(03-07-2021 04:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Yeah, if this Loyola team gets onto any line from 7-10, they're getting robbed. Reward this team and season and make them a headache for a 3 or 4, not a 1 or 2 the first weekend.

Nah, they have earned about a #8 or #9. If they are good, they will win that game and advance. But don't put them higher "just because". Other teams have had good seasons too.

Would like to see them play a team like, say, LSU in the first round.

They're a team that a lot of people have very varied opinions. A lot of brackets have them as an 8 but a lot as well have them as a 10-11.

It’s troubling when NET (and KenPom) have them so high to shove them down the seeding lines. We’re supposed to accept majors in the top 20 as the likely 1-5 lines, but not for Loyola?

Honestly, pushing them down that far reads like a vote of no confidence in the NET metric. And, heck, maybe some talking heads can get away with that when Colgate sits within the top 10. But KenPom has them at 88. Then again, KP loves Loyola more than NET.

Seeding them is going to be quite tough. Especially if the committee is obsessed with the Big Ten schools. Those top two lines could have 3-4 B1G schools. I’d wager a bit the committee would “protect” them from a streaky midwestern non-major.

Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

(03-07-2021 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 04:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Yeah, if this Loyola team gets onto any line from 7-10, they're getting robbed. Reward this team and season and make them a headache for a 3 or 4, not a 1 or 2 the first weekend.

Nah, they have earned about a #8 or #9. If they are good, they will win that game and advance. But don't put them higher "just because". Other teams have had good seasons too.

Would like to see them play a team like, say, LSU in the first round.

So why are the polls (eye test), NET, and Kenpom all saying that Loyola-Chicago is a 5-6 seed?

There are so many power teams with 10+ losses this year it's really hard to tell if they are actually good or just a byproduct of an excellent SOS.

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

what is bad for Drake they can't go out and schedule something else. They had their 27 regular season games.

I would say though that the bracketologists are pretty darn good. The Matrix is a great way of doing it. And is normally quite accurate.

(03-07-2021 09:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

what is bad for Drake they can't go out and schedule something else. They had their 27 regular season games.

I would say though that the bracketologists are pretty darn good. The Matrix is a great way of doing it. And is normally quite accurate.

Ehhh. Any bracket's claim of accuracy is based only on their final product which is often rearranged in the last couple of days to conform to consensus/reality.

Even a lot of guys with a mainstream platform (Jerry Palm is a good example but he's not the only one) have wacky takes in their brackets -- they put a couple of teams in their bracket that have no shot at making it, and/or there are a few teams that are really locks that they claim won't be in the tournament at all -- and then in the last couple of days before the committee releases its bracket, they remove the wacky takes, put up a safe consensus bracket, and then they brag about being super close to what the committee did.

The same goes for predicting seeding. If some dude's bracket has Team X in the First Four and the committee gives that team an 8 seed, or vice versa, that's not getting it right, that's a wild guess that wasn't even close, or maybe just a bracket dude's random opinion that the committee didn't share.

I will say this about Lunardi: Whether he's right or wrong, he is actually doing his best to predict what the committee will actually do; he's not just pumping up teams he likes and dumping on teams he doesn't like.

(03-08-2021 12:01 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 09:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

what is bad for Drake they can't go out and schedule something else. They had their 27 regular season games.

I would say though that the bracketologists are pretty darn good. The Matrix is a great way of doing it. And is normally quite accurate.

Ehhh. Any bracket's claim of accuracy is based only on their final product which is often rearranged in the last couple of days to conform to consensus/reality.

Even a lot of guys with a mainstream platform (Jerry Palm is a good example but he's not the only one) have wacky takes in their brackets -- they put a couple of teams in their bracket that have no shot at making it, and/or there are a few teams that are really locks that they claim won't be in the tournament at all -- and then in the last couple of days before the committee releases its bracket, they remove the wacky takes, put up a safe consensus bracket, and then they brag about being super close to what the committee did.

The same goes for predicting seeding. If some dude's bracket has Team X in the First Four and the committee gives that team an 8 seed, or vice versa, that's not getting it right, that's a wild guess that wasn't even close, or maybe just a bracket dude's random opinion that the committee didn't share.

Palm is actually one of the weaker guys... of 133, he's #85. Lunardi is #55.
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

the last 4 years of this- they've gotten MUCH more accurate. It'll be interesting to see this year in a IMO much harder situation to predict given all the COVID variables.

(03-08-2021 12:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 12:01 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 09:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

what is bad for Drake they can't go out and schedule something else. They had their 27 regular season games.

