Committee made history...

[jncuse]

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

Top 25 : 4-2 vs 4-3
Top 50: 10-2 vs 5-5
Top 100: 17-2 vs 9-5

No difference right?

 

[bpo57]

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.

The sites that teams play at should be largely irrelevant when it comes to seeding the teams. Get the seeds right. The joints are gonna be sold out. The NCAA and its partners will all make millions. There is almost complete consensus from everybody that WS got hosed. Several coaches I saw in interviews all said how can Lville be a 4 seed. I don't understand how you can't acknowledge that. I compare the top 4 of the MW vs the top 4 of the West and I see no comparison.

 

[bpo57]

Top 25 : 4-2 vs 4-3
Top 50: 10-2 vs 5-5
Top 100: 17-2 vs 9-5

No difference right?

6 of UF's top 50 wins were comprised of three apiece against UK and Tenn. I can't get that excited about that. Cincinnati, Memphis and UConn are probably all better than those two. I probably will pick Florida to win it all but they play in a fairly weak league.

When you say top 50 or top 100 what are you referring to rpi?

 

[BuffOrange]

It's hard for 4 seeds to beat 1 seeds because usually 1 seeds are better than 4 seeds. It's definitely weird but Louisville will be heavily favored over their one seed.

we should just pretend that louisville is the 1 and WSU is the 4.

it's also hard for 4s because they play the 13 and the 5 to get to the regionals while the 1 plays the 16 and the 8. Louisville would be favored over most of the teams seeded ahead of them as would MSU.

The 1s would still lose to the 13 or 5 less often than the 4s do because they're better teams. Pomeroy had a post on this a while back - the seed in terms of what path you get really doesn't matter as much as you probably think.

 

[Briancuse]

6 of UF's top 50 wins were comprised of three apiece against UK and Tenn. I can't get that excited about that. Cincinnati, Memphis and UConn are probably all better than those two. I probably will pick Florida to win it all but they play in a fairly weak league.

When you say top 50 or top 100 what are you referring to rpi?

Florida also had wins against Kansas , Fsu, and Memphis.

 

[BuffOrange]

As someone who loves Vegas & kenpom for predictive purposes, I don't know why people use it for seeding arguments. I'm picking L'ville to win it all and they didn't beat enough good teams - simple. Them & Mich St's resumes weren't as good as the 3's. Why are we bothering to play a reg. season if we're going to ignore that?

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.

Agreed. I honestly think the committee probably really wanted Michigan to beat Sparty and make their lives easier. When they didn't they had to chose between:
A) The best resume in Wiscy - they'd then have to hear every talking head hack on the planet screaming about a #1 not winning their reg. season or conf. tourney. That's too much of a headache so they're quickly eliminated.
B) Nova and their bare bones resume.
C) the easy way out - the ACC 'double champ' - even if it contradicts their 'body of work' mantra.

I also think the old populist "big boys won't play the underrated little guy on the road" complaint sounds pretty lame when it comes from the same people who don't want to consider @ a solid Green Bay team a 'good win'. :noidea:

 

[jncuse]

6 of UF's top 50 wins were comprised of three apiece against UK and Tenn. I can't get that excited about that. Cincinnati, Memphis and UConn are probably all better than those two. I probably will pick Florida to win it all but they play in a fairly weak league.

When you say top 50 or top 100 what are you referring to rpi?

I am using RPI.. but hey, let's go to a margin based system like KP.

Tennessee is #13 in KenPom. Kentucky is #17 in KenPom. They are considered great in margin based systems. Those would be 6 top 20 wins. Cincy is 24, UConn is 25, and Memphis 45.

Since you insist on winning margins to state that Louisvlle is great shouldn't you be looking at all teams the same way. Or do you only pick and choose what you want?

I suspect you will not see the logical inconsistencies in your points.

