Bracketology '17

[GumbyDamnit!]

Ok so record is important regardless of quality wins for AAC teams but not for a Big10 team. Remember that UW has a better overall record than MN but you said it was all about record vs Top 50 and having a quality OOC SOS and performance.

SMU is 0-2 OOC vs "tourney teams" (in this case the last at large in the tourney USC, and a 7 seed Michigan). Thats it.

That's your argument?

The thing is, the difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota record wise is 1/2 game. a lot different than the gap between SMU/Cincy and Wisconsin- which is 4 games for Cincy and 5 games for SMU. A pretty big difference there.

I personally think Wisconsin should have been a 7.

So SOS means nothing? It's all about wins? Got it. I certainly can't find any flaws in your circular logic. I'll bow out of this thread now that you've clarified.

[stever20]

Wisconsin- SOS of 79 overall, 301 OOC- 25-9 record
SMU- SOS of 78 overall, 174 OOC- 30-4 record
Cincy- SOS of 57 overall, 35 OOC- 29-5 record

so both SMU and Cincy were measured to have a better SOS than Wisconsin AND a much better record.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Wisconsin- SOS of 79 overall, 301 OOC- 25-9 record
SMU- SOS of 78 overall, 174 OOC- 30-4 record
Cincy- SOS of 57 overall, 35 OOC- 29-5 record

so both SMU and Cincy were measured to have a better SOS than Wisconsin AND a much better record.

And that is the joke of the SOS metric. If you really think that SMU played a tougher schedule than UW then the rest of our discussion is meaningless. SMU beat ONE team in the tourney. ONE.

[stever20]

the thing is, you schedule the 5 teams that Wisconsin did, you know what is probably going to happen. It's a good thing the committee doesn't reward teams for scheduling like that. You can complain all you want that the weak teams shouldn't matter- but why not? Why should it be ok to schedule Central Arkansas, Chicago St, Prairie View, Idaho St, and Florida A&M?

And here's the thing. End of the day, you don't put yourself in the position where the committee can do what they did. It's no one's fault but Wisconsin they were in that position. Schedule smarter, and you don't get put in this position.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Wisconsin- SOS of 79 overall, 301 OOC- 25-9 record
SMU- SOS of 78 overall, 174 OOC- 30-4 record
Cincy- SOS of 57 overall, 35 OOC- 29-5 record

so both SMU and Cincy were measured to have a better SOS than Wisconsin AND a much better record.

Games vs Top 100 teams:
UW - 22
SMU - 13

SOS:
UW - 79
SMU - 78

You tried to tell me that games vs the better teams matter more than those vs lesser teams. I'd be happy to quote you on that from this thread if you'd like. I happen to agree with that sentiment. I am showing you data that shows unequivocally that one team challenged itself more than the other yet you continue to try to peddle the opposite. It does not matter if you beat team 250 or team 325. They both stink. But you will not concede that 9 more games vs good opponents is the better schedule just because of a couple RPI poison teams played in other games.

THIS IS MY ENTIRE POINT. The SOS metric is completely flawed. Just stop already. You are embarrassing yourself.

[stever20]

my point is really simple though. Did they just start using this SOS metric this year? No they didn't. Wisconsin has no one to blame but themselves for scheduling the way they did. They knew how they were going to get measured....

[GumbyDamnit!]

my point is really simple though. Did they just start using this SOS metric this year? No they didn't. Wisconsin has no one to blame but themselves for scheduling the way they did. They knew how they were going to get measured....

But isn't that the point? It's a moving target and each selection committee views different metrics subjectively. If it were a matter of UW not following simply laid out guidelines of how teams are picked and seeded, then they would absolutely follow them. But, by your logic, the real reason UW is an 8 is because of their 5 WINS vs RPI slop alone. Replace those with teams in the high 100's and 200's and Viola! 6 seed. That's crazy.

As the committee seems to be all over the place with their metric of choice, so are you. First you made mention of the importance of # of wins when comparing UW to the AAC teams. Then you moved the goalposts to Top 50 wins when comparing vs MN and then it became about road wins when comparing vs MD. All the while ignoring scheduling and wins vs the Top 100 for some reason although to most others it is a commonly cited metric come March.