I would say though that the bracketologists are pretty darn good. The Matrix is a great way of doing it. And is normally quite accurate.

Ehhh. Any bracket's claim of accuracy is based only on their final product which is often rearranged in the last couple of days to conform to consensus/reality.

Even a lot of guys with a mainstream platform (Jerry Palm is a good example but he's not the only one) have wacky takes in their brackets -- they put a couple of teams in their bracket that have no shot at making it, and/or there are a few teams that are really locks that they claim won't be in the tournament at all -- and then in the last couple of days before the committee releases its bracket, they remove the wacky takes, put up a safe consensus bracket, and then they brag about being super close to what the committee did.

The same goes for predicting seeding. If some dude's bracket has Team X in the First Four and the committee gives that team an 8 seed, or vice versa, that's not getting it right, that's a wild guess that wasn't even close, or maybe just a bracket dude's random opinion that the committee didn't share.

Palm is actually one of the weaker guys... of 133, he's #85. Lunardi is #55.
http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

the last 4 years of this- they've gotten MUCH more accurate. It'll be interesting to see this year in a IMO much harder situation to predict given all the COVID variables.

That's true. There's no guidance from the committee on whether having fewer quality non-con games this season, or fewer overall games because of covid issues, is going to get a free pass from the committee, or be penalized lightly, or be penalized severely.

I don’t even pay attention to Palm because of exactly that: his weak performance and his annual “11th hour” fixes. Wish CBS would replace him. He’s awful to listen to on tv as well - just not a likable personality.

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

If it comes down to putting Drake or Duke in, guess who's getting in?

(03-08-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

If it comes down to putting Drake or Duke in, guess who's getting in?

Well, lets see Duke beat Louisville and Florida St and we can have that conversation. Duke has a ton of work to do in the ACC tournament.

(03-07-2021 09:46 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 04:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Yeah, if this Loyola team gets onto any line from 7-10, they're getting robbed. Reward this team and season and make them a headache for a 3 or 4, not a 1 or 2 the first weekend.

Nah, they have earned about a #8 or #9. If they are good, they will win that game and advance. But don't put them higher "just because". Other teams have had good seasons too.

Would like to see them play a team like, say, LSU in the first round.

So why are the polls (eye test), NET, and Kenpom all saying that Loyola-Chicago is a 5-6 seed?

There are so many power teams with 10+ losses this year it's really hard to tell if they are actually good or just a byproduct of an excellent SOS.

I would put it differently, as in "how do we know Loyola is actually good or just a product of their very weak SOS"?

Because their SOS is weak, and they have wracked up wins against bad teams. IIRC, they are 2-2 in "quad one" games, losing badly to Wisconsin and also losing to Richmond, both OOC games. And Wisky and Richmond aren't much good themselves.

Their only wins worth mentioning are against .... Drake, who also hasn't played anyone, other than .... Loyola.

(03-08-2021 09:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

If it comes down to putting Drake or Duke in, guess who's getting in?

Well, lets see Duke beat Louisville and Florida St and we can have that conversation. Duke has a ton of work to do in the ACC tournament.

IMO, Duke should need to make the ACC tournament final to get in. But they will likely get in if they make the semis.

Not that I think much of Drake. Their schedule is lousy. They haven't beaten anyone all year, save Loyola, another soft schedule team.

(03-08-2021 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

If it comes down to putting Drake or Duke in, guess who's getting in?

Well, lets see Duke beat Louisville and Florida St and we can have that conversation. Duke has a ton of work to do in the ACC tournament.

IMO, Duke should need to make the ACC tournament final to get in. But they will likely get in if they make the semis.

Not that I think much of Drake. Their schedule is lousy. They haven't beaten anyone all year, save Loyola, another soft schedule team.

Frankly, and against the prevailing wisdom here, if ever there were a year when the committee would want to make Duke earn their way in via an AQ as conference champ, this would be it. They can't be so blind about the cynicism directed their way about favoring teams like Duke and Kentucky that they would pick Duke as an at-large ahead of Drake. That's not to say they would pick Drake - they might think another bubble team is more deserving. Just not Duke.

(03-08-2021 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

If it comes down to putting Drake or Duke in, guess who's getting in?

Well, lets see Duke beat Louisville and Florida St and we can have that conversation. Duke has a ton of work to do in the ACC tournament.

IMO, Duke should need to make the ACC tournament final to get in. But they will likely get in if they make the semis.

Not that I think much of Drake. Their schedule is lousy. They haven't beaten anyone all year, save Loyola, another soft schedule team.

