2024 NCAA Tourney Talk

buckwheat said:
Amazing, isn’t it? You give Indiana State an 11 seed in the South bracket and they are very likely in the sweet sixteen right now. That goofy chonky fella with the glasses is super famous. Their coach is the next big thing. Instead, they’re playing in the friggin NIT. Same could probably be said for a few more NIT teams.
Click to expand...
Indiana State is the one case where the metrics were correct but then the committee ignored the metrics. But I think NET is extremely flawed. The ACC was a much better conference than the metrics indicated and the Big 12 was extremely overrated.
 
VCU Heel said:
Indiana State is the one case where the metrics were correct but then the committee ignored the metrics. But I think NET is extremely flawed. The ACC was a much better conference than the metrics indicated and the Big 12 was extremely overrated.
Click to expand...
But who in the ACC was snubbed. I don't think any team was. The ACC was top heavy in my opinion.
 
AlienAiden said:
But who in the ACC was snubbed. I don't think any team was. The ACC was top heavy in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The only team in the ACC that could make an argument for being snubbed is Pitt (#40 in NET, 9-9 in Q1+2 games, 8-3 in their last 11 games of the season against opponents who were all top 100 teams except Louisville), but it's borderline.

UVA had no business being in the tournament.
 
There is, perhaps, a hindsight argument that NCSU shouldn't have had to with the league tournament to get in, given that they then advanced as they did. Not saying I agree, but I could see it being argued.
 
artRAMinMN said:
There is, perhaps, a hindsight argument that NCSU shouldn't have had to with the league tournament to get in, given that they then advanced as they did. Not saying I agree, but I could see it being argued.
Click to expand...
I don't buy it. Advancing in a single elimination tournament doesn't really have much to do with body of work. Once you're in, anything can happen.
 
VCU Heel said:
Pitt should have gotten in. Wake was just as good as the lower seeds from the Big 12, SEC, and Big Ten that got in.
Click to expand...
They have no one to blame but themselves. Wake's OOC SOS was 251; Pitt's was a pathetic 343. By comparison, UVA had an OOC SOS of 161. The one with the legit beef is St. John's. Number 32 in the NET and an almost-respectable 172 in OOC SOS.

That said, the committee did let in Texas Tech with an OOC SOS of 311. Hence, the problem with the selection committee. What are the criteria, and does it apply to everyone equally?
 
HBK said:
They have no one to blame but themselves. Wake's OOC SOS was 251; Pitt's was a pathetic 343. By comparison, UVA had an OOC SOS of 161. The one with the legit beef is St. John's. Number 32 in the NET and an almost-respectable 172 in OOC SOS.

That said, the committee did let in Texas Tech with an OOC SOS of 311. Hence, the problem with the selection committee. What are the criteria, and does it apply to everyone equally?
Click to expand...
The criteria is subjective, and of course not. This will not change.
 
Pretty chalk tournament. I don't think I have ever selected 14 out of 16 in my bracket before. We are lucky that UD and DU won games in the NCAA Tournament. Forebades well.
 
The biggest problem this year was trying to evaluate teams once everyone became eligible. Multiple teams got better and would have had different records so while the selection committee made some mistakes in my opinion, teams drastically changing at the end of December didn't help them
 
RESRam said:
It’s ridiculous. hat get smoked early and leave one scratchEvery year the metrics include a rash of teams from certain conferences ting their heads asking “how in the he!! did that team get in”? Formula transparency people!!!
Click to expand...
Chuck explains the insanity of analytics and the people behind them.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top