Objective Quadrant Analysis

[jncuse]

True. I think it should be applied only in a tiebreaker or close call/tough deliberation scenarios assuming these guys are sharp and know their stuff. From what I understand, committee members past and present are sent all over the country weekly to watch games in person. They watch everything. A conversation I had once with a random scout at MSG years ago about the Tourney was interesting. His words not mine. Former Big Ten player. He said that they watch everything...players’ attitudes, possible mutinies/dissension in the ranks, level of play, etc. Lots of stuff behind the scenes and more than just a bunch of doofuses with spreadsheets. Or not.

This guy was amazing. Just talked my ear off with all sorts of nuggets and gems of info. Just happened to be sitting next to him randomly for two nights at the BET.

I tell you to go to 50 games in early January to early March, to not only watch bubble teams but other tourney teams. 50 games is a hell of a lot basketball, but will you really get coverage. You still might only see teams twice.

Observing attitudes in one or two games is extremely dangerous and way too small of a sample size. Of course if teams are losing it will seem there is more dissension, but teams have bad games... and good games.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I tell you to go to 50 games in early January to early March, to not only watch bubble teams but other tourney teams. 50 games is a hell of a lot basketball, but will you really get coverage. You still might only see teams twice.

I like it. Still helps as a supplement to the data, IMO. Pretty sure that is what is happening in reality.

 

[bpo57]

Why should Palm care?

I know you don't like when I say this, but you calling out Palm is a classic case of you shooting the messenger. Palm's role is to assess whether a team is a tourney team based on the current system. It is not to assess whether the system that locks Loyola out is bad.

I will also say Loyala has no chance of getting in. Should the system be fairer to them? That is a different question, These teams are apples and oranges with P5 teams in terms of data comparison, so I have no problem using subjective analysis or straight power rankings for smaller schools... or giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Teams like Buffalo have no chance of an at large. Each year there are around 3 mid level progams that have RPI's in the 30's or early 40's and they get ignored. The commitee is smart enough to realize the RPI doesn't work for some teams, or individually it has little meaning if a team gets in or not, but yet still uses it for their numberical framework to create all the other data.

You missed the point about Palm altogether. Has nothing to do with the system. If that were a power conference team Palm would have been very aware of injuries to key personnel. He would certainly take it into account. But with a mid-major he's completely unaware.

To say Loyola has no chance is a bit out there. They're 34 in that beloved RPI, Lunardi already has them on the 12 line. If the bubble teams melt down and the Committee takes those injuries into account then I'd say they have better than no chance.

 

[bpo57]

I tell you to go to 50 games in early January to early March, to not only watch bubble teams but other tourney teams. 50 games is a hell of a lot basketball, but will you really get coverage. You still might only see teams twice.

Observing attitudes in one or two games is extremely dangerous and way too small of a sample size. Of course if teams are losing it will seem there is more dissension, but teams have bad games... and good games.

I don't think it's necessary to watch every game. But a competent staff could easily put together video to streamline the process. If these guys aren't watching a decent amount of tape (video and/or live) then they'd be doing everybody a disservice. But that's not the reality. I have a friend who is an assistant AD at a D-1 school. He confirmed for me what SoBe said. These guys watch a lot of the action, both taped and live.

 

[jncuse]

You missed the point about Palm altogether. Has nothing to do with the system. If that were a power conference team Palm would have been very aware of injuries to key personnel. He would certainly take it into account. But with a mid-major he's completely unaware.

To say Loyola has no chance is a bit out there. They're 34 in that beloved RPI, Lunardi already has them on the 12 line. If the bubble teams melt down and the Committee takes those injuries into account then I'd say they have better than no chance.

Regarding "no chance". Already changed before I read your post, to limited chance. I was re-reading my post and touched up a few things as I am prone to do. I also think if they have the right and convincing committee member on their side arguing to give them the benefit of the doubt, they might get in.

I don't take injuries into account. P5 team or not. Very rare does the committee use injuries to put a team in or not. The threshold for consideration seems so high, that I just have chosen to ignore it as a factor even if they claim it will be considered. Everyone can only point to a situation from 17 years ago... to me that proves my point.

 

[bpo57]

Regarding "no chance". Already changed before I read your post, to limited chance. I was re-reading my post and touched up a few things as I am prone to do. I also think if they have the right and convincing member of their side arguing to give them the benefit of the doubt, they might get.

I don't take injuries into account. P5 team or not. Very rare does the committee use injuries to put a team in or not. The threshold seems so high, that I just ignore it. Everyone can only point to a situation from 17 years ago.

Fair enough. I've seen them take injuries into account and I've seen them take coaching suspensions into account (ahem). I don't think it's wrong to do that but they should either do it or never do it.

