Is NCAA selection show after ACC selection show?

[NikeHawk21]

Iowa shoots 45% from field and 36% from 3
Cincy shoots 43% from field and 35% from 3

This is either a blatant attempt to bend stats or a simply fundamental misunderstanding of basketball.

There is a reason Iowa is 15th in adjusted offense and Cincy is 46th.

First off Iowa shoots 36% from 3, making 8 a game, compared to Cincy only making 6.5 per game. So iowa shoots more 3s and makes them at a higher clip, a sign of a much superior shooting team.

Second Iowa gets to the line 24 times a game and makes them at a 74% clip compared to Cincy only getting there 21.7 times and making at a 70.2% clip.

A better stat is effective field goal percentage where Iowa ranks 96th and Cincinnati ranks 223rd Nationally

 

[Fryowa]

I'd like to see what the bracket would look like based on this criteria.

Well Monday night seems like a good prospect lol.

I'll be anxious to see Fryowa's Fuckitology 1.0.

Well...

There's too much data to put it in a graphic, and to get the full effect from this you need to be able to sort.

So I saved a spreadsheet in Google Sheets; if someone would like the Excel sheet it came from let me know. Sorry to make you guys look at a file, but it's too much for a graphic. I'd normally quit at that point, but I think this in interesting enough that if you're a stats nerd it will be fun to look at. Definitely some conversation points.

Column A: Teams selected to the tournament

Column B: Whether they are an auto bid or not

Column C: NET Ranking

Column D: Projected Net Seeding--if you were to take all teams that made the tournament and seed them from top to bottom

Column E: Actual NCAA Seed. There are extra 11s and 16s because those are the play-in teams. If you don't like to call them play-in games you can go f*ck your hat. I'm not here to argue it.

Column F: The difference between the committee seeds and what the NET says they should be. Not as bad as I thought it was but Houston got hosed.

Columns K and L: This is the most important thing to me, and why the committee needs to go. The teams listed here are the ones NET ranked in the top 50 that got left out of the tournament. These teams got absolutely fucked over by the committee. NC State and Clemson's squads should take a bus to Minnesota's campus and burn Dicky Pitino in effigy. VCU, Ole Miss, Oklahoma, Baylor, Syracuse, Iowa, Washington, Belmont, OSU, Temple, Seton Hall, Minnesota, ASU, and St. John's are all non-auto bid teams who had others ranked ahead of them not get in. Some of those teams were ranked WAY ahead of others.

Here's the file. Sorry to do this to you.

 

[ssckelley]

Well...

There's too much data to put it in a graphic, and to get the full effect from this you need to be able to sort.

So I saved a spreadsheet in Google Sheets; if someone would like the Excel sheet it came from let me know. Sorry to make you guys look at a file, but it's too much for a graphic. I'd normally quit at that point, but I think this in interesting enough that if you're a stats nerd it will be fun to look at. Definitely some conversation points.

Column A: Teams selected to the tournament

Column B: Whether they are an auto bid or not

Column C: NET Ranking

Column D: Projected Net Seeding--if you were to take all teams that made the tournament and seed them from top to bottom

Column E: Actual NCAA Seed. There are extra 11s and 16s because those are the play-in teams. If you don't like to call them play-in games you can go f*ck your hat. I'm not here to argue it.

Column F: The difference between the committee seeds and what the NET says they should be. Not as bad as I thought it was but Houston got hosed.

Columns K and L: This is the most important thing to me, and why the committee needs to go. The teams listed here are the ones NET ranked in the top 50 that got left out of the tournament. These teams got absolutely FUCKED over by the committee. NC State and Clemson's squads should take a bus to Minnesota's campus and burn Dicky Pitino in effigy. VCU, Ole Miss, Oklahoma, Baylor, Syracuse, Iowa, Washington, Belmont, OSU, Temple, Seton Hall, Minnesota, ASU, and St. John's are all non-auto bid teams who had others ranked ahead of them not get in. Some of those teams were ranked WAY ahead of others.

Here's the file. Sorry to do this to you.

