Committee made history...

[Briancuse]

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.

They gave it to them because they won the acc regular season and tourney title, and because Michigan got killed in the big ten final.

 

[Alsacs]

They gave it to them because they won the acc regular season and tourney title, and because Michigan got killed in the big ten final.

Regular season titles aren't legit unless you play a true robin. That excuse is completely BS. I respect UVA and hope the make the Final Four and they proven to be an excellent team, but they didn't play @ Syracuse, @North Carolina and only played Pitt and Duke 1 time on the road and they split those games. Its BS to say regular season title matters when seeding teams. The conference tournaments should carry weight because they are on neutral courts a la the NCAA Tournament. Unless you play a true round robin don't give me regular season title. I am okay that the Wake Forest AD defended the ACC's rep, but they weren't consistent.

 

[Briancuse]

Regular season titles aren't legit unless you play a true robin. That excuse is completely BS. I respect UVA and hope the make the Final Four and they proven to be an excellent team, but they didn't play @ Syracuse, @North Carolina and only played Pitt and Duke 1 time on the road and they split those games. Its BS to say regular season title matters when seeding teams. The conference tournaments should carry weight because they are on neutral courts a la the NCAA Tournament. Unless you play a true round robin don't give me regular season title. I am okay that the Wake Forest AD defended the ACC's rep, but they weren't consistent.

I agree with everything that you just said, but who else are you going to give the one seed too? It would have been Michigan but they had 8 losses and they got smoked by msu.

 

[bpo57]

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.

Funny you mention Tennessee cuz they're one of my sleepers although my enthusiasm is diminished since they have to play an extra game. You and I have gone over this. Have two issues. I think too much emphasis is placed on the OOC. I also think the evaluation of strength of schedule is highly subjective and inconsistently applied. Nova is a great example. No top 25 wins in the last 4 months and yet they were considered for a 1 seed. Thats nuts. As for Louisville you and others are focused only on who they played and ignoring how they looked doing it. The Coaches and Vegas line up with the Ville yet the Committee thinks they're not in the top 12. Major disconnect there, no?

 

[Alsacs]

I agree with everything that you just said, but who else are you going to give the one seed too? It would have been Michigan but they had 8 losses and they got smoked by msu.

If the committee was going to give it Virginia because they won the ACC regular season and conference tournament then Louisville had just as big a claim.

Virginia wins Syracuse 3 seed, Duke 3 seed, North Carolina 6 seed, Pittsburgh 9 seed x2, NC State 11 seed
Louisville wins Cincinnati 5 seed, UConn 7 seed x3. Louisville only team to win @SMU(first 4 out)

Louisville played a true robin in conference, and passed the eye test more. I don't see if your going to reward Virginia how ding Louisville so much. Their is a gap of 3 lines between their resumes.

 

[Briancuse]

If the committee was going to give it Virginia because they won the ACC regular season and conference tournament then Louisville had just as big a claim.

Virginia wins Syracuse 3 seed, Duke 3 seed, North Carolina 6 seed, Pittsburgh 9 seed x2, NC State 11 seed
Louisville wins Cincinnati 5 seed, UConn 7 seed x3. Louisville only team to win @SMU(first 4 out)

Louisville played a true robin in conference, and passed the eye test more. I don't see if your going to reward Virginia how ding Louisville so much. Their is a gap of 3 lines between their resumes.

Lville had no business even being in the discussion for a one seed. They beat nobody in the non conf part of their schedule.

You mentioned the round robin aspect, Lville played ucf, temple,usf twice, and rutgers and houston three times.

Anyone can pass the eye test when you play rutgers and houston.

 

[Garbs]

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.

pretty sure they arrange them purely based on geography now

 

[Alsacs]

Lville had no business even being in the discussion for a one seed. They beat nobody in the non conf part of their schedule.

You mentioned the round robin aspect, Lville played ucf, temple,usf twice, and rutgers and houston three times.

Anyone can pass the eye test when you play rutgers and houston.

Wisconsin beat UVA on UVA's home court, beat UW-Green Bay @Green Bay while UVA lost to them. Wisconsin beat Florida #1 overall seed, St. Louis, St. John's, and West Virginia on neutral floors, Michigan State, @Michigan.

Wisconsin had a better resume than Virginia. Beating Pitt and Duke on neutral floors shouldn't have erased Wisconsin waxing UVA @UVA and all the wins I said above.

