2024-25 NET/Bracketology Thread

I have yet to do my yearly review of the “seeding principles”, but I’m fairly certain one of them is that a Top 4 seed can NOT be put at a locational disadvantage. I think this came into play a couple years after we had to play South Carolina in a de facto road contest as a No. 2 seed :( Regardless, I’m with Jason not being the least bit concerned that will actually come to pass.
How many rules exist as a result of a time the committee screwed over Duke?

There's the locational disadvantage following the 2017 Tournament and the S-Curve preventing the top 2 seed from being placed in the top 1 seed's bracket following the 2013 Tournament. Any others?
 
I just cannot take anything he says seriously at this point. Odds are, it isn't even him putting it together this early in the season.
You can just cut this part, if you want.

The entire caveat of "if the season ended today" makes the exercise a joke. Guess what, the season doesn't end today.

If today were Saturday, I'd be taking a nap instead of sitting at work posting on DBR.
 
For those who don't read the front page I wrote a brief NET update that focuses on two developments:
  1. Arizona has been on a hot streak in Big 12 play that once again has our road victory over them looking very strong for our tournament resume.
  2. The SEC cannibalization behind Auburn has begun, and if Auburn separates itself as the clear top-tier in the SEC that's only a good thing for us... not just because of how strong it makes our victory, but also because it makes it less likely that we'll end up in one of those outlier scenarios where one league gets 3 No. 1 seeds (which has happened at least a couple times in the past).
 
I have yet to do my yearly review of the “seeding principles”, but I’m fairly certain one of them is that a Top 4 seed can NOT be put at a locational disadvantage. I think this came into play a couple years after we had to play South Carolina in a de facto road contest as a No. 2 seed :( Regardless, I’m with Jason not being the least bit concerned that will actually come to pass.
I would be curious how the NCAAT committee defines "locational disadvantage"? After a certain amount of miles, is it lifted?

I ask because just taking a glance at last year's tournament bracket, we had 4 seed Kansas playing 5 seed Gonzaga in the 2nd round in Salt Lake City (geographically closer to Gonzaga), potentially could have had 4 seed Auburn playing 5 seed San Diego St in Spokane, WA and even us, a 4 seed, playing 13 seed Vermont in Brooklyn. (Not a large geographical advantage, but Brooklyn certainly closer to Burlington, VT than Durham.)

I'm curious how the committee would define "locational disadvantage"?
 
The entire caveat of "if the season ended today" makes the exercise a joke. Guess what, the season doesn't end today.
Far be it from me to defend the honor of Joe Lunardi, but it seems like the point of the exercise (beyond providing 90 seconds of harmless entertainment) isn't to say what the bracket will be in March, which would be pointless, but to give a temperature check of where teams are right now relative to the rest of the potential field.
 
Far be it from me to defend the honor of Joe Lunardi, but it seems like the point of the exercise (beyond providing 90 seconds of harmless entertainment) isn't to say what the bracket will be in March, which would be pointless, but to give a temperature check of where teams are right now relative to the rest of the potential field.
Sure. But then it's just shooting in the dark. There's no accountability or even hint of accuracy. Lunardi isn't a wizard with inside information about the process.

He gets his reputation by being able to accurately "project the field" on Selection Sunday. Well, heck, I could do that. And when his picks don't match up regarding seeding or omissions, it's a controversy.

I will never understand why Joey Brackets has the following he does or the platform he does. It's just fodder for talk radio folks to get fired up about.

Edit: sorry, I have a blindspot for Lunardi. This is the bracketology thread, I'll get off my soapbox. Apologies! Here's hoping Duke gets a #1 seed, possibly the overall #1.
 
For those who don't read the front page I wrote a brief NET update that focuses on two developments:
  1. Arizona has been on a hot streak in Big 12 play that once again has our road victory over them looking very strong for our tournament resume.
  2. The SEC cannibalization behind Auburn has begun, and if Auburn separates itself as the clear top-tier in the SEC that's only a good thing for us... not just because of how strong it makes our victory, but also because it makes it less likely that we'll end up in one of those outlier scenarios where one league gets 3 No. 1 seeds (which has happened at least a couple times in the past).
Not sure how point #2 helps us. Assuming we get a 1 seed, I'd rather Tennessee be a 1 seed in a different region than a 2 in ours. If the SEC has the 3 best teams besides us, regardless of in-conference violence, I'd like to see them anywhere but our bracket.

