2019 Bracketology Thread

[Homer]

Believe that the human element /eye test should always factor but any of these computer models should also assign credits to a loss by its competitiveness. Most basic input is score . A loss of eight is different than a loss of five which is different than a loss of one .

If what you're after is the most accurate predictive model, what you're saying is exactly right. But not using scoring margin for purposes of postseason selection is a very basic philosophical principle for the NCAA, across all sports. For better or worse I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Big Dog]

Believe that the human element /eye test should always factor but any of these computer models should also assign credits to a loss by its competitiveness. Most basic input is score . A loss of eight is different than a loss of five which is different than a loss of one .

I've never been a fan of using scores as a factor. I think its encourages poor sportsmanship to run up the score.

[admin]

CU, agreed. But I don't think people's RPIs are just the records and 25-50-25. Other stuff is mixed into the RPI and it's being called RPI.

[CU77]

But not using scoring margin for purposes of postseason selection is a very basic philosophical principle for the NCAA, across all sports. For better or worse I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Except basketball, where they changed to a ranking that uses scores this year:

The NCAA Evaluation Tool, or NET, will be the new barometer for the committee, and it will include game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin (capping at 10 points per game), and net offensive and defensive efficiency.

The committee did consider using the game date, an uncapped scoring margin, distance traveled and days of rest before a game but decided against using these in the equation.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-me ... -tool-help

[stupefied]

Believe that the human element /eye test should always factor but any of these computer models should also assign credits to a loss by its competitiveness. Most basic input is score . A loss of eight is different than a loss of five which is different than a loss of one .

I've never been a fan of using scores as a factor. I think its encourages poor sportsmanship to run up the score.

Talking Top 20 matchups in D1 athletics between teams that are suppose to be highly competitive, not Duke playing EMU in basketball. Game should be competitive if credit for loss being assigned. Participation points should not be awarded for rankings if a 'top' team gets blown out playing another top team

[admin]

Bigdog, that and... I don't think it's accurate. Recovery time and being prepared for the next game matters. Coaches know this, players know this. So, often, going 100% for 4 quarters isn't always the best strategy. Runners who race more than once per week, don't go for World Records at every meet. Especially if competing in the next round of the Olympics or whatever is based on Place and not Time (like lacrosse). They run for the win. And, when they have a comfortable margin, they coast and maintain that comfortable margin. If I beat you by 10 seconds and Usain Bolt beats you by 20, this doesn't mean that I'm faster than Usain Bolt. And the same holds true for teams and game scores. When it's the win that matters, people/teams play for the win.

[OCanada]

Where does MD rank on SOS?

[AreaLax]

BRACKETOLOGY: LAST TEAM IN, LAST TWO SEEDS WILL DOMINATE DISCUSSION

This list Maryland SOS as 5

[a fan]

When it's the win that matters, people/teams play for the win.

And yet the current NCAA system gives credit and points for losses when handing out bids.

[keno in reno]

If score matters, then an overtime loss should count for hockey-like points. For that matter, how about an overtime loss on Notre Dame's tennis court-sized indoor "lacrosse" field? That's not even a regulation game!

[stupefied]

Bigdog, that and... I don't think it's accurate. Recovery time and being prepared for the next game matters. Coaches know this, players know this. So, often, going 100% for 4 quarters isn't always the best strategy. Runners who race more than once per week, don't go for World Records at every meet. Especially if competing in the next round of the Olympics or whatever is based on Place and not Time (like lacrosse). They run for the win. And, when they have a comfortable margin, they coast and maintain that comfortable margin. If I beat you by 10 seconds and Usain Bolt beats you by 20, this doesn't mean that I'm faster than Usain Bolt. And the same holds true for teams and game scores. When it's the win that matters, people/teams play for the win.
[/quo

If a model can't account for all the factors then it's use should be as a reference to assist and not a replacement for what is seen and known.

[CU77]

BRACKETOLOGY: LAST TEAM IN, LAST TWO SEEDS WILL DOMINATE DISCUSSION

This list Maryland SOS as 5

Their computation is wrong. See laf's correct numbers here, column headed [2]:
http://www.laxbytes.com/2019/binmenstats/ncaapb01.php

[Wheels]

Consensus among Bracketologists is starting to emerge.

IL and USLaxMag omit Cornell in their final predictions, as did College Crosse's.

[stupefied]

If score matters, then an overtime loss should count for hockey-like points. For that matter, how about an overtime loss on Notre Dame's tennis court-sized indoor "lacrosse" field? That's not even a regulation game!

