Bracketology Thread 2018-19

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So the bracket reveal told us that the teams in front of us were:

#8 Michigan State
#9 Purdue
#10 Kansas
#11 Houston
#12 Marquette

Since that time, Marquette is undefeated with a big win against Villanova and pretty dominant performances against everyone else. Purdue lost at Maryland and looked very meh against bad Penn State, Indiana, and Nebraska teams. I think they are below us on the s-curve. Kansas just lost by a bajillion to Texas Tech. Losing at Tech isn't bad by the margin might be enough to drop them a few spots.

I think it is safe to say that Marquette is one of the top two 3 seeds at this point. If Michigan State loses to Michigan tomorrow, I still don't think it's enough to bump us or Houston to the 2 line, but it does get us closer.

[muguru]

So the bracket reveal told us that the teams in front of us were:

#8 Michigan State
#9 Purdue
#10 Kansas
#11 Houston
#12 Marquette

Since that time, Marquette is undefeated with a big win against Villanova and pretty dominant performances against everyone else. Purdue lost at Maryland and looked very meh against bad Penn State, Indiana, and Nebraska teams. I think they are below us on the s-curve. Kansas just lost by a bajillion to Texas Tech. Losing at Tech isn't bad by the margin might be enough to drop them a few spots.

I think it is safe to say that Marquette is one of the top two 3 seeds at this point. If Michigan State loses to Michigan tomorrow, I still don't think it's enough to bump us or Houston to the 2 line, but it does get us closer.

I honestly don't think anything MSU does at this point will drop them off the #2 line..I mean it didn't(theoretically), when they lost to IU(at home), and then lost to Illinois. It seems as though for whatever reason, they are safely on the 2 line and not moving. I'm not sure why, but that's just how it seems to be.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I honestly don't think anything MSU does at this point will drop them off the #2 line..I mean it didn't(theoretically), when they lost to IU(at home), and then lost to Illinois. It seems as though for whatever reason, they are safely on the 2 line and not moving. I'm not sure why, but that's just how it seems to be.

They were on the 1 line. The losses to IU and Illinois dropped them to the last spot on the 2 line.

If they lose more games and we continue to win we will pass them.

[muguru]

They were on the 1 line. The losses to IU and Illinois dropped them to the last spot on the 2 line.

If they lose more games and we continue to win we will pass them.

Yes, I know but that's what i mean, I don't think they will move any further than off the last two spot...and what really irks me is, I really feel like MU HAS to win out at this point(which is total BS), to even be CONSIDERED for a #2 seed, when personally I think they should still have a great shot at one even with one more loss. I'm sorry I just don't and never have trusted the committee in regards to seeding, locations, or anything.

[brewcity77]

Tennessee has lost twice since the reveal. They were #2, but they are now 4-3 in Q1 games while we are 9-3 (until PC drops tomorrow). Come tomorrow morning, we will both have 3 Q1A wins (Buffalo will move ahead of Kansas to #15 most likely). Considering their closing schedule, they could fall off the 3 line as well.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes, I know but that's what i mean, I don't think they will move any further than off the last two spot...and what really irks me is, I really feel like MU HAS to win out at this point(which is total BS), to even be CONSIDERED for a #2 seed, when personally I think they should still have a great shot at one even with one more loss. I'm sorry I just don't and never have trusted the committee in regards to seeding, locations, or anything.

There's no conspiracy. Michigan State has a better resume than we do. We can lose one more, but then Michigan State would likely have to lose 3 more for us to pass them.

[brewcity77]

There's no conspiracy. Michigan State has a better resume than we do. We can lose one more, but then Michigan State would likely have to lose 3 more for us to pass them.

They did, I'm not sure they still do. They have more Q1 wins, but also more and worse losses. If they lose today, overall record is definitely a worthwhile comparison, especially with similar SOS rankings. If Ward & Langford are both indeed done for the season, that'll likely factor into their seeding.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

They did, I'm not sure they still do. They have more Q1 wins, but also more and worse losses. If they lose today, overall record is definitely a worthwhile comparison, especially with similar SOS rankings. If Ward & Langford are both indeed done for the season, that'll likely factor into their seeding.

I mean the committee just told us that they have the better resume. Since then, both of us our undefeated with their best win (at Wisconsin) being more impressive than ours (vs Villanova). I'm not sure there's any way to say with any confidence that their resume is no longer better than ours in the committee's eyes.

