Bracketology 2020-21

[Sparko]

But there are X numbers of teams who could have won it all but went to the NIT because they weren’t selected.

[twocoach]

Especially since not every conference tourney was held at the same time. The mid-majors and small conferences had a big advantage because they had more time than the bigger conferences.

One man's advantage is another man's rust. Self was so concerned about rust before the Big 12 tourney that he booked a game against UTEP. Now you want some teams to sit for 1-2 weeks prior to the NCAA tourney? That might be a case of causing one problem to avoid a different problem.

[twocoach]

Especially since not every conference tourney was held at the same time. The mid-majors and small conferences had a big advantage because they had more time than the bigger conferences.

The finals of a major conference tourney are going to feature 2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney. No good reason to make it so difficult on them.

Georgia Tech, Oregon State and Georgetown beg to differ. If they had lost they would not have made the tourney so those finals absolutely did not feature "2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".

[PhDhawk]

Especially since not every conference tourney was held at the same time. The mid-majors and small conferences had a big advantage because they had more time than the bigger conferences.

One man's advantage is another man's rust. Self was so concerned about rust before the Big 12 tourney that he booked a game against UTEP. Now you want some teams to sit for 1-2 weeks prior to the NCAA tourney? That might be a case of causing one problem to avoid a different problem.

But it's not a problem if everyone does it. It's a level playing field.

[twocoach]

Especially since not every conference tourney was held at the same time. The mid-majors and small conferences had a big advantage because they had more time than the bigger conferences.

One man's advantage is another man's rust. Self was so concerned about rust before the Big 12 tourney that he booked a game against UTEP. Now you want some teams to sit for 1-2 weeks prior to the NCAA tourney? That might be a case of causing one problem to avoid a different problem.

But it's not a problem if everyone does it. It's a level playing field.

Taking a week break doesn't guarantee that teams have a better chance of being covid free. They can still get covid on their campus. All it does is guarantee that the teams are all rustier and less capable of playing their best. Hard pass.

Like I said, this feels mostly like we're just bitching about this because we were one of the teams that had to drop out of a conference tourney and because we hate the ncaa.

[Cascadia]

Jesus Christ twocoach, you've made it abundantly clear that you just don't get it. Please stop responding.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Especially since not every conference tourney was held at the same time. The mid-majors and small conferences had a big advantage because they had more time than the bigger conferences.

The finals of a major conference tourney are going to feature 2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney. No good reason to make it so difficult on them.

Georgia Tech, Oregon State and Georgetown beg to differ. If they had lost they would not have made the tourney so those finals absolutely did not feature "2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".

They’re all in, right? So definitely not something you or I could definitively say. But, would you like to explain Gutter’s overall point? I’d like to hear it or wonder if we are guttering for guttering’s sake.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Jesus Christ twocoach, you've made it abundantly clear that you just don't get it. Please stop responding.

The players are required to wear bracelets with proximity sensors on them for contact tracing. We already know about the 7 day contact tracing rule for the tournament.

Is there a logical argument that games don’t produce a unique circumstance for increased proximity?

[twocoach]

Jesus Christ twocoach, you've made it abundantly clear that you just don't get it. Please stop responding.

I get it just fine. I just don't agree that a week off was some brilliant opportunity missed by the ncaa to guarantee the risk of teams not being at full strength is reduced once the tourney starts. It doesn't guarantee that at all.

[twocoach]

Jesus Christ twocoach, you've made it abundantly clear that you just don't get it. Please stop responding.

The players are required to wear bracelets with proximity sensors on them for contact tracing. We already know about the 7 day contact tracing rule for the tournament.

Is there a logical argument that games don’t produce a unique circumstance for increased proximity?

Sure, it does. But if those bracelets with proximity sensors were a guarantee against failing protocols then McCormack would have played in the Big 12 tourney, wouldn't he?

Is there a logical argument that teams choosing to bubble in place at their conference tourney location and then traveling directly to Indy thanks to no time off in between events didn't produce a unique circumstance for decreased proximity?

[Cascadia]

Jesus Christ twocoach, you've made it abundantly clear that you just don't get it. Please stop responding.

I get it just fine. I just don't agree that a week off was some brilliant opportunity missed by the ncaa to guarantee the risk of teams not being at full strength is reduced once the tourney starts. It doesn't guarantee that at all.

Again, we all know you don’t get it. Please stop.

[Mjl]

The finals of a major conference tourney are going to feature 2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney. No good reason to make it so difficult on them.

Georgia Tech, Oregon State and Georgetown beg to differ. If they had lost they would not have made the tourney so those finals absolutely did not feature "2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".

They’re all in, right? So definitely not something you or I could definitively say. But, would you like to explain Gutter’s overall point? I’d like to hear it or wonder if we are guttering for guttering’s sake.

I am not sure what the overall point is, but yes, we can definitively say OSU and Georgetown would not be in if they hadn't won their conference tournaments. They're 12 seeds despite winning them, and the play-in games are 11 seeds.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Jesus Christ twocoach, you've made it abundantly clear that you just don't get it. Please stop responding.

The players are required to wear bracelets with proximity sensors on them for contact tracing. We already know about the 7 day contact tracing rule for the tournament.

Is there a logical argument that games don’t produce a unique circumstance for increased proximity?

Sure, it does.