SOS and "who you beat" has never been a predictor of which bubble teams are good/which low seeds go far in the NCAA Tournament. Look at Final 4 teams GMU/VCU/Loyola, or the Elite 8 Davidson team.

That's just a hollow point made by talking heads. Those teams don't get enough of a sample to make an accurate determination, while others are bound to score good wins when they get 15-20 opportunities.

Drake has a 6-2 Q1/Q2 record, better than many bubble teams. Quads/NET remove the names from the jerseys and account for SOS.

(03-08-2021 09:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

If it comes down to putting Drake or Duke in, guess who's getting in?

Well, lets see Duke beat Louisville and Florida St and we can have that conversation. Duke has a ton of work to do in the ACC tournament.

IMO, Duke should need to make the ACC tournament final to get in. But they will likely get in if they make the semis.

Not that I think much of Drake. Their schedule is lousy. They haven't beaten anyone all year, save Loyola, another soft schedule team.

Frankly, and against the prevailing wisdom here, if ever there were a year when the committee would want to make Duke earn their way in via an AQ as conference champ, this would be it. They can't be so blind about the cynicism directed their way about favoring teams like Duke and Kentucky that they would pick Duke as an at-large ahead of Drake. That's not to say they would pick Drake - they might think another bubble team is more deserving. Just not Duke.

I would have zero problem with the committee thinking Duke is not eligible for an at-large bid. I'm just saying if they are eligible for at-large at all, they should need to make the ACC title game, which IIRC would mean beating four teams in a row to make the ACC title game.

It troubles me when teams just at or above .500 are seriously getting considered here. And I know this year is different, but, I suspect like many things: move the boundary once, and the next time, it’s easier.

I get the impression Drake is getting punished more for actually playing a non-conference, while others, like Duke, who cancelled out earlier, are getting a bit of a pass here. Less of a hit or factor on the non-conference, and more on that conference schedule and SOS.

I’m annoyed and tired of NET because of the bent on SOS that comes with major conference play. Seeing the rope being lifted to all within the Big Ten even remotely sniffing .500 is a red flag about this metric. Duke isn’t too different.

(03-08-2021 10:21 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 09:03 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-08-2021 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 08:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Reminder #2,473,962 that neither Joe Lunardi nor any of the Bracket Matrix schmucks with hidden agendas and axes to grind are on the tournament committee.

But for what little it's worth, Lunardi says, "Drake is hanging on to an at-large position, but is in the unenviable position of being unable to help itself over the next seven days."

If it comes down to putting Drake or Duke in, guess who's getting in?

Well, lets see Duke beat Louisville and Florida St and we can have that conversation. Duke has a ton of work to do in the ACC tournament.

IMO, Duke should need to make the ACC tournament final to get in. But they will likely get in if they make the semis.

Not that I think much of Drake. Their schedule is lousy. They haven't beaten anyone all year, save Loyola, another soft schedule team.

SOS and "who you beat" has never been a predictor of which bubble teams are good/which low seeds go far in the NCAA Tournament. Look at Final 4 teams GMU/VCU/Loyola, or the Elite 8 Davidson team.

That's just a hollow point made by talking heads. Those teams don't get enough of a sample to make an accurate determination, while others are bound to score good wins when they get 15-20 opportunities.

Drake has a 6-2 Q1/Q2 record, better than many bubble teams. Quads/NET remove the names from the jerseys and account for SOS.

Eh, there are lots of tournament games every year and you are making a blanket statement about SOS and "who you beat" for bubbles based on a handful of runs made by VCU/Loyola types over many years?

We'd need a detailed analysis, but I am pretty confident it would show that SOS and who you beat do have predictions value for bubble teams and everyone else. Not every time, but on average over the long haul.

This article says that teams ranked in the top 15 of SOS have won 7 of the last 10 national titles, so why wouldn't SOS matter for bubbles?

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...tournament

As for Drake, two teams from the very weak MVC seems one too many to me, but they are a valid bubble team so if they get in, I won't cry over it.

Problem with the way SOS is considered now with NET is that just playing someone good gives you a considerable boost. When even the bottom of the Big Ten isn’t even near the 200-line, you don’t even need to win. Just playing a Big Ten schedule makes you look tough. I think that’s partly why Duke is still in this debate: because of the top of the ACC. Meanwhile, Drake and others (like Winthrop and Belmont) barely have a few scrapes...but are torn down because they are surrounded by junk. You win and beat junky teams...metric doesn’t care. Play against more quality teams, and win or lose, you’re propped up.

Let’s be serious here...why are we debating whether a team who finishes a game or two above .500 really belongs here?