College Basketball 2023-24 Discussion

[umhoops]

@DMB43

Is Zeke Mayo a player on Trilly’s list per chance? @umhoops

Yeah, he is. I think McKneely is the Furphy replacement, not the Furphy supplement, though.

[umhoops]

Incredible.

https://twitter.com/Anthony_Totri/status/1767299822225351060

[steve]

Jose Perez…

[Dylan2992]

He’s my favorite player ever

[BurgerBoy82]

I admire his loyalty.

[DMB43]

https://x.com/american_conf/status/1767584047230808387?s=46&t=9MMrM6gOVy1pXVWIuEkHnw

[romeowolv]

Please elaborate

[kturnup]

Caleb love won P12 PoY… man we could find some fun receipts on that one

[kturnup]

Imagine having a super fun young team that’s grown all year with a cool new HC… Can’t believe I’m so jealous of Notre Dame basketball

[umhoops]

@kturnup

Can’t believe I’m so jealous of Notre Dame basketball

Imagine not being jealous of whoever has Micah coaching them!

[mgl]

Michgian basketball 25/26

[umhoops]

@DMB43

I’m curious @tony, say tomorrow you woke up and you were the sole person in charge of making the 68 team field. What would be the things you personally would enjoy or look for in deciding who makes it in from the bubble or what would you tweak or completely blow up from the current system to make it how you’d like? Basically I’d love to hear how someone who dabbles in the bracketology realm, like yourself, would change things if even at all

Here’s Tony’s response, I edited it from the post today because it was a bit long

Answer if I want to keep things mostly the way they are: I'd just tell the Selection Committee to focus more on resume than efficiency. This would probably hurt teams like Michigan – the high major teams who play tough schedules and only win 17 or 18 games with very good teams. But I mean... as fun as it was to see Michigan make a run to the Sweet 16 a couple of years ago, more often than not, as a fan, I'd rather see some interesting mid-major team like a Princeton or an Indiana State get that shot instead. So maybe I'd amend my guidance to the committee to include the clause "except when it fails to benefit Michigan, in which case ignore this guideline and do something else". You can honestly just assume that all of my answers include that escape clause from here on in.

Answer if I want to put myself out of a job: Just get rid of bracketology altogether by using a totally transparent metric to decide who gets into the NCAA Tournament as an at-large team. Bart Torvik's site sort of has this if you sort by "WAB", or "wins above bubble". I'd use this or strength of record or use my own ranking system (which I do have, by the way, I just call it "HBC NET"), publish its inner workings, and boom, you've created a definitive national table. It is a little odd that we go through this rigamarole every March, isn't it? Yes, I enjoy it immensely, but it would have been odd debating between the Steelers, Titans, and Bengals for the final AFC Wild Card spot this past year. I think ultimately I think the NCAA Tournament selection process adds to the charm, adds to the goofiness, adds to the overall appeal of the sport, and so I'd keep it even if it weren't a bracketologist, but maybe for a year or two I'd get rid of it just to see how things went.

I'd form my own committee of bracketologists, for starters. As fun as it would be to wield unlimited and unchecked power to just make the bracket myself, I'd have more fun being part of a group of fellow bracket nerds. And you better believe I'd really open up the budget for the group. I'd have CBS pay for it, I'd livestream it, spare no expense.

Then I'd head down to Mountain View and ask the folks at Google to tell me exactly what's behind the NET. And then I'd start tinkering with it. I don't think I'd get rid of it completely, but I feel like it tracks too closely to KenPom and other efficiency metrics right now. I'd balance it out slightly, put more of an emphasis on playing a difficult schedule, on your resume and less on your forward-looking predictives.

I would add in a day or two of buffer between the end of the conference tournaments and the NCAA bracket reveal. Give the regular season a bit more time to breathe, give the NCAA Tournament just a bit more buildup, and allow the committee to properly absorb the chaos of Championship Week. This weekend is always such a sprint, which is fun, but it's also just so exhausting :)

Then I would make it so that any team who wants to be considered for the tournament has to play in two multi-team events. Playing in one is no big deal, most teams already do it, Michigan heads to a resort to play in one pretty much every year, but for the second MTE, I'd push teams and conferences to set up mid-season or even late-season invitationals. Does your conference have a bunch of bubble teams who could use another big win to improve their NCAA Tournament chances? Schedule a crossover day where you send four teams and another conference sends four. How fun would an Indiana State vs. Wake Forest and Drake vs. Virginia doubleheader have been a couple of weeks ago? I'd use whatever power as tournament organizer to push for things like that, for more teams to take more risks and play more meaningful games.

I wouldn't expand the tournament per se, but I'd keep it flexible. Some years we might only have 64 teams. Some years we might have 72. The decision on where to draw the line is somewhat arbitrary, but I think it's also true that most years, you can kind of tell who truly did enough to deserve a spot in the field and who the committee had to reach for. Arizona State and Pitt last year just sort of felt uninspired. But a few years ago in 2018, I really would have wanted to see Penn State in Saint Mary's make it in. So I'd allow for a bit of wiggle room. This would also be a fun test for bracketologists when the final number of teams isn't set in stone.

[DMB43]

That was awesome! @tony

So many things I would’ve never considered or thought about lol

Thanks for the insights!

[tony]

Oh lol thanks for posting this here! I also stuck it in the comments in other post just before seeing this. But yeah, just some fun bracketology banter. Thanks for the question DMB!

[umhoops]

Today has me thinking … why can’t the Big Ten play opening round games during the day?

[DMB43]

Even spicer, but why do we need conference tournaments at all

[umhoops]

Impressive melt by the fighting Shrewsberrys here.

[adamsmit86]

I will never oppose more tournament style basketball. Conference tournament week is fun. Michigan’s BTT championship runs were very fun memories.

[umhoops]

@DMB43

Even spicer, but why do we need conference tournaments at all

Mid-major conference tournaments are as good as it gets. Nothing quite like a mid/low major tourney final.

[DMB43]

I’d like for you to read back what you wrote here and then remember who my favorite coach candidates are