Now if only someone would take the time to put this into an actual bracket ignoring geographic locations. Just match the #1 over all seed against the worst #16 seed (first Four game), so on and so forth.

I'm working or I would.

 

[tksirius]

Well...

There's too much data to put it in a graphic, and to get the full effect from this you need to be able to sort.

So I saved a spreadsheet in Google Sheets; if someone would like the Excel sheet it came from let me know. Sorry to make you guys look at a file, but it's too much for a graphic. I'd normally quit at that point, but I think this in interesting enough that if you're a stats nerd it will be fun to look at. Definitely some conversation points.

Column A: Teams selected to the tournament

Column B: Whether they are an auto bid or not

Column C: NET Ranking

Column D: Projected Net Seeding--if you were to take all teams that made the tournament and seed them from top to bottom

Column E: Actual NCAA Seed. There are extra 11s and 16s because those are the play-in teams. If you don't like to call them play-in games you can go f*ck your hat. I'm not here to argue it.

Column F: The difference between the committee seeds and what the NET says they should be. Not as bad as I thought it was but Houston got hosed.

Columns K and L: This is the most important thing to me, and why the committee needs to go. The teams listed here are the ones NET ranked in the top 50 that got left out of the tournament. These teams got absolutely fucked over by the committee. NC State and Clemson's squads should take a bus to Minnesota's campus and burn Dicky Pitino in effigy. VCU, Ole Miss, Oklahoma, Baylor, Syracuse, Iowa, Washington, Belmont, OSU, Temple, Seton Hall, Minnesota, ASU, and St. John's are all non-auto bid teams who had others ranked ahead of them not get in. Some of those teams were ranked WAY ahead of others.

Here's the file. Sorry to do this to you.

Where's Furman?

 

[Fryowa]

Where's Furman?

South Carolina. I had to look.

 

[Fryowa]

Now if only someone would take the time to put this into an actual bracket ignoring geographic locations. Just match the #1 over all seed against the worst #16 seed (first Four game), so on and so forth.

I'm working or I would.

F it. Gimme till after lunch.

 

[ssckelley]

Why are teams like Furman left out?

Columns K & L

 

[tksirius]

South Carolina. I had to look.

Why were those teams left out?

 

[ssckelley]

F it. Gimme till after lunch.

Once you're done with that bring me a beer and make me a sandwich!

 

[99topdawg]

This is either a blatant attempt to bend stats or a simply fundamental misunderstanding of basketball.

There is a reason Iowa is 15th in adjusted offense and Cincy is 46th.

First off Iowa shoots 36% from 3, making 8 a game, compared to Cincy only making 6.5 per game. So iowa shoots more 3s and makes them at a higher clip, a sign of a much superior shooting team.

Second Iowa gets to the line 24 times a game and makes them at a 74% clip compared to Cincy only getting there 21.7 times and making at a 70.2% clip.

A better stat is effective field goal percentage where Iowa ranks 96th and Cincinnati ranks 223rd Nationally

I only used those numbers as a comparison between the teams. No stat bending. Totally understand statistics and how they work.

Effective FG % is more about making your shots count (3's vs. 2's), not about if you make shots. My post was about them making shots, not about the number of each type of shots the 2 teams shoot. Simply stated, the sample size in both shot types for both teams is large enough to see that the two teams shoot at similar percentages in both types of shots statistically speaking. Iowa just gets more out of their shots as you pointed out.

I do like the stats you pointed out more as a comparison, though. My stats were just to show that they can/do shoot at a similar rate as us.

 

[Fryowa]

Why were those teams left out?

Whim of the committee.

 

[tksirius]

Whim of the committee.

I'm fine with most of them being left out, but Furman and Lipscomb should be in!

 

[Fryowa]

Now if only someone would take the time to put this into an actual bracket ignoring geographic locations. Just match the #1 over all seed against the worst #16 seed (first Four game), so on and so forth.

I'm working or I would.

This file has what the bracket would be under the following conditions.

1) Ignores geography

2) Uses what the NET seeding would be. If I'm arguing that the committee is stupid it doesn't make sense for me to use their illogical seeds.

