ESPN Bracketolgy

[LZIp]

I prefer an opponent and location that is the best matchup for the team rather than whats convenient for me to attend. It's important to note bracketology has absolutely zero meaning right now.

Edited January 20, 2017 by LZIp

[kreed5120]

17 minutes ago, LZIp said:

bracketology has absolutely zero meaning.

FTFY

 

Last year a study was done and it discovered Lunardi is one of the least accurate bracketologists out there.

[LZIp]

1 minute ago, kreed5120 said:

FTFY

 

Last year a study was done and it discovered Lunardi is one of the least accurate bracketologists out there.

Interesting. I'd expect the "expert" to have it somewhat figured out by the end of the season.

[kreed5120]

4 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Interesting. I'd expect the "expert" to have it somewhat figured out by the end of the season.

 

It's no different than Mel Kiper and the NFL Draft. If he was half as good at evaluating talent and projecting where players will go in the draft as ESPN claims he is, some NFL team would have hired him for millions of dollars years ago. Your personality and the way you're able to communicate your point is more important to ESPN than how accurate you are.

[NWAkron]

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-01-23/college-basketball-five-teams-slowly-making-their-way-toward

 

double post of this but really excited to read it!

[Captain Kangaroo]

1 hour ago, NWAkron said:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-01-23/college-basketball-five-teams-slowly-making-their-way-toward

 

double post of this but really excited to read it!

This would definitely be a season where a Bracket Buster () game would be awesome. I'd love to see the 2016-17 Zips team match up against someone like Illinois State or Middle Tennessee.

 

Big Dog and Kwan give us the size and skill to keep just about any college team honest in the paint, and we shoot the 3 as well as anyone. If we can tighten up the D over the next 4 weeks, we could really be something special.

 

And, we need to stay healthy.

 

And, no one go shipping/receiving 5 pound boxes of anything between now and April!

 

 

[skip-zip]

6 minutes ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

If we can tighten up the D over the next 4 weeks, we could really be something special.

 

Agree 100%.  At times, I feel like they are progressing defensively.  For instance, last night WMUs shooting percentage was kept low.  But this team needs to find ways to get some steals and increase the turnovers. 

 

11 minutes ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

And, no one go shipping/receiving 5 pound boxes of anything between now and April!

 

That's sound advice !!

 

 

 

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, NWAkron said:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-01-23/college-basketball-five-teams-slowly-making-their-way-toward

 

double post of this but really excited to read it!

 

It says in the story that our 27 game home win streak broke a record from the Huggins era.  I'm almost certain that it broke the streak of 26 that ended in the 2008 season with a loss to NIU.  

[kreed5120]

1 minute ago, skip-zip said:

 

It says in the story that our 27 game home win streak broke a record from the Huggins era.  I'm almost certain that it broke the streak of 26 that ended in the 2008 season with a loss to NIU.  

 

Huggins era was what I heard from the Zips PA announcer at the end of the EMU game when I was leaving the JAR.

[zippy5]

23 minutes ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

This would definitely be a season where a Bracket Buster () game would be awesome. I'd love to see the 2016-17 Zips team match up against someone like Illinois State or Middle Tennessee.

 

Big Dog and Kwan give us the size and skill to keep just about any college team honest in the paint, and we shoot the 3 as well as anyone. If we can tighten up the D over the next 4 weeks, we could really be something special.

 

And, we need to stay healthy.

 

And, no one go shipping/receiving 5 pound boxes of anything between now and April!

 

 

BracketBuster would be awesome this year. I miss that event. And please, no postage problems this spring.

[LZIp]

18 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

BracketBuster would be awesome this year. I miss that event. And please, no postage problems this spring.

Would advise staying away from female athletes until the season is over as well (please nobody take that the wrong way).

Edited January 25, 2017 by LZIp

[skip-zip]

22 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Huggins era was what I heard from the Zips PA announcer at the end of the EMU game when I was leaving the JAR.

 

And it looks like that is right.  I had been thinking something else.  But, I just went back and counted, and it looks like we only won 22 straight between the loss to Nevada at home right before Christmas in 2006, and the loss at home to NIU the following season.  