My point is if Virginia is a 1 seed then Louisville should have been a 2 seed or at worst the top 3 seed by the logic the committee used.

 

[jncuse]

The Coaches and Vegas line up with the Ville yet the Committee thinks they're not in the top 12. Major disconnect there, no?

Absolutely. There is a major disconnect. But they are not intended to be connected either.
a) Poll alllows for eye-test
b) Vegas considers margins.

I would be terrified to get Louisville as a 4 in my bracket.

I know your issue is that you want seeds to reflect teams that appear to be the best. And you are not the only one that wants that.

But it's still not a committee screw-up. Your issue is with the rules of the game that were signed off by people other than the committee. Maybe in the future they make adjust the s-curve for AP rankings / power rankings to try to bring in these compoenents.

To me the fundamental problem as I highlighted in an above post. We are all pretty sure Louisvlle is a top 8 team based on watching games. So we let the committee put them on the 2 line. Where do we stop? The comittee will turn into an eye test free for all once you give them any freedom with it. They will apply it to be everybody, and to teams that it does not appear so obvious to the public. Bubble teams will be selected based purely on the eye test. Kentucky gets a 4 seed this year because they have talent. Another 8 seed may have equal talent, but they don't get bumped because they don't have the name or nobody really watched them. And then the process becomes as ridiculous as it ever was.

 

[bpo57]

If two teams had identical records and identical SOS but one had a margin of victory of 15 and the other 7 then wouldn't one be clearly better than the other? It's not just Vegas. The margin of victory can indicate the strength of a team. I also think how you are playing lately matters. And when they screw up by putting two of the currently strongest teams on the 4 line then they are absolutely screwing the two 1 seeds. If that were us we'd be howling to the moon.

 

[Briancuse]

Wisconsin beat UVA on UVA's home court, beat UW-Green Bay @Green Bay while UVA lost to them. Wisconsin beat Florida #1 overall seed, St. Louis, St. John's, and West Virginia on neutral floors, Michigan State, @Michigan.

Wisconsin had a better resume than Virginia. Beating Pitt and Duke on neutral floors shouldn't have erased Wisconsin waxing UVA @UVA and all the wins I said above.

My point is if Virginia is a 1 seed then Louisville should have been a 2 seed or at worst the top 3 seed by the logic the committee used.

Wisc had a very good resume, and they should have been in the mix. At the end of the day Wisc was hurt by the fact that they didn't win the big ten regular season or tourney. I also think the lasting impression was big, their lasting impression of wisc was getting waxed by msu, and their lasting impression of uva was waxing duke.

 

[CiceroSwamp]

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.

The 'Ville was in fact #4 in BPI...but apparently that was ignored

 

[bpo57]

I think Wisconsin is one of the more overrated squads in the tournament. They are fortunate to be in a soft region but someone will expose them soon enough.

 

[bpo57]

The 'Ville was in fact #4 in BPI...but apparently that was ignored

Interesting because supposedly there was a high correlation last year between BPI and NCAA performance. I heard somebody on TV say that; did not research it.

 

[Garbs]

If two teams had identical records and identical SOS but one had a margin of victory of 15 and the other 7 then wouldn't one be clearly better than the other? It's not just Vegas. The margin of victory can indicate the strength of a team. I also think how you are playing lately matters. And when they screw up by putting two of the currently strongest teams on the 4 line then they are absolutely screwing the two 1 seeds. If that were us we'd be howling to the moon.

but that is just the way LVille plays, they run like maniacs and blow shitty teams out

 

[jncuse]

The 'Ville was in fact #4 in BPI...but apparently that was ignored

#1 I don't think BPI is even an official metric. It may have been added without my knowledge. It is just an ESPN created and pushed number that is put on team's resumes during ESPN broadcasts. Not to say the BPI does not have merit (like KenPom) but it is not part of the selection process.

#2 Even if it is part of the resume, its treated the same as the RPI. No teams get seeded based on RPI alone. Its basically a number that is only used to identify quality wins a team has. It comes down to quality wins and % -- top 25, 50, 100. Who did you beat. How did you perform against good teams.

 

[orange79]

Fair points. I just think that some times the team you beat in November is not the same team in March.

Yup - see SU-Navy 85-86 Oh Lord

 

[realorange]

I think Wisconsin is one of the more overrated squads in the tournament. They are fortunate to be in a soft region but someone will expose them soon enough.

