2024 Bracketology / Selection Show | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

2024 Bracketology / Selection Show

Virginia's position will be really determined in the next few weeks when they play the bulk of the top 10 teams on their schedule:
4/14 at Duke, 4/20 at Syracuse, 4/27 Notre Dame, 5/3 ACC tmt.
 
Gee, we've gone from (essentially) #9 in that first bracketology in this thread to #2 in a week. I was afraid that, by beating UNC, we'd be relegated to a play-in game by RPI.

Three things before I really start:

1) I am not Patrick Stevens. You're comparing two different people's opinions here: Stevens 03/28 to my 04/08. If Stevens remains consistent with his thread of logic so far, I expect he will have UVA seeded #3 whenever he posts this week... but I guess him having UVA 4th behind Duke is possible too. I have consistently held Virginia ahead of Hopkins and had them 8th, not 9th, at the time you referenced. I will continue to hold UVA ahead of Hopkins, unless/until something fundamentally changes involving the profiles of the two teams.

2) The time period you're referencing is two weeks, not one week. (8th to 4th to 2nd)

3) I sense derision instead of genuine curiosity here, but I'll attempt to explain anyway.
-

1.jpg2.jpg3.jpg-

These are Virginia's profiles across the 3 relevant Mondays (2 weeks). Even ignoring what else has changed with the national picture, Virginia's win profile - as far as the selection criteria are stated - has dramatically changed during this time period. Couple this with the highly expected RPI hit to Yale, a couple of Penn State losses, a few other losses by seeded teams, and, welcome, here we are.

Are end of March brackets usually wonky to some extent? Yes. But I must admit, I absolutely love the constant cries of "too early" that I see from some here, on UVA's own forum, and elsewhere. I have to assume that the average person must just think that these things make themselves. I will not speak for Stevens, but I have been looking at/thinking about this stuff "behind the scenes" since the first weekend in March at this point. What I would deem my "serious" posts start the last Monday in March. I'd rather show my work along the way than pull something out the last weekend in April and say *surprise* this is where I think we are. And that is the basic reason that I do not pay a lick of attention to 99% of the "this is what I think the bracket should be" posts from people on forums come the last week of April/first week of May. I have no way to look back over their work and try to follow their logic. It's an opinion that they pulled out of their behind on the spot, with at most an hour of thought put into it, and only when it mattered the most.

Many many people seem to think that I am off the deep end wrong for continuing to hold Virginia over Hopkins in the seeding, and I have just about had a mental breakdown in the last week(s) discussing/arguing the logic of that behind the scenes - thousands and thousands of words on the topic have been spilled. But my logic has been consistent on this point and anyone who follows my posts from the end of March until the end of the season(/or whenever something fundamentally changes between the two teams) will be able to see this consistent logic on this point.

My general frustration is leaking into this post, and I apologize for that. But these are some thoughts. To be clear, Virginia's seeding is the topic at hand, not the cause for my frustration.
 
Last edited:
TLN (don't think I remember them getting into the bracketology game before, so take it for what it's worth) has SU going to Georgetown, who is the seven seed.

 
Three things before I really start:

1) I am not Patrick Stevens. You're comparing two different people's opinions here: Stevens 03/28 to my 04/08. If Stevens remains consistent with his thread of logic so far, I expect he will have UVA seeded #3 whenever he posts this week... but I guess him having UVA 4th behind Duke is possible too. I have consistently held Virginia ahead of Hopkins and had them 8th, not 9th, at the time you referenced. I will continue to hold UVA ahead of Hopkins, unless/until something fundamentally changes involving the profiles of the two teams.

2) The time period you're referencing is two weeks, not one week. (8th to 4th to 2nd)

3) I sense derision instead of genuine curiosity here, but I'll attempt to explain anyway.
-

View attachment 239764View attachment 239765View attachment 239766-

These are Virginia's profiles across the 3 relevant Mondays (2 weeks). Even ignoring what else has changed with the national picture, Virginia's win profile - as far as the selection criteria are stated - has dramatically changed during this time period. Couple this with the highly expected RPI hit to Yale, a couple of Penn State losses, a few other losses by seeded teams, and, welcome, here we are.

