Tourney Selection Show Discussion

[CousCuse]

I'm getting a strong buy signal from FAU.

 

[MSOrange]

I'm getting a strong buy signal from FAU.

I already had Memphis winning that game. but I feel much more confident now

 

[CousCuse]

I already had Memphis winning that game. but I feel much more confident now

I will be George to your Jerry.

 

[jncuse]

All this talk about whether Texas is good offensively or defensively. They are actually very well balanced on both end

There are only 4 teams in the country that are top 20 in offence and defensive efficiency per KP this year
Houston 11, 4
Alabama 19, 3
Texas 18, 11
UConn 6, 18

Sets up a prelude to my other observation:
There are actually more highly imbalanced teams this year than normal - especially offensively.

Some really good offensive teams that are brutal defensively per KP
Gonzaga #1, #75
Baylor # 2 Off /105 Def
Iowa #3. #167
Missouri #10, #179
Miami #12, #133

Last year amonst the top 12 offences, only one was sub 100 in defence, and that was Davidson.

Sort of feel that 4 of the above teams can pull of some upsets of higher seeds -- I have noted a trend for a while that offensive centric teams tend to do better than defensive centric teams in the tourney. (except for Iowa on the list above)

Some of the highly "Defensive Centric" teams this year are Tennessee and Iowa St... some times this teams figure it out, but they tend to struggle in the tourney in general.

 

[jncuse]

Based on the above, there was a fairly noticeable difference in the offensive efficiency of all 4 matchups so far in the tourney.

As the teams were comparable in strength, I took the better offensive efficiency team against the line.

So far I am 3-0 in the tournament against the spread.

But Nevada is making sure my string of wins will end. (Arizona St is one of those highly defensive centric teams)

 

[NineOneSeven]

Nevada frauds.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Nevada frauds.

Betting against the Mountain West is a gift in the tournament we get 4 chances to do it this year (I kinda like Utah State.)

Remember how horrible that San Diego State team we got to play was?

ASU took their 2 best players.

 

[kirbivore]

Betting against the Mountain West is a gift in the tournament we get 4 chances to do it this year (I kinda like Utah State.)

Remember how horrible that San Diego State team we got to play was?

ASU took their 2 best players.

Made a bigger than normal bet on ASU. Was so tempted to fire the whole roll in fading a fraud MWC team but couldn't take the chance of being wrong. Marathon not a sprint.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I think part of the problem is too much emphasis on not having bad losses. That is great but if you play no one and beat no one, what does it matter?

They have things backwards. Look at good Ws then if further separation is needed punish for bad Ls.

If you look at their schedules there is no way Utah St or Nevada get in.

I wish there was an accurate metric that could be used to compare teams across conferences. Until then use common sense. MWC gets 1-2 teams tops. Can’t have 10-6 in conference with No OOC get in.

IMO they should look at…

1. Who did you beat (overall record, conf record, OOC Ws)

2. Who did you play (conf and OOC)

3. Where did you play (need to show road and neutral Ws)

4. Who did you lose to (bad Ls)

Proving that you can actually beat someone IMO is more important than a random bad L. You can excuse that. Instead people dismiss teams Bs use of a bad L.

 

[CousCuse]

The big dance should be the top 32 teams and the NIT should be 128. No one of the top 32 is going to win the NCAAT. Then the NIT title would be worth something.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The big dance should be the top 32 teams and the NIT should be 128. No one of the top 32 is going to win the NCAAT. Then the NIT title would be worth something.

You could probably limit it to just the P6. Next year there will be 80 P6 teams. Of the last 40 Final Four teams those 80 teams accounted for 36 of the Final Four participants. The only outsiders were Wichita St (now AAC), Loyola (now A10), and Gonzaga twice (WCC).

With the money gap, NIL, and transfer rules do the little conferences even have a shot?

And if the P6 all went to 16 teams you can add Gonzaga to make it 38 out of 40. With a pool of 96 schools you can still have a 68 team field.

 

[UpstateSM]

Merry Christmas everyone

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The breakdown by next year’s conference affiliation of the last 10 NCAAT F4s.,,

10 - ACC (so one per year)
8 - B1G
7 - SEC
6 - B12
4 - Big East
2 - WCC
1 - A10, AAC, P12 (yes the P12 is that bad)

 

[MSOrange]

You could probably limit it to just the P6. Next year there will be 80 P6 teams. Of the last 40 Final Four teams those 80 teams accounted for 36 of the Final Four participants. The only outsiders were Wichita St (now AAC), Loyola (now A10), and Gonzaga twice (WCC).

With the money gap, NIL, and transfer rules do the little conferences even have a shot?

And if the P6 all went to 16 teams you can add Gonzaga to make it 38 out of 40. With a pool of 96 schools you can still have a 68 team field.

As an alum of a mid-major that pulled off one of the greatest upsets in recent years, your idea sucks.

 

[CousCuse]

You could probably limit it to just the P6. Next year there will be 80 P6 teams. Of the last 40 Final Four teams those 80 teams accounted for 36 of the Final Four participants. The only outsiders were Wichita St (now AAC), Loyola (now A10), and Gonzaga twice (WCC).

With the money gap, NIL, and transfer rules do the little conferences even have a shot?

And if the P6 all went to 16 teams you can add Gonzaga to make it 38 out of 40. With a pool of 96 schools you can still have a 68 team field.

The NIL allows any team to become a power if they have a big money booster behind them. It seems like 68 out of 96 is too high of a percentage to make it to the playoffs.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The NIL allows any team to become a power if they have a big money booster behind them. It seems like 68 out of 96 is too high of a percentage to make it to the playoffs.

Looking at this year there are 43 teams in the NCAAT from that likely 96. There are another 16 in the NIT. That is pretty close to the 68.

That being said I agree. It would be better at 48 than 68.

 

[kirbivore]

I think part of the problem is too much emphasis on not having bad losses. That is great but if you play no one and beat no one, what does it matter?

They have things backwards. Look at good Ws then if further separation is needed punish for bad Ls.

If you look at their schedules there is no way Utah St or Nevada get in.

I wish there was an accurate metric that could be used to compare teams across conferences. Until then use common sense. MWC gets 1-2 teams tops. Can’t have 10-6 in conference with No OOC get in.

IMO they should look at…

1. Who did you beat (overall record, conf record, OOC Ws)

2. Who did you play (conf and OOC)

3. Where did you play (need to show road and neutral Ws)

4. Who did you lose to (bad Ls)

Proving that you can actually beat someone IMO is more important than a random bad L. You can excuse that. Instead people dismiss teams Bs use of a bad L.

Believe me I'm not advocating for the fraud MWC but some of these mid majors have documented attempts to bump up the OOC schedule and they can't get any takers.