[tpsjugglerdude]

I guess I'll post this here to go with the last link shared. One of my UNCW friends posted this and it has a pretty nice write up about our Zips. http://herosports.com/news/2017-ncaa-tournament-bracket-bust-akron-illinois-st-fgcu-new-mexico-st-uncw-college-basketball

[MDZip]

1 hour ago, tpsjugglerdude said:

I guess I'll post this here to go with the last link shared. One of my UNCW friends posted this and it has a pretty nice write up about our Zips. http://herosports.com/news/2017-ncaa-tournament-bracket-bust-akron-illinois-st-fgcu-new-mexico-st-uncw-college-basketball

Love that they embedded the University ad in that story too. Love the AK-rowdy selfie at Christianborg Palace in Copenhagen. I think the ad is terrific I just wish they'd do one more thing. When Keith Dambrot says near the end of the ad "What starts in Akron is noticed by the world", I think it would have been awfully cool to show DeAndre Yedlin during the World Cup and Clayton Murphy on the medal stand at the Olympics.  

[Blue & Gold]

2 minutes ago, MDZip said:

I think the ad is terrific I just wish they'd do one more thing. When Keith Dambrot says near the end of the ad "What starts in Akron is WITNESSED by the world", I think it would have been awfully cool to show DeAndre Yedlin during the World Cup and Clayton Murphy on the medal stand at the Olympics.  

FIFY

 

And the Yedlin & Murphy idea... Yaaaaaaaaassssss!!! 

[NWAkron]

And if you scroll down you will see Shaka and his "most disappointing"  Texas team.

[tolbob]

On ‎1‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 2:59 AM, kreed5120 said:

It appears the selection committee is looking for a new metric to help standardize the process.

 

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18468008/ncaa-tournament-officials-meet-analytics-experts-consider-creating-new-metric

 

Not good news for the Zips.  Article says Saragin and Pomeroy are being consulted.  Zips rpi on cbs, realtime, etc.is around 40 while rpi on Saragin and kenpom is around 80.  If input from Saragin and kenpom are gong to be used in the future, Zips  rpi will probably be lower than current metrics used.

Edited January 26, 2017 by tolbob

[wadszip]

I know ESPN doesn't have near the pull in hoops as it does football, but if ESPN's SOR (strength of record) metric is used, Akron is in decent shape. The Zips are ranked No. 38 there.

 

Here is the explanation of all of ESPN's rankings, including of "SOR". 

 

"The College Basketball Power Index (BPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of performance going forward. BPI represents how many points above or below average a team is. Strength of Record (SOR) is a measure of team accomplishment based on how difficult a team's W-L record is to achieve. Game predictions account for opponent strength, pace of play, site, travel distance, day's rest and altitude, and are used to simulate the season 10,000 times to produce season projections. Numbers update daily."

 

I say just make all this moot and win in Cleveland.

 

 

[kreed5120]

5 minutes ago, wadszip said:

I know ESPN doesn't have near the pull in hoops as it does football, but if ESPN's SOR (strength of record) metric is used, Akron is in decent shape. The Zips are ranked No. 38 there.

 

Here is the explanation of all of ESPN's rankings, including of "SOR". 

 

"The College Basketball Power Index (BPI) is a measure of team strength that is meant to be the best predictor of performance going forward. BPI represents how many points above or below average a team is. Strength of Record (SOR) is a measure of team accomplishment based on how difficult a team's W-L record is to achieve. Game predictions account for opponent strength, pace of play, site, travel distance, day's rest and altitude, and are used to simulate the season 10,000 times to produce season projections. Numbers update daily."

 

I say just make all this moot and win in Cleveland.

 

 

Amen! Let's make the discussion what seed are we going to end up with instead of are we in or are we out

Edited January 26, 2017 by kreed5120

[wadszip]

1 hour ago, tolbob said:

 

Not good news for the Zips.  Article says Saragin and Pomeroy are being consulted.  Zips rpi on cbs, realtime, etc.is around 40 while rpi on Saragin and kenpom is around 80.  If input from Saragin and kenpom are gong to be used in the future, Zips  rpi will probably be lower than current metrics used.

This really isn't anything new. Maybe using KenPom and Sagarin are "newish," but those rankings have long surpassed RPI by the committee, even if it wasn't admitted until now. RPI hasn't been a realistic metric since the mid-to-late 2000s when the MVC figured out how to completely game that system. 

 

I'll have to look more into it to say for sure, but at least for KenPom, I actually think certain leagues are learning how to game those rankings (looking at the Southern Conference). 

[skip-zip]

8 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

Let's make the discussion what seed are we going to end up with instead of are we in or are we out

 

That would be great if all we had to discuss every year was where they were going to place us.  Or if we could "just win in Cleveland", as if that's always the simple solution because it's happened 3 times in the 25 years that we've played in the MAC ?  

