forums

Bracketology

Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
We should be a 3 seed, which simply means a top 12 team. Anyone who can’t see that is biased because the name on the jersey is Miami and not Duke/UNC.
Click to expand...
What’s sad is a bunch of teams who were hot now are not as much and you have a Miami team on fire. The ones that are not are still getting a pass it’s as simple as that. Many media people and podcasters are raving about Miami and our relevancy is growing at every turn. The selection committee is very biased but that will change …we just need to keep the fires burning.👍🙌❤️
 
AtlAtty said:
We should be a 3 seed, which simply means a top 12 team. Anyone who can’t see that is biased because the name on the jersey is Miami and not Duke/UNC.
Click to expand...


This is why proper rankings matter all year long. Perception becomes reality. Sitting around talking about how "this won't matter until March" is for puzzies.

The NCAA has us at 18, while we are 13/15 in the polls. Which means we got jumped by MULTIPLE teams. Meanwhile, there's one ranked opponent ahead of us (we beat them) and one ranked opponent behind us (we beat them).

We literally have ONE bad mark on our record, the loss to GaTech (and I was there, so I felt that pain personally).

This is BULLCRAP. We should be a 3-seed, quite honestly.

We need to win the next three. I said that earlier in the season too, and then we lost to GaTech and NC State.

But we REEEEEEAALLLLLY need to win the next three. And then two or three after that.
 
AtlAtty said:
We should be a 3 seed, which simply means a top 12 team. Anyone who can’t see that is biased because the name on the jersey is Miami and not Duke/UNC.
Click to expand...

"Everyone who disagrees with me is biased" is a very biased statement.

SOR is the only metric that suggests we should be a 3 seed today. If you want to throw out the committee and establish SOR as a BCS-style, single-criteria for the tournament...well, that's certainly a take.

We have 9 quad 1+2 wins. No current 1-3 seed has fewer. We also have a quad 3 loss. Only Houston and Arizona has a quad 3 loss among top 3 seeds. Our SOS of 69 beats only Houston and Arizona. Our NET of 30 is a full 10 spots worse than any team seeded 5 or better. Our predictive metrics are also way below the standard for a 3 seed.

I don't see any argument, based on the objective, stated criteria of the selection committee, for us to be a 3 seed. Right now we're right on the 4/5 line, which seems fair.
 
Cane since 1060 said:
One youtube podcast said we should be a 4 over Indiana who has a bunch more losses. It’s a quagmire of doubt as to what determines any of this bracketing.
Click to expand...

It actually seems pretty clear. Yes, there is some subjectivity within a seed line or two, and yes, there are the occasional headscratchers. But overall, what matters and doesn't matter aligns pretty well with seeding.

What matters: SOS, SOR, records vs each quad, predictive metrics, road performance, NET

What doesn't matter: overall record, conference standings, H2H, polls
 
Advertisement
ALLoverCANE said:
"Everyone who disagrees with me is biased" is a very biased statement.

SOR is the only metric that suggests we should be a 3 seed today. If you want to throw out the committee and establish SOR as a BCS-style, single-criteria for the tournament...well, that's certainly a take.

We have 9 quad 1+2 wins. No current 1-3 seed has fewer. We also have a quad 3 loss. Only Houston and Arizona has a quad 3 loss among top 3 seeds. Our SOS of 69 beats only Houston and Arizona. Our NET of 30 is a full 10 spots worse than any team seeded 5 or better. Our predictive metrics are also way below the standard for a 3 seed.

I don't see any argument, based on the objective, stated criteria of the selection committee, for us to be a 3 seed. Right now we're right on the 4/5 line, which seems fair.
Click to expand...


Well… to start… this is factually false. According to https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings we have 10 Quad 1/2 wins.

As compared to our 10-4 record in Quad 1/2 games, Tennessee boasts a 9-7 record in Quad 1/2 games.

It is laughable that the RPI was retired as a flawed system when the flaws of the efficiency metric ranking systems are worse.

I just hope the ACC is as “HISTORICALLY BAD” this year as it was last year in March 🙏🙏🙏
 
ALLoverCANE said:
It actually seems pretty clear. Yes, there is some subjectivity within a seed line or two, and yes, there are the occasional headscratchers. But overall, what matters and doesn't matter aligns pretty well with seeding.

What matters: SOS, SOR, records vs each quad, predictive metrics, road performance, NET

What doesn't matter: overall record, conference standings, H2H, polls
Click to expand...


This is what is bull****. I could understand the downgrade of "polls", but WINNING GAMES should count. "Overall record" and "conference standings" and "HTH" should not be disregarded.

We have lost our 4 conference games by 6, 3, 2, and 2. We are 17 points from being 26-1 (and 27-1 if the Vermont game was not cancelled).

Furthermore, it is BEYOND BULL**** to act as if a team can "lose more games" if they are only "Quad 2 losses" instead of "Quad 3 losses". Win your ******* games. You can't change your schedule mid-season.
 
Advertisement
ALLoverCANE said:
"Everyone who disagrees with me is biased" is a very biased statement.

