on ones who think it.

That's nice. Seth Davis even said we were underseeded during the selection show. All of them are entitled to their uninformed opinions. The committee defines their procedures. Media personalities largely ignore them.

[sedziobs]

Using NC state as an example seems odd, especially when they missed the tournament with a NET of 33...

Originally Posted by TheRealUC

I've heard many people talk about how they feel the NET is a mess, and many who feel these advanced metrics are scripture. Personally, the "scripture" proponents irritate the shit out of me, but there's gotta be some middle ground here. Bottom line, if NET, kenpom, etc. were the be all end all, someone needs to explain NC State...

You're not paying attention. A team's NET ranking DOES NOT MATTER. NC St could have been ranked 200 in the NET and still made the tourney if they had good quadrant records and metrics. St Johns made the tournament with a 79 NET. Why did NC St miss out and St Johns made it? NC St went 8-9 in Q1/2 games. St Johns went 10-10. That's enough to put one team barely above the cut line and one barely below. The NCAA has been very clear that NET quadrants are the primary tool. That's a fact. Am I a scripture proponent because I acknowledge facts? Well then I'm proud to be one.