How this tournament has changed

[Marsh01]

Seeds dont mean crap anymore.

Take Tennessee who got an 11 seed. Their draw was way more favorable over a team like wichita who got a 1 seed. 15 years ago higher seeds meant everything. Now its pretty irrelevant. The proof is in all of these double digit seeds advancing more and more year after year.

 

[Briancuse]

It has become the nfl, seeds aren't as important as getting hot at the right time.

 

[AZOrange]

Seeds dont mean crap anymore.

Take Tennessee who got an 11 seed. Their draw was way more favorable over a team like wichita who got a 1 seed. 15 years ago higher seeds meant everything. Now its pretty irrelevant. The proof is in all of these double digit seeds advancing more and more year after year.

Yeah and bracketology is pointless...

 

[Alsacs]

Yeah it's about matchups. If you have a good team you get maybe 1 breather game then you playing 5 tough games. I want to play good teams who won't play a slow tempo part of the reason the Wichita State-Kentucky game was good was neither team played slow and it was an up and down exciting game.

 

[two3zone]

They need to go back to the last ten games meaning something.

 

[Full_Rebar]

They need to get a new committee design. Get people like Bilas who watch everyone play all year. Get some Vegas guys who crunch the numbers. Get KenPom who has his own ratings. Get a guy like Patrick Stevens in there. Put them in a room and rank teams from 1-68 regardless of pod locations or conference opponents. Make all conference tournaments end on Saturday to give the committee extra time for final adjustments.

Just keep moron trolls like Davis, Gottleib and Doyel out of the process.

 

[Cheriehoop]

With larger conferences requiring more games, and conferences whose schedules go straight into conference tourneys - there's no opportunity to match up and compare out of conference teams except at the very beginning of the season. Coaches need "tune-up" games to prepare for the season, evaluate their players, work on rotations, and then they mix in a few meaningful early game games (or tournament) that end up being the only cross conference comparative games available. Before the mega conferences, teams would also schedule around 2 out of conference games mid and late season after conference games started. With so many conference games having not only unbalanced conference schedules coupled with a lack of latter season out of conference contests - seeding is weighted mainly on early season OOC performances and in-conference unbalanced conference results.

 

[jdubs30]

They need to get a new committee design. Get people like Bilas who watch everyone play all year. Get some Vegas guys who crunch the numbers. Get KenPom who has his own ratings. Get a guy like Patrick Stevens in there. Put them in a room and rank teams from 1-68 regardless of pod locations or conference opponents. Make all conference tournaments end on Saturday to give the committee extra time for final adjustments.

Just keep moron trolls like Davis, Gottleib and Doyel out of the process.

You can't have a mix of people like that. It would at least triple the discussion time.

 

[BuffOrange]

They need to get a new committee design. Get people like Bilas who watch everyone play all year. Get some Vegas guys who crunch the numbers. Get KenPom who has his own ratings. Get a guy like Patrick Stevens in there. Put them in a room and rank teams from 1-68 regardless of pod locations or conference opponents. Make all conference tournaments end on Saturday to give the committee extra time for final adjustments.

Just keep moron trolls like Davis, Gottleib and Doyel out of the process.

I'm a huge Kenpom/Vegas guy as far as predicting future performance goes (they are correct in believing that close games are largely luck; eg: Tennessee/Kentucky). But I wouldn't be a proponent of letting their heavily weighed margin of victory/defeat systems seed teams - it would make the outcome of reg. season games almost completely meaningless.

However I do think those ratings should replace the current garbage known as the RPI entirely as far as evaluating SoS & quality wins.

 

[CorduroyG]

You're almost better off being a 2 or 3 seed than a 1 seed. A 1 seed is locked into playing a decent team in the 2nd round, 8/9 seeds are usually high level teams that underachieved during the year, like Kentucky. UCLA as a 4 seed coasts into S16 playing Stephen austin. We got an easier draw than any of the 1 seeds but blew it.

 

[Full_Rebar]

You can't have a mix of people like that. It would at least triple the discussion time.

Yes, but that group has more availability for discussion in-season. I mean you aren't going to have to wait for them to say "well let me check out this Wichita St sometime- when are they on ESPN next?' No reason not to have a group that lives and breathes college hoops involved.