2024-25 NET/Bracketology Thread

sbroc012 said:
Is there a rule against sticking St. Johns in the East bracket? If they make the 2nd weekend then they would essentially be playing a home game in the regionals. Doesn't seem quite right.

My prediction:
1. UConn is our 8 seed
2. St. Johns & Tennessee are our 2 & 3 seeds - and I am going to be more peeved about St Johns then TN cause of the home court issue.
Click to expand...
I think MD gets our 4/5 as well for the same reason. Sweaty isn't dead yet so I can see him giving a pep talk to the team about their rivalry, etc. I think Yukon will probably play its way out of an 8 seed this weekend.
 
duke2x said:
I think MD gets our 4/5 as well for the same reason. Sweaty isn't dead yet so I can see him giving a pep talk to the team about their rivalry, etc. I think Yukon will probably play its way out of an 8 seed this weekend.
Click to expand...
Funny aside: as I was preparing for my interview at UConn I exclusively said "UConn," not "The University of Connecticut," when discussing things with my labmates in Toronto. Some of them were very confused and thought I was super excited about going to some university in the Yukon Territory... for reference, the entire population of the territory is ~50,000 so it's not exactly a hotbed of higher education, haha.
 
scottdude8 said:
Just wanted to clarify one point that people were going back and forth on re: the SEC.

Here's the exact language from the NCAA's bracketing principles regarding seeding teams from the same conference:


The bolded is the most relevant to the conversations here. If the top four SEC teams (Auburn, followed by Florida/Tennessee/Alabama) all end up as No. 1 and No. 2 seeds, they'll have to be placed in four different regions. Later in the document when talking about the actual process of creating the bracket there's this emphasis:


So, I was glossing over this key nuance a bit in my long post yesterday. The only way we avoid an SEC #2 seed is if one of those squads drops to the 3 line. That's not outside the realm of possibility, particularly if both Michigan State and St. John's win their conference tournaments and/or Texas Tech makes a run in the Big 12 (the computer rankings like them, as they're #7 in the NET with 8 Q1 wins). Tennessee and Alabama (#4 and #5 in the NET, 6 and 7 losses respectively) are more likely candidates to drop that far than Florida (#4 in the NET and only 4 losses).

If, and it's a big if, Tennessee or Alabama drop to a No. 3 seed, lots of things open up. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the committee was looking for a reason to do this to give themselves some flexibility. In order to get a team like MSU or St. John's as our No. 2 seed they'd not only need to be on the 2 line, but also be rated higher on that line than the second SEC No. 2 seed to get first shot at location preference (either of those teams would go to the East after the Midwest is filled up by the top SEC No. 2 seed, which can't go to the South with Auburn).

That would be ideal for us, I think... as well as both those squads have played they're a clear tier below the SEC teams IMHO. MSU is winning despite being the worst team in the B1G from beyond the arc, which is the exact type of thing that can doom a team in the Tourney. St. John's, meanwhile, has racked up an impressive record but is 4-4 in Q1 games and not loved by the computers (they're only #16 in the NET).

So long story short, if you need rooting interests in Champ Week (outside of the obvious rooting for non-UNC bubble teams to win, haha), and you'd like Duke to get an easier No. 2 seed in our bracket, the ideal would be an early SEC tournament exit for Tennessee or Alabama coupled with strong performances from MSU (blech) and St. John's.

P.S. Relevant to the St. John's discussion, here's the language:
Click to expand...
I don't think this really helps us though, as the SEC team that is a 3 seed would still have to be put in our region because the top 4 teams from the SEC have to be in different regions if they are 1-4 seeds (and none of those 4 teams is dropping to a 5 seed). Whether we have MSU as the 2 seed and Tennessee as the 3 seed, or Tennessee as the 2 seed and MSU as the 3 seed, really has no impact on Duke because either way only one of them (max) could get to the regional final where they would face Duke. I think keeping all of the top SEC teams as 1 or 2 seeds actually helps out the committee, because they then get flexibility to put the 3 seeds in any region they need to in order to maintain competitive balance. Given that it is a virtual certainty that one of the top SEC teams will be the 2 or 3 in Duke's region, and since any team Duke plays in a regional final is likely to be a very good team, I'm more interested in seeing which teams are the 8/9 and 4/5 seeds in Duke's region. Those are really the games that will determine how difficult Duke's path to the Final Four is. If we don't have MSU as a 2/3 seed, then chances are high that the 4 seed in Duke's region will be a Big Ten team (since the top 4 Big Ten teams will also need to be in separate regions if they are 1-4 seeds).
 
BrummieDevil said:
I really don't get why Gonzaga is so high in the predictive metrics. In those that are on the team sheet, their average is #9. In the results-based metrics, their average is #40.

As a noted believer in predictive metrics like KenPom, I won't try to poke holes in those ratings, but I think their actual resume tells a different story that prevents me from fearing them. They've got three wins over projected tourney teams, but those teams are Baylor, SDSU and Indiana, and none of those game took place after Thanksgiving day.

Their six toughest Q1 opponents all beat them, including Saint Mary's twice. They've also lost to Oregon State and Santa Clara. Looking at the current 8 seeds on Bracket Matrix, I'd rather Duke get Gonzaga than Memphis, Miss. State or UConn.
Click to expand...
I just watched a podcast with Norlander and Parrish and they discussed your issue with Gonzaga. The reason the Zags are so high is that it won 21 games by double digits and almost all of its losses were by 5 points or fewer. It is what it is but neither really felt the Zags was a big upset pick as an 8 seed against any potential 1 seed.
 
