The best bracket site: you got work to do

#76
#76
zansdad said:
This still confuses me. People do realize that the byes this year are really no difference than they have been in the past. Still play on Fridays. Still play the same seeds. Maybe if people thought of the Wednesday night games as what they really are, play in games for 11-14, then it wouldn't be such a big deal. I think it is the double byes fault.

The only way a double bye comes into effect is if you are a 3 seed or a 4 seed and one of the teams that plays Wednesday night beats the 5 or the 6 seed and then beats you. If you cannot beat one of the worst 4 teams in your conference after they have played twice on back to back days and are now playing the 3rd game in 3 days... well it probably wasn't really the double bye's fault. :salute:
Click to expand...

I don't want the bye at all. I understand the format of the tournament and who plays who and when they play. I don't want to take the chance of somehow losing the level that we are playing at right now because we had a bye or a double bye.
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
The Bracket Project's Bracket Matrix - 2013

This is an amalgamation of 86 different brackets from various media or other sources. Some, including ESPN, USA Today, and some others are solid and reputable. Other components are kind of bleh. I have always found it a pretty good predictor of the bubble, and of seeding after that, just by sheer weight of the number of opinions collected and sorted here.

As of this morning, only one of the 86 brackets includes UT, and that is the "Brack Attack," some kind of blog, which has UT a 12 seed.

Overall, you look to be about a dozen spots away right now, but that of course could change quickly if you can win some games down the stretch and you can get teams like Alabama, UVA, St. John's, and some other bubble teams, to lose a few times.
Click to expand...

Did we beat you guys?
 
#78
#78
zansdad said:
I was going to say something similar to this. I am not real sure the committee really cares about BPI. Why would they use a metric that basically is the same as the NCAA invented RPI with some "ESPN tweaks".
Click to expand...

Obviously, I'm not taking it as gospel truth, nor am I saying it is ironclad proof of our real position in the NCAA's eyes. I'm just saying that it is an indicator, similar to RPI, of a team's resume, relative to other teams on the bubble. You can discredit it all you want, but it's no less viable as a metric than KenPom, Sagarin, Massey, or the RPI. The truth is, it's the only metric available that takes into account games missed by key players due to injury/suspension. It weighs losses under those circumstances less, relative to the missing players average minutes played.

I get that you might not respect their system, but at one time, people probably thought Pomeroy's numbers were goofy too. Read up on it. It's pretty interesting. You may still not like it.

NCAAM Introducing the BPI - ESPN
 
#79
#79
cncchris33 said:
Obviously, I'm not taking it as gospel truth, nor am I saying it is ironclad proof of our real position in the NCAA's eyes. I'm just saying that it is an indicator, similar to RPI, of a team's resume, relative to other teams on the bubble. You can discredit it all you want, but it's no less viable as a metric than KenPom, Sagarin, Massey, or the RPI. The truth is, it's the only metric available that takes into account games missed by key players due to injury/suspension. It weighs losses under those circumstances less, relative to the missing players average minutes played.

I get that you might not respect their system, but at one time, people probably thought Pomeroy's numbers were goofy too. Read up on it. It's pretty interesting. You may still not like it.

NCAAM Introducing the BPI - ESPN
Click to expand...

Good read man. If I read this part right the BPI looks more at a teams resume before a player was injured. As opposed to after he goes down;


If a team or its opponent is missing one of its most important players (determined by minutes per game) for a contest, that game is less important for ranking the teams compared to games in which both teams are at full strength.
 
#80
#80
GoobieVol said:
Good read man. If I read this part right the BPI looks more at a teams resume before a player was injured. As opposed to after he goes down;


If a team or its opponent is missing one of its most important players (determined by minutes per game) for a contest, that game is less important for ranking the teams compared to games in which both teams are at full strength.
Click to expand...

Yes. The losses still count against you, and thus lower your BPI, but at a lower margin taking into account that you played the game minus a key player. For example, the BPI weighs the losses to Georgia and Arky (Golden injured) less than the losses to Alabama and Ole Miss.
 