 

[jncuse]

My concern with most, and not all that watch games.

I have watched many a game where coaches or former players fawn over teams because the game is higher tempo and the offence is good. That doesn't mean the team is better.

Coaches, analysts, or fans are almost pre-determined to select certain types of and that does not necessarily correlate with the best team.

 

[bpo57]

My concern with most, and not all that watch games.

I have watched many a game where coaches or former players fawn over teams because the game is higher tempo and the offence is good. That doesn't mean the team is better.

Coaches, analysts, or fans are almost pre-determined to select certain types of and that does not necessarily correlate with the best team.

I would think coaches would appreciate great defense more than the fans but maybe that's not true.

 

[jncuse]

Fair enough. I've seen them take injuries into account and I've seen them take coaching suspensions into account (ahem). I don't think it's wrong to do that but they should either do it or never do it.

I doubt the coaching suspension ever came into play. Perhaps you forget the 4 or 5 game losing streak to end that season. We were just a really streaky team under Hop or JB. Saying they would consider it, and actually applying it is very different.

I am looking for a specfic instance where they have specifically put a team inand cited it was because of the injury. They will always claim they will consider it if asked about a situation before the selection show, but the threshold for consideration seems mighty high.

 

[jncuse]

I would think coaches would appreciate great defense more than the fans but maybe that's not true.

It's an observation I have. I can't prove it, and it may not be correct.

 

[bpo57]

I doubt the coaching suspension ever came into play. Perhaps you forget the 4 or 5 game losing streak to end that season. We were just a really streaky team under Hop or JB. Saying they would consider it, and actually applying it is very different.

Name me one instance where they have specifically put a team jinand cited it was because of the injury. They will always claim they will consider it if asked about a situation before the selection, but the threshold for consideration seems mighty high.

I'd have to do some research but I do recall it happening where the chair admitted it on the Selection Show. Shouldn't be a threshhold, either you factor that in or you never factor it in. May have affected seeding and not necessarily inclusion.

 

[bpo57]

I doubt the coaching suspension ever came into play. Perhaps you forget the 4 or 5 game losing streak to end that season. We were just a really streaky team under Hop or JB. Saying they would consider it, and actually applying it is very different.

I am looking for a specfic instance where they have specifically put a team inand cited it was because of the injury. They will always claim they will consider it if asked about a situation before the selection show, but the threshold for consideration seems mighty high.

Quote from Ron Wellman (2014 Chair) in response to whether injuries are considered: "It is a factor that is considered when we receive the monitors' reports about the individual conferences. In fact, we just did a conference where we went into some depth about the injuries of those teams within that conference. So it is certainly considered to varying degrees by the individual members of the Committee. Some members probably consider it very strongly and other members less so."

 

[bpo57]

I doubt the coaching suspension ever came into play. Perhaps you forget the 4 or 5 game losing streak to end that season. We were just a really streaky team under Hop or JB. Saying they would consider it, and actually applying it is very different.

I am looking for a specfic instance where they have specifically put a team inand cited it was because of the injury. They will always claim they will consider it if asked about a situation before the selection show, but the threshold for consideration seems mighty high.

I think you're confusing seasons. SU got the invite the year JB was suspended. That was the year they went to the Final 4. I recall a ton of speculation that they took the JB situation into account.

 

[bpo57]

NCAA: Selection Committee will take Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim's suspension into consideration

 

[jncuse]

I think you're confusing seasons. SU got the invite the year JB was suspended. That was the year they went to the Final 4. I recall a ton of speculation that they took the JB situation into account.

This is how they ended 2016 (before the NCAA Tourney). They lost 5 of 6. It just proved the team was streaky. There was many people that asked if JB could be considered, and they they may consider it, but considering and actually applying it is a different matter.

I will not be convinced that they did. Doesn't mean I am 100% right, but I feel comfortable in my stance.

 

[jncuse]

NCAA: Selection Committee will take Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim's suspension into consideration

Oh no, not that garbage article again. (from December 10th of that year).

Note how every interpretation was made by the writer and not the person making the comments.

Also just because they considered something, doesn't mean they applied it or it made a difference in their choice.

The fact that they ended the season on another bad streak, (5 of 6), sort of proved the issue was neither JB o Hop but probably an inconsistent team... who happened to turn it all around and made the final four.

 

[jncuse]

In summary
- I guess we will never fully agree on the eye test. I am not fully against it, just afraid of bias.
- Pro numbers or not, we all have issues with the conference RPI.

There is only one situation in which I like the concept of the "eye test". And that is in assessing schools like Loyola and determining if they are good enough. Because data cannot effectively compare them. My concern is the "eye test" will benefit the 7-11 or 8-10 P5 school.