 

[bpo57]

The 1s would still lose to the 13 or 5 less often than the 4s do because they're better teams. Pomeroy had a post on this a while back - the seed in terms of what path you get really doesn't matter as much as you probably think.

it's a much easier path for a 1 seed to get to the final 4 than a 4 seed for the obvious reason of facing easier competition. Facts easily support that.

 

[bpo57]

The 1s would still lose to the 13 or 5 less often than the 4s do because they're better teams. Pomeroy had a post on this a while back - the seed in terms of what path you get really doesn't matter as much as you probably think.

it's a much easier path for a 1 seed to get to the final 4 than a 4 seed for the obvious reason of facing easier competition. Facts easily support that.

 

[bpo57]

I am using RPI.. but hey, let's go to a margin based system like KP.

Tennessee is #13 in KenPom. Kentucky is #17 in KenPom. They are considered great in margin based systems. Those would be 6 top 20 wins. Cincy is 24, UConn is 25, and Memphis 45.

Since you insist on winning margins to state that Louisvlle is great shouldn't you be looking at all teams the same way. Or do you only pick and choose what you want?

I suspect you will not see the logical inconsistencies in your points.

Well at least I got a partial answer on my question about margins. Sorry but margin of victory does matter. The logical inconsistencies are with that committee you think so highly of. Louisville is punished for supposedly playing nobody while WS is made a #1 for playing just as weak or an even weaker schedule. Nova is strongly considered as a 1 with one top 25 win accomplished four months ago and three double digit defeats against the only ranked teams they did play. The list goes on and on but you can't seem to grasp it.

 

[BuffOrange]

it's a much easier path for a 1 seed to get to the final 4 than a 4 seed for the obvious reason of facing easier competition. Facts easily support that.

What facts do you have that adjust for the variable of the 1 being significantly better than the 4 most times?
L'ville & Sparty (maybe the two best 4's in history relative to the field) will at least give us some data to start with this yr - but even that will only give us a sample size of '2'.

 

[bpo57]

What facts do you have that adjust for the variable of the 1 being significantly better than the 4 most times?
L'ville & Sparty (maybe the two best 4's in history relative to the field) will at least give us some data to start with this yr - but even that will only give us a sample size of '2'.

So the only reason a one has not lost to a 16 while numerous 4s have lost to 13s is because the 1s are so much better than the 4s? It has nothing to with the 13s and 16s? I know this committee seemed pretty clueless (or maybe corrupt) with regard to seeding but nobody is that bad.

 

[BuffOrange]

So the only reason a one has not lost to a 16 while numerous 4s have lost to 13s is because the 1s are so much better than the 4s? It has nothing to with the 13s and 16s? I know this committee seemed pretty clueless (or maybe corrupt) with regard to seeding but nobody is that bad.

Ya, the "only reason" - straw-man much? I just said it's a lot less important than you think.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sport..._the_totally_pointless_debate_over_where.html

 

[Garbs]

The sites that teams play at should be largely irrelevant when it comes to seeding the teams. Get the seeds right. The joints are gonna be sold out. The NCAA and its partners will all make millions. There is almost complete consensus from everybody that WS got hosed. Several coaches I saw in interviews all said how can Lville be a 4 seed. I don't understand how you can't acknowledge that. I compare the top 4 of the MW vs the top 4 of the West and I see no comparison.

I don't think this is true, that is why they made this change.

By the guidelines I think the committee did a damn good job seeding, and this is where you are off, you are ignoring the guidelines and saying they screwed up.

 

[bpo57]

I don't think this is true, that is why they made this change.

By the guidelines I think the committee did a damn good job seeding, and this is where you are off, you are ignoring the guidelines and saying they screwed up.

What isn't true and what change are you talking about?

I am not ignoring their guidelines. I am saying their guidelines are in some ways foolish and are inconsistently applied. Been pretty consistent about that.

 

[bpo57]

I don't think this is true, that is why they made this change.

