New Bracketology

[Mac]

http://espn.go.com/ncw/bracketology

OU now a 7seed, we would have to face #seed Tennessee in Knoxville, I think we could beat Tennessee, but I'm not sure if we could in Knoxville...

 

[sybarite]

OK. I'm fed up with this idiot. Let's look at his brackets.

His seeds:
1. Notre Dame, Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina
Sure enough, these are 1, 4, 5, and 6.
2. Florida State, Baylor, Oregon State, Tennessee
OK, these are 11, 3, 10, 2
3. Duke, Louisville, Iowa, Arizona State
OK, these are 13, 8, 7, and 17
4. Kentucky, Mississippi State, California, North Carolina
Wow! 9, 26, 24, 12

5. Washington, Stanford, George Washington, and Syracuse
Again. 30, 20,,18, 29
6. Ohio State, Texas A&M, Princeton, Rutgers
These are 35, 28, 16, 42

OU is ranked #21 in the rpi. Yet, he has 7 lower ranked teams ahead of us in his seeding. Of those, Mississippi State and California have played pathetic schedules. Cal lost to Kansas. We did beat them once. We beat Washington. George Washington is a joke, and they are above us. Syracuse ha lost to every decent team they have played. Ohio State? Get serious. A&M just lost two in a row, one at home to Missouri. Neither team was ranked. Rutgers, #42. That's about right. What is Creme trying to pull?

It is interesting that Baylor loses two and falls one place. Duke loses three in a row, wins at home by one point, and doesn't fall at all. Kentucky goes down twice, and is raised by a win over South Carolina in Lexington. Does any of this make sense? We really got penalized for losing to KU, a lot more than we profited by beating Baylor.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

http://espn.go.com/ncw/bracketology

OU now a 7seed, we would have to face #seed Tennessee in Knoxville, I think we could beat Tennessee, but I'm not sure if we could in Knoxville...

You have to ignore the actual seedings by CC. He has under seeded OU 7 of the last 8 years. He actually dropped us (we were a 6 seed last week) in the week we beat Baylor - even though he had suggested we had no chance to do so. In his analysis he said the Kansas loss was far more important than the Baylor win. Then he went on to say the 2 Baylor losses had no impact on them except that they would not get a #1 seed - which he already said they did not deserve prior to the game.

And you certainly have to ignore the site placements. I would be really surprised if the committee failed to send any area teams to OKC (I'm not counting TCU - they can't even get fans to their home games). The NCAA works hard at assisting in attendance. They do not want empty arenas.

In addition, he really does not like the Big-12. Almost every article he writes disses the conference and mentions - in so many words - that the folks doing the RPI numbers have no idea how to do math and that is why the BIG-12 has good RPI numbers. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

His analysis reminds me of the episode on Fox news when Megan Kelly had to take Karl Rove down to the analyst's room to explain how they can use math to predict outcomes on election day. CC has absolutely no idea about how to analyze numbers to draw conclusions. For example he always argues that strength of schedule should not be considered when comparing teams. He does admit that the committee will always use it - but he thinks mostly only a team's record needs to be looked at. Sure that is easier if you are mathematically illiterate, but it is also really, really DUMB!

 

[womenssports]

You have to ignore the actual seedings by CC. He has under seeded OU 7 of the last 8 years. He actually dropped us (we were a 6 seed last week) in the week we beat Baylor - even though he had suggested we had no chance to do so. In his analysis he said the Kansas loss was far more important than the Baylor win. Then he went on to say the 2 Baylor losses had no impact on them except that they would not get a #1 seed - which he already said they did not deserve prior to the game.

And you certainly have to ignore the site placements. I would be really surprised if the committee failed to send any area teams to OKC (I'm not counting TCU - they can't even get fans to their home games). The NCAA works hard at assisting in attendance. They do not want empty arenas.

