DRAFTKINGS BRACKETS

[TOMCATS1990]

Based on odds to win a Title

1 Connecticut
1 Houston
1 Purdue
1 Tennessee

2 Arizona
2 North Carolina
2 Kentucky
2 Auburn

3 Marquette
3 Iowa State
3 Duke
3 Creighton

4 Baylor
4 Kansas
4 Illinois
4 Alabama

 

[TOMCATS1990]

Kentucky and North Carolina tied for 6th at +1800 to win the Title.

 

[CatEye2010]

25% of top 16 are from each of the SEC and Big 12

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I just don't understand the love for Auburn. They are trending in the wrong direction. They are 8-5 over their last 12, which is.. OK. But they have no big out of conference wins, they had a bad loss like we did against Appalachian State.. they only had to play UK, Tenn, SC and Florida once.. and those are 4 of the top6 teams in the SEC (edit, they also went 0-3 against UK/Vols/Fla, so they proved they coupdnt beat the best teams in the SEC). They are 1-7 in quad1 games lol. So cool, they have a bunch of quad 2 games.. which are games that a supposed top25 team SHOULD have. So what did they do that says "this team is top8"?

Idk go look at their schedule top to bottom.. and tell me how that's a 2 seed.

 

[yes_takeaside]

I just don't understand the love for Auburn. They are trending in the wrong direction. They are 8-5 over their last 12, which is.. OK. But they have no big out of conference wins, they had a bad loss like we did against Appalachian State.. they only had to play UK, Tenn, SC and Florida once.. and those are 4 of the top6 teams in the SEC. They are 1-7 in quad1 games lol. So cool, they have a bunch of quad 2 games.. which are games that a supposed top25 team SHOULD have. So what did they do that says "this team is top8"?

Idk go look at their schedule top to bottom.. and tell me how that's a 2 seed.

If Auburn is 8-5 over their last 12 then maybe that’s why they’re so high. Squeezing out that extra win

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Oops over their last 13. Either way, prove me wrong here. What am I missing about Auburn?

It's not just any sort of hate either.. I get why teams like UNC and Tenn are being considered as 1/2 seeds. I just don't see it with Auburn.

 

[yes_takeaside]

Oops over their last 13. Either way, prove me wrong here. What am I missing about Auburn?

It's not just any sort of hate either.. I get why teams like UNC and Tenn are being considered as 1/2 seeds. I just don't see it with Auburn.

Made a joke but actually I agree.

 

[Cats192]

Oops over their last 13. Either way, prove me wrong here. What am I missing about Auburn?

It's not just any sort of hate either.. I get why teams like UNC and Tenn are being considered as 1/2 seeds. I just don't see it with Auburn.

It's all the advanced metrics.

4th on Kenpom
6th on NET

Not saying it's right. Just think that's why they've held up as well as they had.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

It's all the advanced metrics.

4th on Kenpom
6th on NET

Not saying it's right. Just think that's why they've held up as well as they had.

Yeah but that just doesn't make sense to me. Because even if their O/D efficiency numbers are great.. that's on the back of a pretty easy schedule. I mean, these systems seem to think their SOS is solid, but I think their system for SOS is broken. Auburn only played one great team in OOC play, and then only had to play the top SEC teams once(except for like MissSt I think). They are 1-7 in Q1 wins.

 

[Cats192]

Yeah but that just doesn't make sense to me. Because even if their O/D efficiency numbers are great.. that's on the back of a pretty easy schedule. I mean, these systems seem to think their SOS is solid, but I think their system for SOS is broken. Auburn only played one great team in OOC play, and then only had to play the top SEC teams once(except for like MissSt I think). They are 1-7 in Q1 wins.

Yeah.

There is a clear hack to the NET/metrics. Just beat the hell out of the bad teams you face.

We use those games to work on things and, that makes sense. But if margin of victory matters--beat the hell out of them.

 

[Cats192]

Yeah but that just doesn't make sense to me. Because even if their O/D efficiency numbers are great.. that's on the back of a pretty easy schedule. I mean, these systems seem to think their SOS is solid, but I think their system for SOS is broken. Auburn only played one great team in OOC play, and then only had to play the top SEC teams once(except for like MissSt I think). They are 1-7 in Q1 wins.

This guy (one of the bracket matrix guys) agrees:

 

[LineSkiCat14]

This guy (one of the bracket matrix guys) agrees:

View embedded media

Yes, thank you!

