And I am sure you could name a few more. The job that Committee did was akin to malpractice. How many coaches have you heard make reference to the seedings? Just saw Cal do it. Listened to K earlier in the week. Probably heard at least ten coaches make comments. Yeah but these guys don't know what they're talking about.
Tournament committee, you ignorant sluts
- Thread starter kirbivore
- Start date
And I am sure you could name a few more. The job that Committee did was akin to malpractice. How many coaches have you heard make reference to the seedings? Just saw Cal do it. Listened to K earlier in the week. Probably heard at least ten coaches make comments. Yeah but these guys don't know what they're talking about.
Cusefan95
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,813
- Like
- 4,405
It would be interesting to see seeding done based on people's perception of how good a team is, rather than on how the team performed during the season. That's the only way to have Kentucky seeded ahead of Villanova. Unfortunately that would mean the regular season is even more pointless than it already is.
Personally I prefer to seed based objectively on what teams have done, rather than subjectively based on what we think they are capable of doing. But to each his own...
K actually had a good idea that I heard him talk about on XM this week. He said the Committee should hire a couple of ex D-1 basketball coaches and let them bless the seedings near the end so as to avoid egregious mistakes. It was a polite way of saying get somebody in the room that has a clue.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
UMass most certainly deserved to be seeded higher under the current criteria.
You have an issue with the criteria and you want more eye test.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
Why does a team that is 7-4 deserve to be seeded below Kentucky who is 4-6 vs top 50 (with wins over Louisville, 2 #11 seeds, and an NIT Team). To be fair it's closer to 4-4 for UK, when you discount for losses to #1 seeds on a road and neutral court.
UMass decided on the floor over the course of the season that it deserved a slightly higher seed or certainly the same.
Why hould some ex coaches who love big name talent like everybody else and will be biased by it, improve things? The people that have a clue will always push the more "talented" teams to the top, the big conference schools, the teams with NBA talent. They will not have enough knowledge of the majority teams outside the top 15 to make any sort of reasonable assessment.
After all those more talented teams from Syracuse, Kansas, Duke lost pretty damn early.
Last edited:
That is partly my beef. I don't really care what happened in November if you are playing much differently in March. I am not saying completely ignore it but don't give it equal weighting. That's nuts. Otherwise you are punishing teams by matching them up with underrated teams that are better than their "body of work". Nobody who follows basketball thinks that UK is an 8 seed.
UK an 8, Harvard a 12, Lville a 4 to name a few.
Kentucky was not 8 teams worse than UMass. UMass finished in 5th place in the Atlantic-10 conference, lost on a neutral floor to Florida State, beat Providence at home, and beat Clemson and New Mexico in Charleston in November.
Kentucky should have been a 6 seed, but the committee penalized them for the SEC being mediocre beyond Florida. They played #1 Florida tough twice and lost and the third time made the game interesting. The committee used the eye test to raise Virginia up to the 1 line and dinged Louisville and Kentucky.
Those big name coaches might know a little bit more about the game than these ADs.
You frequently reference top 50 etc as I assume you are using RPI. UK is 16 RPI and 14 with kenpom. How does that translate to an 8 seed? All anybody had to do was tune in to watch UK play Florida the day of the Selection Show. If they still thought UK was an 8 seed then they need to get a new seeing eye dog.
Full_Rebar
All American
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2013
- Messages
- 4,073
- Like
- 4,213
For starters, RPI rankings should be thrown away. Don't give me all this top 50 or top 100 stuff because we know that the RPI is a flawed model. For example, Toledo was 38th in RPI and played one game against a RPI top 50 team (and lost)...so how do they end up so high? Because they play a bunch of ok teams and avoid really bad teams, or they play more road games?
I mean if next year SU goes on the road for Cornell and Colgate, that is supposed to convince me that it's a "tougher" schedule. I think the season has to mean something, but getting too caught up in any one metric isn't good. This is why I would like more balance among the committee members.
I mean if next year SU goes on the road for Cornell and Colgate, that is supposed to convince me that it's a "tougher" schedule. I think the season has to mean something, but getting too caught up in any one metric isn't good. This is why I would like more balance among the committee members.
NKR1978
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2011
- Messages
- 20,196
- Like
- 39,666
Never in the history of the Tournament have I ever seen so many excuses made for a #1 that loses in the 2nd round. No one was crying for Kansas against Northern Iowa or for Gonzaga last year. But somehow the wannabe wolves and their supporters in the media want a pass.
The mid majors keep complaining that the name on the front of the jerseys mean too much and that the blue bloods get preferential treatment. Now WSU is getting the benefit of the doubt because they played a team with a big name on their jerseys.
They played a great game but they lost and will go down as underachievers.
The mid majors keep complaining that the name on the front of the jerseys mean too much and that the blue bloods get preferential treatment. Now WSU is getting the benefit of the doubt because they played a team with a big name on their jerseys.
They played a great game but they lost and will go down as underachievers.
