Yep, my thoughts exactly. If anything, they should be punished on the seed line a bit just for that and also if they lose early in the Big 12 tourney.
Bracketmatrix update 3/11
- Thread starter FiveStarCat
- Start date
I kind of wish they'd just ignore it.
Because in one train of thought, they got this record with them, it's theirs. Even if the eye test might tell us otherwise about how good they will be without these two, you can't say Kansas doesn't have this resume to be judged on. And. That's what seeding is based on, what you did, not what we think you will do.
Then again I also wouldn't care if they drop at all hahaha.
3:35 to 4:25ish
Last years committee chair says they track injuries throughout the year (I have my doubts personally) and they evaluate how a team does without that injured player. Doesn’t really answer the question but my read is they do take it into account and thus Self is definitely dabbling in some gamesmanship. KU likely going to back into a 3 because of it
Well I hope they took into account OUR injuries. Which I know they didn't, so whatever.
Just read CBS "top 25 and 1" poll from some turd Grant something.. I won't even link it here.. but they have us at 17th lmfao. Behind Utah St. Behind Duke and Kansas.. behind BYU lolol.
Just read CBS "top 25 and 1" poll from some turd Grant something.. I won't even link it here.. but they have us at 17th lmfao. Behind Utah St. Behind Duke and Kansas.. behind BYU lolol.
Yeah I hear you. There probably should be more weight put into the uncertainty of having two of their top guys at full strength in the NCAAT than losing early in the conference tourney without them.
Gary Parrish lol. He is a known cal hater(Memphis guy) his rankings are always terrible. Having Utah st & auburn ahead UK should take away any credibility he has
It's actually not him haha. I looked figuring it was him, but nope, someone else.
Clearly a troll job.
UK played the most Q3/4 games of any team in the NET top 20 not named St Marys and Gonzaga.
That’s the simple answer (not to mention losing one of them at home) to why UK’s metrics - which do impact seeding - aren’t meeting the eye test.
That’s the simple answer (not to mention losing one of them at home) to why UK’s metrics - which do impact seeding - aren’t meeting the eye test.
They lost by 30. That plus losing 5 of your last 9 should be enough to not give them the benefit of the doubt. They've regressed as the season went on instead of getting better.
Cal quit doing those early season tournaments several years ago, so yes, it's true.
The excuse of having young guys is BS. They are used to the experience of multiple games over a few days - they all just came from AAU circuits. And should be in much better shape after a summer of being in the strength/conditioning program at UK.
It's a bad look for Cal and UK to not play in these events .... Battle for Atlantis, Nike event, Maui Invitational, and so on ... non-conference resumes look so much better.
Especially since 7 of our 8 losses were early when we were missing several players due to injury or not being cleared by the NCAA.
S another bracket on there, CPI, has us as a 5-seed.
Clicked on their bracket to inspect, and their damn geocities-looking webpage doesn't even have an SSL/TLS cert on it. Which, for those not tech savvy, that's a really bad thing and it tells me people likely aren't monitoring this website. Your uncles fishing website that catalogs all his trips up the Mississippi, likely is backed by a web certificate.
It's no coincidence that the awful brackets on BM, are from sites that clearly aren't being upheld.
Clicked on their bracket to inspect, and their damn geocities-looking webpage doesn't even have an SSL/TLS cert on it. Which, for those not tech savvy, that's a really bad thing and it tells me people likely aren't monitoring this website. Your uncles fishing website that catalogs all his trips up the Mississippi, likely is backed by a web certificate.
It's no coincidence that the awful brackets on BM, are from sites that clearly aren't being upheld.
hahaha yeah. It's clear that some of them are not web experts and just needed to throw their bracket somewhere haha
That is one thing about that. Like some I've seen have their own computer system they throw the numbers into. Others tho you wonder how they came up with their seedings lol.
I used to just throw the team sheets into a massive spreadsheet and do everything manually lol.
At the end of the day the average usually gets something like:
95% of the teams correctly
75-80% of the teams within 1 seed line
50% of the teams correctly seeded.
95% of the teams correctly
75-80% of the teams within 1 seed line
50% of the teams correctly seeded.
I don’t see how we’re not a 3 seed. It’s hard to even argue it really.
Should be no worse than a two seed, but we lost a few games that are totally ridiculous. I think most coaches would have this team a 1 seed. Still pissed about it, eventually might get over it.
We'll probably on the fringe between 3 and 4.
I think it would be difficult for anyone to say Team X (whoever that might be) is the 12th best team vs the 13th best team.
Other than the teams that have clearly separated themselves from the pack, i think it's hard to definitely say anything. Team X is the 12th best team. Well they could be 12th. They could be 8th. They could be 16th. I mean teams in this area if they were to face each other on a neutral court, the line would be next to nothing. That's how close the teams are.
Palm picked us to win the SEC Tourney FWIW. Same with Parrish.
Isn't that funny. When we asked what seed we should be, they are bearish.
Ask them who they THINK will win the SECT and who they are putting money on, and they're picking UK.
They don't REALLY think UK is a 4 or a 5 seed deep down
Those guys just get paid to do shit we can all do now with unfettered access to data. The UNCW loss still really stings. Eye test says we are a top 3 team over the last 3 weeks though. Cal's stall ball vs Tennessee didn't help either - we should have won that game by double digits like we did at Auburn. For people who didnt watch that game and saw a 3 point margin it looked like a coin toss.