Not only the margin of victory.. but they seemed to have purposely played "good" teams, that still didn't have much of a shot to beat them. A bunch of decent mid majors and a few crappy power conference teams like VaTech and Notre dame. That's where we got dinged. We played more teams that can beat us (Kansas, UNC, Gonzaga), but more teams that had no chance in the 300's and 200's.

But my response is... to a team like UK or Auburn, is there really any difference in the 260th team and the 160th team?

 

[badukfan]

Seeing Creighton in the mix with such odds is impressive. Their performance over the past five years truly showcases their remarkable rise and solid place in college basketball.

 

[CincinnatiWildcat]

Yes, thank you!

Not only the margin of victory.. but they seemed to have purposely played "good" teams, that still didn't have much of a shot to beat them. A bunch of decent mid majors and a few crappy power conference teams like VaTech and Notre dame. That's where we got dinged. We played more teams that can beat us (Kansas, UNC, Gonzaga), but more teams that had no chance in the 300's and 200's.

But my response is... to a team like UK or Auburn, is there really any difference in the 260th team and the 160th team?

Been seeing alot of talk about this recently. I am curious if anyone who is more involved in the metrics systems knows if there are any of them out there that use a capped or weighted SOS where games that are clearly outliers on your schedule like our cupcakes would be graded more in a binary win/loss measure instead of taking all the efficiency number into account in a game that your our calculations are saying should be a blowout and therefore you will see uncharacteristic lineups and play.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Auburn.........crappy resume but good efficiency numbers.

Honestly do not mind if Auburn is seeded high. Not sure Auburn will do anything in the tournament but time after time again the efficiency numbers are better at predicting success compared to......"resume"

 

[CatChow]

Yeah but that just doesn't make sense to me. Because even if their O/D efficiency numbers are great.. that's on the back of a pretty easy schedule. I mean, these systems seem to think their SOS is solid, but I think their system for SOS is broken. Auburn only played one great team in OOC play, and then only had to play the top SEC teams once(except for like MissSt I think). They are 1-7 in Q1 wins.

Because titles are won in the classroom.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Because titles are won in the classroom.

Well then you... ahem, sorry, Auburn fans.. wouldn't have any problem being what they should be then, a 5 or 6 seed.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I'll take a bet tho.
I'm willing to bet Auburn goes further in this thing than Kansas does.

 

[sportspm]

If Auburn is 8-5 over their last 12 then maybe that’s why they’re so high. Squeezing out that extra win

4 out of 3 people struggle with math

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I'll take a bet tho.
I'm willing to bet Auburn goes further in this thing than Kansas does.

Well, now with Kansas' injuries, absolutely. But healthy, I'm taking Kansas (plus the officials), over Auburn.

I still value resume. Auburn just hasn't won a lot of big games. They had a cherry picked OOC, the SEC conference fell very favorably for them. Of the top6 teams in the SEC they only played 4 of them once. I think if that schedule is harder, those efficiency numbers take a hit.

Their efficiency clearly wasn't good when they went 1-7 in Q1 games. And while the tournament isn't all Q1 games.. it will be after the first round or two.

 

[The_Answer1313]

It should be noted that those 7 Q1 losses, 5 were on the road, 1 on a neutral court.

But we'll see how this plays out.

That's what makes this great. These teams will all be seeded somewhere and we'll all get to see just how things unfold.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I'll put the SOS stuff in a different context.

If Kansas City plays the 10th worst NFL team 10 times.. and they likely win every time.. Is that better than if Kansas City plays a few extra 3rd or 2nd worst teams for those wins, but they also play Buffalo, San Fran and Houston, taking an extra loss or two?

Because I don't think so. The former schedule really doesn't tell me how good KC is, because they played 10 games that really weren't going to be much of a test. Where as the 2nd schedule played, maybe had some bottom feeders like the Bears and the Giants(who are really no different than the 10th worst team, say Atlanta).. but they also played teams that were on par with KC, like Buffalo.

Idk that's how I see it lol. I don't think auburn was nearly as tested as UK was this season.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

It should be noted that those 7 Q1 losses, 5 were on the road, 1 on a neutral court.

But we'll see how this plays out.

That's what makes this great. These teams will all be seeded somewhere and we'll all get to see just how things unfold.

Well, how funny is that then.. that Auburn only had ONE worth while team at home. I think that can work both ways. Sure it says Auburn had a tough road slate, but it also says they never hosted a top75 NET team.