Seminoles Basketball Bracketology- End of Season
by HarlemNoles on Mar 9, 2010 1:11 AM EST
Email
Print* I apologize for not updating last week. The Clemson loss depressed me so much that I was unable to understand basic math and statistics. However, the next two wins sparked the fire in me. For first time readers of my posts, this is simply a resume of our tournament odds. It serves to just give a visual for those that are not inclined to research the numbers themselves *
This is part seven of my weekly look at our NCAA Tournament resume. Just like last time let me explain a couple things about the chart:
The graph below is broken into three columns: teams we've already beaten, teams we've yet to play, and teams we've lost to.
You'll notice numbers beside each teams name. If a team's name is bold then that means they are projected by ESPN's Joe Lunardi as a tournament team. The number next to their name represents their corresponding tournament seed. If a team is not in bold then they are not projected as a tournament team. The number next to their name is their corresponding RPI ranking as per RealTimeRPI
[Note: I do not include the AP or Coach's Poll Rankings because they are not used by the selection committee making them obsolete in college basketball]
|
Wins: 22 |
Upcoming: 1 |
Losses: 8 |
|
(9) Marquette (Neutral) |
(10) Clemson/#104 NC State |
(1) @ Duke |
|
(10) Wake Forest |
|
(2) @ Ohio State |
|
(10) Virginia Tech |
|
(5) Maryland |
|
(12) Georgia Tech |
|
(5) @ Maryland |
|
(12) @ Georgia Tech |
|
(10) Clemson |
|
# 85 @ North Carolina |
|
(10) @ Clemson |
|
#88 Iona (Neutral) |
|
(11) @ Florida |
|
#98 Alabama (Neutral) |
|
#104 NC State |
|
#106 Boston College |
|
|
|
#106 @ Boston College |
|
|
|
#123 Miami |
|
|
|
#123 @ Miami |
|
|
|
#134 Virginia |
|
|
|
#140 Auburn |
|
|
|
#141 Jacksonville |
|
|
|
#176 Texas A&M CC |
|
|
|
#220 @ Mercer |
|
|
|
#247 Georgia State |
|
|
|
#296 Florida Int’l |
|
|
|
#327 Stetson |
|
|
|
#330 Alabama A&M |
|
|
|
#339 Tenn-Martin |
|
|
Two items I’d like to start with: I’m unable to explain Joe Lunardi’s choice for us and our lack of votes in any polls.
1) Lunardi. I respect his bracket solely based on his past history. However, last week we were #8 in his bracket. We beat Wake and Miami and somehow fell to a 9 seed. I’ll let this go and most brackets generally have us as an 8 seed (maybe 7.)
2) The polls. The exact reason why the NCAA selection committee omits the polls is exactly why I hate them: they are a complete farce. Feb 1 we were 26th. Since then all we’ve done is gone 7-3 in the best conference in the nation (per Pomeroy and many other stat websites.) Our only losses were to tournament teams. Yet, we have no votes. Not a single coach or member of the AP feels we are worthy of a top 25. Basically, these guys look at the previous week’s top 25 and shift their numbers accordingly. We get screwed every time somehow. However, as I always state, the AP and Coaches poll are completely irrelevant, but it is annoying to me.
This was as good as an end to the season as we could’ve hoped for. If we get to the ACC finals again we’re looking at a 6 seed, maybe a 5. If we win out, we’ll be a 5 seed with an outside shot at a 4 which would be phenomenal. I’m still scared that we’ve yet to find a “go to guy.” We tried out Snaer a little bit but I’m not sure that he’s ready. I’m not exactly sure who we should make the “ go to guy.” Any thoughts?
For several weeks in a row I predicted 9-7 in the ACC. Fortunately we bested that. My new goal is Sweet Sixteen. Barring an 8 or 9 seed (which would yield us #1 seed in the second round) I think we’re capable of making out of our regional group. I’m proud of our team and proud to be an alum. Go Noles!
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice write-up. I have to say, though, the two items you mention don’t really bother me.