Edit to add: I guess you're saying it's less competition for a 1 seed, but I'm not really worried about that at this point. I think we're an obvious 1 seed and that's not likely to change.
 
Last edited:
I would be curious how the NCAAT committee defines "locational disadvantage"? After a certain amount of miles, is it lifted?

I ask because just taking a glance at last year's tournament bracket, we had 4 seed Kansas playing 5 seed Gonzaga in the 2nd round in Salt Lake City (geographically closer to Gonzaga), potentially could have had 4 seed Auburn playing 5 seed San Diego St in Spokane, WA and even us, a 4 seed, playing 13 seed Vermont in Brooklyn. (Not a large geographical advantage, but Brooklyn certainly closer to Burlington, VT than Durham.)

I'm curious how the committee would define "locational disadvantage"?
The original rule: Seeds #1-4 were "protected" from seeds 5-11 getting a "home" game in the 2nd round. That rule has been in place since 2003 when they started the pod system. Duke playing SC 1 hour from Columbia violated the rule. Pitt playing WI 1 hour from Madison violated the rule. It was never designed to protect seeds #1-4 from seeds #13-16 since the little schools, in theory, don't have big travel budgets funded by ESPN. The lone exception was to prevent BYU from playing on Sunday. Once your local spots are filled, you get shipped to the next closest. #4 seeds east of the Rockies are always lucky not to get stuck in Boise or California.

Duke playing in NYC is the unintended exception since anything from Philly to Long Island gives Duke an advantage. Nobody on DBR complained about Duke getting to play VT/JMU in NYC (and they got blown out for multiple reasons). Nobody on DBR will complain if Duke is the #1 seed in Newark this year.
 
Last edited:
I will never understand why Joey Brackets has the following he does or the platform he does. It's just fodder for talk radio folks to get fired up about.

Edit: sorry, I have a blindspot for Lunardi. This is the bracketology thread, I'll get off my soapbox. Apologies! Here's hoping Duke gets a #1 seed, possibly the overall #1.
He was the first one to do it. He's actually very mediocre once others copied him.
 
The original rule: Seeds #1-4 were "protected" from seeds 5-11 getting a "home" game in the 2nd round. That rule has been in place since 2003 when they started the pod system. Duke playing SC 1 hour from Columbia violated the rule. Pitt playing WI 1 hour from Madison violated the rule. It was never designed to protect seeds #1-4 from seeds #13-16 since the little schools, in theory, don't have big travel budgets funded by ESPN. The lone exception was to prevent BYU from playing on Sunday. Once your local spots are filled, you get shipped to the next closest. #4 seeds east of the Rockies are always lucky not to get stuck in Boise or California.
I can't speak to what the "original rule" re: protected seeds not getting a home disadvantage were. But, it does not appear from the current rules that it is focused on the 2nd round at all (and, at least as written, it actually appears currently to only "protect seeds #1-4 from seeds #13-16"). https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...i-mens-teams-picked-march-madness-each-season

Specifically, here's what the current NCAA bracketing principles say about geographic preferences in building the bracket:

III. Building the Bracket

… Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.

Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament [or before the Sweet 16 if they played twice previously; but they can play each other in the 2nd Round if they played only once previously, and can play in the First Four]. …

To recognize the demonstrated quality of such teams, the committee shall not place teams seeded on the first four lines at a potential “home-crowd disadvantagein the first round.


[So, I read this to mean that the #2 Duke playing #7 South Carolina in SC in the 2nd Round in 2017, or UNC being put in Raleigh as a #10 seed thereby disadvantaging a 7 seed in the first round could still happen now]…

Teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible, as determined by mileage from campus to the venue. A team moved out of its natural area will be placed in the next closest region to the extent possible. If two teams from the same natural region are in contention for the same bracket position, the team ranked higher in the seed list shall remain in its natural region….

