Author Topic: The Official Bracketology Thread  (Read 367137 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kslim

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 10531
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #750 on: March 03, 2014, 11:05:08 AM »
the majority of the talking heads want to throw out charlotte and northern colorado so i hope that happens, i have us as a 8 with a win tonight and saturday giving us a 6. the funny thing is we will have a great chance against another top 25 rpi win next week and there are not too many teams that can boast 7 wins against the top 25 in a season historically

stats come from twitter fwiw

Offline Panjandrum

  • 5 o'clock Shadow Enthusiast
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 11221
  • Amateur magician and certified locksmith.
    • View Profile
    • Bring on the Cats [An SB Nation Blog]
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #751 on: March 03, 2014, 11:26:08 AM »
Palm has us as a #9 (on the bubble  :dubious:) vs. Pitt in STL.  Wichita st. as the 1

Lunardi the same just swapping 8-9 with Pitt

Jerry Palm is not very good at his job and has never been (for that matter).

Offline AbeFroman

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 8330
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #752 on: March 03, 2014, 11:43:04 AM »

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #753 on: March 03, 2014, 11:43:43 AM »
the majority of the talking heads want to throw out charlotte and northern colorado so i hope that happens, i have us as a 8 with a win tonight and saturday giving us a 6. the funny thing is we will have a great chance against another top 25 rpi win next week and there are not too many teams that can boast 7 wins against the top 25 in a season historically

stats come from twitter fwiw

I've come to the conclusion that there is only so much you can throw out. Most rational people can clearly see we are a better team than the one that lost to those teams. In that way those games can be overlooked.

However they still effect our ratings to an extent and we still have 9 losses. We aren't looked at as a 20-7 team as if those games didn't happen. And when comparing teams that comes into play. Throw in our poor road record and our high number of quality wins (which is really good) unfortunately carries less weight than it should.

At the end of the day those two losses will cost us at least one seed line and maybe two, even if everyone wants to say they are thrown out.

Offline #LIFE

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1792
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #754 on: March 03, 2014, 11:47:10 AM »
I think it's a combination of them and the road problems.  Having success away from home would have erased those early loss concerns imo.  If we pull out those 2 W's @Texas and @Baylor I think we're talking about the 4/5 line right now.

Offline kslim

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 10531
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #755 on: March 03, 2014, 11:49:27 AM »
the majority of the talking heads want to throw out charlotte and northern colorado so i hope that happens, i have us as a 8 with a win tonight and saturday giving us a 6. the funny thing is we will have a great chance against another top 25 rpi win next week and there are not too many teams that can boast 7 wins against the top 25 in a season historically

stats come from twitter fwiw

I've come to the conclusion that there is only so much you can throw out. Most rational people can clearly see we are a better team than the one that lost to those teams. In that way those games can be overlooked.

However they still effect our ratings to an extent and we still have 9 losses. We aren't looked at as a 20-7 team as if those games didn't happen. And when comparing teams that comes into play. Throw in our poor road record and our high number of quality wins (which is really good) unfortunately carries less weight than it should.

At the end of the day those two losses will cost us at least one seed line and maybe two, even if everyone wants to say they are thrown out.
im obviously no bracketologist _fence but i would think our road woes against even/sub par teams would be more of a talking point than losing two early season games with two major (i know jevon blah blah) contributors out. I was listening to fox sports radio this weekend during the VCU game and they were gushing GW and that was early in the year as well. I mean kstate is always a wild card in these things because people forget about us but that early season losses/wins against the zags and GW should balance each other out. they will look at who we have beat since december and we will get a pretty damn good seed.

Offline TownieCat

  • Fattyfest Champion
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 6993
  • I have no rhythm.
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #756 on: March 03, 2014, 12:31:44 PM »
If we had beaten UNC our RPI would be at least 8-10 spots better than it is right now.  :th_twocents:

Offline scottwildcat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16430
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #757 on: March 03, 2014, 12:34:51 PM »
I think it's a combination of them and the road problems.  Having success away from home would have erased those early loss concerns imo.  If we pull out those 2 W's @Texas and @Baylor I think we're talking about the 4/5 line right now.

34/45 if we win both of those. imo

Offline PowercatPat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4427
  • #BID
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #758 on: March 03, 2014, 12:36:33 PM »

Offline 'taterblast

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16725
  • Hi, I'm James McGill.
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #759 on: March 03, 2014, 02:13:29 PM »
i'd party pretty hard for a 7 seed.

Offline scottwildcat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16430
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #760 on: March 03, 2014, 02:19:32 PM »

i'd party pretty hard for a 7 seed.

