I think 5 teams for two spots
Purdue/Nebraska loser
Gonzaga
Virginia
Alabama
Kansas
((maybe Arkansas/Vandy with an SEC title but the committee consistently shows they think that game donât matter))
I think I agree that we should be cheering for a Nebraska blowout of Purdue, and against Kansas/Bama. Obviously a moot point if we donât win.
My updated bracket
Itâs more important to me that we move from a 4 to a 3 than a 3 to a 2. Avoids the 1 seeds this year.
So I agree - root against Purdue
Thanks for sharing! Why so high on Gonzaga?
I think youre right that Vandy could but Arkansas is further behind and plays Oklahoma today so Iâm not sure they could make up enough ground
Is there any benefit to being the top 4 seed vs the worst 3 seed? Obviously 3 seed is better regardless but do the âtopâ seeds have get favorable treatment relating to location and opponent?
Well I think most all bracketologists have them as a 3 seed.
30-3 record, NET of 6, 7-2 vs Q1, 11-2 vs Q1/Q2, Good performance metrics BT=11, KenPom=11, NC SOS of 31, won their reg season and conf tournament. Seems like the right spot.
WAB of 15, which will likely drops as the week goes on
Fair enough! I know itâs splitting hairs but most sites seem to have them at 11 or 12 overall rather than 10. Weâll see whether the rumored emphasis on WAB and resume metrics comes to pass. Iâm also curious to see the emphasis on NCSOSâI feel like that used to be a thing but Iâm hoping itâs deemphasized now for UVAâs sake.
WAB is MOST important in getting the field, predictive metrics more important with seeding. A combo of both is the best approach
No real difference in treatment unless the last 3 seed takes a regional that you would have wanted as the top 4 seed. Outside of that and playing the 1 seed earlier, not really a difference but can matter for fanbase and distance to travel.
Theyâre ordering Moons Over My Hammy (Ohio)
Iâm with @haney in terms of seeding. Unless we win the ACC tournament, weâre stuck as a 4-seed. Some of the bizarro bracketologists seem to think âquality lossesâ (even if they are mostly blowouts) against top 15 teams should count for more than non-quality wins against teams ranked 16 or below.
The Lunardis of this world canât get past that we lost to the only top 15 team we played. Beating Duke, or even Clemson, in the final would be the only way to get these typesâ attention.
Just for context on the cutline. Four of these teams can get in (IMO its NC State, VCU, SMU, Texas)
I recall seeing a stat that last year WAB was more correlated with S rank than NET. Could be misremmebering though
St Louis down by quit a bit early.
VCU, NC State, SMU. Texas, Oklahoma, or Auburn. Pretty easy bubble honestly. Just comes down to who the want as the last SEC team. Unless we get multiple more bid thieves
Last year the best correlation was Torvik at 3.48, 2nd best WAB 3.52. A combo of both of those 2 was the best last year
Could SLU fall out of the field with a loss today? They really got lucky with the bubble this year.
Last year, feel like the committee said VCU wouldnât havenât gotten in had they not won their tourney. Their metrics were better than SLU but resume wasnât quite as good (down A-10 didnât help).
