Wow.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Yeeeep. Makes zero sense
1 Like
Mick Cronin uncomfortable having the Pac 12 tournament. He’s really the first coach that has spoken out about it. I wonder if more coaches follow now.
4 Likes
I’m onboard with this now. The safest alternative to playing a conference tournament would be to send all the teams to a quarantined area in Indiana for the week prior to MM. Teams would be seeded based on their regular season record, plus NET and whatever other factors (I’ll leave this to most of the statistically minded on the forum). During that week, the teams would be tested and provided their own workout gym at local area high schools. Keep them completely separate, but geographically located for playing the entire Regional tourney (up to Final Four) within that area. The big $$$ is in MM, so no Cinderellas this year coming from conference tournaments.
Was Dwayne Haskins throwing the party?
3 Likes
I didn’t really understand why the UNC students and players were so jacked up to party after beating a bad Duke team. I guess everyone is desperate to party and I like seeing Duke suck as much as anyone…but not enough to treat it like a final four game.
That hate transcends top 25 rankings.
1 Like
Somehow these guys are always caught with their pants down about literally the most urgent questions they face as commissioners.
3 Likes
Same reason we would be fired up to beat MSU this year. Not saying we should party the same way though.
3 Likes
A writer for TheAthletic argued in his bubble watch column this morning that, aside from a couple obvious outliers (a la Colgate and, previously, Drake) that are pretty easy to understand circumstantially, the NET is looking better than the other metrics because it abandoned pre- and prior season expectations as an input. As someone who loves refreshing KenPom but can’t reconcile Duke’s or, worse, MSU’s ranks, maybe I should be turning more towards the NET.
On the other hand, he had Illinois and Ohio State as “locks” and Michigan as “should be in,” so he clearly has no clue what he is talking about.
1 Like
Lol wut? I mean sure, if they shut down the season and never play another game then yes they won’t make it. But outside of that… What the heck are you talking about?
I haven’t read the article referenced but I’ve seen these done in the past from the perspective of “if this team lost the rest of their games would they be in” and if the answer is yes that’s when they move to lock status. By that definition I suspect Michigan is already a lock but I could see the case that 8-12 M would miss the tourney.
1 Like
Lol if that’s the standard, what are there, like 5 locks in the entire country?
FWIW, for predictive reasons, prior season rankings are extremely helpful. Bill Conneley, a football KenPom, actually found recently it’s better to keep them in all season. And the first AP Poll is the best predictor for the tournament picks. KenPom eventually has them completely come out of his formula, but KenPom is predictive anyway and shouldn’t be used to seed or select a tournament.
That’s exactly what I said! Unless you’re assuming that Michigan goes at best 1-9 in remaining conference games, a 15-9 (10-9) B1G team is absolutely tournament bound. I think we would even get a low seed if we just cancelled the rest of our regular season and quarantined for the tournament now.
And if those are the assumptions you are making, what is the point of the article?
Yeah. It’s an odd designation but it’s one Bubble Watch has always had
the same could happen to any school, Baylor included … the writer is clueless, no excuse
Why put Illinois as a lock then? They could lose out and finish sub-500 in the B1G too. Feels like we’re in the exact same boat. Obvious locks or “should be ins” because the exercise requires insane assumptions.