Why settle for a 7 when a 6 is available?

Offline 'taterblast

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16725
  • Hi, I'm James McGill.
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #761 on: March 03, 2014, 02:20:49 PM »

i'd party pretty hard for a 7 seed.

Why settle for a 7 when a 6 is available?

my face would fall off from partying if we got a 6 seed

Offline kslim

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 10531
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #762 on: March 03, 2014, 02:27:22 PM »

i'd party pretty hard for a 7 seed.

Why settle for a 7 when a 6 is available?

my face would fall off from partying if we got a 6 seed
tournament looks pretty pud city this year after the first 6-8 overall seeds a 5/6/7 seed is huge this year

Offline Powercat Posse

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4585
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #763 on: March 03, 2014, 03:08:23 PM »
Kstate's 2 negative things on our resume are the 1)the road record and 2)losses to NC/Charlotte.   Gip played vs Char but didn't vs NC.  Like FAN said, we wont be viewed as being a 20-7 team but the NC loss will be viewed as a "loss" and not a "bad loss" since we were not at full strength.   
 

We did not play a true road game in the non con.   We played 5 neutral court games.   So most teams have more road games than we do.  That said, 2-6 is not a good road record.    Iowa is 4-5, Ohio St 5-5, Texas 5-5, UK is 5-4.  Those are 4 teams in good conf who are between 6 and 8 on the seed line.   It helps that we won 3 games on neutral courts.  However this is still gonna cost us a few spots on the "S-curve ranking system"   If we lose tonight, win on Sat we will be 21-10.   If we were 21-10 and had a 4-5 road record..... I would guess our S-curve ranking would probably be 4-5 spots higher (So instead of being #28 we might be #23-24 in the pecking order)

Charlotte was a bad loss.  Having 1 bad loss is not terrible. Of course 0 is better.   Of the 11 other teams I have in the 5-7 seed line.... 9 of those 11 have a loss to a team 100 or higher in the RPI (Ohio St and Umass have 2 losses).   Texas, Lville have no bad losses


The good news for us is, good wins are more important to the committee than a bad loss.   Back in 2004, that was the case, but good wins are more valued today than they use to be.     Being in the #1 conference also is a very good thing. 
1) 2 wins in the Non-Con over top 30 teams, both of which will be in the NCAA touney
2) A 5-5 record vs top 50 teams in the conference.    Would be 6-6 if we split these last 2 games
3) 10-6 current record in the #1 rated conf.   Everyone knows Big 12 is good and 7 of the 10 are likely in the field as of today
4) So 12 of our 18 conf games appear to be against top 50 teams who are tourney bound.   Big 10 is 2nd best conf.  Iowa will play 10 of 18 and Ohio St will play 8 of 18 games vs conf teams who are top 50 (and in the tourney right now)

All 4 of those things are real postives for our resume.   If we were in a battle for a 3 or 4 seed like last year, all but the 10-6 conf record would have been nice positives to have.   But hey.... we are not fighting for a 3/4 seed.   We are fighting to get to a 6/7 seed. 
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 07:00:32 PM by Powercat Posse »

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 41956
  • Pfizer PLUS Moderna and now Pfizer Bivalent
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #764 on: March 03, 2014, 03:23:37 PM »
I hope the only data the committee has regarding teams being less than full strength during losses is from our losses to north colorado and charlotte.

Offline Pete

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29151
  • T-Shirt KSU Football Fan, Loves Lawrence and KU
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #765 on: March 03, 2014, 03:40:58 PM »
I don't think the committee will consider any circumstances about our NC and UNC losses except that they indeed did happen.  Zero consideration will be given to not having Gip for NC, for example.  I'd be shocked if anyone in the room even so much as mentioned his name.


Offline Pete

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29151
  • T-Shirt KSU Football Fan, Loves Lawrence and KU
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #766 on: March 03, 2014, 03:42:36 PM »

I hope the only data the committee has regarding teams being less than full strength during losses is from our losses to north colorado and charlotte.

Yes, this would be ideal.

Offline captaincrap

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 759
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #767 on: March 03, 2014, 05:01:16 PM »
I hope the only data the committee has regarding teams being less than full strength during losses is from our losses to north colorado and charlotte.

You have your wish. As a general rule, the committee has said "missing players" is taken into consideration for losses not wins. This was brought up recently when Oregon beat UCLA who was missing two starters due to suspension. Oregon gets full credit for the win, UCLA will have the missing players taken into consideration for seeding.

The committee focuses on the team you have available to play in the tourney, and how that roster performed. That's why losses when not at full strength get treated differently, because that's not the team you're fielding currently. It's why losing a player before the tourney hurts seeding, because the team that built the resume isn't the same one playing in the tourney.