Got to disagree. Probably best Wisky offensive team in a long time. That combined with the tough nosed way they play will make them a very hard out.

 

[bpo57]

Got to disagree. Probably best Wisky offensive team in a long time. That combined with the tough nosed way they play will make them a very hard out.

That's the beauty of the tournament. We'll find out soon enough. I'm not saying they're bums, more that they're not one of the top 8 teams in the country.

 

[bpo57]

but that is just the way LVille plays, they run like maniacs and blow shitty teams out

Funny I don't hear anybody talking about Florida playing shitty teams. Not like the SEC was a powerhouse this year.

 

[kirbivore]

But Louisville is a 4 seed. Tell me they weren't trying to fok WS.

I would have respected the committee if they owned it. Maybe taking a group photo of them all giving WSU the finger

 

[Moontan]

Whose Cheerios did they piss in?

Karen Sypher.

 

[Garbs]

Funny I don't hear anybody talking about Florida playing shitty teams. Not like the SEC was a powerhouse this year.

I have doubts about Florida too because the SEC is terrible

 

[jncuse]

Did Wichita St get intentionally stacked on? Just because its big names with them, it does not necessarily mean they were. To me there are two factors:
1) Were seeds for teams in the Midwest region fair?
2) Did teams get moved out of region to play Wichita? Geography is of utmost importance in regional placement - was there a breakdown anywhere?

Based on the analysis below, they really did not. Each year we have a bracket that looks stacked (and may actually be stacked). But the names on the jersey's often cause this be fiction rather than fact. This year it is probably fact. But I don't think it was really on purpose.

Furthermore, Louisville had to be placed somewhere. It was unfortunate for any #1, but why would they moved to a region farther away from home?

Correct Seeds?

Did Kentucky deserve an 8, Louisivlle a 4, Duke 3, Michigan a 2? Yes in all cases.

Just because Kentucky is talented there is not much of an argument for placing them above 8. They were a 7 at best, and a committe deciding an 8 seems fair to me.

The only one that is really disputed is Lousivlle. You can dispute Louisville by saying they are great and play better than 4 - but those are not reasons to actually be seeded higher than #4 under the current guidelines / criteria that are known by all teams.

The committee clearly did not respect the AAC. If UConn had not been placed as a 7, or SMU was in, you can say Louisville was held back a line. But it was consistent. No "games" were done to move back Louisville to a 4.


Geography

The committee will try to place teams in locations as close as possible. Teams highest on the s-curve on that seed line will be placed in closest region first. Teams are not placed to regions on s-curve (i.e 1/8) or creating a mythical balance. Its geography first and foremost.

For 8 seeds it is closest pod. Kentucky as an 8, could not be placed in Orlando pod, because of Florida. Other options were San Diego, Raleigh, and St. Louis. So it comes down to them and Memphis for Raleigh and St. Louis. Lexington is slightly closer to St. Louis. Memphis is a little closer, and farther from Raleigh.

Based on geography it should have been Memphis playing in St. Louis, and Kentucky should have been in Raleigh. The conclusion can be made that putting Kentucky vs Wichita may have been intentional.

Louisville Louisville is clearly closest to Indianapolis. It would make no sense to send them anywhere else as a 4. Nothing intentional. (that does not mean it is not what it is desired).

Duke

Duke was the highest 3 on the s-curve. The closest region to them was Indianpolis. So once again no issues with placing Duke in that region.

Michigan

The closest region to Michigan is Indianapolis.

So in summary.

- Michigan right seed, proper region by geography
- Duke right seed, proper region by geography
- Louisville right seed based on resume within stated criteria, and proper region by geography.
- Kentucky right seed, it probably should have been Memphis placed in that pod instead.

It sucks for Wichita, but I don't really think any games were played to load up on that region.

 

[jncuse]

I would have respected the committee if they owned it. Maybe taking a group photo of them all giving WSU the finger

I respect the fact that the committee gave teams in the Midwest the right seeds and placed them in the correct regions. It results in regions that appear stacked from time to time.

What exactly should they own up to? If they intentionally moved Louisville away from Indianapolis, they would not be following geographical guidelines. In fact they would be accomodating Wichita St, and punishing an other team. If they placed Louisville as a 4, they would be basing it purely on "eye-test" which they are supposed to have moved on from.