Bracketology Time
-
@BeddieKU23 Right and I like that idea, teams like Oklahoma from last year had no business being in IMO but I wish it would reward SOS a little more. I think Houston’s a solid team but a 106th SOS shouldn’t get rewarded with a great seed. At this point we would better off smoking crappy team than risking losses to good teams.
-
KUSTEVE said:
@Kcmatt7 i don’t think we’ll be in the Midwest bracket unless the miraculous happens, and we end up as a 1 seed. They aren’t going to put us in KC…40 miles away… as a 3 or 4 seed. The higher seeds would scream bloody murder.
We could still get Tulsa or Des Moines (less likely) though for the first two games which would at least get us to a respectable point in the tourney even if we don’t get in the Midwest.
The Midwest part of it, I don’t agree with though. Very possible Tennessee or UK end up at Louisville as a 2 seed. Just the way it is… Competitive advantage I believe only takes action starting at the 5 seed. So I’d think we still have a shot at the Midwest region.
Am I wrong on this?
-
kjayhawks said:
@BeddieKU23 Right and I like that idea, teams like Oklahoma from last year had no business being in IMO but I wish it would reward SOS a little more. I think Houston’s a solid team but a 106th SOS shouldn’t get rewarded with a great seed. At this point we would better off smoking crappy team than risking losses to good teams.
Yep the NCAA just played itself. KU played 22 Q1 and Q2 games this season. Gonzaga has only played 14.
Why on Earth would you not just schedule a bunch of mediocre teams every season and try to rack up as many blowout wins as possible? That’s apparently the criteria. Gonzaga is 2-2 against ranked teams this season and are somehow guaranteed a #1 seed.
Absurd.
-
I just hope the new ranking system doesn’t screw up the fun early non-con schedules. But it seems like it might.
-
@Kcmatt7 I doubt you’ll see the champions classic or some of the good tournaments go away but you may see teams not go quite as hard in finding good games. We may not play a Villanova type team in a couple of years and replace that game with a cupcake but I also know Self likes good SOS so who knows.
-
It doesn’t matter if we’re a 1 or a 16. Whether we play at AFH or Madison Square Garden. I’m going to fill out my bracket the same way I always do and KANSAS will be the last team standing.
-
nuleafjhawk said:
It doesn’t matter if we’re a 1 or a 16. Whether we play at AFH or Madison Square Garden. I’m going to fill out my bracket the same way I always do and KANSAS will be the last team standing.
All right - - you get some ATTABOY"S for that - -that’s worth of a JUMPIN - - GEE HOSSA - - FATS for that and a ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
@KUSTEVE Yes Duke always winds up playing in NC.
-
Fightsongwriter said:
@KUSTEVE Yes Duke always winds up playing in NC.
UNC as well. Certainly not coincidence
-
Houston is 27-2 though and they are ranked #15 by Kenpom, one spot behind KU. Having a great season and I think they should be rewarded for it. Whether they are good enough to live up to say a #2 seed is up for debate. Until they lost to UCF over the weekend they had won 12 games in a row. Cincinnati and UCF are in the field who they have wins over in conference They did beat LSU, Oregon (when they were ranked with Bol Bol), BYU, Oklahoma St, Utah St in Non-Con play. Not a great resume which you’ve pointed out is reflected in their SOS.
Listening to their coach over the weekend their goal for the season was just to make the NCAA tournament again. They didn’t think they were this good pre-season. They have shattered every expectation.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
kjayhawks said:
@BeddieKU23 Right and I like that idea, teams like Oklahoma from last year had no business being in IMO but I wish it would reward SOS a little more. I think Houston’s a solid team but a 106th SOS shouldn’t get rewarded with a great seed. At this point we would better off smoking crappy team than risking losses to good teams.
Yep the NCAA just played itself. KU played 22 Q1 and Q2 games this season. Gonzaga has only played 14.
