Bracketology Thread 2018-19

[Cheeks]

Remember when people wanted Porter Moser instead of Wojo?

LOL

Yup, about 7 weeks ago

[pbiflyer]

I'm down on the Treasure Coast and a few years ahead of you, alumni-wise.

Good starting place for our second NatChamp.

Also, I'm betting that there's enough MU alums in Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas that might make the trip (not far from any of those places). GO WARRIORS!!!!

We will have 7 MU alums at Jax for the tournament regardless of who is there. There is a decent amount of alums in Florida. If we got seeded there, I bet it would be a decent turnout.

[GoldenEagle323]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

[Galway Eagle]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

Would be nice to beat charles matthews but I don't wanna face michigan.

[HowardsWorld]

Not likely to happen but would love to see Nova play duke in the S16 and knock them out. I feel someone is going to get majorly screwed by having to play nova in the s16. either as a 1 or a 2 seed. The losses against Penn and Furmen will most likely cost them a seed line or two but the way they are playing recently I would not want to face them before the elite 8. I would bet they get a 4 seed and a nightmare match up for any of the 1 seeds.

[MU B2002]

We will have 7 MU alums at Jax for the tournament regardless of who is there. There is a decent amount of alums in Florida. If we got seeded there, I bet it would be a decent turnout.

I'm in NE Florida and will be there as well.

[GooooMarquette]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

This bracket pretty much flips off the notion of "protected seeds."

Milwaukee (#3) to Tulsa = 766 miles
Denton, TX (#14) to Tulsa - 269 miles

Meanwhile, Bricky (#7) would play in Des Moines = 293 miles from Madison.

[MomofMUltiples]

At this time in the season, the most relevant discussions regarding bracketology are: In, out, or on the bubble? If out or on the bubble, what do you have to do to get in? If in, how high a seed can you get?  Speculating on location is just that, speculation.  So go ahead a speculate away but I’m currently not going to lose sleep over whether some bracketologist puts us in Des Moines or San Jose.

[Pepe Sylvia]

Yeah, a bracketologist's location prediction is not worth thinking about, I guarantee the bracketologist hasn't.

[JakeBarnes]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/bracketology/

At least puts us in Des Moines. I would totally take this bracket.

[cheebs09]

I’m excited for the Committee to release their top 16. Nice to actually be on the lookout for our team.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/bracketology/

At least puts us in Des Moines. I would totally take this bracket.

FSU would be a challenging match-up with a lot of big wingspans but I would love another crack at Kansas in the Sweet 16, especially without Doke.

[PGsHeroes32]

FSU would be a challenging match-up with a lot of big wingspans but I would love another crack at Kansas in the Sweet 16, especially without Doke.

They are also a team that’s known to literally just not show up for games about 50% of the time under Hamilton.

Considering they made a nice run last year, I like the odds of them straight up losing that first game

[MU82]

Though it's nice to see that Lunardi finally acknowledges we're having a good season, I prefer the CBS bracket.

Not that either means a hill of beans in January.

[PGsHeroes32]

Though it's nice to see that Lunardi finally acknowledges we're having a good season, I prefer the CBS bracket.

Not that either means a hill of beans in January.

Yeah I’d rather get Kansas than Michigan.

Depends on who wins the first game. I think we’d handle Miss State. Minny could be a potential interesting match up. But like FSU, they may not even show up.

[brewcity77]

Yeah, a bracketologist's location prediction is not worth thinking about, I guarantee the bracketologist hasn't.

I can't speak to Lunardi, but one reason I prefer doing S-Curves is because I do think about location predictions. Doing a bracket is a lot more work if you care to do it right. Things I take into account...

• Proximity of protected seed to home.
• Proximity of protected seeds potential first weekend opponents to home.
• Proximity of non-protected favored seeds to home compared to first round opponents.
• Overall protected seed pod S-Curve balance (the strongest 4-team pod had total seed power of 130, the weakest was 134.5).
• Overall region strength S-Curve balance (strongest region was Midwest at 524, weakest was East at 532.5, but 3 regions were within 1.5 points).
• Avoiding in season rematches in the first round, & ideally the first weekend.
• Balancing conferences between the regions.
• Preventing conference opponents from meeting in the first weekend as much as possible.

Again, I can't speak to anyone else, but there are people projecting brackets that do take all that into account, and I'm sure there are people more particular about it than I am.

