NCAA Selection Criteria...

[bpo57]

I'm trying to understand the logic behind selection and seeding for the NCAA Tournament. Now neither of the two will be official until March 11th so for now let's use Joe Lunardi as an example. Right now Lunardi has Arizona State as a 6 seed while he has USC as one of the last four in.

ASU's claim to fame is that they had a neutral court win against Xavier and a road victory against KU. Impressive no doubt. But that was three months ago and they've accomplished very little since then. Their play in a down P-12 this year does not remotely resemble a 6 seed. Any 3 seed would be jumping for joy to get that match-up compared to other far more deserving 6 seeds.

Meanwhile USC is currently 3-1/2 games ahead of ASU in the PAC-12 and has played much better than ASU against comparable opponents in that league although they don't have the signature wins in the OOC. Why are 18 conference games rendered somewhat meaningless as a yardstick for comparing ASU and USC? Why are the games three months ago so much more important than conference games that they would vault ASU essentially 20-25 spots (difference between a 6 and a 12) ahead of USC? That makes zero sense to me.

Closer to home, compare Miami's resume to SU's and come up with some reasons (if you can) why Miami is an 8 seed and SU is one of the last four in. Miami plays all of the top four ACC teams in the standings just once this year while their signature OOC win is MTSU and their signature conference win was on the road against VaTech. I see their resume as being indistinguishable from SU's resume. Maybe you'd give the U a very slight nod but not four lines better.

 

[creatorsgam]

Good post.

Would get more replies on the hoops board though.

 

[bpo57]

Sorry mods if you can please move this to the Hoops Board. thx

 

[HOFCeluck]

Im trying to figure out how this relates to steel making but Im just not seeing it.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Sorry mods if you can please move this to the Hoops Board. thx

You still haven't sobered up from Super Bowl Sunday?

 

[bpo57]

You still haven't sobered up from Super Bowl Sunday?

haha. I finally came back down to earth about a week ago. But today I just got back from a colonoscopy this morning so you have to cut me some slack.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

haha. I finally came back down to earth about a week ago. But today I just got from a colonoscopy this morning so you have to cut me some slack.

Will do. I had my first one in early Jan. What a miserable experience.

Headache for a day and a half 'cause I couldn't eat. Starving afterward and then, after eating, crashed for three hours...

 

[bpo57]

Will do. I had my first one in early Jan. What a miserable experience.

Headache for a day and a half 'cause I couldn't eat. Starving afterward and then, after eating, crashed for three hours...

Yeah the prep is the worst part. I know it's way off topic but this and PSA tests are must dos when you pass 50.

 

[dasher]

haha. I finally came back down to earth about a week ago. But today I just got from a colonoscopy this morning so you have to cut me some slack.

I had mine earlier in the year and as I said at the time, the Dr played hoop at Kansas (he was actually good). I made the mistake of rubbing in our success against them before the procedure.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Apparently we need a proctology board.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Apparently we need a proctology board.

Let’s break it up to be on the safe side. Colonoscopy board, PSA board, DRE board etc...

 

[Knicks411]

I hadn't looked at either of those teams, here's what I think...

First, the committee has decided that every game essentially counts the same, a game in December=a game in February. Agree or disagree, that's where they've come down on the issue.

I'm using KP to sort the teams, going by that, Arizona State has 3 wins better than anything USC has OOC. (Also beat K-State on a neutral, to go along with Xavier and Kansas). That's a pretty significant thing to make up in conference play.

An aside, btw, the Pac-12 looks kinda weak this year. I didn't really realize that. So yes, USC is 11-5 vs 7-8 for ASU in conference, that's something, but when you dig into the games, USC has won 4 games against teams in the top 100 in KP in pac 12 play. Their best win in league play is Utah at home. ASU has won @ Utah, plus beat UCLA at home, as well as USC.

So I think ASU has 3 wins in OOC better than anything USC has, and probably 2 wins in the conf better than anything USC has. So I don't really see an issue with the seeding

 

[bpo57]

I hadn't looked at either of those teams, here's what I think...

First, the committee has decided that every game essentially counts the same, a game in December=a game in February. Agree or disagree, that's where they've come down on the issue.

I'm using KP to sort the teams, going by that, Arizona State has 3 wins better than anything USC has OOC. (Also beat K-State on a neutral, to go along with Xavier and Kansas). That's a pretty significant thing to make up in conference play.

An aside, btw, the Pac-12 looks kinda weak this year. I didn't really realize that. So yes, USC is 11-5 vs 7-8 for ASU in conference, that's something, but when you dig into the games, USC has won 4 games against teams in the top 100 in KP in pac 12 play. Their best win in league play is Utah at home. ASU has won @ Utah, plus beat UCLA at home, as well as USC.

So I think ASU has 3 wins in OOC better than anything USC has, and probably 2 wins in the conf better than anything USC has. So I don't really see an issue with the seeding

I agree that the P-12 is down this year but here is the counter to your comments:

You're not giving USC any credit for their P-12 wins because they're not impressive - that's fine - but you're not punishing ASU for losing to those same teams (hence the 3.5 game differential in the standings).

You say all games count the same but you seem to be placing a lot more emphasis on what happened three months ago then what has happened over the last two months. An 18 game P-12 schedule doesn't seem to mean much if you give a team a 6 seed when they're playing < .500 in a down league. That's the problem with putting too much weight on wins in Nov/Dec. You end up over-seeding teams that just can't live up to the seeding. I think we could all agree that if the tourney started today that ASU would not be anywhere near a worthy 6 seed. But because they had two impressive wins three months ago it somehow doesn't matter that they're stinking it up in the P-12. Losses should matter too.

Then when you put all that together I don't see the justification for ASU being 20-25 spots ahead of USC.

 

[Knicks411]

I agree that the P-12 is down this year but here is the counter to your comments:

You're not giving USC any credit for their P-12 wins because they're not impressive - that's fine - but you're not punishing ASU for losing to those same teams (hence the 3.5 game differential in the standings).

You say all games count the same but you seem to be placing a lot more emphasis on what happened three months ago then what has happened over the last two months. An 18 game P-12 schedule doesn't seem to mean much if you give a team a 6 seed when they're playing < .500 in a down league. That's the problem with putting too much weight on wins in Nov/Dec. You end up over-seeding teams that just can't live up to the seeding. I think we could all agree that if the tourney started today that ASU would not be anywhere near a worthy 6 seed. But because they had two impressive wins three months ago it somehow doesn't matter that they're stinking it up in the P-12. Losses should matter too.

Then when you put all that together I don't see the justification for ASU being 20-25 spots ahead of USC.

Totally fair that I was focusing more on the wins. I definitely think they have more value.

I don't have time to break down the whole schedule, but just as an example, Arizona state has played the best team in the league twice (Arizona), SC only gets them once. SC has racked up some wins against not very good teams; it sure looks to me like they've had a slightly more favorable pac 12 schedule.

If you look at the schedule the rest of the way, there's a very good chance ASU runs the table to finish 10-8, SC will probably finish 12-6. The conference schedules aren't identical, so you just can't compare the two. ASU has better wins in the league. So if it's 2 games, I don't see that as being a huge differenc.e (And fwiw, Ken Pom has them about 15 spots apart)

 

[jncuse]

There is no more emphasis on November and December games then conference games. They are all valued the same. There are results that are more weighted than others... i.e. ELITE WINS. Often they come from conference play, sometimes they come from OOC. Those key results always get valued more, it doesn't matter when they were played. When we beat Duke in 2016 (at Duke), that game had massive implications. No different now.

Let's break it down without even splitting OOC and Conference play.

Arizona St vs USC
Quad 1: 3-3 vs 1-5
Quad 1 Elite Wins: Xavier (1 or 2 seed), Kansas (1 or 2 seed) vs Nothing
Q1+Q2: 7-7 vs 6-8
Bad Losses: 1 vs 1
Really Bad Losses : 0 vs 1
Road/Neutral Wins : 7 vs 8
These are really the key metrics they look at .. note no reference to when those games were played, conference or not.

Everything points to Arizona St in a clear manner in my view. Elite wins are difference makers no matter when they happen. That may typically seem like more of a 3 seed line difference, but the margins between the 6 seed line and the bubble are not that big this year.

P12 also lacks difference makers opportunities this year in conference, so that inherently hurts USC's ability to close the gap in conference.


I think what can be more sensibly argued is whether the all games are equal criteria makes sense.

 

[bpo57]

Totally fair that I was focusing more on the wins. I definitely think they have more value.

I don't have time to break down the whole schedule, but just as an example, Arizona state has played the best team in the league twice (Arizona), SC only gets them once. SC has racked up some wins against not very good teams; it sure looks to me like they've had a slightly more favorable pac 12 schedule.

If you look at the schedule the rest of the way, there's a very good chance ASU runs the table to finish 10-8, SC will probably finish 12-6. The conference schedules aren't identical, so you just can't compare the two. ASU has better wins in the league. So if it's 2 games, I don't see that as being a huge differenc.e (And fwiw, Ken Pom has them about 15 spots apart)

Yeah the only real differential is that ASU played Zona 2x and USC played them only once - that seems minor to me. But USC beat P-12 teams that ASU could not beat and that's why ASU is so far behind. ASU may win their next three (tho I wouldn't go to the bank on that) but we're evaluating where they are now and not where they're going to be at the end of the season.

It's funny back in the day the focus was on your record over your last ten. For sure that was a bit overdone but it kind of led to a greater likelihood of getting hotter teams into the tourney. Now it's swung completely in the other direction. Who knew back then that a Thanksgiving weekend game would prove to be such a big deal. There are many teams in February that are not even recognizable from what they were in November.

 

[bpo57]

There is no more emphasis on November and December games then conference games. They are all valued the same. There are results that are more weighted than others... i.e. ELITE WINS. Often they come from conference play, sometimes they come from OOC. Those key results always get valued more, it doesn't matter when they were played. When we beat Duke in 2016 (at Duke), that game had massive implications. No different now.

Arizona St vs USC
Quad 1: 3-3 vs 1-5
Quad 1 Elite Wins: Xavier (1 or 2 seed), Kansas (1 or 2 seed) vs Nothing
Q1+Q2: 7-7 vs 6-8
Bad Losses: 1 vs 1
Really Bad Losses : 0 vs 1
Road/Neutral Wins : 7 vs 8
These are really the key metrics they look at .. note no reference to when those games were played, conference or not.

Everything points to Arizona St in a clear manner in my view. Elite wins are difference makers no matter when they happen. That may typically seem like more of a 3 seed line difference, but the margins between the 6 seed line and the bubble are not that big this year.

I think what can be more sensibly argued is whether the criteria makes sense.

And that's what I'm clearly arguing is that the criteria makes very little sense. So let's say ASU goes 8-10 in the P-12. A league everyone acknowledges is weak this year. Somehow those two ELITE wins offset that stench? That makes zero sense.

 

[bpo57]

Totally fair that I was focusing more on the wins. I definitely think they have more value.

I don't have time to break down the whole schedule, but just as an example, Arizona state has played the best team in the league twice (Arizona), SC only gets them once. SC has racked up some wins against not very good teams; it sure looks to me like they've had a slightly more favorable pac 12 schedule.

If you look at the schedule the rest of the way, there's a very good chance ASU runs the table to finish 10-8, SC will probably finish 12-6. The conference schedules aren't identical, so you just can't compare the two. ASU has better wins in the league. So if it's 2 games, I don't see that as being a huge differenc.e (And fwiw, Ken Pom has them about 15 spots apart)

Btw since you cited kenpom - I know some folks here have explained that the betting lines are reflective of kenpom's rankings. If that's the case then it's important to note that ASU has covered three of its 15 Pac-12 games this year. Maybe they're overrated by kenpom.

 

[jncuse]

You say all games count the same but you seem to be placing a lot more emphasis on what happened three months ago then what has happened over the last two months. An 18 game P-12 schedule doesn't seem to mean much if you give a team a 6 seed when they're playing < .500 in a down league.

Nobody is placing more emphasis on games that were played 3 months ago. The same emphasis is applied to each. The same emphasis is applied to elite games whenever they happened.

You are arguing that more weight is given to Nov/Dec games. Not the case. It just happens some teams hit their points of emphasis then, and some hit them in February.

 

[bpo57]

Before you start saying what you CLEARLY said, remember I can see above what you CLEARLY said.

That's great. You're the guy with the all caps. Maybe you can address my point?

 

[tbonezone]

A league everyone acknowledges is weak this year.

not everybody dude

 

[jncuse]

That's great. You're the guy with the all caps. Maybe you can address my point?

I did above. You stated that more emphasis was being placed on November / December games than regular games which is not the case.

More emphasis is placed on important results whenever they may happen. For Arizona St it could have been Nov/Dec, for other schools it's the opposite.

 

[bpo57]

Nobody is placing more emphasis on games that were played 3 months ago. The same emphasis is applied to each. The same emphasis is applied to elite games whenever they happened.

You are arguing that more weight is given to Nov/Dec games. Not the case. It just happens some teams hit their points of emphasis then, and some hit them in February.

Essentially what you're saying is that the two early wins offset a bunch of bad losses over the last 6-7 weeks. And that even though the two teams being compared play 18 games in the same league it doesn't matter that one is 3.5 games ahead of the other - you still think it's ok that they're 20-25 spots ahead of the team with the much better conference record?

 

[bpo57]

I did above. You stated that more emphasis was being placed on November / December games than regular games which is not the case.

More emphasis is placed on important results whenever they may happen. For Arizona St it could have been Nov/Dec, for other schools it's the opposite.

You posted it the same time I asked the question.

More important results? I thought all games were weighed equally no matter when they happened?

 

[bpo57]

Part of the problem here is I've actually watched ASU play several times this year. They s*ck.