Why on Earth would you not just schedule a bunch of mediocre teams every season and try to rack up as many blowout wins as possible? That’s apparently the criteria. Gonzaga is 2-2 against ranked teams this season and are somehow guaranteed a #1 seed.
Absurd.
It’s not as if Gonzaga ran away from competition in non-conference play though. Beating Power 5 schools like Texas A&M, Illinois, Arizona, Duke, Washington and losing at North Carolina and losing on neutral court to Tennessee. They certainly pass the eye test from what I’ve seen early in the season and in the last week (I watched them beat BYU & Saint Mary’s). They won every conference game by double digits, that’s impressive no matter what. Some of the teams they played just weren’t as good as they traditionally are. I know their resume is what it is on paper but I don’t think there are 4 better teams out there. Of course just my opinion
-
@BeddieKU23 First, I want to say I am thrilled with the Houston Cougars doing so well. Secondly, if they are a 2 seed under the new Net ratings, then we should immediately drop every difficult non conference game, and play the worst teams we can find, and run up the score. No more Dook or Sparty…schedule Div 1 patsies. As far as I can tell, Houston has played two games against the Top 25, and won them both. Big woop. Personal feelings aside, Houston has no business in any top 3 seeds discussion. Yet, here we are.
-
First, I do think KU will look at how they schedule in the future and I’m sure others are looking at this as well. Nothing they could do this year with the NET coming out of nowhere. Next though I’m sure they could react accordingly but they already have a road game against Nova, Maui, the Champions Classic & the SEC Challenge scheduled. Not going to be easy even for next year it looks.
I disagree on the Houston part. They might have 30+ wins by tournament time. They have a big game against Cincinnati this weekend that likely will decide the league. If they win their league, win the conference tourney and have 30+ wins how does a team not deserve a high seed? Not their fault Wichita fell off or UConn can’t get it together or Penny wasn’t going to dominate College in year 1, SMU is down as well after some good years. Their league hasn’t helped them and maybe its inflated their record a little bit but dang 27-2 isn’t some walk in the park thing to do.
-
The NET rankings are not the end all be all when it comes to seeding. Just like the RPI wasn’t it is just one tool they use. You could see that when the committee released their top 16 seeds about a month ago and KU was a 2 seed. At that time they were ranked 18th I believe in the NET. People get so wrapped up in one thing when it actuality the committee looks at so many different rankings and measures when it comes to seeding.
KU should absolutely not change anything about the way they schedule. Their are so many advantages to playing big time games.
-
@Woodrow Experience, seeding, exposure, tv money…
-
@BeddieKU23 It’s always the age old question of looking at the team record versus strength of schedule. I have Houston playing 5 games against teams that should go to the NCAAs for the year, which is better than Gonzaga’s 4 games. We have/ or will have played 20 games against teams that should make the NCAAs ( I included Texas and TCU, so that could drop all the way down to 16). Still…at 16 games ( worst case) against teams that should make the NCAAs, it is impossible for me to look at Houston, or even Gonzaga as teams ahead of us. If Gonzaga had played 12-16 more NCAA tournament teams this year, I wonder what their record would be. Same for Houston. Not saying these guys aren’t great teams, or that they won’t go far in the tournament, but I think if Gonzaga or Houston had played our schedule, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they ended up with a worse record than we have. I sure wouldn’t mind being the 3 seed in a bracket that had Gonzaga as the 1 seed, and Houston as the 2.
-
Here’s a pretty good seeding breakdown:
-
@KUSTEVE That is a cool site. Never heard of it before.
-
I guess I see it differently then you but that’s okay I’m enjoying the discussion regardless.
I wouldn’t want to play either team in the tournament based on what I’ve seen of both teams recently. Gonzaga is better then KU which isn’t easy to admit and I would put the Houston matchup as a toss up depending on how they close their season. I don’t see many weaknesses in either team especially Gonzaga. We don’t matchup well with Gonzaga at all. Doesn’t mean KU couldn’t win but we’d be a dog playing them.
