Running 2023-24 NCAA Basketball Thread

Pacific's game-ending 1-0 run was not enough as the Tigers' comeback fell short in a 102-43 loss to Pepperdine,

Pacific Tigers vs. Pepperdine Waves Live Score and Stats - March 7, 2024 Gametracker

 

Joke.



Head.

 

I always heard that High Point had nice facilities for being a fringe Division I school. Nice is understating it. On TV it looks a quarter-scale NBA arena.

 

This is clipped from the Facebook feed of one of the brighter guys I know. I'm G5 biased, but this really isn't about G5 vs P5 so much as how the NET rankings are structured, other than the last line anyway. Some of you guys with more MBB experience or better math skills look at it and see if it makes sense to you.

John Knox said:

"To NCAA men's basketball fans: do not be deluded by the "bracketology" garbage shoveled by certain folks on TV and online. The NET Rankings, for some reason, do not pay attention to when a game is played during the season, or what the quality of the competition was like *at the time you played them*. This is patently ridiculous.

This explains why South Florida, which is 23-5 and has won the American Athletic Conference conference championship, isn't getting much support for getting an at-large bid. South Florida has lost just ONE game since December 3rd, and that was an overtime game on the road against UAB. That's it. They've won 15 games in a row, and they are 21-1 over the past 22 games.

BUT: early in the season, in November and very early December, they lost to some mediocre teams: Central Michigan, Maine, Hofstra, and UMass. And then they lost to UAB, which can play fantastic at times and rotten at times, which means that's seen as another 'bad' loss. And so because the NET Rankings don't care if you've won 10, 15, 20, or 30 games in a row, and thinks that the first game of the season is the same as the 30th game of the season, USF is ranked far below where you'd expect. Right now, USF is #74... too low to get much at-large consideration. kenpom has them even lower, at #82.

But forget the pseudo-math here, let's try common sense: who thinks that how a team plays in November should have a major controlling effect on who gets into the NCAA tournament in March? Especially in these days of portals and transfers everywhere and teams having to gel in real time during the season. USF's coach is in his first season at USF, too. If USF loses in the conference tournament final and is "only" 26-6 with a record of 24-2 over their last 26 games, does that really sound like a "bubble burst, you're out" kind of team?!? It's not like USF is in a bad conference; FAU went to the Final Four last year, and North Texas and UAB both went to the NIT championship as well--they were in CUSA last year, now are in the American. (#1 Houston was in the American last year.) If you run away with the conference championship in this conference, that should be enough for a lock on an at-large bid.

One constant of college basketball: the rules are made so that the .500 teams from the "power" conferences get into the tournament. It is, in the end, all about the money."

 

Temple reviewing reports of unusual wagering activity ahead of men's basketball loss to UAB | AP News

 

The initial UAB -2.o line was too low. This is a hideously inconsistent UAB team, capable of beating very good teams and losing to awful teams, but that line was poorly judged.

 

The thing about this is you can say to not be deluded but it is how they do it, so he is being deluded by saying to not be. It stinks but it is how it is. There are tons of lower teams out there that have really good records that probably aren't going to get in as an at-large. It has honestly always been that way. NET, RPI, whatever.

There is a valid thing to be said about looking at the past 10 again, but the whole season should count. That's a good thing.

South Florida only has one Q1 game period, and they won, but they also have two Q4 losses. Regardless of when that happened, that is bad. Their overall Q1-2 record is a respectable 6-3. Metrics are what they are and there should be some tools in place. The Net doesn't come out until more than a month of the season has been played, so there is a foundation there. Numbers do improve as the year goes on with success. South Florida is now up to 73 and while they are on the far end fringe, I actually wouldn't count them out of being in at-large consideration. For eye test as much as anything.

Another example of all this is Indiana State and they do have good metrics. Also only one Q1 win but two Q4 losses. Another mildly off the radar is UNLV, with a whopping five Q1 wins, but three Q4 losses (I think all of them before their best players were allowed to play with the transfer court ruling).

Selection at this point is almost standard and the people who follow it know pretty well who is getting in. South Florida could be one of those surprise teams and I'm not going to say they don't deserve it. But you also can't go and say the tools they use to put the teams in the tournament don't matter just because you don't like it.

For the record, also a non-power fan who gets way too much entertainment out of bracketology.

 

Yeah, their losses early on were really bad losses, and add that two of them were at home and just killed their NET. I'm not really advocating for USF so much as wondering if the system needs to be adjusted, because the point about teams being completely rebuilt by portal transfers needing time to gel sounds valid and worth some consideration.

 

Weighing late games more than early games would almost certainly help the power conference teams even more, because they play 18+ conference games at this point. If anything, I'd argue that you should go hard the other way - weigh OOC games more strongly - to incentivize teams to take more chances with their OOC schedules.

 

One team that is absolutely not getting an at large is Georgia Tech. But the Jackets have the wildest team sheet you may ever see. Four Quad 1 wins, including Duke and UNC, but 4-7 against Quad 2 and 3-4 against Quad 3.

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet 2024 Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

 

It's 100 percent on brand for High Point, which has successfully made itself into a prime destination for the children of wealthy Trumpists by leveraging itself to the hilt to build a conservative Disney-world-esque college campus. That place is bizarre. Half the campus, including the new arena, is named for the sitting university president. I halfway expect them to rename the entire place Quebein University before he retires.

 

As noted, High Point is a wanna-be Liberty and is PAYING dudes. They're not fucking around and believe they can move into a better league. But the A-10 wants nothing to do with their overall shittyness and the CAA's already trying to deal with Charleston outspending everyone (not for long, though).