I think we are somewhere between 10 and 13 right now in reality. Anyone who still shows us as a 5 is lying to himself.
Lol I feel like this is where the whole resume/best team thing breaks down.
They put UT ahead of us because that's what normal seeding says to do. Compare the two resumes and pick the better one to seed ahead.
But they don't believe that UT is "better" than us on a neutral court.
They put UT ahead of us because that's what normal seeding says to do. Compare the two resumes and pick the better one to seed ahead.
But they don't believe that UT is "better" than us on a neutral court.
One of the other guys on there that has us as a 5 is the only bracket (for very good reason) that has Ohio State in the field. Says all you need to know about the bracket.
They should build in logic that if you have so many outliers from the average, your bracket is removed from the matrix
Ultimately it's a contest to see who has the most points. I think throwing out outliers would defeat the purpose of the project. If I was doing this I would want to be at least somewhat different. For our purposes tho, we probably should dismiss them.
Given that most of these have been doing them for years and there's a ranking page maybe we get closer by taking say the top 10 and average those since there's clearly some that are off (and have been shown to be off for years). Some popular guys like Lunardi and Palm don't fair well either
That makes more sense. I thought everyone was going for accuracy but could see some gamesmanship if they are all shooting for the crown
If that's what this is.. just for gamesmanship and being different.. then what hell are we doing lol. I thought a month or two ago this was a strong determining factor from 100 some odd "experts"..
If everyone just copied everyone else, then the wisdom of the crowd doesn't work.
This reason this "works" is because in theory you have independent people all doing this. And you figure with some skin in the game, they would try their best to research and be accurate in their seedings.
Now........whether it's actually fully independent is anyone's guess. I mean since they are public ahead of time, one could just copy but I'd like to think the purpose of them doing this is to get the most points. You're not going to get that if u just copy lol
The thing is these people all of them are basically just trying to guess at what another group of people (the committee) is actually going to do. They may use past trends to come to that determination but ultimately we are all just guessing here since there really is no "set criteria". What's important to one human might not be to another.
This is why I rant about just getting rid of humans and just use something subjective. People will complain about certain seeds but they do that already lol. And this would be so much fairer. Every team would know exactly where they stand and what they'd need to do to move up. No more of this "well I think we need to beat Team A for the committee to jump us one spot"
I'd be a little more OK with that, if I saw a little more people bumping Kentucky. And it seems purposely ignorant to have several 5s for us.
Meanwhile no one on there seems to be lighting Duke or Kansas. In fact, many are still giving them 2 seeds.
If anything, I think some of these brackets are just lagging behind.
Definitely lagged.
I mean at the end the day, most of these guys really only care about that final bracket submission.
It's just.........we put so much credibility with Lunardi. There's non stop threads whenever he updates. And it's like well if we are going to do that, why not use the average of many people. He's no more of an expert than anyone else.
None of these guys are experts, at least not anymore than many on this board.
Oh I agree. But I think those people need to be on top of their brackets, especially at this time of the year.
Correct lol.
Case in point I used to do this year after year. I wanna say there was someone else here as well. Anyone that does a decent bit a research can be pretty accurate with this stuff.
That's another thing. We tend to grip about this stuff but at the end of the day, they tend to get it mostly correct.
I know we are biased but I legit feel UK is a 3 seed lock unless we lose Friday. They have been injured all season and have gotten healthier of late and coincidentally winning big games.
Duke in no logical way is a 3 over UK. They have one good win all season.
I can see KU still being given one due to uconn and Houston wins but 10 losses and injuries at wrong time make me lean to 4 there as well.
This isn't difficult for the committee. They can still rig it so UK has a tough path as a 3. Give us zona as the 2 and unc as the 1 out west. Boom. Got it.
I mean at the end of the day if I look at Bracket Matrix I see all three of these teams right in order
Duke (3)
Kansas (3)
Kentucky (4)
The margin is thin.
Thing is NET ranking
Duke (10)
Kansas (18)
Kentucky (19)
That's going to play a role here.
I think this will play itself out tho. If we make an SEC final, we'll have yet another big win on a neutral court vs someone. If they wanna give Duke a 3 seed, I don't have a problem with it. You can make that argument IMO if we are being fair here.
The only thing I'd be disappointed in is if we say made an SEC Final and ended up just a 4. I have a hard time seeing how that's possible tho.
I couldn't be bothered making a crappy geocities website lol
Eventually I got bored with it. What always interested me wasn't picking the teams or the seeding but rather the actual bracketing part of the thing.
lol the problem was the games get played Saturday night and then games Sunday. By the time games end, it's impossible to do the actual part of the thing I enjoyed doing and I would never get around to it.
It's far more interesting to me to figure out who goes where. People love the whole conspiracy thing and the whole story lines and whatnot. Just based on geography and the bracketing rules tho, there's a reason we are more likely to get drawn with certain teams over others.
But don't you have to beat someone to get a top 3 seed? So beating baylor and a bad Michigan state team is comparable to the other candidates?
To be fair I have 0 respect for any acc team not named unc. Duke has 0 quality conference wins to me. If we are gonna count Clemson and wake then I guess we got to count msu for UK and hell we swept Arkansas and Duke lost at home to them.
Similar threads