Agree. Imo, that ND game and its rather mixed season would come under greater scrutiny if evaluated in discussions beyond modeling

[Homer]

But not using scoring margin for purposes of postseason selection is a very basic philosophical principle for the NCAA, across all sports. For better or worse I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Except basketball, where they changed to a ranking that uses scores this year:

Ha! Well, that shows me. Guess you can see how much attention I pay to certain other sports....

Consensus among Bracketologists is starting to emerge.

IL and USLaxMag omit Cornell in their final predictions, as did College Crosse's.

I would just like to point out that Laxbytes is currently claiming North Carolina making the field is a more likely outcome than Cornell being left out. This is either going to look very clever or very dumb a few hours from now.

CU, agreed. But I don't think people's RPIs are just the records and 25-50-25. Other stuff is mixed into the RPI and it's being called RPI.

OK, they need to hurry up and do this selection show. We've reached the point where I officially have no idea what the hell anybody's talking about.

[Big Dog]

If a model can't account for all the factors then it's use should be as a reference to assist and not a replacement for what is seen and known.

MY model uses my eye test in lieu of score differential, and my model is extremely predictive.

[laxfan1313]

The Pre-Tournament Computer Rankings look very similar to the pre-Ivy and Patriot Finals but some differences. Besides some teams moving spots, we've added asterisks to signify that a team is still playing. Also, Winning %, Strength of Schedule, Best Win, and Simplified RPI. And, after looking at the chart...

1. Automatic Qualifiers are a good thing and... It's also a not so good thing. Hard to look at the entire list and see who's actually playing.
2. Based on Ws and Ls, Syracuse is out. But it's doubtful that the committee will base their decision on Ws and Ls.
3. Based on SRPI (Simplified RPI - No adjustments for home and away, Wins against Top 5, Top 10, Top 20, Etc.), Cornell is out.
4. Based on Best Wins, Cornell is out.

In conclusion, from where we're sitting, Cornell is out.

It would have been polite for Admin to clearly state that this post was Admin's opinion and the way Admin thinks at large bids ought to be determined, and explain that the opinion had little to do with the way the selection committee has determined who is in the tourney in past years. I have no comment one way or another concerning whether Admin's opinion is a better way to go. Based upon past experience, Cornell has an 86.25% probability of receiving an at large bid, the best number after Yale, Duke & Virginia which are calculated as 100% locks by laxbytes. I have no idea how it will turn out and certainly agree that Cornell may be on the bubble, but following past criteria, Cornell's SOS is 3 (averaging the 10 highest RPIs of its opponents), it has 2 quality wins (Towson & Notre Dame, neither of which was at home) and no quality losses. According to laxbytes, of Cornell, Notre Dame, Loyola, Maryland, Johns Hopkins & Syracuse, Cornell and Loyola are tied for the highest probability of receiving an at large bid. Here's hoping laxbytes got it right! Best of luck to all those rooting for their team to be chosen, and particularly for the Big Red to make it in!

[reLAX]

If score matters, then an overtime loss should count for hockey-like points. For that matter, how about an overtime loss on Notre Dame's tennis court-sized indoor "lacrosse" field? That's not even a regulation game!

FINALLY SOME SENSE!!

Agree. Imo, that ND game and its rather mixed season would come under greater scrutiny if evaluated in discussions beyond modeling

[admin]

For the record, the FanLax Rankings are never any of our opinions. Along the same lines, we also don't post a one-dimensional list. Heck, on occasion, along with our Rankings, we'll add more columns to add other Website's Rankings. Basically, we do what we can to not be one-dimensional, to not pretend that there's only one answer and we know what it is. In this case, we had 5 different columns. Each column correlated to the other columns but for sure the correlation wasn't perfect. Up to our last post, we focused on the first column. Posted it, explained it, made a case for it, etc. In our last post, separate from the Rankings, we said... We think Cornell is going to get the short straw.

And, with that said, laxfan1313, the last post was an opinion. We apologize. Going forward, we'll try to make those more-opinion-based posts from someone other than Admin.

[reLAX]

If score matters, then an overtime loss should count for hockey-like points. For that matter, how about an overtime loss on Notre Dame's tennis court-sized indoor "lacrosse" field? That's not even a regulation game!

FINALLY SOME SENSE!!

Agree. Imo, that ND game and its rather mixed season would come under greater scrutiny if evaluated in discussions beyond modeling

Also, Hop played 3 great games late in the season. They are still 8-7 with no top 10 wins. If they were any other team, I wonder if they would be receiving such huge accolades...