In addition, he really does not like the Big-12. Almost every article he writes disses the conference and mentions - in so many words - that the folks doing the RPI numbers have no idea how to do math and that is why the BIG-12 has good RPI numbers. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

His analysis reminds me of the episode on Fox news when Megan Kelly had to take Karl Rove down to the analyst's room to explain how they can use math to predict outcomes on election day. CC has absolutely no idea about how to analyze numbers to draw conclusions. For example he always argues that strength of schedule should not be considered when comparing teams. He does admit that the committee will always use it - but he thinks mostly only a team's record needs to be looked at. Sure that is easier if you are mathematically illiterate, but it is also really, really DUMB!

I am not disagreeing with you on the bolded statement. I have not followed him nor his brackets to the degree that I would have any clue. I bolded it because I was looking at comments on his bracket, (believe it was the one before his latest), and someone was commenting upon how he favors the Big 12. People just are homers or only pay attention to their teams or conference, so their statements aren't valid. This remark is not directed towards you, but just posters regarding sports in general. You may be spot on. It will be interesting to see our seed. I think we get a 6 if we beat OSU and have a good conference tournament. I am not sure how much the tournaments play into it but I remember in the past that a conference tournament win was probably what got us into the NCAA tournament.

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

I am not interested in getting into an argument with you about CC. But the only reader comment I saw that discussed the Big-12 is this:

"He comes right out and says the Big 12 is weak but has 7 teams going from there."

So pointing out his view on the Big-12 but saying he still has too many of the teams in. It is true that several are in, but they are very low seeds. I think he had to do that because he wants to give Texas too high a seed (almost equal to OU???) and is thus forced to put in the teams who have better conference records or have beaten Texas.

Here is a recent comment he actually made about the Big-12:

"A young Oklahoma team got off to a rough start to the season, then rebounded nicely to get back into the NCAA tournament mix. But the Sooners have ......... just one top-50 win outside the Big 12 (whose status as the top RPI conference is actually the biggest head-scratcher in this entire process) just isn't top-five seed material."

 

[SoonerNorm]

I don't think the Big 12 is all that strong but, no one will really know until 1) we see how many conference teams get in and 2) how well the Big 12 does in the NCAA tourney.

 

[womenssports]

I am not interested in getting into an argument with you about CC. But the only reader comment I saw that discussed the Big-12 is this:

"He comes right out and says the Big 12 is weak but has 7 teams going from there."

So pointing out his view on the Big-12 but saying he still has too many of the teams in. It is true that several are in, but they are very low seeds. I think he had to do that because he wants to give Texas too high a seed (almost equal to OU???) and is thus forced to put in the teams who have better conference records or have beaten Texas.

Here is a recent comment he actually made about the Big-12:

"A young Oklahoma team got off to a rough start to the season, then rebounded nicely to get back into the NCAA tournament mix. But the Sooners have ......... just one top-50 win outside the Big 12 (whose status as the top RPI conference is actually the biggest head-scratcher in this entire process) just isn't top-five seed material."

I wasn't arguing with you about ANYTHING. I was just commenting on what I saw on the board comments re the Big Twelve and about fans comments in general....NOT YOURS. I wasn't making ANY definitive comment about what most posters on his website say, whether he is right or wrong since I said I do not follow him. Do not understand your response.

Let me add....I did not write anything that you would have a reason to argue with me, so not understanding why you say you don't want to argue with me about CC. What did I say that you could argue with?

 

[Sweetest OU Girl]

I did not state that clearly. I was not saying you were arguing. I just meant I would try to explain what I had read and did not want to start an argument with you.

I never sensed we were arguing, but wanted to make it clear that was not what I was trying to do either.

Your point about homers is undoubtedly true. I know we are all that way too. (Well except for a few that mostly say bad things about the team. )

I enjoy reading CC's stuff. probably because it is the only Bracketology for the girls that is easy to find.

 

[womenssports]

I did not state that clearly. I was not saying you were arguing. I just meant I would try to explain what I had read and did not want to start an argument with you.

I never sensed we were arguing, but wanted to make it clear that was not what I was trying to do either.

Your point about homers is undoubtedly true. I know we are all that way too. (Well except for a few that mostly say bad things about the team. )

I enjoy reading CC's stuff. probably because it is the only Bracketology for the girls that is easy to find.

Well, communication on the internet can be quite confusing. So we were BOTH clearly not arguing. Good.