Although it was surprising that Lunardi dropped us a seed, that can be explained by an overall improvement in the hypothetical field he puts together. I.E.- if other at-large teams in the #6-#10 seed vicinity have better weeks than us, it is conceivable to drop a seed, even with 2 wins. And the not getting votes thing doesn’t bother me at all. As you point out, there is no accounting for what the voters do. Maryland was unranked long after they should have been in the rankings.
On the other hand, I agree with your analysis of our seeding possibilities. I would also throw out that I would see probably an #8 or #9 in the event of a quarterfinal or semifinal ACCT loss. I agree with your goal for the season as well; what Nole fan would not have taken a Sweet Sixteen finish prior to the beginning of the season?
As far as a "go to guy," I think we pretty much are going to have to accept the fact that we just aren’t going to have one this year. I have to agree with something Gminski said during the Wake-Clemson game on Sunday: stating the obvious, FSU is defensive team, that’s how we’ve won games all season. Don’t try to win games on offense, we can’t win games on offense, not this year. Its going to have to be game-length lock-down defense. In the Dance, if we get stuck trying to win a game on a last possession offensive set, we are in trouble.
All is not lost; the unconquerable will/And courage never to submit or yield.
Yeah I really try to downplay the polls as much as possible, but after a while it just gets old.
We’re the Rodney Dangerfield of college basketball.
As for Lunardi, some people on the other board hate on him a lot, but if you look at his background he is pretty spot on. As for the 9 seed, I’ve got to assume we’re the best 9 seed at least and the Bracket Matrix has us at an 8. Our likely opponent, Clemson, will help our strength of schedule and if we do lose to them again it probably won’t really hurt our RPI.
Please DO NOT
make us a #5, #8 or #9. You have the upset tradition of 5vs12 seeds, and the fact that an 8-9 winner plays a #1——— ca-ca for sure
"You're either carrying a spear, or running from it"
by BigSpearDiplomacy on Mar 9, 2010 10:23 AM EST reply actions
Exactly what FSUncensored said
Although their is a “tradition” it’s still better to be a 5 than a 6 or 7. 12 seeds are usually solid teams from major conferences and as we know, a top tier conference team can easily lose to a middle of the road conference team on any given day.
Tradition of not,
the stats don’t like. 5 seeds lose 7-8% more games than they “should”, when the data is extrapolated.
by Randall W. Spetman on Mar 9, 2010 9:51 PM EST up reply actions
do 5s lose more than 6s or 7s?
or just more than they should?
More than they should not more than 6 or 7's.
Which is why the whole 5 seed argument is moronic.
They lose more games than they're "supposed to"
For instance, if the 1/16 matchup gives the 1 seed a 100% chance to win (which holds true…), and the 8/9 game is a 50% of either team winning, then the 5/12 game should be somewhere in the middle, roughly 75% for the 5 seed, leaving a 25% chance to win for the 12 seed. However, historically the 12 seed has a winning percentage of something like 33% or so. 8% higher than what it “should be”.
So the argument is not really “moronic” (as that is a truly subjective term, since there obviously is a discrepancy), but proves that the 5 seed is a bit of a disadvantage, relative to the competition played. Obviously the 5 seed still has a higher winning % than the 6 seed, but if you ARE a 5 seed, then historically the odds are against you a little more than what they “should be”
by Randall W. Spetman on Mar 10, 2010 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
Historically, a 12 seed has a better winning record against the 5 (31-65) than an 11 vs. 6 (30-66). Whether a 1% / 1 win difference is significant (.323 vs .313), it is still interesting nonetheless.
Wow, really?
I just assumed that the gap between the W% of the 5 and 6 seed was larger than the statistical anomaly that some consider to be insignificant.
Well there ya go.
by Randall W. Spetman on Mar 12, 2010 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
I want a 6 seed.
