2024-25 NET/Bracketology Thread
- Thread starter scottdude8
- Start date
patentgeek
Member
That was my thought exactly.
SavDukeGrad
Member
And the Committee has proven this over and over. Like when they bogusly called Michigan State the no. 6 team, when they should have been at least the no. 5, so they could put them in our region in 2019. They use their “discretion” whenever it serves their purpose.
It is still infuriating to me that they count the conference tournament results so little, if at all, because it's "just too hard" to make adjustments in the brackets if there are unexpected results. Come on. This is 2025. They can feed the 68 teams into a computer, in order, and feed their bracketing principles in there too, and whether it uses AI or some other system, the computer can spit out a perfectly acceptable -- and fair -- bracket in, like, no time. Make adjustments to it if necessary, which there probably won't be. But to just ignore these conference tournament results is simply absurd. It is a total abdication of their responsibilities. Just being lazy that's all.
camion
Member
As an advisor to the committee I want us to keep up with the latest technology. Is there something more advanced than the device we are currently using?
SkyBrickey
Member
This is correct. But it also reduces the power of the committee to move pieces around the board. I think they enjoy the drama of the current system.
Theoretically, you could optimize the NET algorithm, make it transparent, and start publishing a 64 team bracket - still applying the seeding principles - every week starting in week 6. Just let the computers seed the tourney based on well-understood measurements of team efficiency and win quality.
The downside of this degree of automation and transparency is that it could incentivize some bad behavior. For example, if ACC Team A knows they can lose to ACC Team B by no more than 11 points and still make the tourney, would the two coaches have a little chat and understanding before the game?
MarkD83
Member
Since I still have this device it is very fitting that it requires “reverse notation” which often happens with the seeding committee
Where did the "Polish" come from in this? Inquiring minds . . . .
asking for an HP friend.
MarkD83
Member
The inventor was polish
ChillinDuke
Member
I don't want St Johns anywhere near us. Not because they are particularly scary to me (their 3pt shooting is horrific), but because I want nothing to do with Rick Pitino in a meaningful game. Say what you want about him personally, the guy is simply IMO the best coach left in the business.
- Chillin
Polish notation, in which the operator comes before the operands, was invented in the 1920s by the Polish mathematician Jan Lucasiewicz.
cato
Member
As a casual SDSU follower, I’m surprised they look as good as they do in the metrics. It’s not that they’ve looked great, but it has be a highly variable season with some really head scratching losses along the way for the Aztecs.
It's only the Am East semis, and it's strongly discouraged by bracket rules.
My bad. My scores app was unclear. But what bracket rule?
I'm seeing a lot of gnashing of teeth worrying about who might be seeded in Duke's region. So I looked over the last ten tournaments and picked 16 teams to see how often these teams played chalk and how well they did against chalk/non-chalk. I ignored the first round, since all those games are by definition chalk. And I only counted the games before the Final Four (so I'm analyzing a maximum of three games per tournament).
This table shows how many years (out of 10) each team made it past the first round, a sum of how much over chalk their opponents' seeds were (e.g., if you're a 2 and you play a 10 in the second round, that's 3 over chalk since you were supposed to play a 7), an average above chalk per tournament and an average above chalk per game, each team's w/l record and percentage against both chalk and non-chalk, and finally what pct of their games were chalk. Here you go:
As you can see, most of these teams played a lot of non-chalk. And most of the teams had a lot more success against early round upset-winners, which of course makes sense. Obviously there were exceptions and obviously some teams were a lot luckier than others regarding the seed of their opponents.
In the aggregate, these 16 teams' average tournament opponent had a seed 1.8 worse than they were supposed to (3.7 avg per tournament). They played chalk in 57% of their games, with an average w/l percentage of 57% vs. chalk and 71% vs. non-chalk.
Since the start of the 64-team era, Duke has had 18 teams that reached at least the Elite Eight:
2024 +15 (2 gms vs. non-chalk)
2022 +3 (1)
2019 +1 (1)
2018 +8 (1)
2015 +1 (1)
2013 0 (0)
2010 +1 (1)
2004 +6 (2)
2001 +5 (2)
1999 +13 (3)
1998 +1 (1)
1994 +3 (1)
1992 +1 (1)
1991 +8 (2)
1990 +5 (1)
1989 +5 (1)
1988 +5 (1)
1986 +13 (2)
That's 24 games against non-chalk (1.3 such games per tournament; 44% of our games in these tournaments), with an average of 5.2 above chalk per tournament and 1.7 over chalk per game. For just our Final Four teams, 49% of our games were non-chalk (1.5 non-chalk games per tournament), with the same averages of 5.2 and 1.7.
In the same era, there were 15 tournaments in which we made it past the first round but did not make the Elite Eight. In those tournaments, we played 10 games against non-chalk (0.7 such games per tournament; 42% of our games in these tournaments), with an average of 2.3 above chalk per tournament and 1.4 over chalk per game. If you only look at the past 25 tournaments, there were 11 times we made it past the first round but didn't make the Elite Eight. The averages for those 11 were 0.6 non-chalk games per tournament; 37% of our games in these tournaments; 1.5 over chalk per tournament; and 0.9 over chalk per game.
What does it all mean? Probably not a lot, other than the common sense hope that whoever gets a high seed in Duke's region (other than Duke, of course) become early upset victims.