#81
#81
SCowlsVOL said:
I don't want the bye at all. I understand the format of the tournament and who plays who and when they play. I don't want to take the chance of somehow losing the level that we are playing at right now because we had a bye or a double bye.
Click to expand...

Why would having the bye make you lose anything? It's a difference of a day or two in a sport where they regularly have 3 or 4 days off.
 
#82
#82
cncchris33 said:
Obviously, I'm not taking it as gospel truth, nor am I saying it is ironclad proof of our real position in the NCAA's eyes. I'm just saying that it is an indicator, similar to RPI, of a team's resume, relative to other teams on the bubble. You can discredit it all you want, but it's no less viable as a metric than KenPom, Sagarin, Massey, or the RPI. The truth is, it's the only metric available that takes into account games missed by key players due to injury/suspension. It weighs losses under those circumstances less, relative to the missing players average minutes played.

I get that you might not respect their system, but at one time, people probably thought Pomeroy's numbers were goofy too. Read up on it. It's pretty interesting. You may still not like it.

NCAAM Introducing the BPI - ESPN
Click to expand...

I have read about the BPI and its precisely for all of the changes that I tend to discredit it. They are trying to assign value to things that may not be measurable (like a bench player being injured). As for pomeroy and those other things you named, most of them have been around for years and have multiple adherants (pomeroy isn't the only tempo free guy) or they are straight math (RPI is just math with no subjective variance). BPI is ESPN's baby and so I am skeptical of it.
 
#83
#83
zansdad said:
I have read about the BPI and its precisely for all of the changes that I tend to discredit it. They are trying to assign value to things that may not be measurable (like a bench player being injured). As for pomeroy and those other things you named, most of them have been around for years and have multiple adherants (pomeroy isn't the only tempo free guy) or they are straight math (RPI is just math with no subjective variance). BPI is ESPN's baby and so I am skeptical of it.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you may still not like it. I do think you are a little quick to discredit it though as nothing more than "ESPN's baby". Just because ESPN created it has little, if anything to do with it's relevance. I can see no obvious agenda for them to skew the numbers in anyone's favor. They used statisticians and analysts paid to crunch numbers and design mathematical equations and algorithms, not Stuart Scott and Trey Wingo in the Sportscenter breakroom chucking darts at the wall.
 
#84
#84
cncchris33 said:
Like I said, you may still not like it. I do think you are a little quick to discredit it though as nothing more than "ESPN's baby". Just because ESPN created it has little, if anything to do with it's relevance. I can see no obvious agenda for them to skew the numbers in anyone's favor. They used statisticians and analysts paid to crunch numbers and design mathematical equations and algorithms, not Stuart Scott and Trey Wingo in the Sportscenter breakroom chucking darts at the wall.
Click to expand...

I can see relevance in all of their factors except Pace of Play. Their have been several teams win the whole thing that played a slow paced game. In fact it is a coaching strategy often times.
 
#85
#85
The most current version of bracket matrix, comprised of 98 brackets, has you as just the second team out at this point, so you do, it would seem, control your own fate.

Most important, in my view, is that you are included in 30 of the brackets. The team ahead of you, Boise State, is in 43 of the brackets; the team right behind you, Baylor, is in 17 of the brackets.

Also of note, your average seed is 11.77. If you look at the 19 teams above, you, they all have lower average seeds. I interpret that to mean 1) that a lot of those teams ahead of you are assumed conference tourney winners (i.e. Northeastern gets in by winning the Colonial); and 2) you have tremendous upside potential if you can get just a couple more wins.


The Bracket Project's Bracket Matrix - 2013
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#86
#86
lawgator1 said:
The most current version of bracket matrix, comprised of 98 brackets, has you as just the second team out at this point, so you do, it would seem, control your own fate.

