NCAA TOURNAMENT

[waterhead]

And our NET ranking is 25...so the math is not so clear.

The rank of 25 would put us as the first 7 seed no? 4 teams x 6 seeds = 24. The 7 seeds would be ranked from 25-28 in a perfect world.

Maybe I am missing something. I have in the past...lol

 

[cincyalum2014]

We showed last year that seeding means absolutely nothing to us. I by no mean think this team is better than last years but I do think they have more momentum and more of a chip on there shoulder than last years team did. Last year we had a lot of things go our way in the conference championship game with Houston and you know if Rob Grey doesn't throw that ball away he hits a 3 to win because well.... its Cincinnati. This year for the most part UC imposed there will on Houston in the championship game. I like our chances against Iowa and I will worry about Tennessee if it gets to that point.... But until then Cheers to beating Iowa boys, its been a fun season.

 

[cincrulz11]

Our NET ranking is also irrelevant. NET is used sort quadrant games. It matters for our opponents.

Everything the committee uses is on the team sheet. When looking at all of that information, and not your personal benchmarks like polls and conference tournament results, it's very clear why we are a 7 seed.

In fact, I have stated repeatedly in the last week that it would be very tough to land a 6.

yeah people need to step back and take the name cincinnati out of it and just look at the resume. i can't point to any metric out there and say we deserve better. plus we get to play 90 minutes from home. all things considered it was a great result for us.


and to make us feel a bit better, there are 2 teams ranked higher than us on kenpom that didn't even make the tournament and the team ranked right behind us didn't either.

 

[sedziobs]

It's crazy how well our seeding competition did in the last week. Auburn, Iowa St and Villanova all won their conference tournaments. That really negated whatever boost our AAC championship would have given us.

But yeah, I'll take a 7 seed in Columbus over a 6 seed anywhere else.

 

[TheRealUC]

The rank of 25 would put us as the first 7 seed no? 4 teams x 6 seeds = 24. The 7 seeds would be ranked from 25-28 in a perfect world.

Maybe I am missing something. I have in the past...lol

think the main problem is you hear that the NET is going to be main deciding factor with other rankings such as kenpom also "taken into consideration". Then you see the discrepancy in the rankings and the only logical response is wtf?

 

[TheRealUC]

Our NET ranking is also irrelevant. NET is used sort quadrant games. It matters for our opponents.

Everything the committee uses is on the team sheet. When looking at all of that information, and not your personal benchmarks like polls and conference tournament results, it's very clear why we are a 7 seed.

In fact, I have stated repeatedly in the last week that it would be very tough to land a 6.

I'll take the 7 given the location, but the NET does more than sort quadrants. It's a flawed system at best, but they tout it as they're new RPI.

 

[sedziobs]

think the main problem is you hear that the NET is going to be main deciding factor with other rankings such as kenpom also "taken into consideration". Then you see the discrepancy in the rankings and the only logical response is wtf?

NET is the deciding factor for quadrants only. And it's way better than the RPI. As an example, NC St is 33 in both NET and Kenpom. They are 97 in the RPI. Or Washington, who is 45 NET, 51 Kenpom, and 22 RPI. Huge improvement this year.

 

[sedziobs]

I'll take the 7 given the location, but the NET does more than sort quadrants. It's a flawed system at best, but they tout it as they're new RPI.

The NET is the new RPI. The RPI was also only used to sort quadrants. A team's actual RPI/NET has always been irrelevant since the quadrant system was introduced.

 

[TheRealUC]

NET is the deciding factor for quadrants only. And it's way better than the RPI. As an example, NC St is 33 in both NET and Kenpom. They are 97 in the RPI. Or Washington, who is 45 NET, 51 Kenpom, and 22 RPI. Huge improvement this year.

Agree it's a huge improvement, but still multiple seed line discrepancy in some cases, which i would argue is pretty significant. Yes i know there's still a subjective piece to the process, i get it, but the fact that each committee member can pick and choose what metric they want to take into account doesn't fly with me. Just my opinion.

 

[tonka]

I was more concerned with matchup than anything else. I think Columbus is a great location and will actually enable me to go to my first NCAA tournament game.

Iowa is a good first round matchup for us. They fit the middle of the pack big conference team that we have done well against. They have some shooters and some size but they have struggled against physical teams. On their message boards, they have said how Bohannon needs to get 8 open looks from 3 for them to have a chance. I really hope we dont let him get going. I feel good about their results against teams like Rutgers and Ohio St who I feel are similar styles to what we will bring.

I was really hoping for us to get matched with Purdue in the round of 32. I think they are a team that we would match up well with. Tennessee is probably my preferred 2 seed though. They don't have a lot of elite talent but they execute well. In the last few years we have lost to teams that have had top 50 players (UCLA, UK, even Nevada had the Martin twins). Grant Williams is a very good player, Schofield has been great and Bone worries me a bit because of his speed but none of them were top 100 players. I would rather play them in Columbus than Michigan St or Kentucky.

If we do get to the Sweet 16, then we could perhaps get Purdue or Villanova which I would feel good about. I think our region has the worst 3, 4, and 5 seeds (maybe Marquette is worse than Wisconsin). Hopefully someone knocks off Virginia and then we are celebrating our first final 4 in 27 years.

 

[Queens_NYC]

I read a reaction thread on an Iowa forum this morning on my way to work. For those that care, here were the reactions that stuck out most to me...