This table shows how many years (out of 10) each team made it past the first round, a sum of how much over chalk their opponents' seeds were (e.g., if you're a 2 and you play a 10 in the second round, that's 3 over chalk since you were supposed to play a 7), an average above chalk per tournament and an average above chalk per game, each team's w/l record and percentage against both chalk and non-chalk, and finally what pct of their games were chalk. Here you go:
| Team | 2nd rd+ | over chalk | avg tny | avg gm | chlk W | chlk L | wl% | non-chlk W | non-chlk L | wl% | %gms chlk |
| Gonzaga | 10 | 44 | 4.4 | 1.8 | 10 | 4 | 0.714 | 6 | 4 | 0.600 | 58.3% |
| Kansas | 10 | 17 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 4 | 6 | 0.400 | 6 | 2 | 0.750 | 55.6% |
| Duke | 8 | 35 | 4.4 | 1.8 | 7 | 5 | 0.583 | 6 | 1 | 0.857 | 63.2% |
| Villanova | 8 | 24 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 4 | 5 | 0.444 | 6 | 0 | 1.000 | 60.0% |
| Michigan St | 8 | 23 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 6 | 4 | 0.600 | 3 | 2 | 0.600 | 66.7% |
| UNC | 8 | 22 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 6 | 4 | 0.600 | 6 | 1 | 0.857 | 58.8% |
| Kentucky | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 7 | 3 | 0.700 | 4 | 2 | 0.667 | 62.5% |
| Baylor | 7 | 17 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1 | 5 | 0.167 | 4 | 1 | 0.800 | 54.5% |
| Michigan | 6 | 40 | 6.7 | 2.7 | 6 | 3 | 0.667 | 5 | 1 | 0.833 | 60.0% |
| Tennessee | 6 | 32 | 5.3 | 2.9 | 4 | 2 | 0.667 | 1 | 4 | 0.200 | 54.5% |
| Wisconsin | 6 | 11 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 6 | 3 | 0.667 | 1 | 2 | 0.333 | 75.0% |
| Houston | 6 | 30 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 2 | 4 | 0.333 | 6 | 1 | 0.857 | 46.2% |
| Florida | 5 | 35 | 7.0 | 3.9 | 2 | 2 | 0.500 | 3 | 2 | 0.600 | 44.4% |
| Virginia | 5 | 19 | 3.8 | 1.9 | 2 | 3 | 0.400 | 4 | 1 | 0.800 | 50.0% |
| Arizona | 5 | 19 | 3.8 | 1.7 | 4 | 1 | 0.800 | 2 | 4 | 0.333 | 45.5% |
| UConn | 4 | 11 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 3 | 1 | 0.750 | 6 | 0 | 1.000 | 40.0% |
As you can see, most of these teams played a lot of non-chalk. And most of the teams had a lot more success against early round upset-winners, which of course makes sense. Obviously there were exceptions and obviously some teams were a lot luckier than others regarding the seed of their opponents.
In the aggregate, these 16 teams' average tournament opponent had a seed 1.8 worse than they were supposed to (3.7 avg per tournament). They played chalk in 57% of their games, with an average w/l percentage of 57% vs. chalk and 71% vs. non-chalk.
Since the start of the 64-team era, Duke has had 18 teams that reached at least the Elite Eight:
2024 +15 (2 gms vs. non-chalk)
2022 +3 (1)
2019 +1 (1)
2018 +8 (1)
2015 +1 (1)
2013 0 (0)
2010 +1 (1)
2004 +6 (2)
2001 +5 (2)
1999 +13 (3)
1998 +1 (1)
1994 +3 (1)
1992 +1 (1)
1991 +8 (2)
1990 +5 (1)
1989 +5 (1)
1988 +5 (1)
1986 +13 (2)
That's 24 games against non-chalk (1.3 such games per tournament; 44% of our games in these tournaments), with an average of 5.2 above chalk per tournament and 1.7 over chalk per game. For just our Final Four teams, 49% of our games were non-chalk (1.5 non-chalk games per tournament), with the same averages of 5.2 and 1.7.
In the same era, there were 15 tournaments in which we made it past the first round but did not make the Elite Eight. In those tournaments, we played 10 games against non-chalk (0.7 such games per tournament; 42% of our games in these tournaments), with an average of 2.3 above chalk per tournament and 1.4 over chalk per game. If you only look at the past 25 tournaments, there were 11 times we made it past the first round but didn't make the Elite Eight. The averages for those 11 were 0.6 non-chalk games per tournament; 37% of our games in these tournaments; 1.5 over chalk per tournament; and 0.9 over chalk per game.
What does it all mean? Probably not a lot, other than the common sense hope that whoever gets a high seed in Duke's region (other than Duke, of course) become early upset victims.
BrummieDevil
Member
As the resident San Jose State alum, I can vouch for that. SJSU led by 21 in San Diego and 17 in San Jose before the Aztecs came back to win by 3 each time.
Tourney teams really shouldn't be in that position against the Spartans, not even in their current era of being "competitive but still bad yet not terrible" under Tim Miles.
BrummieDevil
Member
Also, it is worth remembering that just because the Bracket Matrix consensus or groupthink indicate that Gonzaga's destined for an 8/9 game, the committee might have a rosier view of them when it comes to seeding. We see movement like that every Selection Sunday where a team people thought was locked in on a line is seeded a couple lines better/worse.
And that can even apply to a conference as a whole, like the MWC being seeded lower than expected pretty much across the board last year.
Plus, Saint Mary's has long been projected as about a 5 seed. Let's pretend that happens. Do we really think the committee is going to have Gonzaga 3 seeds lower than SMC? I have a hard time seeing that considering Gonzaga's metrics.