UT or UNC for the Last #1 Seed

#52
#52
Whether fair or not, this final 1 seed bid will come down to the conference tournament for UT and NC. We are higher in KenPom, Net, BPI, SOS, NCSOS, we have 2 more Quad losses than NC, they have one more Quad 2loss, in Quad 3&4- we are 11-0, they are 12-0. Our best wins are Alabama -2, Auburn, Kentucky, Illinois. NC best wins are UT, and Duke 2. Our bad losses are A@M-State. NC bad losses are Georgia Tech and Syracuse. Lunardi and Palm have us a 1 seed and NC a 2. They own the head to head. The metrics lean toward us, but the media will lean toward them as they are the Blue Blood. Their path to the final of their conference tournament will be easier than our path. I really believe who does better in their conference tournament will get the nod. If we both win conference tournament, the committee will give it to them because of head to head and their status as a blue blood. I know in the past the conference tournament did not impact seed lines, this time I think it will. Unfortunately, if we would have beaten Kentucky Saturday, don’t think we would be doing this comparison. As always, in Rick we trust, Go Vols! The good folks on rupps rafters think we will flame out early, and Coach Barnes will still be labeled regular season Rick.
 
#55
#55
Orangeslide said:
Whether fair or not, this final 1 seed bid will come down to the conference tournament for UT and NC. We are higher in KenPom, Net, BPI, SOS, NCSOS, we have 2 more Quad losses than NC, they have one more Quad 2loss, in Quad 3&4- we are 11-0, they are 12-0. Our best wins are Alabama -2, Auburn, Kentucky, Illinois. NC best wins are UT, and Duke 2. Our bad losses are A@M-State. NC bad losses are Georgia Tech and Syracuse. Lunardi and Palm have us a 1 seed and NC a 2. They own the head to head. The metrics lean toward us, but the media will lean toward them as they are the Blue Blood. Their path to the final of their conference tournament will be easier than our path. I really believe who does better in their conference tournament will get the nod. If we both win conference tournament, the committee will give it to them because of head to head and their status as a blue blood. I know in the past the conference tournament did not impact seed lines, this time I think it will. Unfortunately, if we would have beaten Kentucky Saturday, don’t think we would be doing this comparison. As always, in Rick we trust, Go Vols! The good folks on rupps rafters think we will flame out early, and Coach Barnes will still be labeled regular season Rick.
Click to expand...
The UK game was a huge opportunity to "pad the lead" a bit in the chase for a 1 seed. We didn't take advantage and now the table is set. More pressure for a great showing in the SECT, but at what expense? Honestly, I'd rather just accept the 2 seed and get out of the SECT early so we could get rested. My gut tells me we'll go all in during the SECT and they'll give UNC the final 1 seed anyway. Then we're a bit gassed heading into the NCAA. Nah. Just get our legs fresh and give the youngsters minutes in the SECT. Just avoid injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000
#56
#56
TheMookieMonster said:
Click to expand...

This reminds me of my company where if an executive wants the numbers to say a certain thing, they'll find an analyst to make the numbers say that thing. "If we ignore the quad system that is the main thing the committee uses these days and look over here to this arbitrary metric I've created that the committee does not use..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lukusw, Willy14, WhiteMike81 and 6 others
#57
#57
CornbreadVol said:
I may be missing it but what exactly does this mean lol?
Click to expand...

I don’t love this chart, but I saw Matt Norlander of CBS retweet it so figured it was interesting enough to post. Basically, the percentages in this graph are showing how likely a bubble team is to win that game and the relative performances of UNC/UT in games versus an average bubble team.

So it’s saying that UNC performs better than TN does in “harder” games, but there are quite a few flaws with the graph here, IMO. Still interesting to look at though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteMike81 and CornbreadVol
#58
#58
Chaz-Vol said:
It's razor thin margins and losing head to head against UNC even with vols better metrics doesn't help. Keep winning and take it out of committees hands.
Click to expand...
That makes the most sense however, that is a knock on us because there is not a large amount of sense within the NCAA tournament folks.
 
#61
#61
Chaz-Vol said:
It's razor thin margins and losing head to head against UNC even with vols better metrics doesn't help. Keep winning and take it out of committees hands.
Click to expand...
You can’t take it out of the committee’s hands as they are the ones making the decisions (ask Florida St. how “keeping on winning” helped them with the Playoff Committee). We win out and UNC wins out, it still comes down to the “Committee making a decision“.
 