A team may be moved up or down one (or in extraordinary circumstances) two lines from its true seed line (e.g., from the 13 seed line to the 12 seed line; or from a 12 seed line to a 13 seed line) when it is placed in the bracket if necessary to meet the principles.

Procedures for Placing the Teams into the Bracket

1. The committee will place the four No. 1 seeds in each of the four regions, thus determining the Final Four pairings (overall 1 vs. 4; 2 vs. 3). The overall No. 1 seed has the opportunity to select its preferred first- and second-round site and preferred region.

2. The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order. The committee may relax the principle of keeping teams as close to their area of natural interest for seeding teams on the No. 2 line to avoid, for example, the overall No. 5 seed being sent to the same region as the overall No. 1 seed. The committee will not compromise the principle of [separating] teams from the same conference ... .

3. The committee will then place the No. 3 [and No. 4] seeds in each region in true seed list order....

5. After the top four seed lines have been assigned, the committee will review the relative strengths of the regions by adding the “true seed” numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total.

6. In “true seed” order, the committee then assigns each team (and, therefore, all teams in its bracket group—e.g., seeds 1, 8, 9, 16) to first-/second-round sites….
 
He was the first one to do it. He's actually very mediocre once others copied him.
Yeah, in the rolling 5-year bracketologist rankings on Bracket Matrix, Lunardi ranks No. 118 out of 179. But he has been on ESPN for 20 years and is the first guy most college basketball fans became familiar with in that role.

To be fair, none of the guys doing it for the big media companies is especially good at it. It's more likely that some guy who does it for spits & giggles, but who's really into it, proves to be notably good at it.
 
Yeah, in the rolling 5-year bracketologist rankings on Bracket Matrix, Lunardi ranks No. 118 out of 179. But he has been on ESPN for 20 years and is the first guy most college basketball fans became familiar with in that role.

To be fair, none of the guys doing it for the big media companies is especially good at it. It's more likely that some guy who does it for spits & giggles, but who's really into it, proves to be notably good at it.
Wow! This really places his picks into stark perspective. I'd be embarassed with this type of performance if it were my day job.
 
Regarding the 2017 second round game in Greenville, SC - I will be the first person shouting that the situation sucked, but I don't think it's fair to blame the Selection Committee for that one. The game was bracketed to be played in NC but got moved due to the bathroom bill. Some might argue that it should have been moved somewhere else, or that the NCAA should have known that the law was in place and assigned us to a different pod. Again, I don't place the blame for that on the committee but rather on the law itself which I won't get into lest the conversation stray into politics.

We should have won that game regardless. Tatum, Allen, Kennard, Frank Jackson, Amile, etc. had loads of talent but just didn't bother playing any D in the second half.
 
Regarding the 2017 second round game in Greenville, SC - I will be the first person shouting that the situation sucked, but I don't think it's fair to blame the Selection Committee for that one. The game was bracketed to be played in NC but got moved due to the bathroom bill. Some might argue that it should have been moved somewhere else, or that the NCAA should have known that the law was in place and assigned us to a different pod. Again, I don't place the blame for that on the committee but rather on the law itself which I won't get into lest the conversation stray into politics.

We should have won that game regardless. Tatum, Allen, Kennard, Frank Jackson, Amile, etc. had loads of talent but just didn't bother playing any D in the second half.
I was also at that game. It was the most anti-Duke crowd I've seen, true ACC road game or otherwise. That includes Maryland. Wasn't the game moved long before Selection Sunday? If yes, they knew.
 
I also was there (Greenville) and had great seats as I live in Greensboro and had bought primo seats before the Bathroom Bill debacle so I had second row seats in Greenville with my son and his friends. We had a blast in Greenville and played at the Furman Golf Course which was excellent. Then the game tipped in what was the most hostile environment against an incredibly feisty coach and team that fed on all of it. Just an excruciatingly horrible experience and, yes, the Committee knew what they were doing when they sent us to Greenville in that pod.
 
Back
Top