2024 NCAA Tournament Bracketology

[Dr. Blackheart]

I'm fairly certain you can't play within 100miles of campus. Any arena worth its salt in Chicago is within 100miles.

Tell that to Nova to the Wellls Fargo Center or UNC/Duke to Greensboro.

[WhiteTrash]

I think they've hosted before. I'm guessing between state tournaments and the fact they've been good enough to get good locations so wouldn't want to limit their spots, they don't have much interest.

Quick Wiki search shows Madison has not hosted. I think the venue is good, the city is too small for NCAA tournament standards. Although Lexington is a frequent host and they only have maybe 100K more in population. 

[Galway Eagle]

Tell that to Nova to the Wellls Fargo Center or UNC/Duke to Greensboro.

Oh right good point. I swear I recalled something about 100mi though. I could be crazy and dreamed it years ago.

[DefinitelyNotPorterMoser]

Quick Wiki search shows Madison has not hosted. I think the venue is good, the city is too small for NCAA tournament standards. Although Lexington is a frequent host and they only have maybe 100K more in population.

Madison hosted a regional in 2002. I thought I remembered stories at the time saying their athletic department didn't feel it was worth the hassle of hosting.

[DefinitelyNotPorterMoser]

Oh right good point. I swear I recalled something about 100mi though. I could be crazy and dreamed it years ago.

There is a certain distance that the NCAA won't pay for a charter flight, so you have to bus or pay for your own flight. Maybe that's it?

[WhiteTrash]

Madison hosted a regional in 2002. I thought I remembered stories at the time saying their athletic department didn't feel it was worth the hassle of hosting.

I stand corrected. I didn't consider them being a regional host. I guess that makes more sense 1/2 the teams and 1/2 the visitors.

I could see it being a hassle in a town that size. NCAA tournaments are more plug and play in major markets.

[MarquetteDano]

A lot of Sparty stuck around to cheer on Vermont during our first round game as well. We weren't done a lot of favors with that seeding.

You got that right. I was in Columbus and the Spartan fans that stayed were either silent (rare) or vocally cheering for Vermont.

[The Sultan]

I stand corrected. I didn't consider them being a regional host. I guess that makes more sense 1/2 the teams and 1/2 the visitors.

I could see it being a hassle in a town that size. NCAA tournaments are more plug and play in major markets.

Madison is plenty big enough. I just don't think they have much interest. They don't even put in for hockey any longer.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I'm fairly certain you can't play within 100miles of campus. Any arena worth its salt in Chicago is within 100miles.

Madison is definitely less than 100 miles from Milwaukee, and the Badgers have been placed in Milwaukee several times.

[StillAWarrior]

Madison is plenty big enough. I just don't think they have much interest. They don't even put in for hockey any longer.

Yeah...Spokane is smaller than Madison and they're hosting this year.

[WhiteTrash]

Madison is plenty big enough. I just don't think they have much interest. They don't even put in for hockey any longer.

They have hosted a Regional before, so yes it is big enough. I was only pointing out the comment of it being a hassle made sense. Places like Lexington and Spokane welcome the hassle. In places like Milwaukee or Dallas or Atlanta, the NCAA is an easy fit into a robust visitor and convention infrastructure.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Really don't get the AZ love. @Duke, vs. WI and n. Alabama are solid wins, but nowhere near elite and nowhere near wins @ILL, vs. Creighton and n. KU. And two of their losses are head and shoulders worse than our worst loss. I get the computers like them a bit better for some reason, but how do bracketologists look at those two profiles and overwhelmingly put AZ ahead of us?

I was thinking about this more because I'm a dork and I've seen this idea that Zona hasn't beaten anyone a few times. I wanted to check on how we compare to them in terms of records vs. likely tourney teams. I think their wins line up with ours better than you might think. Bracketmatrix isn't flawless, but it gives us an objective way of deciding how good teams have been so far.

Going in descending order of best wins:

MU: Kansas by 14 on a neutral court (Last 2 seed per BracketMatrix)
AZ: Alabama by 13 on a neutral court (3rd 3 seed)
Slight edge to MU but really a wash

MU: at Illinois by 7 (3rd 4 seed)
AZ: at Duke by 5 (Top 4 seed)
Wash

MU: Creighton at home by 5 (Last 4 seed)
AZ: Wisconsin at home by 25 (2nd 4 seed)
Edge Zona given the margin

MU: Texas at home by 21 (Top 8 seed)
AZ: Michigan State on a neutral court by 6 (3rd 8 seed)
Slight Edge to MU for margin of victory but they were missing Disu and MSU was on a neutral court

MU: at Butler by 6 (top 11 seed)
AZ: at Utah by 6 (last 10 seed)
Wash

MU: That's it, no more current tourney teams per bracketmatrix
AZ: Utah at home by 19 (last 10 seed)

So I'm not sure we can claim that Arizona has played nobody

[1SE]

I was thinking about this more because I'm a dork and I've seen this idea that Zona hasn't beaten anyone a few times. I wanted to check on how we compare to them in terms of records vs. likely tourney teams. I think their wins line up with ours better than you might think. Bracketmatrix isn't flawless, but it gives us an objective way of deciding how good teams have been so far.

