The General
Footballguy
Chairman of NCAA committee on Dan Patrick Show this morning said they absolutely do not set up the bracket to have matchups like Kentucky / IU or Oklahoma / Oklahoma St.
Sure buddy
Sure buddy
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
NCAA HOOPS THREAD! -- K petitions to get Maui Jim Maui Invitational moved to Transylvania (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Good Posting Judge
- Start date
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
The sad fact of the matter is that Michigan and Syracuse being in the tournament are better for $$$ than St. Bonaventure and Monmouth. Sucks, but it is what it is.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I don't think this is true. I'm really not sure it makes enough of a difference to matter, and in any event the current $11 billion TV deal runs through 2024 and there have already been discussions to extend it. I seriously doubt anyone in that room is lobbying to take the PR hit now for Syracuse over Monmouth so they can maybe get an extra hundred million starting in 2025. That would be some impressive long term thinking.
I think it's much more likely that the committee is dominated by members from major conferences and/or that the current selection method is flawed to overvalue recency and SOS.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
That and they're incompetent.
Did they ever give a good reason why Kansas is in the south?
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
You're probably right, it's just a sour grapes tweet I saw come over my Twitter last night from the local sportswriters and Bona fans I follow.
There is absolutely no case that you can make that Monmouth belongs in over Michigan. Michigan has more quality wins than Monmouth, and no bad losses. To get an idea of what Michigan would have done with Monmouth's schedule, against sub-200 RPI teams, Monmouth went 16-3 with an average margin of victory of 9 points. Michigan went 9-0, with an average margin of victory of 29 points.
Though St. Bonnie's should be in over Tulsa.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
RUSF18
Footballguy
I don't have the full numbers and can't google that type of stuff at work, but I remember underdogs got off to a ridiculous start last year. Double digit streak of covering.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
The SOS argument is crap. The power conferences always win that. Those schools also won't play road games against these low majors. Monmouth went on the road and beat ND, USC, UCLA and Georgetown. They won 17 games away from home. They deserve a bid.
Michigan, vandy and Syracuse proved they are mediocre at best against good teams.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Timing is everything. They just took 2 of 3 against Notre Dame, Dayton (close loss), and USC after splitting with the LA schools earlier in the month. A letdown was inevitable. This team played, and beat, power conference teams then went 19-4 once the schedule softened. Power conference teams can afford to go to sleep for long periods of time as long as they sprinkle in some good wins. Those in other conferences can't afford any off nights apparently.
From what I recall hearing last night, they didn't want to put them in the Midwest where they'd potentially be playing a virtual road game against the 2-seed (MSU). (UVA getting that treatment still sucks, but it's more understandable as they weren't the overall #1.)
And as the crow flies, Louisville is actually closer to the KU campus than Chicago.
wilked
Footballguy
OK, I think I've got most of this tournament well-figured
One matchup I need help - (5) Baylor vs (12) Yale.
My preliminary work says this is an upset in the making, Yale hasn't been in the Dance for more than 40 years, but the Ivy League tends to punch above its weight once in. Yale has won 17 of its last 18 and has multiple scorers (which is to say that Baylor can't just shut one guy down and expect to be effective). Baylor has lost 4 of its last 6. I think the crowd in Providence will rally around Yale as well should it be a tight one.
Thoughts?
One matchup I need help - (5) Baylor vs (12) Yale.
My preliminary work says this is an upset in the making, Yale hasn't been in the Dance for more than 40 years, but the Ivy League tends to punch above its weight once in. Yale has won 17 of its last 18 and has multiple scorers (which is to say that Baylor can't just shut one guy down and expect to be effective). Baylor has lost 4 of its last 6. I think the crowd in Providence will rally around Yale as well should it be a tight one.
Thoughts?
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
In The Zone
Footballguy
F the Selection Committee.
Instinctive
Footballguy
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
St. Mary's absolutely got screwed. It's not really a debate to be honest.
RUSF18
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'm your huckleberry. I'm not too familiar with Baylor, but I am very familiar with Yale, and I think they're in trouble here. They're gonna be a popular pick because the Ken Pom numbers have it as a 3 point game and Yale is on a serious roll, as you say. But this is a nightmare matchup. Yale's offense is built for Ivy League games. They get into the half court and have two dominant low post scorers who command double teams. When the doubles are slow or don't come at all, those guys get whatever they want. If the double comes quickly they kick it out for a three, and if there's a miss Yale gets the offensive rebound as often as not. It's an almost perfect system when you're going against man to man defenses and Ivy League big men who are simply outclassed, but it's not gonna work against Baylor's zone and their quality big men who can probably handle Yale's two-headed post monster and who also rebound incredibly well. The other problem is that Yale is turnover prone, steals in particular, thanks to all that inside-out passing and some general sloppiness, and Baylor is 15th in the NCAA in steal %. It's a rough, rough matchup for Yale.