Offline AndrewVonLintel

  • Purple Prince Thrice Crowned in MMXIII
  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 475
  • Purple Get Ready To Roll!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #768 on: March 03, 2014, 06:08:28 PM »
In general I believe that the bracketologists are not very good at their jobs.  Their brackets will change a lot in the next two weeks. In the last couple of days you will see Lunardi's bracket magically change as he starts getting insider info from friends inside the committee.

To do a valid bracket prediction you have to set up projections for every team in the bracket.

With three straight losses, Kansas State could be sitting on a 11 or 12 seed. 

With 5 straight wins, Kansas State could be sitting on a 4 Seed maybe even a 3.

I am of the opinion we will go 2-2 and be a 6 seed. Our RPI should look good as we should get another top 50 RPI win and I don't think we will have another opportunity at a bad loss.

One thing that would really help us is to look good tonight on Big Monday. This will be a highly watched game by the committee as it is the only thing on and both teams have weird resumes. 

OSU without Smart for three games (losses)

KSU road vs. home record.

Hire Brad Underwood Now!!!!!!

Offline Trim

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 41956
  • Pfizer PLUS Moderna and now Pfizer Bivalent
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #769 on: March 03, 2014, 06:29:10 PM »
I hope the only data the committee has regarding teams being less than full strength during losses is from our losses to north colorado and charlotte.

You have your wish. As a general rule, the committee has said "missing players" is taken into consideration for losses not wins. This was brought up recently when Oregon beat UCLA who was missing two starters due to suspension. Oregon gets full credit for the win, UCLA will have the missing players taken into consideration for seeding.

The committee focuses on the team you have available to play in the tourney, and how that roster performed. That's why losses when not at full strength get treated differently, because that's not the team you're fielding currently. It's why losing a player before the tourney hurts seeding, because the team that built the resume isn't the same one playing in the tourney.


Re-read my post but put emphasis on the word "our."

Offline Powercat Posse

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4585
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #770 on: March 03, 2014, 06:44:02 PM »
In general I believe that the bracketologists are not very good at their jobs.  Their brackets will change a lot in the next two weeks. In the last couple of days you will see Lunardi's bracket magically change as he starts getting insider info from friends inside the committee.

To do a valid bracket prediction you have to set up projections for every team in the bracket.

With three straight losses, Kansas State could be sitting on a 11 or 12 seed. 

With 5 straight wins, Kansas State could be sitting on a 4 Seed maybe even a 3.

I am of the opinion we will go 2-2 and be a 6 seed. Our RPI should look good as we should get another top 50 RPI win and I don't think we will have another opportunity at a bad loss.

One thing that would really help us is to look good tonight on Big Monday. This will be a highly watched game by the committee as it is the only thing on and both teams have weird resumes. 

OSU without Smart for three games (losses)

KSU road vs. home record.

Lunardi and Palm are really the only 2 that get national pub.   I have said for several years that Palm is way worse than Joe.  He will just have 4-5 teams that make me go  :dunno:.    Earlier this year, he had some team (cant remember who) jump up 6 spots in seeding from his previous week.  That right there tells me enough

There is always 1-3 teams that end up getting a better seed that most experts predict and 1-3 teams that get a worse seed.  Oregon getting a 12 was very shocking last year.  Vcu got a 5 seed and no one had them that high. 

Right now, I think the team who is 23 on the S curve is not far away from team 30.  Ksu going into tonight should be  in there somewhere (between 23-30)   But I think the separation between the teams who are 24-25 and the teams that are 15-16 is a pretty good margain.   Likwise I don't think Ksu is really close to overall #37, which would be the best 10 seed

* They don't use an S curve anymore but they do rank the the teams.... so I call it the S curve rank

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #771 on: March 03, 2014, 09:18:49 PM »
KU as a 1 seed with 7 losses and us as a 9 seed with 9 losses doesn't reconcile with me. Aren't most of our "good wins" the same?
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Nick Florences Beard

  • Low BBIQ, Med FBIQ
  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 262
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #772 on: March 03, 2014, 10:20:04 PM »
The fix is in FSD.
Not very good at this BBS'in thing.

Offline Boondock Poonhound

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 434
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #773 on: March 03, 2014, 10:22:22 PM »
firmly planted our fouling asses on the 8/9 line tonight. :emawkid:
"He's in Shape !"

Offline scottwildcat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 16430
    • View Profile
Re: The Official Bracketology Thread
« Reply #774 on: March 03, 2014, 10:29:41 PM »
Give me the 'ta state bracket or bust.