Committee made history...

[bpo57]

1-3 vs top 3 seeds

8-0 vs 10-13 seeds

They have one win in the rpi 25 and it happened four months ago. Not very impressive.

 

[bpo57]

The difference is Nova won 6 of their last 7 and we looked like a bubble team.

Remember what you did lately is irrelevant according to the committee. Total body of work. Lol those big wins in November are critical.

 

[Madbiker]

did nova have a top 25 win? I know creighton (2x) and syracuse both destroyed nova head to head.

Yes, Nova beat Kansas on a neutral court. Huge signature win that carries a lot of weight.

 

[orangefan13]

their other top 100 wins: , 2x ,

That should get them a POSTSEASON AWARD OF THANKFULNESS and a recommendation for a NOBLE PEACE PRIZE.

 

[ImperialOrange]

L'ville is the favorite, per vegas, over any team they could potentially face in their reagion.

 

[Waltdods]

Remember what you did lately is irrelevant according to the committee. Total body of work. Lol those big wins in November are critical.

Going into the NCAA tournament last year, Michigan had lost 3 of 6. Syracuse had put together a nice run in the BE tournament, but before that had lost 4 out of 5. Both went to the final 4. I think an argument for over-valuing recent results has to be that they are more predictive than earlier results, but I'm just not sure this is true. The outcome of any one basketball game is going to depend to a significant degree on luck - focusing on a particular handful of observations rather than all available information seems much more likely to lead you to a wrong result than a right one.

 

[bpo57]

L'ville is the favorite, per vegas, over any team they could potentially face in their reagion.

yep. two of the best players in the country and a phenomenal coach. When I read this thread I'm not sure if they're talking about Louisville or Pittsburgh.

 

[bpo57]

L'ville is the favorite, per vegas, over any team they could potentially face in their reagion.

yep. two of the best players in the country and a phenomenal coach. When I read this thread I'm not sure if they're talking about Louisville or Pittsburgh.

 

[DeGrozz]

Louisville has only 9 top 100 wins and 16 sub-150 wins.

Compare that to their peers on the 3 and 4 lines and I bet that you'll see their resume doesn't quite stack up when you look at the full body of work.

 

[NKR1978]

Lastly it seems like the overriding agenda was to make sure that Wichita State has to run the gauntlet in order to go 40-0. Comparing their bracket to the West is like comparing the B-12 to the SWAC. The West is soft as a baby's behind.

Wichita is a wolf. No way they're worried about playing Kentucky and Louisville. Wichita doesn't concern themselves with sheep.

 

[bpo57]

Going into the NCAA tournament last year, Michigan had lost 3 of 6. Syracuse had put together a nice run in the BE tournament, but before that had lost 4 out of 5. Both went to the final 4. I think an argument for over-valuing recent results has to be that they are more predictive than earlier results, but I'm just not sure this is true. The outcome of any one basketball game is going to depend to a significant degree on luck - focusing on a particular handful of observations rather than all available information seems much more likely to lead you to a wrong result than a right one.

Fair points. I just think that some times the team you beat in November is not the same team in March. UVA is a perfect case in point. Most teams that are on a bad run in March don't turn it around. We turned it around b4 the NCAAs. UM lost to good teams with those three losses.

 

[ImperialOrange]

yep. two of the best players in the country and a phenomenal coach. When I read this thread I'm not sure if they're talking about Louisville or Pittsburgh.

2-4 seeds are interchangable IMO. I'd rather have our 3 or Lvilles 4 vs Nova's 2. If Lville got a 2 or 3 they'd likely have a tougher road to tread.

 

[bpo57]

Louisville has only 9 top 100 wins and 16 sub-150 wins.

Compare that to their peers on the 3 and 4 lines and I bet that you'll see their resume doesn't quite stack up when you look at the full body of work.

Translated because they played a fairly soft OOC and the bottom half of the AAC is weak that means they're not worthy of being higher than a 4. but if you crush your opponents I think it should count for something and that's why the betting money is heading their way.

 

[Waltdods]

Fair points. I just think that some times the team you beat in November is not the same team in March. UVA is a perfect case in point. Most teams that are on a bad run in March don't turn it around. We turned it around b4 the NCAAs. UM lost to good teams with those three losses.

I had assumed Witchita State cruised into the NCAAs last year, but actually it turns out they too had been pretty mediocre before the tournament started - losing to Creighton twice in an 8-day stretch and dropping one to Evansville as well, so they'd lost 3 of their last 5 in the MVC. That means 3 of the 4 Final 4 teams had a less-than-stellar close to the season.

To be more specific, take Michigan last year. Going into a game with Indiana on February 2, they were ranked #1 on the country. They lost to Indiana and proceeded to end the regular season on a 5-5 run (including a loss to Penn State). They then lost in their second game in the B10 tourney, so it can't be said they had turned it around. If you would have ignored or discounted everything they did in the early part of the season, you would have significantly under-rated what they were able to do in the tournament.

 

[DeGrozz]

First time ever that a team enters the tournament with a higher ranking than their seed. Louisville finished 3rd in the Coaches Poll. There is no possible way to rationalize that seeding

I was thinking back to other bad seeding jobs and in 2005, Louisville finished the season as #4 in the AP poll and got a 4 seed in the tourney too.

Whose Cheerios did they piss in?

 

[Knicks411]

This is basically a good case of resume vs advanced stats.

 

[jncuse]

Louisville is the favourite to win the Midwest
Lousiville was also fairly placed on the 4.

I don't see a problem with that.

