Bracketology Position 1.28.25

[NT93]

19 minutes ago, CMJ said:

As of the article I linked earlier in this thread from late December.  This is dominant.

"Right now, the league as a whole has a record of 144 and 20," Dauster said. "They are 17 and eight against AP top 25 opponents, which, according to Brett Edgerton, who is a researcher for ESPN, is the best of any league ever through 25 games. They are 55 and 17 against other major conference opponents, and they are 42 and 6 guys, 42 and 6 combined against teams in the ACC and the Big 12. And here's the craziest part. Field of 68, right? Talks about the 68 teams in the NCAA tournament. That's what that reference is for. All 16 teams in the SEC are ranked in the top 68."

I stand corrected.  Should have read the article.

[Jonnyeagle]

13 hours ago, NT93 said:

I stand corrected.  Should have read the article.

Respect a man who can admit he made a mistake.  +1

[BigWillie]

On 1/29/2025 at 7:51 AM, Censored by Laurie said:

I'm all for getting as many mid-major programs in the tournament as possible, but I'm not for punishing a quality program for playing a brutal schedule...there's reason why metrics like NET and tiering wins with the Quad system are in place to try to determine quality deeper than just overall/conference record. 

those top 10 SEC schools are almost certainly in, save for some end of year collapse, and deservedly so...all ten are currently at .500 in the league, and if they finish that way they'd be right around 20 wins for the year...so even hitting your benchmarks. I'd say at least 3 of those schools have a legit chance at a national title. 

the SEC bubble teams:
 - Texas - 14-6, 3-4 SEC, NET 32, 3-5 Quad 1, 2 ranked wins, 5 upcoming ranked games
 - Georgia - 15-6, 3-5 SEC, NET 35, 2-6 Quad 1, 3 ranked wins, 7 upcoming ranked games
 - Oklahoma - 15-5, 2-5 SEC, NET 46, 4-4 Quad 1, 2 ranked wins, 9 upcoming ranked games

UNT - 15-4, 6-1 AAC, NET 45, 0-3 Quad 1, 0 ranked wins, maybe 1 upcoming ranked game

maybe if the bottom falls out at OU they'll get bounced out, but otherwise they're all deserving

I know there isn't a one size fits all system, but if the committee values Q1 wins so much, why don't they reflect in the NET? We have 0, yet we are still 45th in the country. IMO, it shouldnt weigh so heavily on that metric since the true measure of a team should be many factors (which the NET takes into account), not whether you can win on one night against a team. Let's use the system as it's intended instead of picking and choosing what parts of it we want to pick.

On 1/29/2025 at 11:33 PM, greenminer said:

I think if there is so much weight on Quad record, there should be some kind of rule in place that everyone gets X opportunities to play Quad 1 games.

Frustrating as hell to be in our position, winning all the way to the end, with minimal-to-zero Quad 1 programs wanting to schedule us, then the committee holding it against us that we have no wins.  But please, let's reward a middle of the pack Major program that lucked into 2 more Quad 1 wins because they get 8+ opportunities and they caught a couple of them sleeping.

Yes, completely agree with this which is why it shouldnt be the ONLY metric in the decision for an at large.

[Censored by Laurie]

52 minutes ago, BigWillie said:

I know there isn't a one size fits all system, but if the committee values Q1 wins so much, why don't they reflect in the NET? We have 0, yet we are still 45th in the country. IMO, it shouldnt weigh so heavily on that metric since the true measure of a team should be many factors (which the NET takes into account), not whether you can win on one night against a team. Let's use the system as it's intended instead of picking and choosing what parts of it we want to pick.

it does take strength of schedule into account, but also NET determines what is Q1, Q2, etc...so it would kinda be like a snake eating its own tail for those to also factor into the NET algorithm, as I understand it. 

you're right...there isn't a perfect system...and I try not to get too bogged down in the specific mechanism. 

mostly I've just been tracking a sort of consensus of the names on the bubble...starting to see UNT in the "last __ teams out" category...but so far in looking at most of the "last __ teams in" lists I can't convince myself that our resume is strong enough to bump one of those schools...at least not yet. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

it does take strength of schedule into account, but also NET determines what is Q1, Q2, etc...so it would kinda be like a snake eating its own tail for those to also factor into the NET algorithm, as I understand it. 

you're right...there isn't a perfect system...and I try not to get too bogged down in the specific mechanism. 

mostly I've just been tracking a sort of consensus of the names on the bubble...starting to see UNT in the "last __ teams out" category...but so far in looking at most of the "last __ teams in" lists I can't convince myself that our resume is strong enough to bump one of those schools...at least not yet. 

We just have to keep winning & hope those teams above us lose down the stretch.   
I hope the guys are keeping their eyes on the bubble and noticing we're not being included as well.  This will force them to stay locked-in all the way through the Conf. tourney.   If they see themselves in the "last 4 in", they might start taking their foot off the gas.