If the metric is flawed (as has been my only point in this entire thread) then why is it used? I clearly showed that Wisconsin challenged itself more than SMU but you're falling into the same trap that the committee did. SOS is a F'ing, no-doubt-about-it, poor indication of true scheduling difficulty. Period. If I were creating a SOS metric I would throw every game vs 200 and above (maybe even 150) into one big bucket and give it an arbitrary strength factor. All the games vs decent to good teams are what is important. Bowling Green and Chicago St at home are both wins for a tourney team. Rewarding one over the other is pointless.

[stever20]

my point is really simple though. Did they just start using this SOS metric this year? No they didn't. Wisconsin has no one to blame but themselves for scheduling the way they did. They knew how they were going to get measured....

But isn't that the point? It's a moving target and each selection committee views different metrics subjectively. If it were a matter of UW not following simply laid out guidelines of how teams are picked and seeded, then they would absolutely follow them. But, by your logic, the real reason UW is an 8 is because of their 5 WINS vs RPI slop alone. Replace those with teams in the high 100's and 200's and Viola! 6 seed. That's crazy.

As the committee seems to be all over the place with their metric of choice, so are you. First you made mention of the importance of # of wins when comparing UW to the AAC teams. Then you moved the goalposts to Top 50 wins when comparing vs MN and then it became about road wins when comparing vs MD. All the while ignoring scheduling and wins vs the Top 100 for some reason although to most others it is a commonly cited metric come March.

If the metric is flawed (as has been my only point in this entire thread) then why is it used? I clearly showed that Wisconsin challenged itself more than SMU but you're falling into the same trap that the committee did. SOS is a F'ing, no-doubt-about-it, poor indication of true scheduling difficulty. Period. If I were creating a SOS metric I would throw every game vs 200 and above (maybe even 150) into one big bucket and give it an arbitrary strength factor. All the games vs decent to good teams are what is important. Bowling Green and Chicago St at home are both wins for a tourney team. Rewarding one over the other is pointless.

It may be a moving target- but in general if you have an OOC schedule measured as low as what Wisconsin had, you ARE going to get dinged. We've seen that repeatedly. If they had scheduled smarter, they would have had a 6 or 7 seed. There may be other focuses yearly, but end of the day, if you have a crap OOC schedule rating, you will get dinged.

Top 100 really has been used less and less. Really, it's just losses vs teams outside top 100 that hurt. 3 big things. Top 25 wins, top 50 wins, and sub 100 losses.

[Savannah Jay]

my point is really simple though. Did they just start using this SOS metric this year? No they didn't. Wisconsin has no one to blame but themselves for scheduling the way they did. They knew how they were going to get measured....

But isn't that the point? It's a moving target and each selection committee views different metrics subjectively. If it were a matter of UW not following simply laid out guidelines of how teams are picked and seeded, then they would absolutely follow them. But, by your logic, the real reason UW is an 8 is because of their 5 WINS vs RPI slop alone. Replace those with teams in the high 100's and 200's and Viola! 6 seed. That's crazy.

As the committee seems to be all over the place with their metric of choice, so are you. First you made mention of the importance of # of wins when comparing UW to the AAC teams. Then you moved the goalposts to Top 50 wins when comparing vs MN and then it became about road wins when comparing vs MD. All the while ignoring scheduling and wins vs the Top 100 for some reason although to most others it is a commonly cited metric come March.

If the metric is flawed (as has been my only point in this entire thread) then why is it used? I clearly showed that Wisconsin challenged itself more than SMU but you're falling into the same trap that the committee did. SOS is a F'ing, no-doubt-about-it, poor indication of true scheduling difficulty. Period. If I were creating a SOS metric I would throw every game vs 200 and above (maybe even 150) into one big bucket and give it an arbitrary strength factor. All the games vs decent to good teams are what is important. Bowling Green and Chicago St at home are both wins for a tourney team. Rewarding one over the other is pointless.

Vegas knows all...Wisconsin, as an 8 seed, is a 5.5 point favorite against 9 seed (by 3.5 points, the largest favorite of any of the 8 seeds). Minnesota, a 5 seed, is a 1.5 UNDERDOG to the 12 seed. swap those around (Minny the 8, Wisky the 5) and i'd be good.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Vegas knows all...Wisconsin, as an 8 seed, is a 5.5 point favorite against 9 seed (by 3.5 points, the largest favorite of any of the 8 seeds). Minnesota, a 5 seed, is a 1.5 UNDERDOG to the 12 seed. swap those around (Minny the 8, Wisky the 5) and i'd be good.

I know that part of a line is about what they believe the public will do, but Vegas would probably be a better selection committee than the Selection Committee if you wanted to know how to rank teams from 1-68. Now that would be interesting...