I avoided including KU’s SOS with the two teams because I don’t think it matters whether KU played 17 more games against better competition or not. At what point has KU proven to be the better team so far? We lost that once Doke went down with the injury. It’s March, I’ve never seen a correlation in playing the toughest schedule translating to March Success. When we look back at our losses in the tournament do you think we complain about not being prepared for the game in the regular season? I don’t know what Gonzaga fans complain about when they exit the tournament but I doubt they are worried whether they played a tough enough schedule. Maybe they do, they do continue to play in a conference they are too good for these days. Few recruits and develops well enough these days where his players are just as good or comparable to his competition. Houston hasn’t had success like Gonzaga but they have upperclassmen throughout their rotation and guys back from last years tourney run that now have experience. KU will have 7 guys who’ve never played in a tournament game suiting up. I stated in a prior post this KU team is good enough to beat anyone and lose to anyone.
-
It’s a tough nut to crack. And it isn’t that Gonzaga isn’t good. They’re very good.
It’s that I think rewarding soft schedules is bullshit. It may be more accurate because of that. But you don’t KNOW that. Gonzaga could have easily been a 6 loss team in another major conference and far from a guaranteed 1 seed. As it stands now, all they have to do is play a semi- tough Non-con, not completely suck, and then coast through their league to an easy one or two seed. They don’t have to fight all season long like the rest of the country. They are allowed an off night without it hurting them because they played Portland State.
To me, that needs to be taken into account. They shouldn’t be rewarded with the easiest path to a Championship possible just because they won a crappy league with ease. Even if they might be one of the top 4 teams in the country.
-
There has to be checks and balances to it all. Gonzaga shouldn’t be punished for the conference they play in (which I believe is ranked 8/32 overall). I know the perception of their league isn’t good but what conference gets any respect outside the Power 5 these days. Could they move? Sure they could but where as a basketball school only? They are limited geographically. They probably would have made a move by now if there was a win/win for them?
Not rewarding teams regardless of conference is just slanting it towards the Power 5 even more. KU gets the benefit of being in the Big-12 and getting sometimes a dozen Q1 and Q2 games from that alone. The Big-12 is down this year but yet has 7-8 teams that could make the tournament and a few of them with losing conference records. Not exactly “fair” either. The Big-12 will always be rated in the Top 6 or so conferences in the country.
I don’t know what the perfect fix is to rewarding teams. Gonzaga hasn’t won a title yet despite their easier path most years. They did make the finals in 2016. If they win the title with the easy path- meaning they received a #1 seed because of easier schedule during regular season inflating their team record/reputation/perception then there’s a legitimate gripe for the P5 squads that go through murder’s row sometimes before March even hits.
-
We’re 7-2 in last 9. and 5 out of 6. Normally that reads hot team, but the loss to TT obviously was really bad. Hard to gauge where this team stands right now. As has been discussed, a 2 or 3 is much more favorable than a 4. NCAA has been seeding the thing to get marquee matchups for each round, like when they put WSU on the 8 line and we were a 1, or making UNC an 8 a few years back and having us in the 2nd round. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they put us with one of the bluebloods who will likely be a 1 seed and make us a 4. They’d love to see us in a sweet 16 match with a blue blood.
-
In order for this team to get to a 2 seed I think they need to win out and also get some help. Duke, Zags, UVA, Tennessee, UK, Michigan, UNC, & Texas Tech, are all clearly way out ahead of KU. Actually now that I look at it I am not sure they can get a 2 seed. They for sure would have to win 5 straight games to be in the discussion.
-
@BeddieKU23 I think that the entirety of basketball needs a schedule overhaul that attempts to at least balance out schedules for comparisons sake and as much as logistics will allow…
In theory, you could have a shorter conference schedule, say 14 games max, 4-5 games of your choice (For the tournaments and Champions Classic types), and 12 “regional games” as competitive balance measure.
Off the top of my head, all teams not in the NET Top 130 are put in one pool to fill their schedule, while the Top 130 teams are split into ten 13-team groups and play 12 games against each other.
