Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 2386471, member: 1969"]
Perhaps the largest dictator of seeding (and perhaps getting in) come tourney time is how conferences play prior to January 1st.   A conference does well prior to January and it will result in many top 50 opportunities.  A conference does poorly prior to January and it will have few top 50 opportunities.   It doesn't matter if the conference as a whole is playing better in February -- it will not really change the numbers,

Just think of the Pac 12 the last 2 years.  It had great pre conference numbers in 2015-2016 and had seven over seeded teams in the tourney and a couple just misses   It had a poor pre-conference season in 2016-2017 and basically nobody made the tourney except the top teams.   Teams won the same 108 games.   One year a 9-9 team in the Pac-12 is a shoe in, and the next year they are not even in the NIT.

The ACC had strong pre-conference numbers last year and it resulted in many teams getting in.  And even those that didn't lingered on the bubble for a while despite poor conference records.

This impacts top teams, the good teams, and then the bubble teams.  So for Syracuse, whether we will be a bubble team or not, the ACC performance is important.  [B] It's still very early, but over the next two weeks as we get into tournaments things will really start to move.[/B]

And whether the committee uses the RPI, KenPom, Sagarin or some other blended metric, the impact of pre-conference play will be the same.

While the NCAA is saying it looking at other measuring systems just as much as RPI to look at teams individually, they still have to define the metric that will be used to determine what is a top 25, what is a top 50, what is a top 100 win.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?