Going in descending order of best wins:

MU: Kansas by 14 on a neutral court (Last 2 seed per BracketMatrix)
AZ: Alabama by 13 on a neutral court (3rd 3 seed)
Slight edge to MU but really a wash

MU: at Illinois by 7 (3rd 4 seed)
AZ: at Duke by 5 (Top 4 seed)
Wash

MU: Creighton at home by 5 (Last 4 seed)
AZ: Wisconsin at home by 25 (2nd 4 seed)
Edge Zona given the margin

MU: Texas at home by 21 (Top 8 seed)
AZ: Michigan State on a neutral court by 6 (3rd 8 seed)
Slight Edge to MU for margin of victory but they were missing Disu and MSU was on a neutral court

MU: at Butler by 6 (top 11 seed)
AZ: at Utah by 6 (last 10 seed)
Wash

MU: That's it, no more current tourney teams per bracketmatrix
AZ: Utah at home by 19 (last 10 seed)

So I'm not sure we can claim that Arizona has played nobody

Yeah, but this is why I don't like the circle jerk of the computers - AZ has good computer numbers because they beat AL, AL has good computer numbers because they played tough teams like AZ.

Not doubt AZ is a good team, but comparing the KU win to the AL win is a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying they should be on the bubble, just that they and us should swap places on the S Curve

In the real world, they don't have a win that compares with KU, their bama win equals our Ill win. And their UW win equals our Southern win (or butler , or nova, or Creighton if you're a Bucky slurper)

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah, but this is why I don't like the circle jerk of the computers - AZ has good computer numbers because they beat AL, AL has good computer numbers because they played tough teams like AZ.

Not doubt AZ is a good team, but comparing the KU win to the AL win is a bit of a stretch. I'm not saying they should be on the bubble, just that they and us should swap places on the S Curve

In the real world, they don't have a win that compares with KU, their bama win equals our Ill win. And their UW win equals our Southern win (or butler , or nova, or Creighton if you're a Bucky slurper)

I didn't use computers.  I used bracketmatrix, which is an average of 106 humans looking at the field and organizing the bracket.

Why do you feel that its a stretch to compare beating the #8 team in the S curve (which again,  is assembled by humans) by 14 to beating the #11 team in the S curve by 13, both on a neutral court?

[1SE]

I didn't use computers.  I used bracketmatrix, which is an average of 106 humans looking at the field and organizing the bracket.

Why do you feel that its a stretch to compare beating the #8 team in the S curve (which again,  is assembled by humans) by 14 to beating the #11 team in the S curve by 13, both on a neutral court?

Sure, but all the 104 bracket humans do. I'm mostly just being a MU homer, and I get what the committee does and you need some form of comparison, but the NET still can come up with some wacky ratings which then probably get too much weight in bracketologists' overall assessments.

I get Kansas sucks on the road and that has killed their numbers - buy they've still beat UCONN and Houston and Baylor and Tenn and UK. Who has Alabama beat? Auburn, Mighty Miss St (twice) and?? Indiana St? SC at home? Plus they have 7 losses. But yet the computers love them, and subsequently love AZ more for beating them than us for beat KU.

I'm not saying you or the bracketologists are wrong about what WILL happen, I'm just griping that the system is still flawed and, especially top seed lines, truly elite wins should matter - and sometimes identifying those (and the faux elite wins) takes a bit more digging than looking at NET.

That said, KU and TX and UCLA have all really f*cked us over being being a lot worse than we hoped.

Anyway, Saturday will solve this one way or another. Win and we'll bevshowing up as a 1 on lots of brackets - lose and we pretty much lock in a ceiling at a 2

[wisblue]

I raised this briefly in January and I think it's time to do it again

I enjoy following the buildup to Selection Sunday as much as anyone, and hope for MU to get the highest spot possible on the seed list.

But, I think it's a good idea not to get too worked up about the difference of one or two spots on the seed list. Those minimal difference have virtually no impact on the prospects for the team advancing in the tournament. Matchups and how other games play out have a much bigger impact, not to mention how the team plays.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I raised this briefly in January and I think it's time to do it again

I enjoy following the buildup to Selection Sunday as much as anyone, and hope for MU to get the highest spot possible on the seed list.

But, I think it's a good idea not to get too worked up about the difference of one or two spots on the seed list. Those minimal difference have virtually no impact on the prospects for the team advancing in the tournament. Matchups and how other games play out have a much bigger impact, not to mention how the team plays.

