2004 NCAA tournament pick

Perusion Hostmaster <nanae.DeleteThis@bill.perusion.com> wrote in
news:slrnc4srma.oub.nanae@bill.heins.net:


> RPI is not the be-all and end-all of anything, certainly not as far
> as the committee goes. But your point is well taken; Washington,
> Georgia, Purdue, Missouri, and Notre Dame are the the only teams
> that have such victories if you don't count consensus "locks". But
> that doesn't mean those teams are getting in, though Washington and
> Missouri might. They didn't lose to the likes of Central Michigan,
> though Missouri lost to everybodys-top-100 Belmont.

Missouri and Georgia, I think, have another problem - only 15 wins. For
whatever reason, there seems to be a 16 win minimum expected to get you
into the NCAA tournament. They both should win their opening conference
tournament games (against Texas A&M and Auburn) however.


On Notre Dame:
> I don't see it. If they do something in the Big East tourney,
> perhaps. But not as it stands now. I would sooner take Georgia,
> which has a very similar profile and a top non-conference win to add
> to their in-conference victories.

One thing I'm not sure I understand is why a home victory over one of
your rivals should count more than a home conference victory.


> Still, you look at who Purdue beat and who Notre Dame beat, and who
> Georgia beat, I don't see Notre Dame standing out. Purdue I can see
> leaving out simply because of their injuries and the way they ended.
>
> I think Georgia has a much better argument than Notre Dame. Some
> might say the conference record is different, but Notre Dame had
> four gimmes in their nine victories. There are no gimmes in
> Georgia's conference. Their loss to Winthrop is certainly no worse
> than Notre Dame's loss to Central Michigan. And they have a great
> out-of-conference victory while Notre Dame does not.

Georgia and Notre Dame look pretty similar on the comparison when I do
the head-to-head that Pomeroy's site allows. I think one advantage Notre
Dame has is road/neutral record. I know you especially like Georiga's
win over Georgia Tech as it is non-conference, but I don't know if that's
enought to overcome the road/neutral disparity.


> I don't think Purdue should go because they obviously have been
> hurting badly with Booker, Keifer, and Carroll out, and that makes
> them not tournament- worthy. If they got Keifer and Carroll back at
> full strength and won a couple conference tourney games, I think
> they should go exactly as Notre Dame goes or Georgia goes. Very
> similar profiles.

I agree that it's close stuff and I think most prognosticators (and more
importantly, committee members) would probably have Notre Dame on a line
that includes teams that must do something in their conference
tournament. I made an unposted list of my teams and all the teams you
mention above are on the list of teams that must do something. Some
might be in or out right now, but tenuously at best. I do think Purdue
has the longest road to hall, especially after their loss to Iowa.


> This is all close stuff, though, and I wouldn't get greatly upset at
> any of those. I will get more upset if some teams with two or less
> top-50 victories get a high seed.

Which teams will even get in with less than 2 top 50 victories? I see
probably Southern Illinois, Utah State, Arizona, Michigan State,
Manhattan, and maybe Richmond and Western Michigan. I doubt any of those
teams will end up with high seeds. We'll have to see for S. Illinois and
Arizona, but I bet the committee will come through for you on that one.


--
“Wash” instead of “dry” to reply and replace zero with 0.
 >> Stay informed about: 2004 NCAA tournament pick 

In article <Xns94A7B718CEBA4Gibson DeleteThis @140.142.17.38>, James M. Gibson wrote:
> Perusion Hostmaster <nanae DeleteThis @bill.perusion.com> wrote in
> news:slrnc4srma.oub.nanae@bill.heins.net:
>> I don't think Purdue should go because they obviously have been
>> hurting badly with Booker, Keifer, and Carroll out, and that makes
>> them not tournament- worthy. If they got Keifer and Carroll back at
>> full strength and won a couple conference tourney games, I think
>> they should go exactly as Notre Dame goes or Georgia goes. Very
>> similar profiles.
>
> I agree that it's close stuff and I think most prognosticators (and more
> importantly, committee members) would probably have Notre Dame on a line
> that includes teams that must do something in their conference
> tournament. I made an unposted list of my teams and all the teams you
> mention above are on the list of teams that must do something. Some
> might be in or out right now, but tenuously at best. I do think Purdue
> has the longest road to hall, especially after their loss to Iowa.
>
>
>> This is all close stuff, though, and I wouldn't get greatly upset at
>> any of those. I will get more upset if some teams with two or less
>> top-50 victories get a high seed.
>
> Which teams will even get in with less than 2 top 50 victories?

I said two or less. That includes Gonzaga, who some people will be
screaming should be a one seed. Undooubtedly there will be complaints of
robbery if they get what I think they should, a 4. You have to do
better than beating two bubble teams on neutral courts to get a top-three
seed, at least in my mind. 8-)

Another team that seems to be on everyone's lock list is Dayton. I don't
see that one at all. Their only RPI top-50 victories are #43 Richmond, a
bubble team at best. They are 4-4 against teams in the RPI 50-80 range,
and have no out-of-conference victories of note. They don't deserve to
go nearly as much as Notre Dame, yet are accorded "lock" status. I hope
the committee leaves them behind if they lose before the finals of the
A-10.

> I see
> probably Southern Illinois, Utah State, Arizona, Michigan State,
> Manhattan, and maybe Richmond and Western Michigan. I doubt any of those
> teams will end up with high seeds. We'll have to see for S. Illinois and
> Arizona, but I bet the committee will come through for you on that one.

I hope so -- I still don't see why Arizona goes and Georgia doesn't go
on everyone's list. To me that is a wash, and giving an entre
(Don't bother illuminating it for me, I know it is a happenstance of the
RPI where Arizona played no RPI-200 teams to kill their average.)

--

Friends don't let friends use Outlook. -- Bob Blaylock
 >> Stay informed about: 2004 NCAA tournament pick 

hell if you are going to give a call to georgia why not go ahead and give one
to tennessee and ole miss while you are at it. georgia is LAST in the east. i
would go with marquette or st louis before i go with georgia. rice,utep,troy
state all deserve it more than georgia.
 >> Stay informed about: 2004 NCAA tournament pick 

Perusion Hostmaster <nanae.TakeThisOut@bill.perusion.com> wrote in
news:slrnc4t088.plp.nanae@bill.heins.net:

> In article <Xns94A7B718CEBA4Gibson.TakeThisOut@140.142.17.38>, James M. Gibson
> wrote:
>>
>> Which teams will even get in with less than 2 top 50 victories?
>
> I said two or less. That includes Gonzaga, who some people will be
> screaming should be a one seed. Undooubtedly there will be
> complaints of robbery if they get what I think they should, a 4. You
> have to do better than beating two bubble teams on neutral courts to
> get a top-three seed, at least in my mind. 8-)

I'm guessing Gonzaga gets a 3. Two years ago they got a 6 with only
one fewer loss, although one reason is they beat even fewer NCAA level
teams.


> Another team that seems to be on everyone's lock list is Dayton. I
> don't see that one at all. Their only RPI top-50 victories are #43
> Richmond, a bubble team at best. They are 4-4 against teams in the
> RPI 50-80 range, and have no out-of-conference victories of note.

I agree with you here. I had thought they were a lock based on their
big record a few weeks ago, but that was before they lost to George
Washington, Xavier, and Rhode Island.

> They don't deserve to go nearly as much as Notre Dame, yet are
> accorded "lock" status. I hope the committee leaves them behind if
> they lose before the finals of the A-10.

I think it's actually possible considering they get the tournament on
their home floor.

>> I see
>> probably Southern Illinois, Utah State, Arizona, Michigan State,
>> Manhattan, and maybe Richmond and Western Michigan. I doubt any of
>> those teams will end up with high seeds. We'll have to see for S.
>> Illinois and Arizona, but I bet the committee will come through for
>> you on that one.
>
> I hope so -- I still don't see why Arizona goes and Georgia doesn't
> go on everyone's list. To me that is a wash, and giving an entre
> (Don't bother illuminating it for me, I know it is a happenstance of
> the RPI where Arizona played no RPI-200 teams to kill their
> average.)


Well, I think you're going to have to live with Arizona going. I
don't see them leaving out an AP top 20 team, but I do think when they
start to break down the seeding, they will see that Arizona hasn't
done much and leave them pretty low - I'd guess the 8/9 game at best.



--
“Wash” instead of “dry” to reply and replace zero with 0.
 >> Stay informed about: 2004 NCAA tournament pick 

"Ar Q" <ArthurQ283.TakeThisOut@hottmail.com> wrote in message news:<pZm3c.3819$Cm3.2170@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> This is my pick:
>
> Champion: Stanford

LOL.

> Runner-up: North Carolina

LOL.

> Final Four: Georgia Tech, Texas

Maybe.

> Elite Eight: Duke, Kansas, Notre Dame, NC State.

Agree.

> Sweet 16: Cincinnati, Gonzaga, Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, Kentucky, Arizona,
> Wisconsin.

Good choices, except Cincinnati.

> Two and Done: Mississippi State, Saint Joseph's, Providence, Michigan State,
> Wake Forest, Maryland, Memphis, Washington, Illinois, Air Force.

Probably.

> One and Out: Alabama, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, LSU, Florida, Texas Tech,
> Colorado, Seton Hall, DePaul, Charlotte.

You think Tech, Florida and Seton Hall will lose in the first round?
 >> Stay informed about: 2004 NCAA tournament pick 

"mimus" <tinmimus99 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> >ole Roy will be in tears before its all over.
>
> It's an annual end- of- season ritual.

I have a friend who tapes this every year. We often wonder
what it would fetch on Ebay...

--Tedward
 >> Stay informed about: 2004 NCAA tournament pick 

"James M. Gibson" <jgzero.RemoveThis@u.dryington.edu> wrote:

> > Oh, and pro-rated based on the quality of the opponent.
> > I don't care if you barely beat the #327 team -- wait, I do
> > care, and your bonus should zero. Your penalty is that you
> > were only 2 points better than #327 that day. If you beat
> > 14 teams ranked ~100, you'd be earning small bonuses
> > based on the fact that you don't lose to top ~100 teams.
> > But if you go 7-7 against top 25 teams, you'd wind up
> > with seven less bonuses, but they would add up to a bigger
> > bonus overall.
> >
> > Doesn't Sagarin's overall rating sorta do this?
>
> I guess since it's a conglomeration of his ELO/Chess which is just W/L
> and his predictor ratings. I'm not sure how they factor in together,
> however. I assume it's a little more complicated than just taking a
> 50/50 average of the two.

I'm guessing he's adding a empirically derived pro-rated bonus
just for winning. That's just because I can't think of how else to
do it other than a simple average.

--Tedward
 >> Stay informed about: 2004 NCAA tournament pick 

mik_jhawkr RemoveThis @webtv.net (Michael Johnson) wrote in message news:<13012-404E4094-569 RemoveThis @storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net>...
> ole Roy will be in tears before its all over.
>
> jhawkr

You really think Roy expects this UNC team to do much? Doubtful.
He'll be happy with a sweet 16 or Elite 8 at best.
 >> Stay informed about: 2004 NCAA tournament pick