By the guidelines I think the committee did a damn good job seeding, and this is where you are off, you are ignoring the guidelines and saying they screwed up.

just re-read your post. Filling the joints up should be irrelevant because the money made from CBS and Turner swamps game attendance money, makes it look like a rounding error. Ad most of the arenas will be sold out. Besides this is amateur athletics, we're not worried about maximizing revenue, it's about the student athletes. Lol.

 

[Garbs]

just re-read your post. Filling the joints up should be irrelevant because the money made from CBS and Turner swamps game attendance money, makes it look like a rounding error. Ad most of the arenas will be sold out. Besides this is amateur athletics, we're not worried about maximizing revenue, it's about the student athletes. Lol.

don't know whether they sell out all venues or not, but some of the venues seem empty for certain, games could still be sold out, but regardless they did change the rules to emphasize keeping top 4 seeds local, hence why we were in the east last year

 

[bpo57]

don't know whether they sell out all venues or not, but some of the venues seem empty for certain, games could still be sold out, but regardless they did change the rules to emphasize keeping top 4 seeds local, hence why we were in the east last year

I am just saying location should not get in the way of properly seeding the tourney but unfortunately it does.

 

[bpo57]

Ya, the "only reason" - straw-man much? I just said it's a lot less important than you think.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sport..._the_totally_pointless_debate_over_where.html

Hard to quantify how much but I think it makes some difference. It's certainly not meaningless.

 

[Garbs]

I am just saying location should not get in the way of properly seeding the tourney but unfortunately it does.

They get the seeds right, they just don't follow the s curve

 

[bpo57]

They get the seeds right, they just don't follow the s curve

I think they don't mind being off a line in order to get teams in certain regions. The other thing they do- which they always deny- is purposely set up rivalry games. This year you have Dayton/OSU and numerous potential match ups like Nova/UConn, UK/UL, Creighton/Nebraska. That can get in the way of their s curve too.

 

[jncuse]

The sites that teams play at should be largely irrelevant when it comes to seeding the teams. Get the seeds right. The joints are gonna be sold out. The NCAA and its partners will all make millions..

What are you talking about? That is not at all what I said.

Regions or Locations have zero impact on your seed. Your seed is determined by your placement on the s-curve.

Once they determine your seed number, they then try to place all teams at that seed number as close to home as possible.

This is not at all saying that teams seeds are changed to get placed in a location. Not even close.

 

[jncuse]

I think they don't mind being off a line in order to get teams in certain regions. The other thing they do- which they always deny- is purposely set up rivalry games. This year you have Dayton/OSU and numerous potential match ups like Nova/UConn, UK/UL, Creighton/Nebraska. That can get in the way of their s curve too.

Your main problem is that you have zero clue about the process, make things up on how things are done, and then assess accordingly.

 

[Garbs]

I think they don't mind being off a line in order to get teams in certain regions. The other thing they do- which they always deny- is purposely set up rivalry games. This year you have Dayton/OSU and numerous potential match ups like Nova/UConn, UK/UL, Creighton/Nebraska. That can get in the way of their s curve too.

this is what I am trying to say they changed the rules that is why you see more potential match ups like that

there are less rules about when teams can meet so they can stay true to the seeding

 

[jncuse]

Well at least I got a partial answer on my question about margins. Sorry but margin of victory does matter. The logical inconsistencies are with that committee you think so highly of. Louisville is punished for supposedly playing nobody while WS is made a #1 for playing just as weak or an even weaker schedule. Nova is strongly considered as a 1 with one top 25 win accomplished four months ago and three double digit defeats against the only ranked teams they did play. The list goes on and on but you can't seem to grasp it.

Villanova was number 7 in KenPom. A #2 Seed seems fair from that regard.

Not that this should be the basis for selection. But it seems silly to criticize the Louisville selection due to winning margins, and then bash Villanova as a #2 when they would be #2 on a margin based formula as well.