3) Match-ups are top to bottom, then bottom to top. In other words, the "best" 6 seed plays the "worst" 11 seed.

4) To deal with the play-in teams, I eliminated the two worst 11s and 16s which are the extras. I could have adapted the bracket, but eff the play-in games.


***Disclaimer*** I am not saying this is what the bracket should be. Teams that should be in have been left out, and once the correct teams have been picked I think there should be a selection process for game locations and match-ups within seed groups. This was just something @ssckelley asked about and I thought it was interesting.

 

[NikeHawk21]

I only used those numbers as a comparison between the teams. No stat bending. Totally understand statistics and how they work.

Effective FG % is more about making your shots count (3's vs. 2's), not about if you make shots. My post was about them making shots, not about the number of each type of shots the 2 teams shoot. Simply stated, the sample size in both shot types for both teams is large enough to see that the two teams shoot at similar percentages in both types of shots statistically speaking. Iowa just gets more out of their shots as you pointed out.

I do like the stats you pointed out more as a comparison, though. My stats were just to show that they can/do shoot at a similar rate as us.

Quite honestly in a one game tournament setting the stats go out the window. Iowa has been struggling to get the open shots they were getting lately. Between JBo, Moss, Joe W, and Baer I think we had a very good 3pt shooting team if we can get them open.

 

[Fryowa]

I'm fine with most of them being left out, but Furman and Lipscomb should be in!

But why should Minnesota or St. John's get a spot but not Clemson or NC State? They are decidedly way ahead in NET rank.

 

[tksirius]

4) To deal with the play-in teams, I eliminated the two worst 11s and 16s which are the extras. I could have adapted the bracket, but eff the play-in games.

But why should Minnesota or St. John's get a spot but not Clemson or NC State? They are decidedly way ahead in NET rank.

Who gives a F about them. Just put Furman and Lipscomb in there!

 

[Fryowa]

Who gives a F about them. Just put Furman and Lipscomb in there!

Why do you hate me so much? After all we've been through...

 

[iloveyoularrystation]

I need somebody to explain to me something. What is the justification for florida making the tournament?
Because i looked deep, and i couldn't find one. Wow. They have one win over anybody, and that was a win over a team who just lost their head coach. i don't really get it.

 

[Fryowa]

I need somebody to explain to me something. What is the justification for florida making the tournament?
Because i looked deep, and i couldn't find one. Wow. They have one win over anybody, and that was a win over a team who just lost their head coach. i don't really get it.

They have a NET ranking of 31 which is higher than ours. People could say the same thing about Iowa.

See, this is what’s wrong with the current selection process. People can’t be objective.

Statistically Florida is the 31st best team in the NCAA according to NET (and Sagarin/Kenpom confirm it by both rating them 28), yet we STILL have people who think they shouldn’t even make the tournament. Jesus Christ, folks...

All of those three ratings systems use actual statistical data with no human interaction. Are they perfect? No, because they were developed by humans. But they are completely impartial, which is what counts.

 

[ssckelley]

This file has what the bracket would be under the following conditions.

1) Ignores geography

2) Uses what the NET seeding would be. If I'm arguing that the committee is stupid it doesn't make sense for me to use their illogical seeds.

3) Match-ups are top to bottom, then bottom to top. In other words, the "best" 6 seed plays the "worst" 11 seed.

4) To deal with the play-in teams, I eliminated the two worst 11s and 16s which are the extras. I could have adapted the bracket, but eff the play-in games.


***Disclaimer*** I am not saying this is what the bracket should be. Teams that should be in have been left out, and once the correct teams have been picked I think there should be a selection process for game locations and match-ups within seed groups. This was just something @ssckelley asked about and I thought it was interesting.

Looks like you excluded the First Four games. Combine those 16 seeds into games where the winner plays Virginia and Gonzaga. Just doing that will slide everyone up 2 spots in the seedings and give you 2 more at large teams.

Then just add 2 more at larges to play whoever were your last 2 in's.

BTW this is really neat. Thanks for doing it.