[Herman Cain]

Given that this is the first year of the NET ranking , I wonder how accurate the bracketologists are going to be this year. I care less about the seeding and locations and more about who is actually in the field or on the bubble. One of the interesting thing last year was the committee identified who was on the bubble that didn't make it and then those teams got seeded high in the NIT. 

[MomofMUltiples]

Isn't the first four out always the #1 seeds in the NIT?

IMO, some bracketologists get caught in "dream matchups,"  where they are just dying to see a bracket where Kansas plays Mizzou or MU plays VPI , or maybe a Duke-Kentucky rematch in a regional final.  I believe this drives some placements more than anything.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Given that this is the first year of the NET ranking , I wonder how accurate the bacteriologists are going to be this year. I care less about the seeding and locations and more about who is actually in the field or on the bubble. One of the interesting thing last year was the committee identified who was on the bubble that didn't make it and then those teams got seeded high in the NIT.

Was unaware of the connection of NET and bacteria. 

[JakeBarnes]

Was unaware of the connection of NET and bacteria.

It's tied together by the non-confidence schedule. 

[dgies9156]

We will have 7 MU alums at Jax for the tournament regardless of who is there. There is a decent amount of alums in Florida. If we got seeded there, I bet it would be a decent turnout.

PBI flyer? Did you used to live in the Palm Beaches?

Will likely be where our Warriors go this year. Hopefully it is JAX.

[brewcity77]

Given that this is the first year of the NET ranking , I wonder how accurate the bacteriologists are going to be this year. I care less about the seeding and locations and more about who is actually in the field or on the bubble. One of the interesting thing last year was the committee identified who was on the bubble that didn't make it and then those teams got seeded high in the NIT.

Bacteriologists aside, I wonder a lot about this. Take the current #39 & 40 in NET, Utah State & Lipscomb. If bids went strictly on those rankings, both would be safely in regardless of conference tourney results. But at any time in the past, Utah State likely just doesn't have the resume and Lipscomb is in too small a conference to get serious at-large consideration.

As I look at other projectionists, most seem to use the NET as a guide, one more tool in the toolbox. Similar to the RPI. I think the first good indicator we get will be on February 17 when they release the first top-16 seeds. Right now, the top seeds on NET would be Duke, Gonzaga, Virginia, Michigan. On bracketmatrix, the consensus takes Gonzaga & Michigan off the one line and puts Tennessee & MSU there. Marquette will be another good indicator. Bracketmatrix has us as a 3, the NET would have us as a 5.

[GooooMarquette]

Bacteriologists aside, I wonder a lot about this. Take the current #39 & 40 in NET, Utah State & Lipscomb. If bids went strictly on those rankings, both would be safely in regardless of conference tourney results. But at any time in the past, Utah State likely just doesn't have the resume and Lipscomb is in too small a conference to get serious at-large consideration.

As I look at other projectionists, most seem to use the NET as a guide, one more tool in the toolbox. Similar to the RPI. I think the first good indicator we get will be on February 17 when they release the first top-16 seeds. Right now, the top seeds on NET would be Duke, Gonzaga, Virginia, Michigan. On bracketmatrix, the consensus takes Gonzaga & Michigan off the one line and puts Tennessee & MSU there. Marquette will be another good indicator. Bracketmatrix has us as a 3, the NET would have us as a 5.

But aren't the NET rankings being used like the RPI was in the past - as a general guide, and not as an absolute determinant of in/out and seeding? If so, teams on the edge would still need to sweat Selection Sunday, and the teams clearly in would still be juggled around a seed or three.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

But aren't the NET rankings being used like the RPI was in the past - as a general guide, and not as an absolute determinant of in/out and seeding? If so, teams on the edge would still need to sweat Selection Sunday, and the teams clearly in would still be juggled around a seed or three.

That's my assumption as well, but until we see what the committee actual does with NET we don't know for sure. I can't imagine they would have a selection committee if they were going to let NET do all the work.

[brewcity77]

But aren't the NET rankings being used like the RPI was in the past - as a general guide, and not as an absolute determinant of in/out and seeding? If so, teams on the edge would still need to sweat Selection Sunday, and the teams clearly in would still be juggled around a seed or three.

I expect they will be, but until we actually see the results we won't know how closely they stick to them, both in terms of inclusion and seeding. That's why February 17 will be interesting as it likely answers both questions.