We need a run in the ACC tourney to get it. But it’s what I want – it avoids the 5-13 (something to prove matchup) and it avoids the 1 or 2 second round matchup
Lack of respect is nothing new. Maybe it’ll feed something in our boys. We certainly tend to flop whenever we get ranked…
Sweet Sixteen would make this a good season – but I don’t think it’s a Pollyanna scenario either. Pomeroy has us at 18 for a reason.
6 would be nice
love to stay away from the 7-10 range
I just hope we dont get matched up against St Mary's
their strengths match our weaknesses.
or Cornell...
Those guys seriously don’t miss.
by Randall W. Spetman on Mar 10, 2010 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
Lunardi is not all he is cracked up to be
He is really only guessing on 3-4 teams each year… at most. So his 64/65 success rate is really only 3/4 yearly. Not to mention, by the time you are guessing those 3 or 4 its out of a field of what, maybe 6? 7? You should be able to luck into 50%.
Im not saying I could do better. Im just saying.
by DixieNole on Mar 10, 2010 9:32 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think many people take what he does for granted
Since he has been around, all the sites do a bracketology. It’s easy for a casual fan to submit their own and make educated guesses. But imagine if Lunardi or any other professional did not create a bracket. I could not imagine the normal fan being able to predict more than 60 teams correctly without the help of the professional brackets.
by HarlemNoles on Mar 10, 2010 11:13 PM EST up reply actions
You don't think you could go to an RPI site
and realistically toss out any team outside of 60 and any team with less than a .500 conference record immediately (perhaps save a few “good” ones to put in a bubble “pool”)? I mean, the top 30 are usually locks and then you probably have, what, 20-25 conferences that only get their auto-bid in. That right there gets you to 50-55 pretty quickly.
If you want seeds and sites, then, yea, could get a little more obnoxious.
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Yes you could
But what I guess I’m saying is that it’s because of guys like Lunardi that knowledge about the process even exists. Because of these guys more and more is known about the process. I think that we could get to the 55 number, but getting 64/65 is pretty damn impressive.
They didn't just pick some random guy and say
“Hey, do you wanna be our NCAA basketball tournament expert?”.
The guy is highly regarded across the board for what he does, and I think he’s really underappreciated.
IMO, getting 10-15 teams right (assuming any idiot can get to 50) is damn impressive.
by Randall W. Spetman on Mar 11, 2010 9:44 AM EST up reply actions
What are you saying about those 10-15 teams right?
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Definitely agree that he started the whole fad which led to the
increased knowledge on what goes into the selection process. I wouldn’t take any stock in any bracketologist that couldn’t get at least 62/63 out of 65 right.
"Trick is right."
"Wherever you are, Trick, you are wise, indeed."
Exactly...I think he deserves it because he's helped so many fans understand the selection process.
Like we were saying, any idiot can get to 50 or 55 teams, but if someone can pick the last 10 to 15 teams, that’s impressive.
by Randall W. Spetman on Mar 11, 2010 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
Just thought I'd add how good it feels
That we’re arguing about stuff like this instead of whether or not FSU will get into the tournament.
I'd also like to add how good it feels
when a “win over FSU” is something positive when discussing other team’s tournament hopes.
by Randall W. Spetman on Mar 12, 2010 8:48 AM EST up reply actions
Ditto
havent heard that since our coach was a “Kennedy”
"You're either carrying a spear, or running from it"
by BigSpearDiplomacy on Mar 12, 2010 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
im nervous that we get stuck with an 8 seed
the 9 seeds we could match up against scare me a lot. Notre Dame, St. Mary’s, etc.
We need to win a few ACC games to prevent this from happening.
If we play like we did last night...
Any team in the field of 65 could beat us.
by Randall W. Spetman on Mar 13, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
ESPN Projection
Just a quick note and I hope i dont get in trouble for posting this since its too short but I didnt know where else to put it. The latest ESPN Bracketology has us opening as a 9 seed vs. Texas and if we happen to win most likely Syracuse after that. Tough break so far but we will see soon enough and hopefully it will change for our sake. Wish we could have won a game or two in the ACC tourney
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE TOMAHAWK NATION STORE
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
