Bracket matrix

[BoulderSooner]

conf record is not a criteria for tourney selection

 

[TINY]

conf record is not a criteria for tourney selection

The ouhoops message board committee has it as the most important metric, though.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

conf record is not a criteria for tourney selection

It should be.

And I guarantee it still is even if they say it isn't.

 

[stormspencer]

If anyone is interested in the NCAA Team Sheets, here is the link to the current set.

https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/NET Team Sheets - Games through Feb. 18, 2019.pdf

FWIW, OU is 3-8 in Q1 games and 6-2 in Q2 games.
9-10 in combined Q1 and Q2 games.

9 total Q1 and Q2 wins is actually high.

7-0 vs. Q3 teams (WVU in Norman will be a Q3 game)
And as been pointed out previously, OU is the only NCAA team without a Q4 game.

So, unless OU loses to WVU at home, the Sooners won't have a single bad loss on their record.

Awesome....thanks for posting this link. I've been looking for a site that lists up-to-date quad wins.

 

[WichitaSooner]

It should be.

And I guarantee it still is even if they say it isn't.

What possible reason would the NCAA have for lying about this? If conference record still was a factor, why would they seek to cover that up?

 

[stormspencer]

NCAA Net 38th
Kenpom 36th
Sagarin 30th
BPI 37th
Realtime RPI 31st

There is a link to a site within bracket matrix run by Bart Torvik:
http://barttorvik.com/tranketology.php

He uses a small composite (similar to Massey ratings) to formulate his tournament teams. Plus, he has a ton of other stats (similar Kenpom) that can get really granular on components of teams.

 

[skyvue]

And I guarantee it still is even if they say it isn't.

Is that money-back guarantee?

Why in the world would they deny it if it is one of the criteria?

As was pointed out above, if conference record were given some kind of special status, good teams from lesser conferences would unduly benefit. To counter that, you'd have to have power ratings for the various conferences -- strength of schedule, in other words. Which is already a criteria, which is why there's no reason to single out the conference record -- strength of schedule covers the whole season, as it should. If you play a tough non-conference schedule and do well, those wins should -- and do -- absolutely matter as much as conference wins.

 

[stormspencer]

TCU didn't do themselves any favors tonight. They have a very tough closing schedule, if they keep going this direction they could find themselves on the wrong side. Things change fast, a week ago they were coming off a road win over ISU and were a minute away from knocking off KU and now they are on a three-game skid.

Yep....without Noi, they simply aren't the same team. He gives them a different dimension on offense. The win @ISU was great and they also have home wins over Baylor and Texas. Other than that, their resume is pretty hollow. They appear to be similar to a team like Texas in their "schizophrenic" nature. You don't know what you're going to get from them night in and night out.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

What possible reason would the NCAA have for lying about this? If conference record still was a factor, why would they seek to cover that up?

The committee is made up of humans. Whether it is supposed to matter or not, they will conference record to help evaluate and seed teams.

For example.

If two teams are in the same conference and have the same record overall, I bet they would rank the team with the higher conference record over the team that has a better out of conference record

 

[WichitaSooner]

The committee is made up of humans. Whether it is supposed to matter or not, they will conference record to help evaluate and seed teams.

For example.

If two teams are in the same conference and have the same record overall, I bet they would rank the team with the higher conference record over the team that has a better out of conference record

That would be true if they played a very similar noncon schedule, perhaps, but not otherwise. Notice that KU was a three seed in the initial reveal last weekend and KSU wasn't in the top 16 even though they had a two-game lead in the league at the time. It's also why OU, for a long time, was projected ahead of two or three teams who were multiple games ahead of us in the league. That is no longer true because we are now a mile behind some of those teams, but if, for example, we end up only a game behind TCU in the conference, our noncon will carry the day.

 

[Ghost of Gar Heard]

What possible reason would the NCAA have for lying about this? If conference record still was a factor, why would they seek to cover that up?

Conference record is, quite obviously, not a factor. If it was teams w 7 wins in P5 conferences wouldn't make the tournament. The fact that OU made the tourney last season -- which occurred bc of quality non-conference wins and an extremely difficult schedule -- shows that conference record is not a factor.

The conference's difficulty is a factor. Conference record isn't, despite how many people on this board want to find ways to exclude OU from the tournament.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Conference record is, quite obviously, not a factor. If it was teams w 7 wins in P5 conferences wouldn't make the tournament. The fact that OU made the tourney last season -- which occurred bc of quality non-conference wins and an extremely difficult schedule -- shows that conference record is not a factor.

The conference's difficulty is a factor. Conference record isn't, despite how many people on this board want to find ways to exclude OU from the tournament.

Can someone point to me where the NCAA says that conference record is not something they look at?

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-10-19/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness

Maybe I'm missing something, but this page makes it look like they leave selecting teams a pretty individual task where people can use whatever stats and tools they want.

 

[152219]

Can someone point to me where the NCAA says that conference record is not something they look at?

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-10-19/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness

Maybe I'm missing something, but this page makes it look like they leave selecting teams a pretty individual task where people can use whatever stats and tools they want.

And here is the list of stats and tools.

Among the resources available to the committee are an extensive season-long evaluation of teams through watching games, conference monitoring calls and NABC regional advisory rankings; complete box scores and results, head-to-head results, results versus common opponents, imbalanced conference schedules and results, overall and non-conference strength of schedule, the quality of wins and losses, road record, player and coach availability and various computer metrics. Each of the 10 committee members uses these various resources to form their own opinions, resulting in the committee’s consensus position on teams’ selection and seeding.