This would allow us to get 12 good looks at some of the smaller schools in a direct comparison against the big boys. At least this way, we could say that everyone got a fair shake…
Thoughts?
-
The first question I have is how do you rate the Top 130 before the season starts. There is so much unpredictability with teams from year to year especially now with rampant transfers, coaches pole jumping for other schools that I think using the prior years ranking in the NET isn’t fair enough, especially for mid-majors that usually rely on upperclassmen to build success while its easier for Power 5 and elite teams to just simply retool a whole starting 5 because they can recruit better players.
It’s not a bad idea to give everyone a shake at a set of games against each other. I’m open to anything.
I think the 18 game conference slate is too many games especially in a 10 team league like the Big-12. I used to like the round robin schedule but even that has its drawbacks for the league overall.
-
@BeddieKU23 In my head this is how it would work:
-
5 games of any choosing. You can play tournaments or 5 tune ups. Whatever, doesn’t matter.
-
Then, start Conference play Dec. 1. Two- ish games a week for 8 weeks. Which would shake out to be late January.
-
That’s when the regionals start based off of the NET ranking from the first 18-19 Games. 6 weeks, two games a week.
-
Then the Conference Tournament (if we still want to do this) and it would start at basically the exact the same time it always does.
-
-
Speaking of brackets, big 12 one. If we tied Tt, who would get the 2 seed? I heard if we tied KSU, we would. Not sure about second w/tt. Trying to figure work schedule.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=1520897
I think if we tied, we would end up the 2 seed, Tech the 1 and KSU the 3. It would come down to overall winning percentage I believe, since we all split.
-
@Kcmatt7 I mean, KSU 1, tt and us tied for 2nd. Didn’t read that, busy
-
@Crimsonorblue22 I think we get the 2. Based on record vs. the next team in the standings…likely Baylor but mayber ISU.
-
The chart showing #3 and #4 against the field all time is really illuminating. There’s a much bigger difference between these seeds than I realized (4 seems much more likely to be upset by a lower seed.)
Thanks for sharing that.
As for where we would like to play-- I guess the only place that is safe is AFH this year. Unfortunately, being shipped to play 50 miles away might be too far for this team to feel a ‘home’ advantage.
-
KU is now a 4 seed in Lunardi’s bracket and a 5 seed in Jerry Palm’s (CBS) bracket. I think that is where they end up unless they lose Saturday and or Thursday night then I could see them even being a 6 seed.
-
Have to pray we can hold on to the 4 seed. And I think it will take quite a bit of urgency by this bunch to do so.
-
I’m not seeing how Indiana or Texas could get in at this point, I think they would’ve to at least make their conference championship games at this point.
-
Money
-
Conference champs that KU beat this season: Vermont, TTech, KState, Michigan State, Villanova and Wofford. Tennessee, Marquette somehow let conference leads slip away, or we could have had more. Of course most of those wins were KU with Doke and with Happy Vick. Still, we have an impressive body of work without any terrible losses despite our sorrows.
-
@wissox WVU was a terrible loss.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 it really was, ASU is probably gonna end up in the tournament but those two games make the tournament in KC a must win IMO to get a 3 seed. The maddening part of is that we lead those game for like 68 minutes, the ASU game we didn’t trail til just over a minute left. I think if we’d won those and win in KC we would be in conversation for a 1 seed.
-
Lunardi has Texas still in at a 11 seed currently, if they lose to us Thursday no way they get in. They really shouldn’t be anyways but @BeddieKU23 said having a big fan base makes a difference generating money. I’m just trying to think of .500 team that got in or was even on the bubble (not winning conference tournament), I don’t know that I can name one. I thought that was a driving force in this new NET, to not get some of the below average power schools out. I’d rather see Lipscomb (beat TCU on the road and lost by 4 to Louisville) or Belmont in than Texas.