Are end of March brackets usually wonky to some extent? Yes. But I must admit, I absolutely love the constant cries of "too early" that I see from some here, on UVA's own forum, and elsewhere. I have to assume that the average person must just think that these things make themselves. I will not speak for Stevens, but I have been looking at/thinking about this stuff "behind the scenes" since the first weekend in March at this point. What I would deem my "serious" posts start the last Monday in March. I'd rather show my work along the way than pull something out the last weekend in April and say *surprise* this is where I think we are. And that is the basic reason that I do not pay a lick of attention to 99% of the "this is what I think the bracket should be" posts from people on forums come the last week of April/first week of May. I have no way to look back over their work and try to follow their logic. It's an opinion that they pulled out of their behind on the spot, with at most an hour of thought put into it, and only when it mattered the most.

Many many people seem to think that I am off the deep end wrong for continuing to hold Virginia over Hopkins in the seeding, and I have just about had a mental breakdown in the last week(s) discussing/arguing the logic of that behind the scenes - thousands and thousands of words on the topic have been spilled. But my logic has been consistent on this point and anyone who follows my posts from the end of March until the end of the season(/or whenever something fundamentally changes between the two teams) will be able to see this consistent logic on this point.

My general frustration is leaking into this post, and I apologize for that. But these are some thoughts. To be clear, Virginia's seeding is the topic at hand, not the cause for my frustration.
i still think hop would be seeded ahead of uva and it's even clearer this week after they picked up another top 10 win but we can both take solace in the fact that TLN came out with their first ever bracketology today and while they probably got the teams right their seeding is so so so so so bad


as it relates to syracuse, TLN has cuse on the road at #7 georgetown...just terrible. if the season ended today there is no way that game wouldn't be played at the dome. cuse's resume is better in nearly every respect

cornell three spots ahead of denver....terrrrrrrrrribleeeeeeeee
 
i still think hop would be seeded ahead of uva and it's even clearer this week after they picked up another top 10 win but we can both take solace in the fact that TLN came out with their first ever bracketology today and while they probably got the teams right their seeding is so so so so so bad


as it relates to syracuse, TLN has cuse on the road at #7 georgetown...just terrible. if the season ended today there is no way that game wouldn't be played at the dome. cuse's resume is better in nearly every respect

cornell three spots ahead of denver...terrrrrrrrrribleeeeeeeee

Hopkins has better wins. Hopkins has considerably more losses and much more damaging losses. 10-1 is worth something over 8-3 with a bad loss, and I believe very strongly that if the final bracket came out today that Virginia would be the #2 seed.

I still don't think it's close enough for head to head matter, but I did think about it seriously for the first time this Sunday night/Monday morning.
-

No real substantive comment on the other bracket posted above because I don't want to be quoted as saying it... but... that's way out of step with what Stevens and I have been up to with our logic/posts... and I suspect it is for a reason.

For example, last week, Stevens and I had literally everything in the exact same order except for our wildly differing opinion of where Hopkins was.
 
Three things before I really start:

1) I am not Patrick Stevens. You're comparing two different people's opinions here: Stevens 03/28 to my 04/08. If Stevens remains consistent with his thread of logic so far, I expect he will have UVA seeded #3 whenever he posts this week... but I guess him having UVA 4th behind Duke is possible too. I have consistently held Virginia ahead of Hopkins and had them 8th, not 9th, at the time you referenced. I will continue to hold UVA ahead of Hopkins, unless/until something fundamentally changes involving the profiles of the two teams.

2) The time period you're referencing is two weeks, not one week. (8th to 4th to 2nd)

3) I sense derision instead of genuine curiosity here, but I'll attempt to explain anyway.
-

View attachment 239764View attachment 239765View attachment 239766-

These are Virginia's profiles across the 3 relevant Mondays (2 weeks). Even ignoring what else has changed with the national picture, Virginia's win profile - as far as the selection criteria are stated - has dramatically changed during this time period. Couple this with the highly expected RPI hit to Yale, a couple of Penn State losses, a few other losses by seeded teams, and, welcome, here we are.

