What's new
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!

***Official 2017 NCAA Hoops Tourney thread: Congrats UNC, all the refs from NCCG should be banned for life*** (1 Viewer)

Good Posting Judge said:
Kansas (-5) vs. Purdue 

Michigan (-1/-1.5) vs. Oregon

Gonzaga (-3) vs. WVU

Arizona (-7.5) vs. Xavier

Florida (-2) vs. Wisconsin

Baylor (-3/-3.5) vs. South Carolina

UCLA vs. Kentucky (seeing -1, +1, and pk here)

North Carolina (-7/-7.5) vs. Butler

For the :tinfoilhat:  that think the NCAA is constantly trying to screw UK, this draw doesn't do anything to allay those concerns imo.
Click to expand...
UK is in the only region where all top four seeds made it to regionals, but I doubt that was by design.  

On the S-curve, UNC is #3 and UCLA is #11.  So on a bracket seeded top-to-bottom without geographic rules, UK got treated like they were the #6 on the S-curve instead of the #5.  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
UK is in the only region where all top four seeds made it to regionals, but I doubt that was by design.  

On the S-curve, UNC is #3 and UCLA is #11.  So on a bracket seeded top-to-bottom without geographic rules, UK got treated like they were the #6 on the S-curve instead of the #5.  
Click to expand...
An S-curve flip of one spot really isn't that much on the surface. But I guess the two bigger factors were 1.) geography; 2.) making sure Arizona -- S-curve 6 -- and UCLA couldn't meet before the Elite Eight, which I believe still is one of the bracket principles.

Interesting in looking at the 1-68 seed list, and it doesn't look like the committee had to flip any teams between seed lines for bracket purposes. All the seed groups of four (1-4, 5-8, etc.) line up perfectly with the seedings. I have to think that's pretty rare, unless they fudged the 1-68 list to match the bracketing, rather than the other way around.

 
Dickie Dunn said:
An S-curve flip of one spot really isn't that much on the surface. But I guess the two bigger factors were 1.) geography; 2.) making sure Arizona -- S-curve 6 -- and UCLA couldn't meet before the Elite Eight, which I believe still is one of the bracket principles.

Interesting in looking at the 1-68 seed list, and it doesn't look like the committee had to flip any teams between seed lines for bracket purposes. All the seed groups of four (1-4, 5-8, etc.) line up perfectly with the seedings. I have to think that's pretty rare, unless they fudged the 1-68 list to match the bracketing, rather than the other way around.
Click to expand...
What probably makes it look :tinfoilhat:  is a name brand like UCLA looking much better than a 3-seed this weekend.  The top end of their resume was really good with the wins over Arizona. Oregon, Kentucky, and Michigan, but the bottom of the PAC-12 was so bad and all the CA land grant schools UCLA played in November were so horrible it dragged down their measurables.  They were 16 in RPI on Selection Sunday and are 14 in KenPom even after last weekend's action.  A previous TSC that asked the question "how good are you on your best day?" probably would have made UCLA a 2-seed.

 
Dickie Dunn said:
2.) making sure Arizona -- S-curve 6 -- and UCLA couldn't meet before the Elite Eight, which I believe still is one of the bracket principles.
Click to expand...
I can actually be talked into going along with the geography criteria/restriction if I don't think about it too hard ("too hard" = "at all"), but the above drives me crazy. In what world would people be turned off by a Sweet 16 matchup between UCLA & Zona so much that they wouldn't watch if that's what the resumes dictated. 

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
What probably makes it look :tinfoilhat:  is a name brand like UCLA looking much better than a 3-seed this weekend.  The top end of their resume was really good with the wins over Arizona. Oregon, Kentucky, and Michigan, but the bottom of the PAC-12 was so bad and all the CA land grant schools UCLA played in November were so horrible it dragged down their measurables.  They were 16 in RPI on Selection Sunday and are 14 in KenPom even after last weekend's action.  A previous TSC that asked the question "how good are you on your best day?" probably would have made UCLA a 2-seed.
Click to expand...
If you're saying that UCLA was too high as the 11 on the S-curve, then that makes sense. But I think the simple flip of Kentucky (5) and Arizona (6) probably was more to follow the bracketing principles than anything else.