Primary opinions - expressed by many
-They got a raw deal with UC being a 7 seed and given what's practically a "home game"
-A general sense of pessimism based on how poorly they have performed over the past month
-Concerns over UC's athleticism
-Optimism that if they hit their 3s they'll win (and that they'll subsequently lose if they don't)
-UC was impressive vs. Houston and is peaking which make us particularly dangerous
-We make the tournament often and have a history of doing well in the first round
-Surprisingly a lot of reference to when we beat them in the tournament in 2005

Secondary opinions - expressed by fewer people
-We played a weaker schedule in a weak conference which makes us vulnerable
-We're not going to have much of a home court advantage because we're 2 hours from Columbus and we won't travel well.
-We lost to OSU at home (who they don't view as good), lost to ECU, and needed OT to beat UConn. We're not that good.

 

[Jon Rycek]

They had an absolutely terrible loss to a very bad Rutgers team. What concerns me about Iowa is they are snipers at the 3pt shot. And I will take a 7 seed with essentially two possible home games in Columbus. IMO this is March, there are no more easy games, the seeding is what it is and we can potentially get a shot at Tennessee in Columbus. But the noon start time for Iowa is worrisome in the fact that this team usually comes in sleep walking in the first half of noon games. Hopefully the hype of the tournament has them ready and the extra day off for the Friday game is extra nice.

We went 7-2 in games 3pm or earlier. 1-1 games at noon. And we were winning against Houston the first half of the noon game we lost. Stats say nothing about us being any worse or better in early games.

 

[Jon Rycek]

Polls are completely irrelevant to seeding. Our final team sheet shows #35 in Kenpom, #31 in BPI, and #30 in Sagarin. The math is pretty clear.

I’ve read multiple, what the committee did wrong articles, and UC has been mentioned multiple times as underseeded... we aren’t the on ones who think it. And last I checked they don’t go straight down the list to do seeding, there is more to it than that. And I’m sorry I think all of these rankings are BS and weighted way to heavily on where teams start and what conference they play in. Talking up a team because they have 4/5 quad one wins like it’s a good thing, until you realized they play 13/14 quad one games, mostly in their conference. At the end of the day it is what it is, I think we got a pretty tough draw and I would have much rather traveled a little further and play Purdue or LSU in the second round. But as was said before, it’s march, every team is gonna give it their best shot. If we play like we did against Houston we can beat just about anybody.

 

[cincrulz11]

I’ve read multiple, what the committee did wrong articles, and UC has been mentioned multiple times as underseeded... we aren’t the on ones who think it.

but who is writing that? guys that make bracket projections or media types that go with their gut? because if you look at bracket matrix, if you follow all the seeding criteria, you get 7 (with some 6 as well).


if you ignore the maths and go with emotion, i guess you can come up with whatever seed you want.


if we were clearly underseeded, what teams are we clearly better than that are a 6?

 

[TheRealUC]

NET is the deciding factor for quadrants only. And it's way better than the RPI. As an example, NC St is 33 in both NET and Kenpom. They are 97 in the RPI. Or Washington, who is 45 NET, 51 Kenpom, and 22 RPI. Huge improvement this year.

Using NC state as an example seems odd, especially when they missed the tournament with a NET of 33...

 

[TheRealUC]

but who is writing that? guys that make bracket projections or media types that go with their gut? because if you look at bracket matrix, if you follow all the seeding criteria, you get 7 (with some 6 as well).


if you ignore the maths and go with emotion, i guess you can come up with whatever seed you want.


if we were clearly underseeded, what teams are we clearly better than that are a 6?

I've heard many people talk about how they feel the NET is a mess, and many who feel these advanced metrics are scripture. Personally, the "scripture" proponents irritate the shit out of me, but there's gotta be some middle ground here. Bottom line, if NET, kenpom, etc. were the be all end all, someone needs to explain NC State...

 

[waterhead]

T-rank has a stat called "Q1-A" which shows our results against the upper echelon of quadrant 1 games.


Q1-A Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Current 1-4 5-4 8-1 9-0 6-1


The rest of our resume seems pretty dam good. I wonder how much the really big games had to play in our seed? Until Sunday we hadn't beaten any one of them.

 

[waterhead]

T-rank has a stat called "Q1-A" which shows our results against the upper echelon of quadrant 1 games.


Q1-A Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Current 1-4 5-4 8-1 9-0 6-1


The rest of our resume seems pretty dam good. I wonder how much the really big games had to play in our seed? Until Sunday we hadn't beaten any one of them.

On a side note on T-rank...our performance against Houston was the best "game score" result we have had tied with Arkansas Pine Bluff. It was basically our best game of the year all things considered. The G-score is basically how we performed compared to outcome expectations.

 

[sedziobs]

I’ve read multiple, what the committee did wrong articles, and UC has been mentioned multiple times as underseeded... we aren’t the on ones who think it.

That's nice. Seth Davis even said we were underseeded during the selection show. All of them are entitled to their uninformed opinions. The committee defines their procedures. Media personalities largely ignore them.

 

[sedziobs]

Using NC state as an example seems odd, especially when they missed the tournament with a NET of 33...

I've heard many people talk about how they feel the NET is a mess, and many who feel these advanced metrics are scripture. Personally, the "scripture" proponents irritate the shit out of me, but there's gotta be some middle ground here. Bottom line, if NET, kenpom, etc. were the be all end all, someone needs to explain NC State...

You're not paying attention. A team's NET ranking DOES NOT MATTER. NC St could have been ranked 200 in the NET and still made the tourney if they had good quadrant records and metrics. St Johns made the tournament with a 79 NET. Why did NC St miss out and St Johns made it? NC St went 8-9 in Q1/2 games. St Johns went 10-10. That's enough to put one team barely above the cut line and one barely below. The NCAA has been very clear that NET quadrants are the primary tool. That's a fact. Am I a scripture proponent because I acknowledge facts? Well then I'm proud to be one.