SOR is the only metric that suggests we should be a 3 seed today. If you want to throw out the committee and establish SOR as a BCS-style, single-criteria for the tournament...well, that's certainly a take.

We have 9 quad 1+2 wins. No current 1-3 seed has fewer. We also have a quad 3 loss. Only Houston and Arizona has a quad 3 loss among top 3 seeds. Our SOS of 69 beats only Houston and Arizona. Our NET of 30 is a full 10 spots worse than any team seeded 5 or better. Our predictive metrics are also way below the standard for a 3 seed.

I don't see any argument, based on the objective, stated criteria of the selection committee, for us to be a 3 seed. Right now we're right on the 4/5 line, which seems fair.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the metrics, though @AmherstCane and @Da_Lucky_One present compelling metrics arguments of their own. Why is why I prefer the eye test once the metrics are too close to make a difference, or everyone is just grabbing the metric they want to use to make their case.

All that to say, my actual point was that if Duke/UNC was having the season we are having, do you really think they would not be ranked in the top 12 and in position for a top 3 seed in the tourney? You can answer this question with metrics but I am confident the pro-Tobacco Road bias would be in play in the rankings.
 
Yea something is off about all this. Maybe ACC teams are just not scheduling difficult enough non conference schedules? That's my only idea here.

UVA has a win over Houston. UNC took Bama to 4OT in the non-conference. Duke played well out of conference as well and was ranked when conference play started. But the beating each other up dropped the perception, where every loss in the big-12 is a "good loss".

I don't think the ACC is a down conference, I fully expect the ACC teams that make the tourney to have success well beyond their seeds, same as last year. All we heard about last year was how great the SEC was and how much better it was than ACC, and we saw how that played out when the teams actually had to play each other.
 
ESPN Bubble Watch now has us listed as a lock to make the tournament. Which I believe means that even if we somehow lose every remaining game, we would still get in. Only 21 teams have that designation.
 
Anything higher than a 4 seed for this team is complete bias and disrespect (and won’t surprise me at all)
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
I appreciate the metrics, though @AmherstCane and @Da_Lucky_One present compelling metrics arguments of their own. Why is why I prefer the eye test once the metrics are too close to make a difference, or everyone is just grabbing the metric they want to use to make their case.

All that to say, my actual point was that if Duke/UNC was having the season we are having, do you really think they would not be ranked in the top 12 and in position for a top 3 seed in the tourney? You can answer this question with metrics but I am confident the pro-Tobacco Road bias would be in play in the rankings.
Click to expand...

Not all metrics are created equal.

The metrics I quoted are the ones used by the committee, full stop. They're listed on the team sheets (you can find the team sheets on Warren Nolan if you're curious).

I have no idea what the answer to your question is. Maybe, maybe not. It's impossible to prove.

But when you look at the metrics that the committee is known to rely on, there's absolutely no argument for us being a 3. Per the reveal, we're on the 4/5 line, which is exactly what the metrics indicate.
 
[]_[] swag said:
Yea something is off about all this. Maybe ACC teams are just not scheduling difficult enough non conference schedules? That's my only idea here.

UVA has a win over Houston. UNC took Bama to 4OT in the non-conference. Duke played well out of conference as well and was ranked when conference play started. But the beating each other up dropped the perception, where every loss in the big-12 is a "good loss".

I don't think the ACC is a down conference, I fully expect the ACC teams that make the tourney to have success well beyond their seeds, same as last year. All we heard about last year was how great the SEC was and how much better it was than ACC, and we saw how that played out when the teams actually had to play each other.
Click to expand...

Maybe the ACC will have a good tournament, but they've had a terrible season. UVA and Miami have been very good, but not elite. Duke and NC St have been solid. Pitt is coming on. Clemson and UNC have NIT resumes. Addressing your other points...

UVA's win vs Houston was at home. But yes, UVA is getting credit for that, hence why they're a 3.

Duke's nonconference was solid but not great. Neutral court wins vs Xavier and Iowa, losses vs Purdue and Kansas. 2-2 vs quad 1. Solid, hence why they're comfortably in the field. But nothing special.

UNC is 0-9 vs quad 1. That's pathetic. The fact you're highlighting that they took Bama to OT shows just how bad a season they've had. (And the eye test is even worse - they look like an NIT team. Love is shooting 30% from 3 on a ton of attempts. Davis is mediocre. They have no one else that scares you besides Bacot.)
 
Advertisement
Amazon Football GIF by NFL On Prime Video
 
[]_[] swag said:
Yea something is off about all this. Maybe ACC teams are just not scheduling difficult enough non conference schedules? That's my only idea here.

UVA has a win over Houston. UNC took Bama to 4OT in the non-conference. Duke played well out of conference as well and was ranked when conference play started. But the beating each other up dropped the perception, where every loss in the big-12 is a "good loss".

I don't think the ACC is a down conference, I fully expect the ACC teams that make the tourney to have success well beyond their seeds, same as last year. All we heard about last year was how great the SEC was and how much better it was than ACC, and we saw how that played out when the teams actually had to play each other.
Click to expand...
Acc has not been great in the regular season for a few years. Nice tournament run last season
 
Advertisement
Back
Top