MBB: Bracketology 2019-20

[Indoor66]

Y'know, if Duke just wins every game for the rest of the season, I think the seeding will take care of itself. Totally practical.

You speak simple truth but are a buzz killer for some around here who like to talk it to death.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You speak simple truth but are a buzz killer for some around here who like to talk it to death.

Each to their own. I sporked him for it. Remind me to check in on brackets in March. Til then, enjoy the utterly meaningless banter.

In reality, I will probably check in every so often to verify that UNC is out of the field. Or, one of the "First Four.". I would accept that humiliating outcome as well.

[DavidBenAkiva]

You speak simple truth but are a buzz killer for some around here who like to talk it to death.

I was feeling a little too funny when I posted the comment. It wasn't meant as a shot at anyone. Now that it's January, I am checking the Massey Index and Bracket Matrix pretty much every day. If I was taking a shot at anyone, it was myself.

[Hingeknocker]

nit odds.jpg

Well, I saw the attached 2020 NIT Futures odds on Reddit, and they appear to be real based on a tweet from the @CircaSports sportsbook. Some eye-catching names here of teams who almost certainly won't make the NIT (Kentucky and Virginia, for two) but check out the favorites!

FIELD +500
North Carolina +1200
Illinois +1500
Rutgers +1500

All normal bracketology caveats apply (which is why I'm posting this here) but I think we can all express a little satisfaction that a team as "not gifted" as UNC is still right there in the hunt for a post-season title this year!

[robed deity]

It warms my heart to see the Cheats under "others receiving votes" in the latest Bracket Matrix.

[House P]

It warms my heart to see the Cheats under "others receiving votes" in the latest Bracket Matrix.

Keeping in mind all the caveats about the "way too early" nature of Bracket predictions at this time of the year, T-Rank has a methodology which I find to be a bit more useful than other bracket predictions which are based on what might happen "if the season ended today". Using the current power rankings, T-Rank simulates every remaining game (including conference tournaments, I think) and then projects a bracket based on everyone's record at the end of the season.

The full report can be found here: http://barttorvik.com/tranketology.php

A couple of takeaways:

- T-Rank currently predicts that 5 ACC teams will make the tourney.

- Duke, FSU, and Louisville are relatively safe bets with a 99.9% or better chance of making the tournament.

- NC State is listed as one of the last 4 byes, UVA is listed as one of the last four in.

- Virginia Tech is listed as on of the first 4 out.

- Notre Dame, with a 3.8% chance of making the tournament, is the only other ACC team with more than a 1% chance of making the tourney.

- North Carolina is currently listed as having a 0.4% chance of making the tournament. Of course, that could improve if Cole Anthony returns and performs well. T-Rank currently predicts that Carolina will finish the regular season at 14-17, so an NIT bid may be a bit of a stretch if things don't change.

[OldPhiKap]

- North Carolina is currently listed as having a 0.4% chance of making the tournament. Of course, that could improve if Cole Anthony returns and performs well. T-Rank currently predicts that Carolina will finish the regular season at 14-17, so an NIT bid may be a bit of a stretch if things don't change.

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

[uh_no]

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

DEAL.

Where do I sign?

[CDu]

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

Not an unreasonable expectation honestly. They have the following games remaining:

Unlikely to win:
Duke twice
at Louisville
at FSU
at Va Tech
at Notre Dame
at Syracuse

Toss-ups:
vs UVa
State twice
Pitt twice
vs Miami
vs Clemson

Good chance:
Wake twice
vs BC

There are a lot of losses on that schedule unless things change dramatically.

[OldPhiKap]

Not an unreasonable expectation honestly. They have the following games remaining:

Unlikely to win:
Duke twice
at Louisville
at FSU
at Va Tech
at Notre Dame
at Syracuse

Toss-ups:
vs UVa
State twice
Pitt twice
vs Miami
vs Clemson

Good chance:
Wake twice
vs BC

There are a lot of losses on that schedule unless things change dramatically.

Agree, although Clemson @ UNC should be moved to the "mortal lock" category for a win.

And I gotta still think that UVA > UNC by a somewhat comfortable bit even with the Cav's recent offensive struggles.

UNC @ Syracuse is what they make folks watch in prison to make them pay for their societal sins.

[scottdude8]

Agree, although Clemson @ UNC should be moved to the "mortal lock" category for a win.

And I gotta still think that UVA > UNC by a somewhat comfortable bit even with the Cav's recent offensive struggles.

UNC @ Syracuse is what they make folks watch in prison to make them pay for their societal sins.

The next UVA v. UNC game could be the first to 40 wins.

[Pghdukie]

Pitt and UNC playing tonight in the NIT play-in game. Loser plays the Washington Generals.

[JasonEvans]

The next UVA v. UNC game could be the first to 40 wins.

There is a non-zero chance that neither team makes it to 40.

[OldPhiKap]

There is a non-zero chance that neither team makes it to 40.

Viewers may hope that the ACCN switches over to women's volleyball at the half.

[Acymetric]

There is a non-zero chance that neither team makes it to 40.

Wasn't there already a game like that?

[Nugget]

ESPN's John Gasaway has a piece up on his blog -- https://johngasaway.com/ -- advocating replacing the Committee for purposes of selection/seeding with some form of wins-based statistical ranking method; he proposes either Torvik's Wins-Above-Bubble ("WAB") or Strength of Record.

If the NCAA didn't want to pick just one such method, presumably they could (like with the NET, but better) create some kind of composite formulated from several different of such methodologies, that could have the benefit of being (1) transparent and (2) remove the vagaries and conspiracy theories surrounding the Committee and (3) no less "accurate" in its rankings than the Committee's choices.