 

Unfortunately, when you've only made 4 brief appearances in the 37 years that you've been eligible as a D-I member, just finding a way to get in becomes quite a bit more important.  Take this year, for example.  Lets say we'd end up somewhere between a 10 and 14 seed, based on the likely range of our final record.  Does any of those positions make us any more likely to succeed in the tournament if we don't know the matchup ?

 

There's a logical reason why all the focus of discussion is on just getting IN.

 

But yes, that would surely be my dream to sit here on January 26th of every season and be talking about seeding.   

[kreed5120]

22 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

That would be great if all we had to discuss every year was where they were going to place us.  Or if we could "just win in Cleveland", as if that's always the simple solution because it's happened 3 times in the 25 years that we've played in the MAC ?  

 

Unfortunately, when you've only made 4 brief appearances in the 37 years that you've been eligible as a D-I member, just finding a way to get in becomes quite a bit more important.  Take this year, for example.  Lets say we'd end up somewhere between a 10 and 14 seed, based on the likely range of our final record.  Does any of those positions make us any more likely to succeed in the tournament if we don't know the matchup ?

 

There's a logical reason why all the focus of discussion is on just getting IN.

 

But yes, that would surely be my dream to sit here on January 26th of every season and be talking about seeding.   

 

Each of those 4 times we did get in it required us winning our conference and the MAC hasn't had an at-large since 1999. Had we beaten Gonzaga OOC and were able to put "BEAT GONZAGA" in 72 font, bold print at the top of our resume, I'd be right there talking with you. We didn't beat them and as it stands our best win looks like Georgia Southern. I'm in agreement a 30-4 Akron team gets in, but that would require a 23 game win streak only for us to go on and lose in the final. 29-5 record is a maybe IMO. Given our lack of quality wins I can't see us getting in with 28 or fewer wins.

Edited January 26, 2017 by kreed5120

[kreed5120]

46 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

That would be great if all we had to discuss every year was where they were going to place us.  Or if we could "just win in Cleveland", as if that's always the simple solution because it's happened 3 times in the 25 years that we've played in the MAC ?  

 

Unfortunately, when you've only made 4 brief appearances in the 37 years that you've been eligible as a D-I member, just finding a way to get in becomes quite a bit more important.  Take this year, for example.  Lets say we'd end up somewhere between a 10 and 14 seed, based on the likely range of our final record.  Does any of those positions make us any more likely to succeed in the tournament if we don't know the matchup ?

 

There's a logical reason why all the focus of discussion is on just getting IN.

 

But yes, that would surely be my dream to sit here on January 26th of every season and be talking about seeding.   

 

Not meaning to double post, but I forgot to address a point.

 

2 vs 15 the 2 seed wins 94% of the time

3 vs 14 the 3 seed wins 84% of the time

4 vs 13 the 4 seed wins 80% of the time

5 vs 12 the 5 seed wins 64% of the time

6 vs 11 the 6 seed wins 64% of the time

7 vs 10 the 7 seed wins 61% of the time

8 vs 9 the 8 seed wins 51% of the time

 

An 8 vs. 9 is pretty much a pickem. A 6 vs 11 is the only outlier as every other match-up your odds improve the better the seed you have.

 

https://www.printyourbrackets.com/ncaa-tournament-records-by-seed.html

 

Edit: Noticed my original source was from 2006 so went to get more up to date numbers. Had a minor impact on results.

Edited January 26, 2017 by kreed5120

[skip-zip]

7 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Given our lack of quality wins I can't see us getting in with 28 or fewer wins.

 

I made a post in another thread about our win totals, and the likelihood that we get into the tournament with each one.  We're probably pretty close to the same thought on this. I think 28 or more HAS to be the target number as well.  

 

Part of your post above focuses on something I preach all the time.  We have to start beating teams that matter if we are going to elevate our program. Just winning some of those games.  Period.  And that doesn't mean waiting for an occasional NCAA appearance.  You might see 4 tournament appearances as an "auto bid" in 37 years as some sort of positive.  But trust me, if you've lived through all the other 33 failures to get those auto bids in conference tournaments, going all the way back to 1980, you'd understand.  

[skip-zip]

5 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

every other match-up your odds improve the better the seed you have.

 

Yes, I know.  That's great.  If you're actually IN the tournament.  

 

But since you appear to be really high on the "more reliable" MAC Auto Bid, do you really think it matters to our coaches and players if we're a 13 or 14 (our usual spot) because odds say we have a 3% better chance of winning?  Or, do you think the matchup is more important?

 

Ok, I just got us back to what we were debating an hour ago