Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Most controversial at-large teams
Author Message
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,817
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #61
RE: Most controversial at-large teams
(03-19-2024 12:10 PM)C2__ Wrote:  
(03-19-2024 11:27 AM)solohawks Wrote:  
(03-19-2024 09:55 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  06 Air Force had 24 wins, they were never gonna get that close again
NCAAT had to take them, at the time, in MO
that's high I felt at that in '06

That was the year George Mason got an at large. No way they were giving the CAA two bids that year and not the WAC and MWC, which is what happened with Air Force and Utah State getting in.

Thing is, they should have given them 3. Hofstra swept Mason before the Tournament.

Oh i agree! But a conference like the CAA wasn't going to get 3
03-19-2024 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bryanw1995 Offline
+12 Hackmaster
*

Posts: 13,438
Joined: Jul 2022
Reputation: 1412
I Root For: A&M
Location: San Antonio
Post: #62
RE: Most controversial at-large teams
(03-13-2022 01:12 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I laugh when fans are arrogant enough to think “never mind this team proving itself by making the Final 4! they didn’t deserve the chance because I said so!” when the whole selection process is completely subjective and the only thing objective is how far into the tournament the team advanced. If someone advanced to the Final 4, they objectively disproved someone’s subjective opinion they didn’t deserve it. Objective results trump subjective nonsense every single time.

Wow, I think this could be the first time we've ever disagreed.

All of the data in the leadup to Selection Sunday is objective. The Selection committee doesn't claim to "pick the schools with the best chance to win NCAAT games" but rather to "select the most deserving schools". IE, the opposite of the CFP, which does actually prioritize likelihood of winning CFP games.

Though the brackets only feature the seed numbers 1-16 in each region, the committee first assembles an overall seed ranking of selected team from 1 through 68, formatted as an "S-curve". The selection committee uses a number of factors to rank teams for the S-curve, including record, strength of schedule, and the NET in the Division I men's tournament and the RPI in all other championship tournaments. Relative subjective comparison of individual teams close on the S-Curve are also considered.

From the above, I would say that the actual performance of outliers is less important than knowing what criteria was used to get those outliers into the tourney in the first place. Perhaps in 2006, many of the selection committee members put a higher priority on "current win streak" or "likelihood to win NCAAT games" that previous and future Committees have?
03-19-2024 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,712
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 651
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #63
RE: Most controversial at-large teams
Teams selected by the Bracket Matrix chosen by the lowest % of Bracket Matrix brackets:

Year Team Conference Brackets Possible %

2016 Tulsa AAC 1 144 0.69%
2014 NC State ACC 3 121 2.48%
2006 Utah State WAC 1 23 4.35%
2006 Air Force MWC 1 23 4.35%
2012 Iona MAAC 7 115 6.09%
2024 Virginia ACC 23 226 10.18%
2015 UCLA Pac 12 14 136 10.29%
2018 Syracuse ACC 23 187 12.30%
2011 UAB C-USA 11 89 12.36%
2009 Arizona Pac 12 8 61 13.11%
2007 Arkansas SEC 5 30 16.67%
2011 VCU Colonial 15 89 16.85%
2010 Florida SEC 19 83 22.89%
2019 Belmont OVC 56 195 28.72%
2023 Nevada MWC 71 229 31.00%
2016 Vanderbilt SEC 46 144 31.94%
2011 USC Pac 12 29 89 32.58%
2018 Arizona State Pac 12 62 187 33.16%
2022 Notre Dame ACC 74 211 35.07%
2008 Oregon Pac 12 20 53 37.74%
2016 Syracuse ACC 55 144 38.19%
2007 Stanford Pac 12 13 30 43.33%
2021 Wichita State AAC 91 203 44.83%
2006 George Mason Colonial 11 23 47.83%
2015 Mississippi SEC 80 136 58.82%

Mississippi is listed because they did not make the Bracket Matrix consensus that year despite being chosen by a majority of brackets.

2006 Utah State and Air Force were pretty bad but that was the first year of Bracket Matrix and there were only 23 brackets so there wasn't as much data compared to more recent years.

People insult Big Ten teams for making the NCAA Tournament and not belonging but notice not one Big Ten team is on this list (unless you count the incoming Pac 12 teams) over a span of 18 NCAAT's in 19 years. These are people looking at the data before the NCAA does. The Big East and Big 12 also have had no undeserving teams make it either. The Pac 12 meanwhile has had 6 teams not belong (although none since 2018), the ACC 5 (including pathetic 2014 NC State, the worst P6 ever), and SEC 4.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2024 09:34 AM by schmolik.)
03-20-2024 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.