If you're in a bracket that gives bonus points for upset picks they might be worth the risk if the reward is big enough but I definitely wouldn't take Yale in a standard bracket hoping to get a leg up. I wish it were not so, but it's hard to ignore the matchup issues.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
I don't know whether fans in Providence would necessarily back Yale. Ivy rivalries do run deep (Brown is right up the hill from the Dunkin' Donuts Center).
I will say, I was at the Princeton-Georgetown game there in 1989 and everyone except Hoya fans was in the Tigers' corner. But you get that anywhere whenever a huge upset is in the making, especially when it's a 16-vs.-1 and against a team that was as big a favorite as Georgetown was that year.
I will say, I was at the Princeton-Georgetown game there in 1989 and everyone except Hoya fans was in the Tigers' corner. But you get that anywhere whenever a huge upset is in the making, especially when it's a 16-vs.-1 and against a team that was as big a favorite as Georgetown was that year.
Doesn't the NCAA "own" the NIT (as opposed to the CIT, for example, who is ran by College Insider)? There are 32 teams in the NIT which means 31 games. It seems better to make those 32 teams play 16 "play in games" on Tues/Wed as the new first round. The NIT would lose 15 games and scrap the 4 current NCAA play in games for a net loss of 3 games (+16 -15 -4), but the total revenue from making those official NCAA tournament games vs. NIT has to be enormous. This also eliminates a substantial tier of teams who people argue got snubbed. Any team below team #80 is essentially worthless in terms of likelihood of winning the tournament anyways.
RUSF18
Footballguy
Tourney brackets are big business and drive so much of the billions that the NCAA is being paid for this. I think a two day turnaround in having people fill them out would be too short. Unless you're thinking that people would fill out brackets similar to how they do now, carrying through both teams of the play in game. But I don't think that flies on a larger scale. People don't care about two of the play ins (the 16s) and they tolerate having to do it with two games.
People also argued that the tourney would be watered down with the additional four teams. Adding another 12 would be a tough sell.
Last edited by a moderator:
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
they're a top 40 team, objectively better than at least 5 major conference teams that got in.
Instinctive
Footballguy
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
Your math is off on this, however.
If you have just the 16 play-in games for the 32 "NIT" teams, you're still going to have 80 teams remaining going into Thursday/Friday instead of 64.
heckmanm
Footballguy
I think his design was to have only 48 "locked in" teams in the Thursday/Friday bracket, rather than 60. The 16 play-in winners would fill the other 16 slots, just as the 4 play-in winners today fill in the last 4 bracket spots.
General Malaise
Footballguy
Like I said earlier, had St. Mary's won the WCC, I don't think there would be much complaining if Gonzaga got an 'at large' bid. Right? Why doesn't St. Mary's get similar treatment?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Gonzaga beat quality non conference teams. St Mary's beat nobody. I'm not kidding they literally beat no one good except the two Gonzaga wins. What wins do they have that make you believe they deserved an at large bid?
The 32 "NIT" teams play 16 play-in games. As noted below, 48 teams are locked in and the 32 "NIT" teams play a single game to lock up those remaining 16 spots.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Agree 100% about how important brackets are to the marketability of the tournament. But of the millions of brackets filled out, what percentage of people actually spend more than 30 minutes filling them out for the free/low stakes ones? I would think less than 10% of people actually do research that would take extra time. Even then, if the tournament moved up volume to Tuesday, people would get it done before it started.
I don't think the play in games affected how people viewed brackets or the tournament and adding 12 more play in games wouldn't change much. People will generally complain about something no matter what, but the additional revenue from extra NCAA tournament games is indisputable.
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
Not trying to be a #### here but each sentence is dumber than the one preceding it. Not to mention each sentence adds a layer of logical inconsistency (I'll let you figure out why).
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
You're still not accounting for 16 teams that currently are in the NCAA field.
NCAA teams: 64 (or 68) + NIT teams 32 = 96
If you're saying to cut down the combined field to 80 teams, that's a different argument.
MAC_32
Footballguy
We're getting off the rails on the what if scenarios, but the only win Gonzaga has that St. Mary's doesn't is UConn, who was probably on the outside of the bubble until that miracle shot. Washington and Tennessee are no better than Stanford and Wazzu hasn't won a game since January 3rd. Hell, you could make an argument that St. Mary's beating Grand Canyon was as good as some of those W's.
That's why I called them "play-in games" similar to the play-in games they have now.