Thanks Mom

[Uncle Rico]

I raised this briefly in January and I think it's time to do it again

I enjoy following the buildup to Selection Sunday as much as anyone, and hope for MU to get the highest spot possible on the seed list.

But, I think it's a good idea not to get too worked up about the difference of one or two spots on the seed list. Those minimal difference have virtually no impact on the prospects for the team advancing in the tournament. Matchups and how other games play out have a much bigger impact, not to mention how the team plays.

Bingo.  You'll get dinged for this, but you're correct.  Let me see the seed and potential matchups.

[tower912]

It is fun to have a good season recognized.  But it still comes down to play poorly on a given day and lose, regardless of seed.   Virginia and Purdue have made history that way in recent years.

[El Guerrero 2]

I raised this briefly in January and I think it's time to do it again

I enjoy following the buildup to Selection Sunday as much as anyone, and hope for MU to get the highest spot possible on the seed list.

But, I think it's a good idea not to get too worked up about the difference of one or two spots on the seed list. Those minimal difference have virtually no impact on the prospects for the team advancing in the tournament. Matchups and how other games play out have a much bigger impact, not to mention how the team plays.

This is just objectively false. It's a little bit chicken or the egg, but #1 seeds do much better on average than #2 seeds, and #2 seeds do much better than #3 seeds.

https://www.betfirm.com/seeds-national-championship-odds/

[Uncle Rico]

Sure, but all the 104 bracket humans do. I'm mostly just being a MU homer, and I get what the committee does and you need some form of comparison, but the NET still can come up with some wacky ratings which then probably get too much weight in bracketologists' overall assessments.

I get Kansas sucks on the road and that has killed their numbers - buy they've still beat UCONN and Houston and Baylor and Tenn and UK. Who has Alabama beat? Auburn, Mighty Miss St (twice) and?? Indiana St? SC at home? Plus they have 7 losses. But yet the computers love them, and subsequently love AZ more for beating them than us for beat KU.

I'm not saying you or the bracketologists are wrong about what WILL happen, I'm just griping that the system is still flawed and, especially top seed lines, truly elite wins should matter - and sometimes identifying those (and the faux elite wins) takes a bit more digging than looking at NET.

That said, KU and TX and UCLA have all really f*cked us over being being a lot worse than we hoped.

Anyway, Saturday will solve this one way or another. Win and we'll bevshowing up as a 1 on lots of brackets - lose and we pretty much lock in a ceiling at a 2

Marquette is currently lining up as the first of the 2-seeds.  The computers don't love Marquette as much as the bracketologists.


Marquette's in a great spot. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Sure, but all the 104 bracket humans do. I'm mostly just being a MU homer, and I get what the committee does and you need some form of comparison, but the NET still can come up with some wacky ratings which then probably get too much weight in bracketologists' overall assessments.

I get Kansas sucks on the road and that has killed their numbers - buy they've still beat UCONN and Houston and Baylor and Tenn and UK. Who has Alabama beat? Auburn, Mighty Miss St (twice) and?? Indiana St? SC at home? Plus they have 7 losses. But yet the computers love them, and subsequently love AZ more for beating them than us for beat KU.

I'm not saying you or the bracketologists are wrong about what WILL happen, I'm just griping that the system is still flawed and, especially top seed lines, truly elite wins should matter - and sometimes identifying those (and the faux elite wins) takes a bit more digging than looking at NET.

That said, KU and TX and UCLA have all really f*cked us over being being a lot worse than we hoped.

Anyway, Saturday will solve this one way or another. Win and we'll bevshowing up as a 1 on lots of brackets - lose and we pretty much lock in a ceiling at a 2

The 106 humans look at everything not just computer numbers.  To be honest,  NET is just a sorting tool, you overestimate its importance. They look at who you've beat and where as well as who youve lost to and where. KU has some great wins but theyve also have some garbage losses,  you can't just ignore those.  You also can't ignore that Kansas best road win is a 4 point squeaker over Indiana,
a team so bad that they're expected to die their coach at the end of the season.

If we win tomorrow,  i think we leapfrog Arizona. If we lose,  I think we are still the top 2 seed unless we get anniahlated. No ceiling.

[PGsHeroes32]

The 106 humans look at everything not just computer numbers.  To be honest,  NET is just a sorting tool, you overestimate its importance. They look at who you've beat and where as well as who youve lost to and where. KU has some great wins but theyve also have some garbage losses,  you can't just ignore those.  You also can't ignore that Kansas best road win is a 4 point squeaker over Indiana,
a team so bad that they're expected to die their coach at the end of the season.

If we win tomorrow,  i think we leapfrog Arizona. If we lose,  I think we are still the top 2 seed unless we get anniahlated. No ceiling.

That's a bit dramatic even for a school with IU history.

[Uncle Rico]

That's a bit dramatic even for a school with IU history.

It is Indiana.  The state history backs this up as a possibility

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That's a bit dramatic even for a school with IU history.

Lol,  damn swype keyboard