Admittedly, I haven't brushed up on any changes to the guidelines in a few years, especially since they went to the pod system. But I'm pretty sure the "regional" rules still exist. No conference rivals can meet before the Elite Eight is a big one. The other one, which may have been changed, was that the first team placed from a particular conference couldn't have another team from that conference in the same region unless it was the eighth team from that conference (it used to never happen that a conference had that many teams, but it happens a lot now with the bigger P5s).

(Edit): Forgot to add that another big principle is (was?) that the first four teams from any conference have to be placed in different regions,

So let's look at the seed list and try to figure out how they approached it.

Villanova was the 1, so they were placed in the East. That followed with 2. Kansas to the MW, 3. North Carolina to the South; and 4. Gonzaga to the West.

Now move on to the 2 seeds.

Kentucky is the 5, so their most logical placement is in the South. 6. Arizona goes to the West, 7. Duke to the East, and 8. Louisville to the Midwest.

All good so far. But it starts to get a little tougher now with the 3 seeds.

Oregon is the 9, but they can't go to the West. Same with UCLA. Florida State can't go to the South with UNC or the East with Duke. Baylor can't go to the Midwest.

One other thing they take into consideration is making sure there are no S-curve imbalances between regions. Right now East is at 8 (1+7); Midwest 10 (2+8); South 8 (3+5); West 10 (4+6). So not too bad. But now the two best teams possible probably should go to the Midwest and West. Oregon can't go West, so they put the Ducks in the MW instead of UCLA (2+8+9 = 19); send Florida State to the West (4+6+10 = 20). That leaves Baylor for the East (1+7+12 = 20) and UCLA for the South (3+5+11 = 19). About as good as you're going to get. I guess you could have flipped Baylor and UCLA and accomplished the same thing, but they might have had geography in mind when they did that.

Again, the committee could have had different reasons for what they did. But that makes sense to me, based on what I know about how they build the bracket.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KU and Iowa State would have played in the Sweet Sixteen this year, so that can't be too big of a concern anymore. Unless that only applies to teams seeded 1-4.

 
Moe. said:
KU and Iowa State would have played in the Sweet Sixteen this year, so that can't be too big of a concern anymore. Unless that only applies to teams seeded 1-4.
Click to expand...
Great point. I hadn't noticed that, so I guess that "rule" isn't in place any more. Like I said, it's been a good 10-15 years since I really delved into the committee's guidelines.

 
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the NCAA's seeding and bracketing guidelines.

A couple of key changes noted over the years:

  • Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines. ... That last italicized part may have changed over the years ... I'll see if I can find any of my old info. 
  • Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament. ... Definitely a change, with the advent of unbalanced schedules ... which is why KU and Iowa State could have played in the Sweet 16.
  • Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament. ... See above.
  • Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the second round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament. ... Ditto, although this one and the one right above it seem a little redundant.
Two other things ...

  • Teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible. ... This always has been the case, which is probably why they chose to send UCLA to the South instead of East. 
  • The committee shall not place teams seeded on the first four lines at a potential “home-crowd disadvantage” in the first round. ... "In the first round" being the key phrase, which is why I guess the committee had no problem putting Dook and South Carolina together in Greenville.

