Obviously this will change 17 times before the tournament but seeing X's draw infuriates me. And no one should be happy to have MSU as a 3 seed in their bracket (however if they get their head out of their ass they could vault to a 1).
A UVA/UC matchup would be fantastic to watch. First to 50 wins. Cant wait for March.
Anyone else think its odd they put 4 of the top 10 defenses in basketball in the same bracket?
Its almost like they want to protect the pretty offensive teams from having to play all out wars with good defensive teams.
To me, MSU seems like one of those teams people keep waiting for to really impress them but they simply don't. They are like a better version of Arizona. Yeah, they're good, but not great, in my opinion.
yes but when you have a team with talent like that and they do get it going when they play you, you're in for a long day.
extremely talented teams that have underachieved a bit aren't teams I wanted to get matched up with (although lets get real, if 24-3 and 6 on kenpom is underachieving, that team is freaking scary).
and they don't have any regular season games really to boost that seed so whoever gets put in their bracket is gonna have a top 5 team to deal with.
Anyone else think its odd they put 4 of the top 10 defenses in basketball in the same bracket?
Its almost like they want to protect the pretty offensive teams from having to play all out wars with good defensive teams.
To me, MSU seems like one of those teams people keep waiting for to really impress them but they simply don't. They are like a better version of Arizona. Yeah, they're good, but not great, in my opinion.
Unsurprisingly, we're up to a 2 seed on bracketmatrix. Wichita St is a 6, Houston is a 10, UCLA is an 11. Temple is the 3rd team out, and Miss St is the 5th team out.
It's interesting that some bracketologists are ignoring the NCAA bracket preview. For instance, Lunardi has Florida instead of Oklahoma as a 4 seed. That doesn't make much sense to me, if the goal is to predict what the selection committee will do. Some have an automated algorithm, or predict results for the rest of the year. But if you're predicting the bracket using current resumes (as Lunardi does), why would you not match the committee's own bracket?
https://www.aseaofblue.com/2018/2/1...ucky-basketball-jay-bilas-selection-committee
Look who thinks we are a favorable match up. It does not look like this link will work. You can access the article through the site.
Typical
https://www.aseaofblue.com/2018/2/1...ucky-basketball-jay-bilas-selection-committee
Look who thinks we are a favorable match up. It does not look like this link will work. You can access the article through the site.
Typical
Jay is simply wrong. Two teams being in the same quadrant does not mean they are valued the same. It just means they passed the first sorting algorithm together. RPI Groups are meant to be used as aggregates, not to analyze individual games. Over an entire season, Group records generally are a good unbiased way to initially rank teams. If a team has only Group 1 wins that are of similar quality to @Rider, then there is a problem. But realistically, everyone's Group 1 games will be a mixture of teams in the top, middle and bottom of the Group. Complaining about the extremes is shortsighted. The new system is way better than the old one.A road win over Rider is valued the same as a home win over Villanova. Both are Quadrant 1 wins.
This Jay Bilas comment is getting a lot of coverage:
Jay is simply wrong. Two teams being in the same quadrant does not mean they are valued the same. It just means they passed the first sorting algorithm together. RPI Groups are meant to be used as aggregates, not to analyze individual games. Over an entire season, Group records generally are a good unbiased way to initially rank teams. If a team has only Group 1 wins that are of similar quality to @Rider, then there is a problem. But realistically, everyone's Group 1 games will be a mixture of teams in the top, middle and bottom of the Group. Complaining about the extremes is shortsighted. The new system is way better than the old one.
This Jay Bilas comment is getting a lot of coverage:
Jay is simply wrong. Two teams being in the same quadrant does not mean they are valued the same. It just means they passed the first sorting algorithm together. RPI Groups are meant to be used as aggregates, not to analyze individual games. Over an entire season, Group records generally are a good unbiased way to initially rank teams. If a team has only Group 1 wins that are of similar quality to @Rider, then there is a problem. But realistically, everyone's Group 1 games will be a mixture of teams in the top, middle and bottom of the Group. Complaining about the extremes is shortsighted. The new system is way better than the old one.
I understand his main position, and I agree that RPI is vastly inferior to Kenpom. I think he's overreacting and misleading people though. If you replaced Rider with Fresno St, you have the same problem with Kenpom.his problem is with the rpi.
I understand his main position, and I agree that RPI is vastly inferior to Kenpom. I think he's overreacting and misleading people though. If you replaced Rider with Fresno St, you have the same problem with Kenpom.