But for P5+BE schools if you can't separate yourself from the bubble, too bad you had plenty of chances. If we didn't use RPI, I am perfectly using numbers and analysis of that data to pick those teams, with a bit of subjectivity but hardly the emphasis.

 

[bpo57]

Oh no, not that garbage article again. (from December 10th of that year).

Note how every interpretation was made by the writer and not the person making the comments.

Also just because they considered something, doesn't mean they applied it or it made a difference in their choice.

The fact that they ended the season on another bad streak, (5 of 6), sort of proved the issue was neither JB o Hop but probably an inconsistent team... who happened to turn it all around and made the final four.

Direct quotes from Dan Gavitt that clearly indicate the Committee takes injuries and suspensions into account. Not sure what more I can do to convince you on the issue.

 

[bpo57]

This is how they ended 2016 (before the NCAA Tourney). They lost 5 of 6. It just proved the team was streaky. There was many people that asked if JB could be considered, and they they may consider it, but considering and actually applying it is a different matter.

I will not be convinced that they did. Doesn't mean I am 100% right, but I feel comfortable in my stance.

View attachment 123528

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here. Indeed SU closed very poorly but got in the tournament anyway. The inescapable conclusion is that the Committee took JB's suspension into account when rendering a favorable verdict for the Orange.

 

[bpo57]

In summary
- I guess we will never fully agree on the eye test. I am not fully against it, just afraid of bias.
- Pro numbers or not, we all have issues with the conference RPI.

There is only one situation in which I like the concept of the "eye test". And that is in assessing schools like Loyola and determining if they are good enough. Because data cannot effectively compare them. My concern is the "eye test" will benefit the 7-11 or 8-10 P5 school.

But for P5+BE schools if you can't separate yourself from the bubble, too bad you had plenty of chances. If we didn't use RPI, I am perfectly using numbers and analysis of that data to pick those teams, with a bit of subjectivity but hardly the emphasis.

I think you make a good point with the "Loyola" comment and I certainly agree with your P5+BE comment as well.

My beef is not just with conference RPI but also individual RPI.

 

[jncuse]

My beef is not just with conference RPI but also individual RPI.

The whole RPI is an issue. Didn't mean to isolate any aspect of it. I just noted the conference RPI because that is perhaps the biggest driver of the entire bracket.

 

[jncuse]

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here. Indeed SU closed very poorly but got in the tournament anyway. The inescapable conclusion is that the Committee took JB's suspension into account when rendering a favorable verdict for the Orange.

Syracuse had the highest quality win profile of the bubble teams. So that is why I concluded the verdict was favourable and not the JB Factor. Our overall resume ended up being fine enough despite the two losing streaks.

2016 was just a strange season.

We had an amazing start to the year.
Then collapsed for the 9 games
Had a great start to the ACC season.
And then collapsed for 6 games
And then somehow made the final 4.

 

[bpo57]

Syracuse had the highest quality win profile of the bubble teams. So that is why I concluded the verdict was favourable and not the JB Factor. Our overall resume ended up being fine enough despite the two losing streaks.

2016 was just a strange season.

We had an amazing start to the year.
Then collapsed for the 9 games
Had a great start to the ACC season.
And then collapsed for 6 games
And then somehow made the final 4.

I hear ya. The JB issue may not have been the deciding factor but I think it came into play at least in some small fashion. My point was more that injuries can and should be considered on occasion. Kenyon Martin blowing his knee out was a classic case where it hurt Cinci's seed in a negative way.

 

[orangenirvana]

You missed the point about Palm altogether. Has nothing to do with the system. If that were a power conference team Palm would have been very aware of injuries to key personnel. He would certainly take it into account. But with a mid-major he's completely unaware.

To say Loyola has no chance is a bit out there. They're 34 in that beloved RPI, Lunardi already has them on the 12 line. If the bubble teams melt down and the Committee takes those injuries into account then I'd say they have better than no chance.

A team's individual RPI is irrelevant.

Loyola has no chance if they don't win their conference tourney.

My concern with most, and not all that watch games.

I have watched many a game where coaches or former players fawn over teams because the game is higher tempo and the offence is good. That doesn't mean the team is better.

Coaches, analysts, or fans are almost pre-determined to select certain types of and that does not necessarily correlate with the best team.

I would rather the committee just rely on the data. Otherwise bias is an overwhelming factor in their decision-making.

 

[bpo57]

A team's individual RPI is irrelevant.

Loyola has no chance if they don't win their conference tourney.

I would rather the committee just rely on the data. Otherwise bias is an overwhelming factor in their decision-making.

You have a lot more confidence in the "data" than I do.