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Kansas (-5) vs. Purdue 

Michigan (-1/-1.5) vs. Oregon

Gonzaga (-3) vs. WVU

Arizona (-7.5) vs. Xavier

Florida (-2) vs. Wisconsin

Baylor (-3/-3.5) vs. South Carolina

UCLA vs. Kentucky (seeing -1, +1, and pk here)

North Carolina (-7/-7.5) vs. Butler

For the :tinfoilhat:  that think the NCAA is constantly trying to screw UK, this draw doesn't do anything to allay those concerns imo.
Click to expand...
Some great games this week.  I like all the favorites to cover except North Carolina,  Arizona,  and Michigan .  I like UCLA versus Kentucky. 

 
with the power conferences bigger now and so many teams getting in, they've had no choice over the past several years but to do away with the strict attempts to keep conference foes away from one another until the elite 8.

 
Dickie Dunn said:
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the NCAA's seeding and bracketing guidelines.

A couple of key changes noted over the years:

  • Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines. ... That last italicized part may have changed over the years ... I'll see if I can find any of my old info. 
  • Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament. ... Definitely a change, with the advent of unbalanced schedules ... which is why KU and Iowa State could have played in the Sweet 16.
  • Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament. ... See above.
  • Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the second round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament. ... Ditto, although this one and the one right above it seem a little redundant.
Click to expand...
I'd rather have the teams ranked/seeded correctly than go through the above contortions (& warp a "true" ranking) to solve - IMO - a non-existent problem. I realize that many times it only mean sliding a team one spot along the same seed line, but I wonder how often the seed actually gets changed.

If the TSC (or CBS) really thinks rematches hurt the product, I disagree.

 
Uruk-Hai said:
I'd rather have the teams ranked/seeded correctly than go through the above contortions (& warp a "true" ranking) to solve - IMO - a non-existent problem. I realize that many times it only mean sliding a team one spot along the same seed line, but I wonder how often the seed actually gets changed.

If the TSC (or CBS) really thinks rematches hurt the product, I disagree.
Click to expand...
Agree.  It doesn't seeen to matter much anymore.  Fewer conference foes play each twice in the reg season.  

Conferences are more of a TV/media-alliance than they are a representation of regions and certainly they're not a representation of a certain type of basketball by conference-- all of this further contributing to further watering down of the regular season, though it seems to clear the way for removal of conf restrictions in the placement of schools in the brackets.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part of me wonders if it's the conferences themselves that don't want their teams playing too early, in order to maximize potential tournament win shares.

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Think uconn/cincy met in the 2nd round in 2011?
Click to expand...
True, but the Big East had 11 teams in the tournament that year.  That must have been the year that I was thinking of where things had to really be changed, because I remembered it being the Big East after the expansion.

 
So who are you cheering for in the Sweet16?  I'm thinking Michigan and Wisconsin will continue to surprise and make it into the Elite8.  Of those two, I think Wisconsin has the best chance to reach the Final4.  I also like UCLA to get past KY - which will be a highlight game tomorrow night.  


Date


Matchup and Point Spread


Time (ET)


Thursday, March 23


No. 3 Oregon vs. No. 7 Michigan (-1)


7:09 p.m.


Thursday, March 23


No. 1 Gonzaga (-3) vs. No. 4 West Virginia


7:39 p.m.


Thursday, March 23


No. 1 Kansas (-4) vs. No. 4 Purdue


9:39 p.m.


Thursday, March 23


No. 2 Arizona (-7) vs. No. 11 Xavier


10:09 p.m.


Friday, March 24


No. 1 North Carolina (-7.5) vs. No. 4 Butler


7:09 p.m.


Friday, March 24


No. 3 Baylor (-3.5) vs. No. 7 South Carolina


7:29 p.m.


Friday, March 24


No. 2 Kentucky vs. No. 3 UCLA (-1)


9:30 p.m.


Friday, March 24


No. 4 Florida (-1.5) vs. No. 8 Wisconsin


10:09 p.m.

 
These will all be wrong!

UM

WVU

Purdue

Arizona

UNC

Baylor

UCLA

Wiscy

I like UCLA to cut it all down at the moment. 

 
Fun article on what winning it all would mean for each of the remaining programs:

Link

The only teams I DON'T want to see win are Carolina & Kentucky. Any other combination, I'd be fine with.

