SVP said it best today

[STEVEHOLT]

"Xavier is a 13 loss 6 seed!!!! Does anyone watch basketball in that room?"

Holy cow..Thirteen is a ton of losses. I dont know if I can recall a 13 loss team seeded that strong.

 

[jec1521]

We werent too far off in 06 with GMac. 12 loss 5 seed IIRC

 

[Alsacs]

We werent too far off in 06 with GMac. 12 loss 5 seed IIRC

That team had played UConn and Villanova both number 1 seeds a total of 5 times and Pitt x2 which owned SU at that time. Those were 6 losses right there. Xavier's schedule this year was nowhere near SU's that year. In 06 we played the toughest SOS in the country.

 

[jec1521]

That team had played UConn and Villanova both number 1 seeds a total of 5 times and Pitt x2 which owned SU at that time. Those were 6 losses right there. Xavier's schedule this year was nowhere near SU's that year. In 06 we played the toughest SOS in the country.

I get it, but the field this year is a lot weaker than 06 also. I'm just saying it's not unheard of for a double digit loss team to have a high-ish seed.

 

[nyhc666]

it's kind of like how Kansas never drops out of the top 10 regardless of how many losses they have

 

[Alsacs]

I get it, but the field this year is a lot weaker than 06 also. I'm just saying it's not unheard of for a double digit loss team to have a high-ish seed.

If they won the BET a 6 was would have been earned a la SU in 06. They beat Butler and Georgetown and the committee would gaga. Georgetown's seed is worse than Xavier's IMO.

 

[Alsacs]

it's kind of like how Kansas never drops out of the top 10 regardless of how many losses they have

Kansas rarely drops because they only lose road games. The Big XII can't win in Allen Fieldhouse and it is hard to drop teams far for losing road games unless they are to bad teams. Kansas has such a huge HCA they don't fall.

 

[Full_Rebar]

That team had played UConn and Villanova both number 1 seeds a total of 5 times and Pitt x2 which owned SU at that time. Those were 6 losses right there. Xavier's schedule this year was nowhere near SU's that year. In 06 we played the toughest SOS in the country.

That team got way too much of a bump from the BE Tourney. To go from "first 4 out" (which I know Lunardi wasn't using then) to a 5 is nuts even with a high SOS.

 

[Cheriehoop]

When did they change the criteria from "how did you do the last 10 games of the season" to "body of work"? Sounds like they may be picking and choosing depending on some "other" criteria.

 

[Alsacs]

The last 10 games factor was dropped around 2010 by the selection committee. This stupid eye test is a subjective lame effort by the committee to their cover their butts.


I agree about 2006 we should have been a 6 or 7 seed but beating #1 UConn and two other top 25 teams in Georgetown and Pitt pushed us up way top far.
Gtown was a 7 seed that tourney and were the closest team to beat Florida who won it all that year. We should have been a 6 or 7 but not a 5.

 

[jordoo]

The last 10 games factor was dropped around 2010 by the selection committee. This stupid eye test is a subjective lame effort by the committee to their cover their butts.


I agree about 2006 we should have been a 6 or 7 seed but beating #1 UConn and two other top 25 teams in Georgetown and Pitt pushed us up way top far.
Gtown was a 7 seed that tourney and were the closest team to beat Florida who won it all that year. We should have been a 6 or 7 but not a 5.

I think the fact that we surprised them by getting in really jumbled some things around. 5 was certainly overseeded though.

 

[jncuse]

I think we all agree that top 50 wins matter, but any metric needs to be understood for its inherent weaknesses.

Anyone into "bracketology" knew that the Big 12 and the Big East were going to be all over the bracket back in late December. They are small conferences that IIRC may have both had 7 (or possibly 8 for the Big 8) of teams in the top 50 RPI or really close to it (top 60). So it doesn't matter what happens in conference, the RPI will work out so that more than half its members will have top 50 RPI and hence the creation of top 50 wins.

At the end of the day the a Big East tounrey teams played 56% of its games against top 50 teams. The Big 12 was 67%. The ACC teams in the field may have only played 6 games against a fellow tourney team -- 33%. That creates a huge advantage for top 50 wins.

And this gets back to using metrics properly. Using metrics to seed teams is the fair way to do it -- but you also need to adjust for its limiations.

And once could argue that they did discount the Big East a bit.

The Big 12 had 4 of its members in the top 3 lines, and 5 in the top 5 lines.
The Big East only had 1 in the top 3 lines, and 2 in the top 5 lines.

This is where judgment is necessary. I think they needed to discount even more for the gaudy top 50 records built by playing several mediocore at large teams on your home court. In my case I went 6-8... the committee seems to have went 4-6.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Kansas also plays one of the nation's toughest schedules year in and year out.

 

[jncuse]

Part of the reason the committee always rewards Kansas for its strong OOC schedule, us I suspect for other teams to do the same. AOC play determines a lot not just for individual teams but for conferences.

If everybody played a schedule near the level of Kansas it would make their job easier and it would probably lead to a fairer field.

 

[Cusefan0307]

"Xavier is a 13 loss 6 seed!!!! Does anyone watch basketball in that room?"

Holy cow..Thirteen is a ton of losses. I dont know if I can recall a 13 loss team seeded that strong.

Texas is 20-13 and an 11. Xavier with one more win is seeded five spots higher. Another head scratcher.

It's all because they beat the overrated 4 seeded Hoyas and Butler twice.

 

[Brooky03]

The Big East is grossly overrated this year. They have a bunch of good teams, but only one truly top 25 team. Some of their teams managed to win early OOC games against good competition, though, so that inflates the perception of the conference, regardless of how crappy they perform against each other.

 

[Briancuse]

I really think the committee was drinking while discussing the big east this year, thats the only way I can explain those seeds.

 

[jncuse]

Texas is 20-13 and an 11. Xavier with one more win is seeded five spots higher. Another head scratcher.

It's all because they beat the overrated 4 seeded Hoyas and Butler twice.

8-7 top 50 vs 3-12.

The top 50 record is a powerful seeding metric, but the committee I think failed to adequately bring mix into the equation. The strength of those 15 games for Texas far outweigh those for Xavier.

 

[BuffOrange]

8-7 top 50 vs 3-12.

The top 50 record is a powerful seeding metric, but the committee I think failed to adequately bring mix into the equation. The strength of those 15 games for Texas far outweigh those for Xavier.

Right. I roll my eyes every time espn or cbs throws up those dumb graphics.
A - Road vs #3
B - Home vs #42
C - Road vs #58

They imply A = B >>> C. When actually A >> C >>> B.

Not surprisingly Texas is favored.

 

[TheCusian]

NCAA: "We've always ranked Big East teams high. Ever since the became a conference!"

An Intern: "yeah - but all the great teams left. The.."

NCAA: "Don't get caught up in the details! If we say it's true, it's true."

 

[orangehomer]

SVP is just flat killing it lately. the guy is hilarious and on-point