Stop making non P5 teams 1 seeds
- Thread starter Cuse_1999
- Start date
Dave85
Living Legend
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,122
- Like
- 14,328
Vegas money transfer complete.
Dave85
Living Legend
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,122
- Like
- 14,328
There may not be enough data points to come to this conclusion. Butler also made it to the final game twice. Many times the best teams on paper don't even make it to the final 4.
H
HOFCeluck
Guest
Kentucky and Kansas have both recently lost in the second round as one seeds...they just have the benefit of more data points.
cuseatduke
Walk On
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 83
- Like
- 29
Silly. What about the case where a conference has 3 #1 seed worthy teams (like the big east a few years back)?
Seriously agreed with poster above. This thread is silly and knee-jerk reaction to a very small sample size.
pfister1
2023-24 Iggy Winner ACC & OOC Record
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 8,919
- Like
- 15,048
If the RPI can be gamed and result in unworthy teams being seeded higher than they ought to be, then maybe its time to refine the selection criteria to come up with one that can't be "gamed".
The whole process is a little flawed. That said, they let enough teams in and the ultimate equalizer is that you win and advance regardless of your seed or your opponents. Why is it necessary that the "best" team have arguably the easiest path. Win and advance, beat who is in your path. If you can't beat the team that you get matched against, you can't be National Champion even if you're the best team and they just happen to be your Kryptonite.
The whole process is a little flawed. That said, they let enough teams in and the ultimate equalizer is that you win and advance regardless of your seed or your opponents. Why is it necessary that the "best" team have arguably the easiest path. Win and advance, beat who is in your path. If you can't beat the team that you get matched against, you can't be National Champion even if you're the best team and they just happen to be your Kryptonite.
Cowtown
Sesquipedalia verba
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2012
- Messages
- 68,378
- Like
- 137,215
Made me remember Texas taking out UConn in '03, who had already beaten SU twice that year ...
pfister1
2023-24 Iggy Winner ACC & OOC Record
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 8,919
- Like
- 15,048
I actually dislike the fact that Lunardi has made clear that the whole selection/seeding game is as formulaic as it is. I mean if he can get as close as he does each year to the committee's actual output, why do they need to "lock" themselves in a hotel conference room a week to do all of the seeding. Just let the computer spit out the result.
I enjoy the fact that there is the perceived potential for it not having come out perfectly, even if that isn't necessarily the case. When it doesn't come out perfectly I think its more a result of imperfections in the formula than in anything that the Committee is really doing.
I enjoy the fact that there is the perceived potential for it not having come out perfectly, even if that isn't necessarily the case. When it doesn't come out perfectly I think its more a result of imperfections in the formula than in anything that the Committee is really doing.
That is a funny offshoot of the whole thing.
The committee thing is definitely a boondoggle, but when you generating 1 billion dollars off the backs of free labor, you can afford a few boondoggles every now and then.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,145
- Like
- 32,701
"BE Flamng Out"
If you look at seedings (and consider the fact that Georgetown was a ridiculous 4), you only expected this confernce to get 1-2 teams in the sweet 16. They (other than Nova) were in seed positions that tend to fall out. So I don't look at the tourney as a total failure per se. It was within the range of expectations.
In my view, a big part of the problem is that just because 2 conferences have 6 teams in the tourney some don't separate the mix of the 6 teams and proceed to make flawed conclusions from it. Just because a conference has 6 teams in it, it may only have 1 really good team.
a) The ACC does better than the Big East (both with 6 teams) it does not necessarily mean the Big East Sucks, or that the ACC should have had more teams, or the Big East less teams.
b) Mix matters. The ACC is a top heavy league -- of course they are going to get more teams in the sweet 16. They have the better teams. A better comparable for them to the Big 12 -- and the ACC did better. A conference that is deep in the middle should theoretically not excel in the round of 32.
c) For someome to state that Nova would go 10-8 in the ACC based on this is simply incorrect. Would they go 16-2. Nope, but they are Kenpom #5 -- it's a good team.
Let's game back to the point of seeding via KP (as a check of how good the seeding was / any gaming)
Using KenPom as a test of gaming the RPI, that system says as of now
Villanova 2
Butler 5
Xavier 6
Georgetown 7
Providence 8
St; John's 11
so overall they were maybe over-seeded by 1 line -- and I attribute that to the multiplier effect of having 60% of your teams tourney worthy... The difference was more pronouned with the MwC. Although in 2013 when they got 5 teams in they may have deserved it. B
"Only 2 OOC quality wins"
Off the top of my head I know they had neutral court Wins over UNC, Notre Dame, and VCU based on prior research. And they also beat Oklahoma. I am sure there are victories on lower seed lines and many against teams on the "bubble". It looks not that great, but for a 10 team league it's strong.
"If Iowa St had won the first game"
If Nova had won the second game. If Butler had beat Notre Dame instead of losing in OT.
Last edited:
capeorange
All Conference
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,469
- Like
- 6,263
Unless your name is dook.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,145
- Like
- 32,701
It's actually not formula based at all. A computer cannot spit it out.
That being said it's metric based - and the metrics used are known and for the most part consistently applied -- so many schmo's out there (inlcuding some on this board) and many accross America (look at the bracket matrix). can take 1-3 hours and spit out some seed lines that will closely replicate the ultimate field.
So your point still stands to a degree -- a big deal is made out of something not that difficult nor time consuming, if you have been willing to put some time in the past learning how it is done. But I guess the committee is basically like an "Audit" trying to make sure it's fair, and yet it becomes a politicial process at times.
The BE was the #2 RPI conference this year. Their performance compared to that ranking is a disaster. The specifics of how they got their don't matter. Their seeds being high or low, and their matchups, whatever, they are all irrelevant in the big picture of performance by the #2 rated conference.
Even in regards to their seeds, they're doing terrible. Their expected win total was 9. With 1 team left they are sitting on 5. That's again, a disaster.
Theres a million ways to argue it, but the end result is that they were over rated and their tournament performance has been terrible. The #2 conference should have more to show than 4 "quality" wins all year. Whether or not VCU counts as quality win is a matter of personal preference I guess. They've now had 10 tournament games played, and they're still sitting on 4 quality wins (best case- ole miss plus VCU equals 1 quality win). I'm not holding my breath on that number getting any higher.
Nova was an excellent team this year. In the ACC they probably fight for 3rd place. But they were far from the juggernaut that they were made out to be. They benefit from a weak conference, and they probably will for a long time. They're a high class gonzaga (and I don't mean that to insult nova or gonzaga, just their crappy conferences).