 
For the survivor pool types...who do you have as your pick for tonight?  I'm leaning towards Michigan, but Purdue has me interested.  I don't think KU can keep the Purdue big man in check - but I've been wrong before.  UM/ORE appears like a pick' em game from what I've seen, while most pundits are putting KU in over Purdue.  I'd like to save KU for later, if they do make it to the Elite8.  I've already used Gonzaga, WVU, and ORE.  I'd like to hold AZ for either Elite8 or Final4.  

I'm trying to find the best play to win tonight, but lose come Saturday - this way I don't narrow myself in the later rounds.  Thoughts?

 
Peak said:
For the survivor pool types...who do you have as your pick for tonight?  I'm leaning towards Michigan, but Purdue has me interested.  I don't think KU can keep the Purdue big man in check - but I've been wrong before.  UM/ORE appears like a pick' em game from what I've seen, while most pundits are putting KU in over Purdue.  I'd like to save KU for later, if they do make it to the Elite8.  I've already used Gonzaga, WVU, and ORE.  I'd like to hold AZ for either Elite8 or Final4.  

I'm trying to find the best play to win tonight, but lose come Saturday - this way I don't narrow myself in the later rounds.  Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Do you have to declare per night or per round?

 
Uruk-Hai said:
Do you have to declare per night or per round?
Click to expand...
We have to pick 1 winner each night for each round.  So 1 tonight, and another on Friday.  Then we combine the weekend - so 2 winners total between Saturday/Sunday.  The hitch is that the weekend picks are due prior to the start of the games on Saturday.  So I could pick 2 winners from Saturdays games, 2 from Sundays, or 1 from Sat and Sun.  

Right now I'm focused on tonight.  The pool started with 35 people and we're down to 18.  Somehow I've stayed in this thing and actually feel I have a shot.  Winner takes home $1200.  There is no 2nd place.  First time in this type of pool and I'm starting to fall for the "I actually have a shot" optimism.  Trying not to overthink this.... :unsure:

 
Michigan and Oregon will destroy the o/u 148 and will be in the 160's plus.  Easiest money in the sweet 16.  Wins-losses can go either way, but there will be serious points scored here. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peak said:
For the survivor pool types...who do you have as your pick for tonight?  I'm leaning towards Michigan, but Purdue has me interested.  I don't think KU can keep the Purdue big man in check - but I've been wrong before.  UM/ORE appears like a pick' em game from what I've seen, while most pundits are putting KU in over Purdue.  I'd like to save KU for later, if they do make it to the Elite8.  I've already used Gonzaga, WVU, and ORE.  I'd like to hold AZ for either Elite8 or Final4.  

I'm trying to find the best play to win tonight, but lose come Saturday - this way I don't narrow myself in the later rounds.  Thoughts?
Click to expand...
On paper, this matchup does not really favor Kansas. But, Bill Self seems to always have a weird way to combat perceived mismatches. And if I need to bet on which coach wins the coaching battle, I gotta take Self over Painter.

Plus, Kansas will have a home court advantage in this game with it so close to campus. 

 
Wagner and MAAR played like ####e the first half.  And why is Duncan Robinson trying to guard their 2 best scorers?  This will not end well for Michigan if they keep this up.

 
40 fouls in this game in less than 30 minutes.  Terrible basketball.  Terrible officiating.  Now 41 fouls.   And they've missed 15 more.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Doctor Detroit
2016-17 CFB Bowl Games thread: Bama vs ClemPson for all the marbles
31 32 33
Replies
2K
Views
35K
bigmarc27
bigmarc27
R
New CBS league Slow Draft PPR Draft Starts Tomorrow
Replies
1
Views
479
reef
R
R
Looking for 2 teams Keep League CBS with full 11 man IDP $100 top 2 get paid
Replies
0
Views
366
reeseman
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top