Now I realize why

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
I can't stand Lunardi the loser. About to be a 10 loss team that already has lost to these Cyclones earlier this season, Baylor I understand they have a couple of impressive non conference wins, but Joe projects them as a 2 seed?

Keep passing those courvoisiers underneath the table Reese. I want to see more comical seeding projections. Half of this eog crew could seed the tournament better than you when all is said and done.
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
How about this idea: Completely take the subjectivity out of it.

Reveal to everyone at the beginning of the season the NCAA math model to rank the teams.

Top 68 make the tournament.

That's the 32 automatic qualifiers decided on the court and the 36 at-large bids decided by the computer algorithm.

To give extra weight to the conference tournaments, necessary in my opinion, include that factor in the math model.

Done and done.
 

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
How about this idea: Completely take the subjectivity out of it.

Reveal to everyone at the beginning of the season the NCAA math model to rank the teams.

Top 68 make the tournament.

That's the 32 automatic qualifiers decided on the court and the 36 at-large bids decided by the computer algorithm.

To give extra weight to the conference tournaments, necessary in my opinion, include that factor in the math model.

Done and done.
At the same time, how about you consider that 3 of Iowa States 19 wins are against Baylor. They clearly imposed their second half will and defense against the Bears. I'm not impressed at all with Baylor. No better than a 4 imo, and I don't care how strong the Big 12 is. I agree with the concept above, but if you're going to do a job and consider seedings as each game goes in the books, consider analytics and results that shouldn't be "over rewarded and penalized" just based on a given body of work and fluctuation.
 

kane

EOG master
What I want to know is, which team will get screwed by the NCAA when they put UNC in the Dance
 

ComptrBob

EOG Master
I can't stand Lunardi the loser. About to be a 10 loss team that already has lost to these Cyclones earlier this season, Baylor I understand they have a couple of impressive non conference wins, but Joe projects them as a 2 seed?

Keep passing those courvoisiers underneath the table Reese. I want to see more comical seeding projections. Half of this eog crew could seed the tournament better than you when all is said and done.

Historically, Lunardi hasn't been very good at seeding (ironically, he almost always gets the #1 and #16 lines correct). His last bracket of the season has only been good at who's in and who's out, usually missing only one or two teams.
 
Last edited:

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
What I want to know is, which team will get screwed by the NCAA when they put UNC in the Dance
This year that's a so wide open take your pick condition, but I think the lack of quad 1's will hopefully supercede that they get a pass based on their resume over a use of a schools popularity and history.
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
At the same time, how about you consider that 3 of Iowa States 19 wins are against Baylor. They clearly imposed their second half will and defense against the Bears. I'm not impressed at all with Baylor. No better than a 4 imo, and I don't care how strong the Big 12 is. I agree with the concept above, but if you're going to do a job and consider seedings as each game goes in the books, consider analytics and results that shouldn't be "over rewarded and penalized" just based on a given body of work and fluctuation.

Understood.

The NCAA benefits from the bubble banter and they know it.

Additionally, the bracket reveal is good for the sport and makes for good television.

One of my favorite television hours of the year.

CBS does a great job with it.
 

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
Historically, Lunardi hasn't been very good at seeding (ironically, he almost always gets the #1 and #16 lines correct). His last bracket of the season has only been good at who's in and who's out, usually missing only one or two teams.
I think more considerations during the season like quality and quad 1 wins as well as the non conference (cupcakes or high competition) success has dwindled the snub factor as soon as the selection committee makes their final picks. However, I think because of their being more deserving teams and cases to make arguments, there will be more cases to be made when it comes to true bubble teams making it versus who fell short.
 

ComptrBob

EOG Master
How about this idea: Completely take the subjectivity out of it.

Reveal to everyone at the beginning of the season the NCAA math model to rank the teams.

Top 68 make the tournament.

That's the 32 automatic qualifiers decided on the court and the 36 at-large bids decided by the computer algorithm.

To give extra weight to the conference tournaments, necessary in my opinion, include that factor in the math model.

Done and done.

The committee has said that the conference championships played on Selection Sunday have almost no effect unless a team that would not be an at-large wins its conference. The whole Quad record definition is a gross approximation of the actual results with schedule considerations. KenPom and Sagarin metrics are much more accurate.

It's a total pipedream but the entire process could be modelled (even with AI). The reveal could then include the actual decision metrics beyond w/l record.
 

jimmythegreek

The opening odds start here
The Big 10 always seems to have a below .500 team or longshot Cinderella to go deep or win it all. Buckeyes 2 wins away to bursting a bubble hopeful at large elsewhere.
 
Top