The #19 team in the country and a projected 5 seed is playing an unranked opponent who they beat twice and is projected on the 8 line.

However… St. Mary’s is getting 3.5 (+145 ML) tonight. Vegas does not think the Zags are overrated.
 
SenatorClayDavis said:
The #19 team in the country and a projected 5 seed is playing an unranked opponent who they beat twice and is projected on the 8 line.

However… St. Mary’s is getting 3.5 (+145 ML) tonight. Vegas does not think the Zags are overrated.
Click to expand...

Put me down as a no thank you for the Zags as our #8. That's a second round land mine for someone.
 
AGDukesky said:
I just watched a podcast with Norlander and Parrish and they discussed your issue with Gonzaga. The reason the Zags are so high is that it won 21 games by double digits and almost all of its losses were by 5 points or fewer. It is what it is but neither really felt the Zags was a big upset pick as an 8 seed against any potential 1 seed.
Click to expand...
That makes sense and I'm familiar with the fact that predictive metrics don't really ding you for a good, close loss that was a late toss-up.

Like Norlander and Parrish (I assume, but haven't listened to that episode yet), I do think the fact they've lost all their most challenging Q1 games matters even if they were close calls. I also have to assume that their 40-point win over Baylor way back on opening night is fairly impactful on their adjusted efficiency margin .... and almost completely irrelevant too.

I'm a longtime Gonzaga/WCC defender, but they don't stand out as particularly daunting even as a potentially underseeded 8. Michigan State was in the same boat last year as a 9 seed, looked great in the 8/9 game then got handled by UNC. If you're down there as an 8/9 it's for a reason.
 
Last edited:
DallasDevil said:
I don't think this really helps us though, as the SEC team that is a 3 seed would still have to be put in our region because the top 4 teams from the SEC have to be in different regions if they are 1-4 seeds (and none of those 4 teams is dropping to a 5 seed). Whether we have MSU as the 2 seed and Tennessee as the 3 seed, or Tennessee as the 2 seed and MSU as the 3 seed, really has no impact on Duke because either way only one of them (max) could get to the regional final where they would face Duke. I think keeping all of the top SEC teams as 1 or 2 seeds actually helps out the committee, because they then get flexibility to put the 3 seeds in any region they need to in order to maintain competitive balance. Given that it is a virtual certainty that one of the top SEC teams will be the 2 or 3 in Duke's region, and since any team Duke plays in a regional final is likely to be a very good team, I'm more interested in seeing which teams are the 8/9 and 4/5 seeds in Duke's region. Those are really the games that will determine how difficult Duke's path to the Final Four is. If we don't have MSU as a 2/3 seed, then chances are high that the 4 seed in Duke's region will be a Big Ten team (since the top 4 Big Ten teams will also need to be in separate regions if they are 1-4 seeds).
Click to expand...
I think these are the areas where the Committee uses the flexibility it gives itself to move teams up or down to a line above or below where they really should be. If the need to put two Big Ten teams in a region for whatever reason, and one's a 3 and one's a 4, they can and do bump the 4 down to a 5 and call it a day. The same thing goes for the 2 seeds. If for whatever reason they need a team that should be seeded as a 2 to go to a particular region and it would break the rules to do so, they call them a 3 and move on. Nobody is ever the wiser to it.
 
SkyBrickey said:
They are tracking to be a 10 seed. Not worried about the Zags - just pointing out that they would be a bad second round draw for any #1.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm waiting for them to have a legit win post-Thanksgiving. They'll either have one after tonight or be 0-3 against the Gaels.
 
DallasDevil said:
I don't think this really helps us though, as the SEC team that is a 3 seed would still have to be put in our region because the top 4 teams from the SEC have to be in different regions if they are 1-4 seeds (and none of those 4 teams is dropping to a 5 seed). Whether we have MSU as the 2 seed and Tennessee as the 3 seed, or Tennessee as the 2 seed and MSU as the 3 seed, really has no impact on Duke because either way only one of them (max) could get to the regional final where they would face Duke. I think keeping all of the top SEC teams as 1 or 2 seeds actually helps out the committee, because they then get flexibility to put the 3 seeds in any region they need to in order to maintain competitive balance. Given that it is a virtual certainty that one of the top SEC teams will be the 2 or 3 in Duke's region, and since any team Duke plays in a regional final is likely to be a very good team, I'm more interested in seeing which teams are the 8/9 and 4/5 seeds in Duke's region. Those are really the games that will determine how difficult Duke's path to the Final Four is. If we don't have MSU as a 2/3 seed, then chances are high that the 4 seed in Duke's region will be a Big Ten team (since the top 4 Big Ten teams will also need to be in separate regions if they are 1-4 seeds).
Click to expand...
I had thought about this right after I made my post, and I think you're right, haha. Truth be told, I love having "rooting interests" in Champ Week so I've been tying myself in knots trying to figure out what those might be to give us the best bracket, but the reality that the SEC will have 4 of the likely Top 9 teams means there really isn't much wiggle room for the committee at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top