Current: 8 teams play 4 play-in games + 60 other teams (68 teams total)
Revised: 32 teams play 16 play-in games + 48 other teams (80 teams total)
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
It's tough for good mid-major teams to schedule "big" teams, I mean there's little upside to scheduling a St. Mary's or a Valpo home-and-home if you're a big school. "Name" mid-major schools like Gonzaga and Connecticut can do it, but for everyone else, there are only so many good teams. And those good teams have only so many NC games. Some of those NC games get swallowed up by scheduling out-and-out cupcakes, which is understandable, early-season tourneys, and big home-and-homes.
Gonzaga played a pretty brutal OOC, and lost their three toughest games. Fine. St. Mary's played one tough OOC game and lost. That said, they played a lot of conference teams and a lot of bad teams and didn't slip up much. That, I think, has to be worth something. And I think the continuous citing of "Record against Top 50 teams" is fairly troubling, as it's not going to tell you much.
Valpo got dinged by the committee for "lack of quality wins", but their NCSOS was 61st. But their one "big" NC game they lost by 6 on the road to an eventual 1 seed. Lots of teams lost to Oregon this year!
TL;DR, I don't think the committee's doing a good job of looking at a team's entire season, including the games against bad teams, and overly focusing on the couple teams a good mid-major is playing against top teams.
Gonzaga played a pretty brutal OOC, and lost their three toughest games. Fine. St. Mary's played one tough OOC game and lost. That said, they played a lot of conference teams and a lot of bad teams and didn't slip up much. That, I think, has to be worth something. And I think the continuous citing of "Record against Top 50 teams" is fairly troubling, as it's not going to tell you much.
Valpo got dinged by the committee for "lack of quality wins", but their NCSOS was 61st. But their one "big" NC game they lost by 6 on the road to an eventual 1 seed. Lots of teams lost to Oregon this year!
TL;DR, I don't think the committee's doing a good job of looking at a team's entire season, including the games against bad teams, and overly focusing on the couple teams a good mid-major is playing against top teams.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You are trying to be an ### because you usually are.
Again who did St Mary's beat? All you and Scoresman have is attacking me and calling me dumb. Your immaturity doesn't change their crappy resume at all.
You can attack me over Gonzaga if it makes you feel better. They didn't deserve to be an at large and wouldn't have been one either. But that changes nothing about St Mary's.
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
Sure. But my only point is that you're not using the entire pool of 32 teams currently in the NIT, if you're doing away with the NIT.
Assuming you still use all 68 teams in the NCAA field, you would only be adding 12 teams from the current NIT pool. Which is fine ... but that's not the same as combining the current NCAA and NIT into one big bracket.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
You can ignore the flaws in those models if you want. At some point you have to your brain and not an algorithm and objectively compare two teams. For the 10th time what is on St Mary's resume that makes one think they got screwed? Compare to the last four in or even Monmouth, who really did get screwed.
Scoresman
Footballguy
I'm going to trust those models over some guy on the Internet, sorry. We just have to agree to disagree here.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I agree with most of this. I'm all for giving more mid majors these final at large bids. We know Syracuse, Michigan and Vanderbilt are mediocre teams. Let's let the good mid majors have a shot. That said Monmouth is the one with the complaint. Wins against UCLA, USC, Notre dame, and Georgetown. Almost beat Dayton and played USC tough in a second game. Also beat Rutgers who blows but still a power conference team. That's the mid major (and St Bonaventure) with the complaints
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
I'm not going to go to bat for BPI or RPI, and I'm not all that familiar with Sagarin, but Kenpom is very solid. Not perfect, but very very good. If you want proof, compare opening odds on pretty much any college basketball game (without major injuries) to Kenpom's predicted score for said game. The majority of spreads and totals are copied straight from KP. If you feel that strongly about the inaccuracy of the model, feel free to bet into those lines. Bookmaker is currently taking $5K on most major tourney spreads. Should be like printing money for you if you can "use your brain" and so eloquently identify and discuss the flaws in the underlying model.
I'm sorry I called your post (not you) dumb but it came off as pretty dumb. Observe:
Read that out of context and you think, there's no way someone said those three sentences sequentially. You did though. Pretty amazing imo.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I'm not trying to predict individual games. It's very possible St Mary's could beat several tournament teams. But they haven't. And the tournament isn't selected based on who could win this or that. It's supposed to be selected based on achievements but the criteria changes all the time.
I just find it odd all the outrage is over a team with a terrible resume. And surprised more aren't backing Monmouth when discussing snubs. And Tulsa being included is the worst selection I can ever remember.
Peyton Marino
Footballguy
It's not a terrible resume. You're overvaluing "quality wins". The committee overvalues quality wins and, probably more so, marketability/big names. KenPom does not. That's why using a (good) objective system is better than going by feel or heuristics.