Bracketology '17

[Westbrook#36]

Agreed.

But they can blow anyone out. Their average margin of victory is 24 points in their wins. I don't know about "pretty good if they can't turn you over." They have lost their 5 games by a combined total of only 18 points - 2 in OT. They have already beaten Baylor, Kansas, and @Virginia. They are ridiculously dangerous.

They've also lost to Temple, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, and KSU, while just barely beating Texas & Texas A&M. They maybe ridiculously dangerous, but they're also infinitely beatable if you don't turnover the ball 16+ times. They're a team that can beat any 1 or 2 seed and lose to any 12 or 13 seed.

So you're saying that they're "ridiculously dangerous" and that "they can beat any 1 or 2 seed." That's what I'm saying. I think we have an agreement here. They're a dangerous team capable of pulling off big upsets.

Just for the record, when WVU beat Kansas, KU committed 13 TOs, and when they beat UVA, 14 TOs.

So you're saying WVU is a bi-polar team that's infinitely beatable and capable of "losing to any 12 or 13 seed". We're in agreement, glad we found common ground here.

Just for the record, when WVU lost to Temple and Ok. St. they both committed 19 TO's.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

Bracket Matrix – last updated Sunday Jan. 29, 2017 - 11:04 AM

Seed No. – Overall Ranking – Team (No. of Brackets out of 79)

# 1 - 1 – Villanova (79)
# 3 – 10 - Butler (79)
# 4 – 16 - Creighton (79)
# 7– 25 - Xavier (79)
# 9 - 33 - Marquette (78)
# 11 – 41 - Seton Hall (60)

Bracket Matrix – last updated Monday Feb. 6, 2017 - 8:13 PM

Seed No. – Overall Ranking – Team (No. of Brackets out of 98)

# 1 - 1 – Villanova (98)
# 4 – 15 - Butler (98)
# 5 – 19 - Creighton (98)
# 6– 24 - Xavier (98)
# 10 - 37 - Marquette (91)
# 11 – 45 - Seton Hall (59)

[Bill Marsh]

They've also lost to Temple, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, and KSU, while just barely beating Texas & Texas A&M. They maybe ridiculously dangerous, but they're also infinitely beatable if you don't turnover the ball 16+ times. They're a team that can beat any 1 or 2 seed and lose to any 12 or 13 seed.

So you're saying that they're "ridiculously dangerous" and that "they can beat any 1 or 2 seed." That's what I'm saying. I think we have an agreement here. They're a dangerous team capable of pulling off big upsets.

Just for the record, when WVU beat Kansas, KU committed 13 TOs, and when they beat UVA, 14 TOs.

So you're saying WVU is a bi-polar team that's infinitely beatable and capable of "losing to any 12 or 13 seed". We're in agreement, glad we found common ground here.

Just for the record, when WVU lost to Temple and Ok. St. they both committed 19 TO's.

Westbrook, I'm having a hard time figuring out what your point is. What does "bi-polar" have to do with how dangerous they are, how capable they are of knocking off top team?

And how is a team that hasn't lost to anyone outside the top 100 labeled "bi-polar" in the first place?

You made the point that they only win when they force 16+ TOs. So, why are you highlighting games in which they forced 19 TOs but lost? It seems to contradict your point

[Westbrook#36]

Westbrook, I'm having a hard time figuring out what your point is. What does "bi-polar" have to do with how dangerous they are, how capable they are of knocking off top team?

The point is simple, they're much more likely to lose to a 12, 13, or 14 seed than they are to beat a 1 or 2 seed. See my point below.

And how is a team that hasn't lost to anyone outside the top 100 labeled "bi-polar" in the first place?

I direct your attention to their loss to 14 seed Stephen F. Austin in last years tourney, as well as their losses to both Temple and Oklahoma(at home) this year. Also near losses to Texas and Texas A&M, definitely bi-polar.

You made the point that they only win when they force 16+ TOs. So, why are you highlighting games in which they forced 19 TOs but lost? It seems to contradict your point

That was a rebuttal to your point that WVU won while forcing only 13 & 14 TO's against Kansas and UVA. Your point clearly seeming to be that WVU is capable of winning without forcing a high number of TO's(even though 13 or 14 TO's is still a significant #). My point is that WVU is capable of losing even when they do force a high number of TO's. It contradicts your point, see? WVU clearly depends on TO's and scoring off them to win.

[Bill Marsh]

Westbrook, I'm having a hard time figuring out what your point is. What does "bi-polar" have to do with how dangerous they are, how capable they are of knocking off top team?

The point is simple, they're much more likely to lose to a 12, 13, or 14 seed than they are to beat a 1 or 2 seed. See my point below.

So who are your teams that are threats to knock off a high seed if not a team that already has beaten 3 Top Ten teams - one of them on the road?

And how is a team that hasn't lost to anyone outside the top 100 labeled "bi-polar" in the first place?

I direct your attention to their loss to 14 seed Stephen F. Austin in last years tourney, as well as their losses to both Temple and Oklahoma(at home) this year. Also near losses to Texas and Texas A&M, definitely bi-polar.

What does a loss by last year's team have to do with this year? Different team. Those kinds of upsets happen every year and are rarely predictive of how the next version of that team is going to perform

The Temple loss happened when? Back in November? Sagarin has Oklahoma ranked #65. How are either of these bad losses? Over the course of a long season even top teams have losses like these. Is it your position that Butler is likely to go out in the first round to a low seed? After all, they lost to Indiana State and St John's

And now you're saying that wins are a sign of weakness? Wins? Wins over #59 Texas and #60 TA&M? (Sagarin rankings) Top 100 wins are generally seen as a good thing. That would be like holding Butler''s close wins over DePaul and Seton Hall against them. Except that struggling to beat #165 by a point is far worse than anything that West Virginia has done.