As for the injuries, would they really give a team a lower seed because a player got hurt? If that's true, I really don't like that. Your seed in the tournament should be based on what you earned. You shouldn't get penalized because one (or two) of your players got hurt.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I mean the committee just told us that they have the better resume. Since then, both of us our undefeated with their best win (at Wisconsin) being more impressive than ours (vs Villanova). I'm not sure there's any way to say with any confidence that their resume is no longer better than ours in the committee's eyes.

As for the injuries, would they really give a team a lower seed because a player got hurt? If that's true, I really don't like that. Your seed in the tournament should be based on what you earned. You shouldn't get penalized because one (or two) of your players got hurt.

Teams have been penalized in the past.  Marquette when McNeal got injured his sophomore year dropped to an 8.  Cincy dropped to a 2 seed after Kenyon Martin got injured late in the year.

Rule of thumb is, the committee will drop a team as much as one seed line due to injuries.

[Cheeks]

I mean the committee just told us that they have the better resume. Since then, both of us our undefeated with their best win (at Wisconsin) being more impressive than ours (vs Villanova). I'm not sure there's any way to say with any confidence that their resume is no longer better than ours in the committee's eyes.

As for the injuries, would they really give a team a lower seed because a player got hurt? If that's true, I really don't like that. Your seed in the tournament should be based on what you earned. You shouldn't get penalized because one (or two) of your players got hurt.

Yes.  Happened to Cincinnati when they were going to be a 1 seed.  Happened to us with McNeal.  Reasoning is sound...if you played as a 1 seed all year and your best player breaks his leg in the conference tournament, then giving you a 1 seed means you are penalizing other NCAA teams in any of the other three brackets as they would be facing more difficult path to Final Four.  End of the day, brackets are supposed to be balanced as best they can, and if an injury as described makes the #2 team in the country really the number 17 team because of that player....need to adjust seeding.  Sucks, but makes sense from competitive fairness perspective.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I think it is strange to have the committee tell everyone that they are judging a team based on their complete body of work, but then change their seeding based on an injury. 

[Cheeks]

I think it is strange to have the committee tell everyone that they are judging a team based on their complete body of work, but then change their seeding based on an injury.

Judging complete body of work to get in to tournament.  Macro.

Injury situation for seeding.  Micro.

Two different things.

[muguru]

I think it is strange to have the committee tell everyone that they are judging a team based on their complete body of work, but then change their seeding based on an injury.

But their body of work to that point was based on having the injured player with them. If they aren't as good without that player, then you HAVE to base things on the team that will be in the tournament. It has happened as people cited above. I mean look at Nebraska..They were easily a tourney team before they lost Copeland for the year, now they have no chance of getting in. But if they were still hanging around the bubble and ultimately got in, their seed would most definitely be affected by not having him for a vast majority of the year.

[We R Final Four]

Yes.  Happened to Cincinnati when they were going to be a 1 seed.  Happened to us with McNeal.  Reasoning is sound...if you played as a 1 seed all year and your best player breaks his leg in the conference tournament, then giving you a 1 seed means you are penalizing other NCAA teams in any of the other three brackets as they would be facing more difficult path to Final Four.  End of the day, brackets are supposed to be balanced as best they can, and if an injury as described makes the #2 team in the country really the number 17 team because of that player....need to adjust seeding.  Sucks, but makes sense from competitive fairness perspective.

If Zion doesn’t return, then based upon your logic Duke should expect a significant seed drop. Best player in the country on a #1 seed seems to fit your criteria that it makes sense to drop them.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

But their body of work to that point was based on having the injured player with them. If they aren't as good without that player, then you HAVE to base things on the team that will be in the tournament. It has happened as people cited above. I mean look at Nebraska..They were easily a tourney team before they lost Copeland for the year, now they have no chance of getting in. But if they were still hanging around the bubble and ultimately got in, their seed would most definitely be affected by not having him for a vast majority of the year.

I get the theory though I disagree with it. Teams should be judged based upon what they accomplished, not by what the committee thinks they will do moving forward. I also think in practice this only ends up happening in high profile situations. I doubt a 15 seed moves into the First Four due to an injury.