Are end of March brackets usually wonky to some extent? Yes. But I must admit, I absolutely love the constant cries of "too early" that I see from some here, on UVA's own forum, and elsewhere. I have to assume that the average person must just think that these things make themselves. I will not speak for Stevens, but I have been looking at/thinking about this stuff "behind the scenes" since the first weekend in March at this point. What I would deem my "serious" posts start the last Monday in March. I'd rather show my work along the way than pull something out the last weekend in April and say *surprise* this is where I think we are. And that is the basic reason that I do not pay a lick of attention to 99% of the "this is what I think the bracket should be" posts from people on forums come the last week of April/first week of May. I have no way to look back over their work and try to follow their logic. It's an opinion that they pulled out of their behind on the spot, with at most an hour of thought put into it, and only when it mattered the most.

Many many people seem to think that I am off the deep end wrong for continuing to hold Virginia over Hopkins in the seeding, and I have just about had a mental breakdown in the last week(s) discussing/arguing the logic of that behind the scenes - thousands and thousands of words on the topic have been spilled. But my logic has been consistent on this point and anyone who follows my posts from the end of March until the end of the season(/or whenever something fundamentally changes between the two teams) will be able to see this consistent logic on this point.

My general frustration is leaking into this post, and I apologize for that. But these are some thoughts. To be clear, Virginia's seeding is the topic at hand, not the cause for my frustration.
Our board believes that RPI has to be fixed/repaired/overhauled/modified because there are so few games to use as a basis for seeding, especially when compared to basketball. Many seedings based on RPI alone, in our view, do not pass the smell test. I was only half-joking when I said that I was surprised we didn't get put into a play-in game after beating UNC because a serious number of teams have had their rating go down after a win. That should not happen in any system. I can accept having your RPI remain the same after a win (based on your opponent), but it should never go down, and any system that has that occur needs serious, serious revision, if it's not scrapped all together.
 
Our board believes that RPI has to be fixed/repaired/overhauled/modified because there are so few games to use as a basis for seeding, especially when compared to basketball. Many seedings based on RPI alone, in our view, do not pass the smell test. I was only half-joking when I said that I was surprised we didn't get put into a play-in game after beating UNC because a serious number of teams have had their rating go down after a win. That should not happen in any system. I can accept having your RPI remain the same after a win (based on your opponent), but it should never go down, and any system that has that occur needs serious, serious revision, if it's not scrapped all together.
a numbers guy like fieldy can correct me, but it's my guess it would be an incredible challenge, if not impossible, to have any system that's a dynamic, in-season one not go down at times depending on opponents with a win. the only one i can think of is eye test.

this is a first world problem. if you want your team, in any numbers based algo, to be high because you've beaten better teams than quinnipiac, then you have to accept that as more games get added in and they're not at the same level opponent... they get averaged in. the ONLY rating that matters is after all the games have been played. so complaining about the order of those as it happens in real time is folly.
 
a numbers guy like fieldy can correct me, but it's my guess it would be an incredible challenge, if not impossible, to have any system that's a dynamic, in-season one not go down at times depending on opponents with a win. the only one i can think of is eye test.

this is a first world problem. if you want your team, in any numbers based algo, to be high because you've beaten better teams than quinnipiac, then you have to accept that as more games get added in and they're not at the same level opponent... they get averaged in. the ONLY rating that matters is after all the games have been played. so complaining about the order of those as it happens in real time is folly.
Of course, just using won-loss percentage would work, but ignores the strength of opponents.

I imagine one could come up with an aggregate system, where a team gets a certain number of non-negative points for beating another team depending on that team's strength. This would always go up. Of course, D1 lacrosse teams play a different number games, so teams playing more games would have an advantage in such a system.
 

