Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 4889183, member: 1969"]
2 Things:

1) Would you just drop 200 pages on the committee's desk (1 for each team) with a W-L record and the results of 31 games, and say have at it folks?

I'm in no means suggesting teams being picked in anyway by their KP or NET on a standalone basis (and they are not).   But I think you need to bring some data to the table with a metric to measure what were your quality wins and how many you had.    Not all data is bad.   You need some sort of "system" to do that.

2) What did you think of Florida Atlantic, North Texas, and UAB entering March Madness last year?    
I bring this up due to a heated debate I had with another member as we were discussing NCAA selection last year (I'll get to that below).   I find this is where KP plays its best role - giving us a bit of a general understanding of how good these teams might be... teams that we don't get to see and teams that don't play much against the P5.   How do we measure what we can't see?   KP is by no means definitive, but it does provide some good value in this regards.    I also would never use KP (or NET) to say team #49 is better than team #58 for example.  The 3 teams in question were rated in the 20's, 50 and 60's range IIRC - in both KP and NET

The debate I had with another member was whether Florida Atlantic should get an at-large if it failed in its tourney.   He claimed Florida Atlantic which I think was 18-2 or 19-1 in CUSA should only get in if its 20-0 in CUSA.    He claimed they all sucked, and that a win at UAB or North Texas was worthless.   That it was ridiculous to claim those were Q1 or Q2 victories, and that there KP and NET was flawed.  That a 6-14 team in the ACC would go undefeated in the CUSA.

Florida Atlantic made the Final 4. 
UAB and North Texas played in the NIT Final.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?