[Pakuni]

If Zion doesn’t return, then based upon your logic Duke should expect a significant seed drop. Best player in the country on a #1 seed seems to fit your criteria that it makes sense to drop them.

It's kind of a case-by-case thing, though and would depend on how Duke plays without Zion. If they roll through the rest of their schedule and win the ACC, they're still a 1 seed, even without him.
In Cincy's case, when Martin went down they proceeded to get thumped by a mediocre St. Louis team. And unlike Duke, that Cincy team wasn't loaded with future NBA first-round picks.

[Cheeks]

I get the theory though I disagree with it. Teams should be judged based upon what they accomplished, not by what the committee thinks they will do moving forward. I also think in practice this only ends up happening in high profile situations. I doubt a 15 seed moves into the First Four due to an injury.

Maybe

When Kenyon Martin got hurt they were reliant heavily on him at Cincy and he lost in the conference tournament....a game they lost to a not very good SLU team.  They weren’t able to prove to anyone how much it impacted them except that game, which they lost by 10.

With Zion, who I believe is playing again before the NCAA selection committee, Duke has three weeks to show how good they are without him. Lots of opportunities. Plus, the spector of him coming back exists no matter what since the injury isn’t deemed season ending. With Martin, his leg snapped in two....he wasn’t coming back.

Big differences, so by my “logic” it depends how things shake out as time is still available.   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I get the theory though I disagree with it. Teams should be judged based upon what they accomplished, not by what the committee thinks they will do moving forward. I also think in practice this only ends up happening in high profile situations. I doubt a 15 seed moves into the First Four due to an injury.

This is where I am at. I get that tournament seeding is not an objective process, but I think seeds should be based on what a team has earned not what the committee thinks the team will be capable of moving forward.

[Cheeks]

This is where I am at. I get that tournament seeding is not an objective process, but I think seeds should be based on what a team has earned not what the committee thinks the team will be capable of moving forward.

You would be begging to be in the Cincinnati side of the bracket back in 2000 when he was hurt, as would any other school.  That's how much it impacted their team. 

And not surprisingly, Cincinnati was ousted in the second round by 7th seed Tulsa.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You would be begging to be in the Cincinnati side of the bracket back in 2000 when he was hurt, as would any other school.  That's how much it impacted their team. 

And not surprisingly, Cincinnati was ousted in the second round by 7th seed Tulsa.

But if you truly believe the tourney is a crapshoot, what difference does it make?   

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You would be begging to be in the Cincinnati side of the bracket back in 2000 when he was hurt, as would any other school.  That's how much it impacted their team. 

And not surprisingly, Cincinnati was ousted in the second round by 7th seed Tulsa.

This bothers me a lot less. But I can see both sides of the argument.

[Cheeks]

But if you truly believe the tourney is a crapshoot, what difference does it make?   

It's still a crapshoot, that doesn't change one iota in a 1 game situation...see UVA vs UMBC.   In a one game series, anything can happen but of course there are still probabilities of winning an individual game.  If you are in a weaker bracket, your probability to get through is still enhanced, but certainly not a guarantee. Anything you can do to get better odds or probability of victory, is a good thing.  Still a crapshoot overall, which is why the best team so often doesn't win the championship.  The best team in the NBA wins the championship at a REMARKABLY higher rate than the NCAA tournament, not even close. 

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Except Duke had two other All-Americans/lottery picks they can turn to, Cinci did not. How they decide to seed Duke won't bother me one way or another as I can see both arguments, but It's tough to compare that Cinci team to this Duke team.

[dgies9156]

Latest Bracketology would have us playing the Hillbilly in the Round of 32.

That could be in Guam and I'd go to see us take down the Hillbilly.

Vengeance. Not a good Christian trait. But in this case, I would not be an especially good Christian, what with the Hillbilly's behavior on the way out. I'll go to confession to deal with not turning the other cheek on this one!!!!!

[muguru]

Latest Bracketology would have us playing the Hillbilly in the Round of 32.

That could be in Guam and I'd go to see us take down the Hillbilly.

Vengeance. Not a good Christian trait. But in this case, I would not be an especially good Christian, what with the Hillbilly's behavior on the way out. I'll go to confession to deal with not turning the other cheek on this one!!!!!

It really amazes me how big of grudges people can hold sometimes...especially when Coaches leave.