You made the point that they only win when they force 16+ TOs. So, why are you highlighting games in which they forced 19 TOs but lost? It seems to contradict your point

That was a rebuttal to your point that WVU won while forcing only 13 & 14 TO's against Kansas and UVA. Your point clearly seeming to be that WVU is capable of winning without forcing a high number of TO's(even though 13 or 14 TO's is still a significant #). My point is that WVU is capable of losing even when they do force a high number of TO's. It contradicts your point, see? WVU clearly depends on TO's and scoring off them to win.

13 and 14 is not a significant number it TOs. It's a normal number of TOs.

No, I don't see how forcing high TOs in losses refutes anything I said. I wasn't making a point, so I don't know what you're refuting. You're the one who made the point, which I directly quoted. I simply posted without comment the results in 2 games which were inconsistent with your point. I thought the evidence spoke for itself. You're now making a new point, which is that West Virginia is capable of losing even when they force a high number of TOs. Yes, and the sun will rise tomorrow. So? I never said otherwise. Obviously West Virginia is capable of losing games. They've lost 5 times this year. AFAIK, there's only one undefeated team in the country. So, everyone is capable of losing games. That's not exactly news.

I never mentioned TOs in my original post on this subject. You've made it the centerpiece of your argument. You're now doubling down on your point that "WVU clearly depends on TOs and scoring off them to win." Clearly they don't as evidenced by the fact that they beat both Kansas and UVA without forcing an exceptional number of TOs. Obviously their defense is a potent weapon for them and obviously they like to generate offense off their defense. You're saying that like it's a bad thing. How is that a bad thing? It's just their style, but they've show even against a couple of Top Ten teams that they can adapt to game conditions when their primary weapon isn't doing for them what they'd like.

Frankly I didn't think that mentioning that West Virginia is a dangerous team in the tournament would be a controversial statement. They've beaten 3 Top Ten teams and 2 others in Sagarin's Top 25. All 5 of their losses have come in close games that could have gone either way. That kind of resume impresses me. It doesn't impress you. I respect that and I respect the points you've made in support of your argument. There is no right or wrong answer to this. We'll see how it plays out in the tournament.

[Westbrook#36]

We agree to disagree. To be dangerous, a team has to first be in position to be dangerous. I highly doubt WVU will even have the opportunity to knock off a top seed. They're just as likely to lose to a 12, 13, or 14 seed in the 1st round, evidenced by their 1st round exit last year to SFA. Same coach, same philosophy, not much personnel turnover. Even if they get through the opening game, they're going to have a very difficult 2nd round opponent. You're right it's not a controversial thing to say that WVU is a dangerous team, but neither is saying they're just as, if not more likely not to escape the 1st or 2nd round. Peace Bill.

[ArmyVet]

Good news for Big East bubble teams:

Teams from what I call the “fringe major” leagues — the American, the Atlantic 10 and Mountain West — on average have produced nine NCAA bids annually over the past three seasons. They will be fortunate this season to combine for more than five: Cincinnati and SMU from the AAC, some combination of Dayton, VCU and Rhode Island from the A-10, and a single automatic-bid winner from the foundering Mountain West. That puts maybe three spots up for grabs.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basket ... 0zsmcts4jg

[Hall2012]

Good news for Big East bubble teams:

Teams from what I call the “fringe major” leagues — the American, the Atlantic 10 and Mountain West — on average have produced nine NCAA bids annually over the past three seasons. They will be fortunate this season to combine for more than five: Cincinnati and SMU from the AAC, some combination of Dayton, VCU and Rhode Island from the A-10, and a single automatic-bid winner from the foundering Mountain West. That puts maybe three spots up for grabs.

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basket ... 0zsmcts4jg

And VCU is absurdly lucky to still be alive. They should've been effectively eliminated by back to back losses St. Bonaventure and George Washington, but got bailed out in both games with last second fouls.

[stever20]

I think a point to be made is even if VCU had lost both road games, they would not have been eliminated. Not remotely close.

anyways onto today's bracketology. 1st one I saw from CBS:
Nova 1 east vs VT/Okla St rd 2 in Buffalo
Butler 5 west vs Illinois St, Wisconsin in Milwaukee
Xavier 6 west vs RI/Ohio St winner, Louisville in Indianapolis
Marquette 11 MW vs Maryland, Virginia in Greenville
Creighton 3 S vs South Carolina rd 2 in Milwaukee
Seton Hall 10 S vs SMU, Florida St in Orlando

Marquette last team in with a bye so 5th team in the tourney right now. Gigantic game with Georgetown.

Still waiting for ESPN..

[stever20]

And ESPN:
Nova 1 East vs Okla St/Minnesota rd 2 in Buffalo
Marquette 11 E vs St Mary's, Wisconsin in Milwaukee
Butler 5 S vs Nevada, UCLA in Sacramento
Xavier 6 S vs Syracuse, Kentucky in Indianapolis
Creighton 6 MW vs Mid Tenn, Florida St in Orlando
Seton Hall 11 W FF vs Arkansas, Maryland, Virginia in Greenville
Marquette- next to last team with a bye
Seton Hall 3rd team in
Georgetown 7th team out

I don't know if they would do that with Marquette playing in Milwaukee. I kind of doubt it. I would think they would possibly switch Marquette and the FF hole where Seton Hall would get St Mary's and Wisconsin while Marquette would get Maryland, Virginia.