Hempstead, N.Y.
(1) Notre Dame vs. ATLANTIC SUN/Air Force-METRO ATLANTIC/Sacred Heart
(8) IVY/Yale vs. Penn State

Hempstead, N.Y.
(5) BIG EAST/Denver vs. PATRIOT/Colgate
(4) Virginia vs. ATLANTIC 10/Saint Joseph’s

Towson, Md.
(3) Duke vs. CAA/Towson
(6) Maryland vs. Georgetown

Towson, Md.
(7) Syracuse vs. Cornell
(2) BIG TEN/Johns Hopkins vs. AMERICA EAST/Bryant

Last three included: Penn State, Cornell, Georgetown
First three on the outside: Penn, Princeton, Harvard
Moving in: Bryant, Colgate, Georgetown
Moving out: Albany, Army, Penn
Conference call: ACC (4), Big Ten (3), Big East (2), Ivy (2)
 

Hempstead, N.Y.
(1) Notre Dame vs. ATLANTIC SUN/Air Force-METRO ATLANTIC/Sacred Heart
(8) IVY/Yale vs. Penn State

Hempstead, N.Y.
(5) BIG EAST/Denver vs. PATRIOT/Colgate
(4) Virginia vs. ATLANTIC 10/Saint Joseph’s

Towson, Md.
(3) Duke vs. CAA/Towson
(6) Maryland vs. Georgetown

Towson, Md.
(7) Syracuse vs. Cornell
(2) BIG TEN/Johns Hopkins vs. AMERICA EAST/Bryant

Last three included: Penn State, Cornell, Georgetown
First three on the outside: Penn, Princeton, Harvard
Moving in: Bryant, Colgate, Georgetown
Moving out: Albany, Army, Penn
Conference call: ACC (4), Big Ten (3), Big East (2), Ivy (2)

Doesn't the committee have a directive to avoid regular season re-matches? I am guessing he can't send Cornell to Yale, but the Penn State-Yale game is also a re-match. Who wants that?

People complain about RPI, but I think the fact there can only be two "flights" is the worst aspect of the Tournament. Completely messes up true matchups. The fact they are still basing things on geography makes me feel like the sport is stuck in the 1920s.
 
Doesn't the committee have a directive to avoid regular season re-matches? I am guessing he can't send Cornell to Yale, but the Penn State-Yale game is also a re-match. Who wants that?

People complain about RPI, but I think the fact there can only be two "flights" is the worst aspect of the Tournament. Completely messes up true matchups. The fact they are still basing things on geography makes me feel like the sport is stuck in the 1920s.

I'd like another shot at Cornell.

That 4th quarter still doesn't sit well with me.
 
Doesn't the committee have a directive to avoid regular season re-matches? I am guessing he can't send Cornell to Yale, but the Penn State-Yale game is also a re-match. Who wants that?

People complain about RPI, but I think the fact there can only be two "flights" is the worst aspect of the Tournament. Completely messes up true matchups. The fact they are still basing things on geography makes me feel like the sport is stuck in the 1920s.

What I had (doesn't include Yale def. BU)
Cornell @ #6 Maryland
Yale @ #7 Syracuse
Georgetown @ #8 Penn State

^ No rematches, no flights in these games.

What Stevens has (does include Yale def. BU)
Georgetown @ #6 Maryland
Cornell @ #7 Syracuse
Penn State @ #8 Yale

If you have these ^ as the seeds, I'd take the correct pairings to be:
Cornell @ #6 Maryland
Penn State @ #7 Syracuse
Georgetown @ #8 Yale

None are rematches. None are flights. Whether it's not a priority for Stevens or he's trying to give a straight 1-16 as much as possible or whether it's something else, it's anyone's guess - good luck getting an answer from the source!
-

Stevens bracket is what I expected overall. I think Duke ahead of UVA is a complete nonsense, but what can you do. He plays it very close to own RPI and always has. Duke 2022 is a trap if you want to do some googling of his old brackets. But I am not here to re-litigate 2022.
 