Is there a logical argument that teams choosing to bubble in place at their conference tourney location and then traveling directly to Indy thanks to no time off in between events didn't produce a unique circumstance for decreased proximity?

Something that can be replicated and has no dependence on there not being a week without games.

The goal is to minimize the risk of losing players/teams. Nothing will completely eliminate the risk. It’s a straw man argument.

[twocoach]

Jesus Christ twocoach, you've made it abundantly clear that you just don't get it. Please stop responding.

I get it just fine. I just don't agree that a week off was some brilliant opportunity missed by the ncaa to guarantee the risk of teams not being at full strength is reduced once the tourney starts. It doesn't guarantee that at all.

Again, we all know you don’t get it. Please stop.

Feel free to ignore me. I'll participate how I choose.

[Cascadia]

I get it just fine. I just don't agree that a week off was some brilliant opportunity missed by the ncaa to guarantee the risk of teams not being at full strength is reduced once the tourney starts. It doesn't guarantee that at all.

Again, we all know you don’t get it. Please stop.

Feel free to ignore me. I'll participate how I choose.

You should be embarrassed by your stupidity instead of trying to show it off

[Deleted User 289]

The finals of a major conference tourney are going to feature 2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney. No good reason to make it so difficult on them.

Georgia Tech, Oregon State and Georgetown beg to differ. If they had lost they would not have made the tourney so those finals absolutely did not feature "2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".

They’re all in, right? So definitely not something you or I could definitively say. But, would you like to explain Gutter’s overall point? I’d like to hear it or wonder if we are guttering for guttering’s sake.

What am I missing here?
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to understand what I may be misunderstanding.
You clearly stated, "The finals of a major conference tourney are going to feature 2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".
So were you saying the conference tournament finals are basically meaningless in regards to who makes the tournament? If so, you very well may be right.
But conference tournaments themselves can (and often do) have a major bearing on teams making the NCAA tournament - or not. They serve a meaningful purpose. As twocoach pointed out this season with G-Tech, G-Town, and OSU.

[Deleted User 289]

Really good article. At least I think so. Hopefully you don't need a subscription to view it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/i ... ianapolis/

[CrimsonNBlue]

Georgia Tech, Oregon State and Georgetown beg to differ. If they had lost they would not have made the tourney so those finals absolutely did not feature "2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".

They’re all in, right? So definitely not something you or I could definitively say. But, would you like to explain Gutter’s overall point? I’d like to hear it or wonder if we are guttering for guttering’s sake.

What am I missing here?
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to understand what I may be misunderstanding.
You clearly stated, "The finals of a major conference tourney are going to feature 2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".
So were you saying the conference tournament finals are basically meaningless in regards to who makes the tournament? If so, you very well may be right.
But conference tournaments themselves can (and often do) have a major bearing on teams making the NCAA tournament - or not. They serve a meaningful purpose. As twocoach pointed out this season with G-Tech, G-Town, and OSU.

I am saying there are multiple known participants to the NCAA in a contract tracing situation just 5-6 days prior to the tourney starting when they instituted a 7 and 10 day negative testing guideline.

Picking apart the premise as only mostly accurate is needless to the conversation.

[Deleted User 289]

They’re all in, right? So definitely not something you or I could definitively say. But, would you like to explain Gutter’s overall point? I’d like to hear it or wonder if we are guttering for guttering’s sake.

What am I missing here?
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to understand what I may be misunderstanding.
You clearly stated, "The finals of a major conference tourney are going to feature 2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".
So were you saying the conference tournament finals are basically meaningless in regards to who makes the tournament? If so, you very well may be right.
But conference tournaments themselves can (and often do) have a major bearing on teams making the NCAA tournament - or not. They serve a meaningful purpose. As twocoach pointed out this season with G-Tech, G-Town, and OSU.

I am saying there are multiple known participants to the NCAA in a contract tracing situation just 5-6 days prior to the tourney starting when they instituted a 7 and 10 day negative testing guideline.

Picking apart the premise as only mostly accurate is needless to the conversation.

That makes sense and I agree.
My what if question for today is, what if there were no conference tournaments last year or if there were, there were no covid issues in the conference tournaments?
Do we think the NCAA Tournament would have been played and if so, would they have completed it?

[CrimsonNBlue]

What am I missing here?
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to understand what I may be misunderstanding.
You clearly stated, "The finals of a major conference tourney are going to feature 2 teams that the ncaa knows will 100% make the tourney".
So were you saying the conference tournament finals are basically meaningless in regards to who makes the tournament? If so, you very well may be right.
But conference tournaments themselves can (and often do) have a major bearing on teams making the NCAA tournament - or not. They serve a meaningful purpose. As twocoach pointed out this season with G-Tech, G-Town, and OSU.

I am saying there are multiple known participants to the NCAA in a contract tracing situation just 5-6 days prior to the tourney starting when they instituted a 7 and 10 day negative testing guideline.

Picking apart the premise as only mostly accurate is needless to the conversation.

That makes sense and I agree.
My what if question for today is, what if there were no conference tournaments last year or if there were, there were no covid issues in the conference tournaments?
Do we think the NCAA Tournament would have been played and if so, would they have completed it?

No. Even though there are times it seems we have learned nothing in the last year, we knew very little then to where what was done had to be done.