Here's an excellent look at the prospective tournament field/bubble

Donate To GopherHole

Thanks Selection. I'm curious. As our homespun bracketologist, do you see the NET making it more difficult for you guys to pick the field than in the past? This guy's list seems pretty reasonable to me. Others seem way off. Do you have any sense of the relative weight of NET in committee's decisions?

I know it's still early, but the bubble seems to be getting softer every year and the committee looks like they will need to take unworthy teams just to complete the field, rather than suffering the angst of keeping a good team out. I think it was somebody on CBS Sports Channel who thought the crappy PAC 12 and A-10 might open up some spots for mid-majors, but so far I'm not seeing that reflected in the NET.
 

Sorry to hijack the question for SS, but I'm curious about how much things change.

I would have to think this year the committee will be comparing teams using old methods and new to make sure they don't miss something from a team that would usually be in and now isn't with new criteria. (Say a high RPI team with low NET).

If there are any high RPI teams in that situation, I'm sure the committee will go in-depth in comparing the resumes as to why the NET for one team is higher while the higher RPI team with lower NET shows a lower NET. (So they can at least talk about it when asked).

As to what decision they'll make using that data I think will be anyone's guess.

For people who specialize in doing brackets, this year will be a curveball, but majority of the teams should fall the same. Most bracket people seem to hit on 60+ of the 68 or so. Where the best bracket makers are judged is on getting the accurate seedings.

It will be interesting to see if the seeding closely follows NET/KenPom. That's the best way to tell which way the committee ranks.
In past, the top 25 were closely ranked with the AP and coaches polls.
 

Face The Facts said:
Sorry to hijack the question for SS, but I'm curious about how much things change.

I would have to think this year the committee will be comparing teams using old methods and new to make sure they don't miss something from a team that would usually be in and now isn't with new criteria. (Say a high RPI team with low NET).

If there are any high RPI teams in that situation, I'm sure the committee will go in-depth in comparing the resumes as to why the NET for one team is higher while the higher RPI team with lower NET shows a lower NET. (So they can at least talk about it when asked).

As to what decision they'll make using that data I think will be anyone's guess.

For people who specialize in doing brackets, this year will be a curveball, but majority of the teams should fall the same. Most bracket people seem to hit on 60+ of the 68 or so. Where the best bracket makers are judged is on getting the accurate seedings.

It will be interesting to see if the seeding closely follows NET/KenPom. That's the best way to tell which way the committee ranks.
In past, the top 25 were closely ranked with the AP and coaches polls.
Click to expand...

According to the NCAA rpi will not be factored in any capacity. They have a far better grasp of effective metrics. Not perfect but better. I would have the Gophers as a 7-8 seed right now. They are held down right now by two bad losses .
 

Some people have the Gophers in safely, some have them on the outside looking in. We better keep winning to remove any doubt.
 


Holy Man said:
Thanks Selection. I'm curious. As our homespun bracketologist, do you see the NET making it more difficult for you guys to pick the field than in the past? This guy's list seems pretty reasonable to me. Others seem way off. Do you have any sense of the relative weight of NET in committee's decisions?

I know it's still early, but the bubble seems to be getting softer every year and the committee looks like they will need to take unworthy teams just to complete the field, rather than suffering the angst of keeping a good team out. I think it was somebody on CBS Sports Channel who thought the crappy PAC 12 and A-10 might open up some spots for mid-majors, but so far I'm not seeing that reflected in the NET.
Click to expand...

Because it’s the first year with the NET, I’m expecting this to be a difficult year to match the committee’s at-larges. There’s no history to work with.

My general feeling is they’ll select teams based more on resume (as they should), but once selected seed them more by NET. That’s just a guess.
 
Last edited:

SelectionSunday said:
Because it’s the first year with the NET, I’m expecting this to be a difficult year to match the committee’s at-larges. There’s no history to work with.

My general feeling is they’ll select teams based more on resume, but once selected seed them more by NET. That’s just a guess.
Click to expand...
That's the way it should be and my guess as well
 

Lakers612 said:
That's the way it should be and my guess as well
Click to expand...

Disagree.
If resume is how they are going to separate team 48 from team 49 why would they switch to a different way of calculating team 16 from team 17?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom