Jerry Palm has Syracuse OUT of NCAA tournament.
- Thread starter 21Guns
- Start date
Last year they had the lowest RPI EVER to get an invite, at 71.
They are far lower this year. They better not be invited.
They are far lower this year. They better not be invited.
I'm preparing myself for them to get in as a 10-win ACC team. Sure, they couldn't win a game away from home, but by golly, Cuse brings in so much for ratings and ticket sales! Jerry Palm isn't a good bracketologist either.
I'm expecting Cuse will be in one of the play in games, and it'll be a travesty if it happens.
I'm expecting Cuse will be in one of the play in games, and it'll be a travesty if it happens.
Tickets sales and ratings mean nothing when it comes to the committee. And Palm is very good at what he does.
I'd put Cuses' odds at getting in around 20%. The disparity of thoughts on them is huge right now, they're anywhere from "should be in" to "no chance". But the lack of road/neutral wins coupled with their RPI and a few bad losses makes me pretty sure that they're looking at the NIT.
I'm not sure how you can believe this given the garbage field the NCAA served up last year, and how they basically gifted Duke a Sweet 16 bid in Oregon's region.
But he really isn't. 61st out of 88 bracketologists according to the Matrix.
Year after year, people complain about preferential treatment to the "big name" teams. Yet the most head scratching selections over the past 20 years have been teams like Tulsa, Middle Tennessee, Air Force, and New Mexico. None of those teams are getting selected due to ratings. And Duke had a tough 1st round draw last year, so don't know how they were "gifted" a sweet 16 bid.
I know nothing about the "matrix", but I read what Jerry writes and listen to what he says (and have for the past 15+ years). David Jones wrote once about being at the NCAA headquarters for a mock committee and Jerry was basically correcting the NCAA people and telling them mistakes that they were making. I could start up a blog tomorrow, hit 67/68 this year, and probably show up well on "the matrix", but that doesn't mean that I know anywhere near as much as some of the others. Jerry is a wealth of information when it comes to the selection process.
There are 88 bracketologists? And others who sort it out and rank them?
Yikes....another sign of the apocalypse
UNC Wilmington was not a tough draw 'last year,' they certainly are this year. Their team was easily the best matchup for Duke, who somehow, despite losing 10 games was rated as the best 4-seed, when there were better 5 and 4 seeds around them. They're either incompetent or they make decisions to help out their revenue.
I.e. "I like what he says, so he's beyond reproach."
So what?
You could at least click the link I provided above to the Bracket Matrix, which also explains how people get rated. You can't start a bracket for 1 year and go into the matrix, you have to do it for at least 3. It's not just getting the right teams either, it takes into account seeding too.
There are 88 bracketologists? And others who sort it out and rank them?
Yikes....another sign of the apocalypse
There's actually more, those are bracketologists who have been doing it for 3 years or more.
Good point, I didn't click it and was just making a quick assumption. But I'd be interested to see if some of this is just selection bias, where people take a stab at doing a bracket projection, those that do best the first year come back again the second year, etc, and thus you end up with a top-weighted ranking system because those that do poorly pack it in and aren't on here (it's a concept that's seen often in gambling with guys that start selling picks after a string of positive variance, without actually having an edge in the market).
What I'm really saying is, I'll be interested in seeing if those at the top of the "bracket matrix" are the best again, or if they just regress to the mean.
As for Palm, it's not as much of "I like what he says, so he's beyond reproach", as much as he backs up everything he says with stuff that makes sense in most cases.
Wilmington was the 2nd best 13 seed in Pomeroy last year (behind Hawaii), and Baylor wasn't really that under-seeded as a 5 (despite their result against Yale). Also don't remember thinking that Duke was out of place as a 4 so I didn't see any incompetence there. The incompetence I remember came with Tulsa getting in.
Wilmington's KenPom rank was essentially where we've been this season. Duke's place was as the strongest 4 seed? Come on.
The committee is either biased or incompetent. What they did to that Wichita State/Arizona/Miami bracket was hilariously awful.
They also have 6 wins vs RPI top 50, 3 vs Top 25.. Much as I hate them, the at large field sucks. I mean you going to put Illinois State and Rhode Island over them?