Here's the crux of his argument for the benefits of such a change (beyond just "this isn't something we should be doing by a Committee"):

“[Replacing selection/seeding by a committee with WAB or SOR-type method] would make its impact felt on every aspect of the season … . Selection would become real-time, and each game’s true impact on the bubble or on the race for the four No. 1 seeds would be known day by day. Conference tournaments in particular would be turbo-charged as we’d know the exact stakes in play and as bids change hands hour by hour.

Then, with the field already selected, Selection Sunday could transcend the mere reading of a static list and instead be as entertaining and unpredictable as an NBA draft. The bracket could build itself before our eyes according to choices made in real time by 68 programs. Is it better for No. 3 seed Michigan to play in a bracket of death close to home or to head out West for a more favorable No. 6 seed? Why is a third party making this calculation? Let Juwan Howard decide, and let him do so live on CBS and on the clock.”

I know we've debated over the years the plusses and minuses of having the bracketing done via the kind of "draft" Gasaway proposes. Personally, I'd love it -- as it would greatly increase the drama and theatre of the the Selection Sunday process and provide much better debate fodder over the dozens of decisions the schools/coaches make about matchups and placement vs. carping about, e.g., the Committee hosing Duke by putting Michigan St. in our region, etc.

But, his point about the effect his proposed approach would have on the last couple of weeks of the regular season and conference tournament play is pretty legit too -- people would be able to see in real time and based on real data (not merely what Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm or the Bracket Matrix predicts the Committee will do) of every win and loss by every team on the composition of the NCAA tournament field.

[sagegrouse]

That therefore predicts UNC finishing the season from here 6-11, with a final conference record of 7-13.

Okay.

Yeah, but. Yeah, but. UNC almost always has a "swoon" in December and early January -- both under Roy and under Dean (and in 19987-1998 under Gut IIRC). I wouldn't be so quick to write off the Tar Heels as an NCAA team. Roy's recent screed, while ostensibly disgraceful, will no doubt serve the purpose of motivating an under-performing, disorganized team.

[-jk]

ESPN's John Gasaway has a piece up on his blog -- https://johngasaway.com/ -- advocating replacing the Committee for purposes of selection/seeding with some form of wins-based statistical ranking method; he proposes either Torvik's Wins-Above-Bubble ("WAB") or Strength of Record.

If the NCAA didn't want to pick just one such method, presumably they could (like with the NET, but better) create some kind of composite formulated from several different of such methodologies, that could have the benefit of being (1) transparent and (2) remove the vagaries and conspiracy theories surrounding the Committee and (3) no less "accurate" in its rankings than the Committee's choices.

Here's the crux of his argument for the benefits of such a change (beyond just "this isn't something we should be doing by a Committee"):

“[Replacing selection/seeding by a committee with WAB or SOR-type method] would make its impact felt on every aspect of the season … . Selection would become real-time, and each game’s true impact on the bubble or on the race for the four No. 1 seeds would be known day by day. Conference tournaments in particular would be turbo-charged as we’d know the exact stakes in play and as bids change hands hour by hour.

Then, with the field already selected, Selection Sunday could transcend the mere reading of a static list and instead be as entertaining and unpredictable as an NBA draft. The bracket could build itself before our eyes according to choices made in real time by 68 programs. Is it better for No. 3 seed Michigan to play in a bracket of death close to home or to head out West for a more favorable No. 6 seed? Why is a third party making this calculation? Let Juwan Howard decide, and let him do so live on CBS and on the clock.”

I know we've debated over the years the plusses and minuses of having the bracketing done via the kind of "draft" Gasaway proposes. Personally, I'd love it -- as it would greatly increase the drama and theatre of the the Selection Sunday process and provide much better debate fodder over the dozens of decisions the schools/coaches make about matchups and placement vs. carping about, e.g., the Committee hosing Duke by putting Michigan St. in our region, etc.

But, his point about the effect his proposed approach would have on the last couple of weeks of the regular season and conference tournament play is pretty legit too -- people would be able to see in real time and based on real data (not merely what Joe Lunardi or Jerry Palm or the Bracket Matrix predicts the Committee will do) of every win and loss by every team on the composition of the NCAA tournament field.

I have read that the NCAA wants a system that doesn't reward aggressively running up the score. The computer models generally reward that sort of behavior, but NET doesn't.

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

Yeah, but. Yeah, but. UNC almost always has a "swoon" in December and early January -- both under Roy and under Dean (and in 19987-1998 under Gut IIRC). I wouldn't be so quick to write off the Tar Heels as an NCAA team. Roy's recent screed, while ostensibly disgraceful, will no doubt serve the purpose of motivating an under-performing, disorganized team.

Agreed, I have seen the Lazarus act in Chapel Hill plenty of times unfortunately. My default remains that they make the tourney.

[Nugget]

I have read that the NCAA wants a system that doesn't reward aggressively running up the score. The computer models generally reward that sort of behavior, but NET doesn't.

-jk

Yep (and I think they designed the NET to cut off the impact of margin of victory at something like 12 points). They could incorporate that type of adjustment to a WAB/SOR ratings-based system, though all it would really do is make them less accurate.

It's also sort of a ridiculous stance for them to take given that the human Committee members themselves undoubtedly do pay attention to margin of victory on the margins of their selection decisions. It's hard to point to obvious examples given the larger sample size of games for the Basketball tournament, but the football playoff committee (I know, technically not "the NCAA") certainly paid a great deal of attention to margin of victory the year they jumped Ohio St. over TCU/Baylor for blasting Wisconsin 59-0 in the Big Ten title game, when they likely wouldn't have if it had won 31-28.