I actually like the BPI more than RPI. It factors in more. The RPI is easier to game than the BPI. To game the BPI you need to blow teams out and dominate a lot of games, but the RPI is all about avoiding the sub 200 RPI teams. If you don't play bad teams your SOS becomes inflated and your opponents opponents schedules come against better competition. I wouldn't object to analytics guy like a Nate Silver or Ken Pomeroy being part of the selection committee.
Let's see Northern Iowa and Kentucky. Yeah they travel in the same circles.
wallacecuse
Starter
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,922
- Like
- 2,247
WSU is a solid team, a legit 3-4 seed, but they were not NC good, much less the once- in-a-generation team some made them out to be.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
I think your not really understanding how the limitations of the RPI really impact things.
RPI is an awful measure if you want to compare one team to another. It's incredibly flawed. But teams are never ever seeded based on a comparison of the RPI anyway.
Teams are definetely seeded based on top 50 records or records vs top 12 seeded tourney teams.
Why is that acceptable? As bad as the RPI is, it will typically do a good job of identifying the top 50 schools. If a team should be #27 instead of #38 they are both on the top 50 list. If you had an eye-test vote (of people who don't really watch 90% of the teams below #20) the list would probably have around 45 of the same schools, and the outliers would not be far off. There are a few What teams each year, like Toledo.
The RPI top 50 works itself out by year end. The committee may also favour record vs top 12 seed tounrey team instead, but this record will be usually be very close to the top 50 RPI record, since most teams are either in / or out on both lists.
Their have been scary 8 seeds before I remember Rick Fox leading North Carolina to a win over #1 seed Oklahoma in the late 80s or in 2000 when 8 seed North Carolina beat #1 Stanford and went to the Final Four.
Kentucky wasn't unbeatable they had lost 2 times to Arkansas, 3 times to Florida, to LSU, and other teams. Wichita State was undefeated and was the 1 seed and lost. They weren't as good as they thought they were. Kentucky was the best team they played all year and they lost. They were a good team, but were overseeded because they went undefeated and their coach acted like 1 Final Four run made them Kansas.
Kentucky wasn't unbeatable they had lost 2 times to Arkansas, 3 times to Florida, to LSU, and other teams. Wichita State was undefeated and was the 1 seed and lost. They weren't as good as they thought they were. Kentucky was the best team they played all year and they lost. They were a good team, but were overseeded because they went undefeated and their coach acted like 1 Final Four run made them Kansas.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
Do you really think those coaches are watching much A-10, Nebraska, New Big East or AAC basketball.. or even watching that much basketball.
They may watch every team one or two games if they are advised to do so. They can't really do more than that. What happens when one of the games they watch is a What result? For the teams they watch alot, the What games are washed away... but for others it would not be.
I must have missed all of those trying to compare WS to the 1970s UCLA squads. If WS was a 4 seed then please tell me the 12+ teams that are better than them.
NKR1978
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2011
- Messages
- 20,196
- Like
- 39,666
bpo57 said:
I don't know what that means. Why does the name on the front of the Jersey matter? Kentucky just struggled with KSU. They weren't some juggernaut.
If WSU wants respect they have to keep earning it. But their coach is a primadonna who complains in one sentence that the big boys won't play him home and home and then when Wake Forest offers to he says they aren't good enough for the mighty second round losers.
I think they were a great team. I hope their fans look back fondly on this season and last season. But if they want to be treated like a high major then they deserve the same criticism the rest of us get. They're getting treated like little kids in the media right now.
Not sure but I know damn well that the ADs aren't watching those games. In this thread you mentioned that the RPI was flawed but generally got the top 50 right. I don't get that.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,569
- Like
- 33,298
I'm not really going to defend Wichita St seeding. They were hard to seed. Place them anywhere on the pod and its a guess, because they simply did not have the data points to prove they were a good fit any at seed line on the 1-4 (and that is the good for a #1, and the bad that typically happens a few time for a #3 or a #4)
I can understand the committee's decision to give them a #1. They didn't really steal it from anybody that "earned" a #1 seed this year. There was only 2 teams that had a typical #1 seed profile this year to be honest.
I can understand the committee's decision to give them a #1. They didn't really steal it from anybody that "earned" a #1 seed this year. There was only 2 teams that had a typical #1 seed profile this year to be honest.
I don't get the Marshall hating. I watched his press conference and interview with CBS and he couldn't have been more classy.
Comparing KU losing to Northern Iowa and WS losing to UK is a bit off the mark, no?
They may have been a top 1o team and looked like one against Kentucky, but their resume screamed 3 or 4 seed I think was the poster's point.
Wichita State wasn't from Kansas for me they were from Missouri because they had to "Show Me" how good they were after their regular season schedule. If they had 1 or 2 losses going into the tournament like Stephen F. Austin or Murray State 2 years ago they wouldn't have the anger from opposing fans as they would have been a 3 or 4 seed.