Most important, in my view, is that you are included in 30 of the brackets. The team ahead of you, Boise State, is in 43 of the brackets; the team right behind you, Baylor, is in 17 of the brackets.

Also of note, your average seed is 11.77. If you look at the 19 teams above, you, they all have lower average seeds. I interpret that to mean 1) that a lot of those teams ahead of you are assumed conference tourney winners (i.e. Northeastern gets in by winning the Colonial); and 2) you have tremendous upside potential if you can get just a couple more wins.


The Bracket Project's Bracket Matrix - 2013
Click to expand...

We'd be in a lot more of those brackets if it was updated. We were in the majority of brackets that included our win over Florida, unfortunately half the brackets haven't been updated in a week plus.
 
#87
#87
bleedingTNorange said:
We'd be in a lot more of those brackets if it was updated. We were in the majority of brackets that included our win over Florida, unfortunately half the brackets haven't been updated in a week plus.
Click to expand...

This point doesn't seem to be making it through to certain people. You already pointed it out a couple times now and it's like he/she isn't reading the thread; just adding to it occasionally.
 
#88
#88
cncchris33 said:
Like I said, you may still not like it. I do think you are a little quick to discredit it though as nothing more than "ESPN's baby". Just because ESPN created it has little, if anything to do with it's relevance. I can see no obvious agenda for them to skew the numbers in anyone's favor. They used statisticians and analysts paid to crunch numbers and design mathematical equations and algorithms, not Stuart Scott and Trey Wingo in the Sportscenter breakroom chucking darts at the wall.
Click to expand...

It's niave to think that anything ESPN does isn't driven by making a profit. BPI is simply their attempt to be different. Correct me if I am wrong but don't you have to pay to look at up to date BPI numbers?
 
#89
#89
zansdad said:
It's niave to think that anything ESPN does isn't driven by making a profit. BPI is simply their attempt to be different. Correct me if I am wrong but don't you have to pay to look at up to date BPI numbers?
Click to expand...

No, you do not.

NCAA College Basketball BPI Rankings - ESPN

Your first statement is true for any mass media, though I find it hard to figure out how ESPN is generating revenue by having their own set of rankings, other than site hits, which they aren't short on anyhow.
 
Last edited:
#91
#91
zansdad said:
Hmm. Wonder why I thought that was paid content. That aside however, I still think its highly irrelevant to anyone but ESPN. Unless some committee member comes out one day and says BPI made a difference I will just keep that opinion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I have conceded that I would leave you to your opinion of it.
 
#94
#94
Yea not working.I checked it yesterday, before our game, we've been first team out for awhile. Kentucky, Virginia and Boise ahead of us....if its updated we MAY have jumped UVA.
 
#95
#95
GoobieVol said:
I can see relevance in all of their factors except Pace of Play. Their have been several teams win the whole thing that played a slow paced game. In fact it is a coaching strategy often times.
Click to expand...

doesn't mean they are downgrading or upgrading teams.based on pace of play...but a 107-96 win is less dominant than a 47-36 win...that seems obvious...probably a very small factor anyway.
 
#96
#96
I posted it in the other thread. As of 1am this morning they had us as the least team in the tourney, one spot behind UK. We bumped UVA out
 
#97
#97
golfballs said:
I posted it in the other thread. As of 1am this morning they had us as the least team in the tourney, one spot behind UK. We bumped UVA out
Click to expand...

Oh wow. I'm surprised they have us basically even with UK, that though is close to accurate IMO though. It means UK likely does need to win one, they're not a lock.

Glad people smarted up about UVA too
 
#98
#98
Just wait for some of the other brackets to update, we should move up IMO
 
Last edited:
#99
#99
Newest update: The Bracket Project's Bracket Matrix - 2013


Tennessee is in as a 12 seed and is actually in one more bracket than Kentucky, so Kentucky is last team in according to the matrix. As you can see Virginia is first team out in 35 brackets, if the score holds up they'll lose to Maryland and probably be in about 2 brackets, so it'll only improve our standing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top