How the bracketologists as a group did in predicting the field.
And the answer is, really, really close.
The first deviation was at 2-3, where Duke was the second 3 seed on the Matrix and the committee put them at 2 over Tennessee and Purdue.
Next was at 7, where the Matrix had Boise State as a 7 and the committee put them in as an 8. Murray State was the beneficiary there.
At 8-9, the Matrix had North Carolina as a 9 and TCU as an 8; the committee flipped those two.
And the Matrix had Iowa State as the top 10 seed; the committee slotted the Cyclones as an 11. That was the biggest miss, by four spots.
Oh yeah, the Matrix had the Aggies in the field over Wyoming, but very slightly (11.32 average seed to 11.33; A&M was named on 27 more brackets). Virtual tie, but tie went to the Cowboys.
The final Matrix included 210 brackets; 209 of them had us as a 4 or a 5. One guy dropped us to a 6.
Turns out we were seeded where we deserved to be, and where the N.E.T. had us slotted. However, the maddening flaw in the net system, is if we had blown thru tamu - instead of ourselves getting gutted, then lost a close game to UT, we almost certainly would have stayed at the 4 seed (as I understand everything that I read prior to). Had that scenario unfolded, imo we should have been a 2, and UT a 1.
The other thing we learned based on your post, is yes the committee absolutely follows Lunardi, and his indefensible ratings (following net, I presume), and pays very little attention to “eye-test”…except perhaps for the very last game a team plays.
I don’t think we learned that at all. What we learned is that the bracketologists as a group (all 210 of them) did a good job of predicting what the committee would do. They’re not there to influence the committee; they’re there to guess the final outcome.
And NET did not have us slotted as a 4. We were a 5 – the very last 5. If they’d gone strictly by NET we wouldn’t be a 4. Murray State was right below us in NET and wound up as a 7.
Virtually all of the computer metrics had us as a 5 as well. So if anything, we benefitted from the eye test.
You can view it that way if you want. We will never know whether Lunardi, et.al. influenced the committee, nor by how much. Obviously they didn’t exactly mirror the seeds, but my main point it seems the committee was more influenced by predetermined matrices, than by what could be observed and processed by reasonably thinking individuals.
I think that’s reasonable to conclude. They try to wrap things up Sunday morning if they can. Sometimes they have to have a Plan B in case a Richmond steals a bid on Sunday (which probably knocked A&M out), but absent a bid thief, the cake is largely baked Saturday night. If A&M had beaten Tennessee, Wyoming would have paid the price.
There is absolutely no reason to think that someone who is trying to predict the committee, influenced the committee’s decisions. That’s like saying a weatherman’s forecast changed the weather.
One thing bracketologists do is try to identify patterns in things past committees have done, and apply those patterns to current situations. A few years ago, midmajors would get shafted for the last at large picks in favor of Power Six schools. Obviously Wyoming didn’t get shafted to favor A&M, and this has happened in other recent brackets.
Well I may not be the sharpest pencil in the box but I think my pencil sharp enough to tell you that Texas A&m is definitely one of the best 68 teams in the country LOL
On one of the Bracket shows I watched yesterday/last night (I don’t remember which one; I watched at least some of several), they showed a graphic of the REAL “first 3 out” and the Aggies were either 2nd, or 3rd on that list…in other words, if there was one more slot available, they still would not have made it.
The selection process proofs once again the SEC needs to wrap up the tourney on Saturday! Then there’s no excuse.
Regardless I think Texas A&M should have gotten in.
The SEC needs to go to a 20 game conference schedule and cut some cup cakes. Improve the metrics no matter what they are. The BiG 10 got 9 teams in the dance. That’s absurd!
It will be interesting to see what cycle (end of first 2 days…end of first weekend…etc.) the SEC has more teams left in the NCAAT than the Big 10 does.
I feel sure the Committee members read Lunardi and pay attention to all that other mess. It was a little eerie to me how similar the Lunardi predictions were to the actual bracket.
In our case, What do you think the committee (and ap and coaches poll voters for that matter) valued and weighted differently than the net algorithm for seeding? Do they think the sec strength of schedule is better than our computer sos? Is it the “eye test”? It is it giving more credit for beating the number one team and beating Kentucky? Or is it human nature to value the last 15 games more than the first ten or so? Or is it politics?
It could be our resume is objectively better using the quad 1-4 record comparison?
I would hope the answer is they see that the sec is stronger than the computer gives credit. But judging by number of sec teams in and the a&m decision that can’t be it. So it must be the eye test from our national tv exposure winning against top five teams. Schedule better non-conference games!! Hog fans deserve better than being shipped off to buffalo and San Francisco.
Does Joe have an inside man (or more) updating him? Or even several, yes it was close. But after years of training Joe after knowing the Top 4-8 then it’s all about the first 4 out, maybe…
I don’t think so. You can bet Lunardi has a computer that can plug in the same data the committee uses. He’s also been watching them for years. His predictions are close for the same reason a good weatherman’s prediction for tomorrow’s weather is so close.
I think the eye test mattered. I also think our strength of record (16th) was consistent with a 4 seed and they probably gave that a lot of weight in deciding whether to slot us as a 4 or a 5. I’m pretty sure based on the fact they put us in Gonzaga’s regional that we’re the #16 seed, so it was close to a 5.
If you look at the Matrix as a whole, they were a lot closer to the actual bracket than Joe was.
Joe finished 151st in accuracy this year out of 211. This was not one of his better years.
There were only five brackets (again out of 211) that graded out more accurate than the Matrix as a whole.
Admittedly, I stopped watching college basketball in about 2005 after 9 years in the wilderness. In the last few years after Mike Anderson could not get it done, I decided Razorback basketball as we knew it back in the day was dead and gone forever.
But it’s a new world now. To that end though, I can be pretty uninformed about all these new ways they pick teams for the tournament. For the longest time I could not figure out the lingo about “last 4 in” and “first 4 out”, etc.
I still don’t understand or know exactly what the “matrix” is.
But my point is I do think the people on the committee know what Lunardi and the matrix, etc, says. I’m sure they read and digest all that information. Does it make their decision for them ? Probably not because I can only imagine the egos of the folks on the committee. . But does it influence them in some way, probably.
And I think Lunardi has his sources on the inside as somebody else mentioned.
The Net is interesting. Seems like most folks are saying it’s really important. Well, our Hogs are starting this gig in New York (do you know how cold it is in Buffalo now?), against Vermont with a #52 Net. However, our regions #5 Seed, UConn, just outside of NYC, is starting with NMState at #79 in the Net (and coming from even further west than Arkansas). What a gift.
. But does it influence them in some way, probably.