Doesn't the committee have a directive to avoid regular season re-matches? I am guessing he can't send Cornell to Yale, but the Penn State-Yale game is also a re-match. Who wants that?

People complain about RPI, but I think the fact there can only be two "flights" is the worst aspect of the Tournament. Completely messes up true matchups. The fact they are still basing things on geography makes me feel like the sport is stuck in the 1920s.
they avoid conference rematches at all costs, but they dont always avoid non-con rematches especially when the geography is helpful, like when uva played richmond in the 1st round last year. there were two non-con rematches the previous year, cornell/osu and princeton/bu. they dont seem to try all that hard to avoid them...
 
I'd like another shot at Cornell.

That 4th quarter still doesn't sit well with me.
He could have just as easily had us playing Colgate again and sent Cornell out to Denver but that would created yet another rematch.
 

Hempstead, N.Y.
(1) Notre Dame vs. ATLANTIC SUN/Air Force-METRO ATLANTIC/Sacred Heart
(8) IVY/Yale vs. Penn State

Hempstead, N.Y.
(5) BIG EAST/Denver vs. PATRIOT/Colgate
(4) Virginia vs. ATLANTIC 10/Saint Joseph’s

Towson, Md.
(3) Duke vs. CAA/Towson
(6) Maryland vs. Georgetown

Towson, Md.
(7) Syracuse vs. Cornell
(2) BIG TEN/Johns Hopkins vs. AMERICA EAST/Bryant

Last three included: Penn State, Cornell, Georgetown
First three on the outside: Penn, Princeton, Harvard
Moving in: Bryant, Colgate, Georgetown
Moving out: Albany, Army, Penn
Conference call: ACC (4), Big Ten (3), Big East (2), Ivy (2)
Im hoping this is how things play out. I like our chances vs Cornell, Hopkins, Duke, Maryland or Gtown. Should have already beaten 4 out of the 5. Stay away from UVA and ND until the final.
 
Im hoping this is how things play out. I like our chances vs Cornell, Hopkins, Duke, Maryland or Gtown. Should have already beaten 4 out of the 5. Stay away from UVA and ND until the final.
How do you know how Syracuse will do against UVA?
UVa has played only 2 top 10 teams so far: beat UMd and lost to Hopkins.

Further, the ND loss was a long road trip, while one of those 5 teams beat Syracuse on their home field.
 
Last edited:
How do you know how Syracuse will do against UVA?
UVa has played only 2 top 10 teams so far: beat UMd and lost to Hopkins.

Further, the ND loss was a long road trip, while one of those 5 teams beat Syracuse on their home field.
We will see but depending on how things go, I wouldn't want to play them 2 to 3 times in such a short time frame. It's possible we play them again in the ACC tournament.
 
Well, it was a very adventurous day to get here, but I now feel comfortable saying:
Syracuse is a lock for the NCAA tournament.


I am not sure that Syracuse is a lock for a seed yet. There are too many variables left to say that definitively.

I usually don't let my own personal opinions of teams enter into my statements here, but I will say something obvious to most here... this Syracuse team has plenty to work on during their last 2-3 games.
 
Brown takes Princeton out of the running winning 13-12 in ot.
 
Well, it was a very adventurous day to get here, but I now feel comfortable saying:
Syracuse is a lock for the NCAA tournament.


I am not sure that Syracuse is a lock for a seed yet. There are too many variables left to say that definitively.

I usually don't let my own personal opinions of teams enter into my statements here, but I will say something obvious to most here... this Syracuse team has plenty to work on during their last 2-3 games.
I'm not sure Syracuse is a lock. I think there still could be a path for 3 Ivies. This would have a higher likelihood if Cornell beat ND today.
 
Think syracuse needs to win uva game or a acc tounry game n then it’s most def a lock. Syracuse wins one of those games no matter how else everything falls think cuse is in.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,885
Messages
4,735,323
Members
5,930
Latest member
CuseGuy44

Online statistics

Members online
243
Guests online
1,609
Total visitors
1,852


Top Bottom