-
No team has ever made it as an at-large with 16 losses. They won’t be in if they lose Thursday. Heck even if they win Thursday and lose after they still will have 16 losses. They should have to make the final and make it entertaining to get a bid. Crazy how much wins against UNC and KU are helping them.
I hope the committee puts the end to these mediocre teams making the field. 15 loss teams deserve the NIT
-
wissox said:
Conference champs that KU beat this season: Vermont, TTech, KState, Michigan State, Villanova and Wofford. Tennessee, Marquette somehow let conference leads slip away, or we could have had more. Of course most of those wins were KU with Doke and with Happy Vick. Still, we have an impressive body of work without any terrible losses despite our sorrows.
agree. I just think if and I Realize that’s a BIG IF but if we roll - if Quentin continues to show a little more upside - If Dave can compete which he has been and showing improvement then there is no reason why we can’t play in this Big 12 Championship game and get through the 1st weekend of the tourney.
However I just feel that anything past the sweet sixteen would just be pure gravy - - I just don’t see anything after that - -just not consistent enough - -unless we can take better care of ball control, shore up the defensive effort a lot better. -I’d say a sweet sixteen would be the ultimate for the guys this year. - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
Saw bracketology this morning - -Jerry Palm & Joe have Kentucky & Duke in the same region - pretty tough. - -Got us in as a 4 in the same region I think it was the East with #1 Virginia
-
@jayballer73 hope not. I don’t want to see UVA.
-
Earliest they’d meet is the Sweet 16. Virginia could always lose in the first round again as well. Additionally if this team makes the S16 I’m considering it a successful season. I’ll be happy with 1 tourney win tbh
-
Bracketville (Typically one of the better ones) has us as a 4 seed in Louisville with UNC, Tennessee and Purdue. As well as a struggling Marquette as the 5 seed.
I would not be unhappy with this.
-
Can we book it today!
-
We should also be thinking about possible 11, 12 and 13 seeds we don’t want to see. Vermont, St. Johns, Murray St., Temple, New Mexico St (though they wouldn’t do a rematch I don’t think).
-
@HighEliteMajor I’d rather not get depressed. Ohio State or Clemson could be a 12 seed if we end up losing Thursday and we end up a 5 seed. I think we would lose to either team.
-
If brackets are truly fair, the Big 12 should only get 6 or 7 teams in. There’s no reason that all three of Texas, Oklahoma and TCU should make the field. Similarly, both Clemson and NC State from the ACC should have some work to do to get into the tournament. I’d have similar questions for Minnesota, Ohio State and Indiana. Of those 8 major conference teams, I would argue that maybe 4 should make the field instead of all 8 (For me, it would be TCU, NC State and Minnesota only, but the committee probably picks more).
Being mediocre in a major conference should not get you into the tournament. Indiana is mediocre. So is Oklahoma. So is basically everyone in the PAC-12. If the PAC-12 wasn’t considered a major conference, they would only be sending their champ to the dance.
It’s time for the NCAA tournament to stop rewarding the mediocre teams in major conferences. I watched Murray State and Belmont on Saturday. Both of those teams looked like NCAA tournament teams (9 losses between them). And yet some major conference team with 13 losses will probably go to the tournament ahead of Belmont (the loser in the conf. title game). Mid majors and low majors only get two or three shots at good wins each year, usually on the road. Look at Oklahoma’s road record against potential tournament teams - lost at KU, Texas, K-State, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Baylor, won at TCU. Didn’t play another non-con road game against a potential tourney team. You can do this with almost every “bubble team” from a major conference and find almost no quality road wins. Why should Oklahoma get credit for going 1-5 against KU, K-State and Tech. NC State’s best conference win is either Clemson at home or Syracuse at home. If you gave Belmont home games with UNC, Virginia, and Virginia Tech and road games at Duke, Florida State, Louisville and UNC, they would do no worse than 0-7, which is exactly the mark that NC State posted in those games.
-
approxinfinity said:
@jayballer73 hope not. I don’t want to see UVA.
you and me either one - - that would not be good.
