2024 Bracketology

[CU77]

Baltimore, 1970:

hopkins.jpg (69.3 KiB) Viewed 1093 times

[Chousnake]

CU77... do you agree with the committee chairs? I think you're a strictly math guy and prob do? Any bias there for Big Red?

No. I would like to see a 9-team NCAA tournament of conference-tournament-winners only.

But since absolutely no one agrees with me on that: then I would use Massey ratings to select ALs and seed overall.

https://masseyratings.com/clax/ncaa-d1/ratings

That dramatically cheapens the regular season, making it virtually meaningless.

Tournaments do that, not Massey

I wasn't talking about Massey. I am just not a fan of post season league tournaments. A team that wins the regular season over a few weeks and 6 or so games deserves a bid over a team that gets hot for 48 hours. I would gladly see all league tournaments go away. On what planet do teams like Villanova and Michigan deserve bids over some top 10-12 teams that will be left out because of the bid stealers? And how does that make for a better NCAA tourney? Some teams that will be left home this season had the potential to win the title. I'd say 12 or so of the 17 teams that get bids tomorrow have no shot whatsoever. There needs to be 10 at large bids and two play in games for some of the AQs. When the teams left out of the tourney are candidates for seeds and home games, or the 9 spot (to the extent that exists), something is wrong. Let two at large teams play a play in game on Wednesday like the basketball tourney. I'm fine with that.

[DocBarrister]

Baltimore, 1970:

hopkins.jpg

Hopkins was the best.

DocBarrister

[10stone5]

Jebus,

its a race to the bottom this year.

[wgdsr]

Jebus,

its a race to the bottom this year.

crazy. they might be talking about 4-5 teams for the last 2 spots. hoo the he** knows what they're going to use to separate them.

and st joe's, michigan and towson are going to be coming in on fire. who is going to want to play those guys?

[JerrysWorld]

The field is pretty much set now. Michigan winning made it easy.

[norcalhop]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

[Laxfan1414]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

Need 6 teams for an AQ

[DocBarrister]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

Five teams. Need six. Plus, Duke is inherently evil.

DocBarrister

[norcalhop]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

Need 6 teams for an AQ

Makes sense - thanks

[norcalhop]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

Five teams. Need six. Plus, Duke is inherently evil.

DocBarrister

Hahaha. Their mascot would not disagree

[Ezra White]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

You need 6 teams to have an AQ. ACC has 5.

[Laxfan1414]

First

[Ezra White]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

You need 6 teams to have an AQ. ACC has 5.

I'd also point out how the Ivies are hurt by having 7 teams, even if it gives them an AQ. This year the 4 teams in the ILT (Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Penn) were strong enough to stand their ground in any conference. The all had important out-of-conference wins. After them came Harvard, which had some wins out of conference, most against weaker teams, with the best OOC win against Michigan and a loss to Virginia. Then Brown finished 3 & 11, with its best (and only) OOC win being UMass. And Dartmouth finished 3 & 10, with OOC wins over Holy Cross, Siena, and Vermont.

So, the bottom 3 teams had the lowest RPI's and the lowest SOS. The fact that the top 4 each had to play the bottom 3 pulled down the top 4's RPIs. This quantitative logic is built into the league's configuration. Admittedly, this is an unusual year. But it looks like the Ivies are going to be a 1-bid league even though as of May 2 two Ivies were in the top 10 & two more ranked 12 & 14.

[jrn19]

It def didn't help them, but bigger issue to me was the Top 4 went 3-7 in games against the RPI Top 9 (Penn is 10th.) The Big Ten Top 3 went 3-4 (not including games against one another) and then they also went 3-0 against the Ivy 4 that are 10-14 in RPI. ACC Top 4 meanwhile went 4-4, and 3-2 against those Ivies 10-14.

The Top 4 in the Ivy were all very solid, but didn't get enough wins against the top teams despite having a lot of chances. Flip it from 3-7 to 5-5 and they probably have a few more teams higher up in the RPI. Heck, just flipping Yale's loss to Penn State that they blew a huge lead in would have a big trickle down effect

[DocBarrister]

Who wants to play St. Joes in the 1st round? Raise your hand....

Right. Or... BU/Lehigh. Towson looking tough as well. Who am I forgetting? Albany maybe...just Piseno alone...
Go Nova!

I suspect Hopkins will play St. Joe’s or Towson next week.

DocBarrister

[norcalhop]

Who wants to play St. Joes in the 1st round? Raise your hand....

Right. Or... BU/Lehigh. Towson looking tough as well. Who am I forgetting? Albany maybe...just Piseno alone...
Go Nova!

I suspect Hopkins will play St. Joe’s or Towson next week.

DocBarrister

I wouldn't bet against Towson winning.

[LaxDownUnder]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

You need 6 teams to have an AQ. ACC has 5.

I'd also point out how the Ivies are hurt by having 7 teams, even if it gives them an AQ. This year the 4 teams in the ILT (Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Penn) were strong enough to stand their ground in any conference. The all had important out-of-conference wins. After them came Harvard, which had some wins out of conference, most against weaker teams, with the best OOC win against Michigan and a loss to Virginia. Then Brown finished 3 & 11, with its best (and only) OOC win being UMass. And Dartmouth finished 3 & 10, with OOC wins over Holy Cross, Siena, and Vermont.

So, the bottom 3 teams had the lowest RPI's and the lowest SOS. The fact that the top 4 each had to play the bottom 3 pulled down the top 4's RPIs. This quantitative logic is built into the league's configuration. Admittedly, this is an unusual year. But it looks like the Ivies are going to be a 1-bid league even though as of May 2 two Ivies were in the top 10 & two more ranked 12 & 14.

On the flip side, having only 5 teams seems to benefit the ACC (at least in terms of RPI) since they can schedule extra OOC games against "safer" opponents that are likely to rack up wins in "easier" conferences.

[norcalhop]

this tournament is simultaneously exciting yet not. Most of the "top" teams are limping into the tournament without consistent stellar play like we were expecting.

[old salt]

Can someone explain why the ACC is not an AQ league?

You need 6 teams to have an AQ. ACC has 5.

I'd also point out how the Ivies are hurt by having 7 teams, even if it gives them an AQ. This year the 4 teams in the ILT (Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Penn) were strong enough to stand their ground in any conference. The all had important out-of-conference wins. After them came Harvard, which had some wins out of conference, most against weaker teams, with the best OOC win against Michigan and a loss to Virginia. Then Brown finished 3 & 11, with its best (and only) OOC win being UMass. And Dartmouth finished 3 & 10, with OOC wins over Holy Cross, Siena, and Vermont.

So, the bottom 3 teams had the lowest RPI's and the lowest SOS. The fact that the top 4 each had to play the bottom 3 pulled down the top 4's RPIs. This quantitative logic is built into the league's configuration. Admittedly, this is an unusual year. But it looks like the Ivies are going to be a 1-bid league even though as of May 2 two Ivies were in the top 10 & two more ranked 12 & 14.

Could be worse. They 9 team PL has the bottom 3 pulling down the top 6 in RPI & SOS.
8 PL games reduces the number of OOC scheduling opportunities.