#62
#62
CAVPUT said:
And look at who's sitting at #4. Who's surprised? Show of hands?
Click to expand...
I’m not. UNC jumped the 3 teams that were ahead of them who all lost a game while they did not. They beat the number 9 team on the road and UT lost to the number 15 team at home. Seems pretty simple to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CAVPUT
#63
#63
tev.sm said:
This also shows UNC losing more Quad 2 games than Tennessee... so does that mean UNC can't win easier games? Lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, the graph is flawed lol. It’s purpose is clearly meant to try and add another data point to why UNC deserves the 1-seed, but I don’t think it does a great job of it unless you are a UNC fan with selective hearing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lukusw, Govolsman98 and tev.sm
#70
#70
So, just so my simpleton mind understands this, conference tournament performance doesn't count at all (it didn't help us in the slightest the year we won the SECT) until it counts for everything (like this year when it will determine the #1 seed for the West)?

I'm glad the NCAA could clear this up. About as straightforward as anything that comes out of that star-chamber-like organization.
 
#71
#71
Some context to @TheMookieMonster ’s link above. Did some digging on this page and there’s some pretty interesting stuff. The link he posted is a spin off of what I’m linking below. Basically, they’re arguing that some Q2 games are more difficult than some Q1 games (i.e. would you rather face Colorado state at home or ole miss on the road? Graph shows CSU at home is the obvious answer and one that I think everyone here would take - but CSU would’ve been a Q1 win at home and Ole miss a Q2 win on the road, at the time of the graph’s creation), so a simple look at quadrant wins doesn’t pain the full picture of the individual games. Definitely not infallible, but an interesting way to look at the flawed quadrant system, nonetheless.

 
#73
#73
berryvol said:
Some context to @TheMookieMonster ’s link above. Did some digging on this page and there’s some pretty interesting stuff. The link he posted is a spin off of what I’m linking below. Basically, they’re arguing that some Q2 games are more difficult than some Q1 games (i.e. would you rather face Colorado state at home or ole miss on the road? Graph shows CSU at home is the obvious answer and one that I think everyone here would take - but CSU would’ve been a Q1 win at home and Ole miss a Q2 win on the road, at the time of the graph’s creation), so a simple look at quadrant wins doesn’t pain the full picture of the individual games. Definitely not infallible, but an interesting way to look at the flawed quadrant system, nonetheless.

Click to expand...

It’s why I posted this the other day, quadrants can be tricky just blindly looking at that because like you said a game at Alabama for example shouldn’t count the same as a game at Syracuse or something like that.

Tennessee 5 best wins:
6- Auburn
8- Alabama
8- Alabama
15- Illinois
19- Kentucky
Average: 11.2

North Carolina 5 best wins:
5- Tennessee
10- Duke
10- Duke
27- Clemson
37- Wake Forest
Average: 17.8

Tennessee Top 50 wins:
6- Auburn
8- Alabama
8- Alabama
15- Illinois
19- Kentucky
22- Wisconsin
35- Florida
46- Texas A&M
49- South Carolina
Total: 9
Average: 23.1

North Carolina Top 50 wins:
5- Tennessee
10- Duke
10- Duke
27- Clemson
37- Wake Forest
43- Oklahoma
44- Pittsburgh
Total: 7
Average: 25.1

Tennessee losses:
2- Purdue
7- North Carolina
18- Kansas
19- Kentucky
42- Mississippi State
46- Texas A&M
49- South Carolina
Total: 7
Average: 26.1

North Carolina losses:
3- Connecticut
19- Kentucky
27- Clemson
32- Villanova
79- Syracuse
124- Georgia Tech
Total: 6
Average: 47.3
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteMike81, gainesvol82, Vol in Buckeye Land and 4 others
#74
#74
bleedingTNorange said:
It’s why I posted this the other day, quadrants can be tricky just blindly looking at that because like you said a game at Alabama for example shouldn’t count the same as a game at Syracuse or something like that.

Tennessee 5 best wins:
6- Auburn
8- Alabama
8- Alabama
15- Illinois
19- Kentucky
Average: 11.2

North Carolina 5 best wins:
5- Tennessee
10- Duke
10- Duke
27- Clemson
37- Wake Forest
Average: 17.8

Tennessee Top 50 wins:
6- Auburn
8- Alabama
8- Alabama
15- Illinois
19- Kentucky
22- Wisconsin
35- Florida
46- Texas A&M
49- South Carolina
Total: 9
Average: 23.1

North Carolina Top 50 wins:
5- Tennessee
10- Duke
10- Duke
27- Clemson
37- Wake Forest
43- Oklahoma
44- Pittsburgh
Total: 7
Average: 25.1

Tennessee losses:
2- Purdue
7- North Carolina
18- Kansas
19- Kentucky
42- Mississippi State
46- Texas A&M
49- South Carolina
Total: 7
Average: 26.1

North Carolina losses:
3- Connecticut
19- Kentucky
27- Clemson
32- Villanova
79- Syracuse
124- Georgia Tech
Total: 6
Average: 47.3
Click to expand...
Correct. They seem to be taking a step beyond the raw number and looking into actual average win %’s for a “bubble” team in each of the 3 scenarios that you could play a Q1 or Q2 team. Pretty interesting stuff, the data combination is a step beyond me, but seems useful and like nothing I’ve seen before.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top