The criteria are known before the season, and every game matters equally. -- there will always be some interpretation of these key criteria and which are most important in each team's case. But Louisville was not really great in any of the key metrics. They proved that "eye-test" / how are you doing now is not enough.

Some teams are likely to be playing better then the seed. Some teams are likely to be playing worse. But we don't need the committee guessing / playing god with the "eye-test". While I think it's fairly obvious that Louisville is playing better than its seed, where do they draw the line? If it happens for Lousivlle, they will start doing it for a bunch of teams. Then it becomes an eye-test fiasco, where many teams seem to get the advantage based on the eye test and its nowhere near as clear as this Louisville team. You can't draw the line. This is what they want to avoid.


It's a numbers based evaluation now, that requires some subjectivity but tries to be as objective as possible. Not every elite team will be great in each metric, but every elite team has to have something very good on its resume. For Villanova it wasn't the top 25 record -- but they were great on the road and neutral courts against tourney teams / top 100 teams, and had an outstanding top 100 record. But to get a top 2 seed you need to bring some metric that is great to the table, and have other things that are merely good or weak assessed for or against you.

Lousiville was great in the following metrics (for an elite team) -- NONE.

 

[Dave85]

Remember what you did lately is irrelevant according to the committee. Total body of work. Lol those big wins in November are critical.

I think Ennis is a much better play now than at the beginning of the year. The big difference is Cooney was shooting 50% from 3 some of those games.

 

[Alsacs]

Why is this a surprise? I mean Louisville is being treated like they were in 2004-2005 in their last CUSA season.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2005/week/17/seasontype/2

In 2005 Louisville was 26-4 and was given a 4 seed. They proved they were good and made the Final Four. Louisville's resume is thin they didn't beat anybody in the non-conference and the committee took a crap on the American last night so the 4 seed shouldn't be a shock.

 

[Briancuse]

16 of Lville's win cam against teams 150 and above in the rpi

 

[jncuse]

Translated because they played a fairly soft OOC and the bottom half of the AAC is weak that means they're not worthy of being higher than a 4. but if you crush your opponents I think it should count for something and that's why the betting money is heading their way.

While the schedule limited them , only going 5-5 vs top 50 limited them much more.

If they wanted to get noticed as a #1 they could have if they went 7-3 or 8-2 in those games.

When 22 of your games are against sub 100 teams (and most way under it) you need to nail those important games to get a top seed. 5-5 will not cut it.

 

[Millhouse]

Louisville is the favourite to win the Midwest
Lousiville was also fairly placed on the 4.

I don't see a problem with that.

The criteria are known before the season, and every game matters equally. -- there will always be some interpretation of these key criteria and which are most important in each team's case. But Louisville was not really great in any of the key metrics. They proved that "eye-test" / how are you doing now is not enough.

Some teams are likely to be playing better then the seed. Some teams are likely to be playing worse. But we don't need the committee guessing / playing god with the "eye-test". While I think it's fairly obvious that Louisville is playing better than its seed, where do they draw the line? If it happens for Lousivlle, they will start doing it for a bunch of teams. Then it becomes an eye-test fiasco, where many teams seem to get the advantage based on the eye test and its nowhere near as clear as this Louisville team. You can't draw the line. This is what they want to avoid.


It's a numbers based evaluation now, that requires some subjectivity but tries to be as objective as possible. Not every elite team will be great in each metric, but every elite team has to have something very good on its resume. For Villanova it wasn't the top 25 record -- but they were great on the road and neutral courts against tourney teams / top 100 teams, and had an outstanding top 100 record. But to get a top 2 seed you need to bring some metric that is great to the table, and have other things that are merely good or weak assessed for or against you.

Lousiville was great in the following metrics (for an elite team) -- NONE.

i think it's pretty clear that they assigned seed numbers based on the whole season but arranged them based on who they think is best now.

 

[jncuse]

Translated because they played a fairly soft OOC and the bottom half of the AAC is weak that means they're not worthy of being higher than a 4. but if you crush your opponents I think it should count for something and that's why the betting money is heading their way.

Betting money is very much based on margin based systems like KenPom.

KenPom says that the top 5 teams are Arizona, Louisville, Florida, Virginia, and Wichita St.

So let's use KP (which values the recent destruction of non tourney teams) as the basis for seeds. Are you in favour of giving Tennessee a #4 seed for the NCAA tourney?

You have to go all the way right? If Louisville doesn't have a #1 resume but is great by ranking systems, should we not do the same thing with Tennessee as well.

 

[jncuse]

i think it's pretty clear that they assigned seed numbers based on the whole season but arranged them based on who they think is best now.

To a certain degree, I agree with you. They did appear to separate packs of comparable teams on the top 3 lines, based on recent play. #4 to #10 on the s curve was tight all week.

If they had debated it purely by numbers, and actual top 50 wins (and the who), did not bring in recent play... not sure if it would have been Virginia as the last #1. But nobody really had a distinguished resume at #4 - give it to the double champion as a way to separate the pack.

Other then that our overall body of work was possibly a 2. We could certainly debate it against Wisconsin, Michigan, Kansas, Villanova. It was a thin line against all those teams, and they probably did use recent play to separate us and put us at the back of the pack against comparable teams.

But there was not a thin line between the above teams and Louisville. So Louisville did not jump anybody.

 

[Alsacs]

I think Louisville as a 4 seed was fair just by the numbers. I still don't get how Syracuse, North Carolina at home, @Pitt, Pitt-N, Duke-N, @NC State, Florida State x3 got UVA a 1 seed.

UVA's top non-conference win didn't make the NCAA tournament. Note I WANT UVA to do well as well as I like the program, but the committee wasn't consistent.