Tournament committee, you ignorant sluts

[bpo57]

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 . 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.

You weren't impressed watching them today?

 

[RF2044]

I don't get the Marshall hating. I watched his press conference and interview with CBS and he couldn't have been more classy.

I can explain it from my perspective. I went to the final four last year. I like Wichita State's style of play, thought they were impressive last year, and was rooting like hell for them to knock off Louisville. They had them on the ropes, and would have beaten them if Hancock hadn't had something like 15 points in 90 seconds to cut what was something like an 18 point lead to 3 very quickly. They came an eyelash away from making the national championship game last season. Seeing them live and with all the players they had returning, there was no doubt that they were going to be good as hell this year.

I actually pulled for them a bit this year, too. Until our game at Pitt, when ESPN had Marshall in the studio, with them running what amounted to a WSU infomercial as he sat there and badmouthed us. After that, I stopped pulling for them. Then, he had a bunch of arrogant comments at the end of the season, only to chump out in the second round. I still like the players and the style of play, I just don't like the coach anymore, and enjoyed seeing them flame out today.

 

[jncuse]

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.

The RPI may put the top 4 teams as 1,3,8,12. We agree that the #12 looks ridiculous for that team. But at the same time they are still getting slotted into the top 25 victories.

That tends to happen with the top 50 as well -- some teams may be 10-15 slots of what they look like, but only a handful of the teams in the top 50 are debatable as being top 50 or not. Remember not all teams are off, and it will go both way. We could debate a team's individual RPI, but it will typically be correctly in the top 50 or not.

I also belieive that the committee probably uses record vs top 12 seeds more than top once they have established the field. It typically is very close to the same record.

 

[rrlbees]

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...

Agree. Everyone screamed body of work when it came to SU's seeding, now they don't like some of the seedings and want to use the current eye test. I think they did a good job, it's impossible to be perfect.

 

[samspann1]

IMO, the less subjectivity the Committee has, the better.

 

[jncuse]

Wichita St was unique. It's been 23 years since there was an undefeated entering the tourney. They only got it because of the "0"/ It's a one off -- we probably dont need to worry about a similar scenario for a long time.

Gonzaga was a little less unique. They had some more data to debate as a #1 seed.

At the end of the day, we (specifically I) spend alot of time discussing seeds but they dont really matter too much in the end. So many upsets now, that the bracket breaks down and the SOS of your region totally changes by #16.

If you are a #1, #2, or #3 team you should be better than anybody you play in the first 2 rounds. There is luck involved in the bracket, but if you are at that level you will be playing 2 teams clearly worse than you (and if not, its because you yourself are not really a great 1-2-3 seed)

 

[jncuse]

You weren't impressed watching them today?

I am sort of on your side with Wichita St. I think they are really good, and people think way too many other teams could go undefeated with their schedule. It's certainly true they would have losses in bigger conferences. But look how many losses other #1 and #2 seeds.

But the problem with Wichita is whether you use eye-test or the more typical metrics there is nothing to be really confident with. It's really a guess with them.

My proposal with mid-majors is to use a formula to seed them (something like KP) or something. We can't compare them -- whether you are a numbers guy or "I watch basketball" crew. They don't have the games played against top teams, and the basketball watcher cannot see them enough against good teams.

 

[wallacecuse]

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.

You must have missed Gregg Marshall the past 4 months. He would be more than happy to tell you how great they are.

 

[SoBeCuse]

stop putting overrated mid majors as 1 seeds

I take it you didn't watch the game.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Did you watch the game? That team was far from overrated. They'd beat us by 30. UK played the game of their lives to win.

Spot on. Both teams executed their asses off. Lots of athletes playing high level ball. Those two trips to the line in the 2H for WSU players coming up empty handed and that Early missed dunk the difference. Holy cow Early was awesome. So was Randle.

 

[wallacecuse]

You weren't impressed watching them today?

No one said they weren't good.

 

[jncuse]

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.

BPI is better than RPI. But similar to my comments above, individual teams may have some differences in rankings amongst each, but the top 50 will ultimately be pretty similar.

I too would not object to using a formula to seed teams, and one that is margin based as well. It would be objective.

The tounrey is a massive business. I'm sure they could easily come up with an acceptable formula that caps victory margins at 20, and also giving some sort of reward for a close win rather than a close loss.

If you are playing so many bad schools that only being able to beat them by "20" may actually hurt you, you need to schedule more to your level.

Here is the ironic thing.
- Eye testers would hate this. Things can't be determined by a computer after all.
- In reality, a margin based formula, would result in better seedings for eye-test darlings then they get under the current system.

 

[jncuse]

You must have missed Gregg Marshall the past 4 months. He would be more than happy to tell you how great they are.

Sometimes good coaches and leaders have to be douchebags.

Not to say this is an "act" by Marshall to help the team. It is who he is - but it may be a good fit for a program like Wichita St. this year.

 

[tptcuse]

This whole tournament is crazy. This is one of the strangest years in college basketball history. There is no predicting anything. It is hard to even pick a team to get excited about.

 

[jncuse]

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.

UMass finished 5th in an unbalanced schedle in a 6 bid league, so that does not mean 6 seed is unrealistic... especially given their strong OOC performance for a team below the 5 line.


Where are the Kentucky wins? The number of top 50 wins (and %) offset by # of bad losses mattered this year. It was the main factor how I seeded teams, and I can tell you it was consistently applied, because I was pretty bang on for seeds this year. I had Kentucky as a #7.

The committee used the eye test for basically one team in the tournament. Virginia. That was the one inconsistency, that they did not extend anywhere after that. I have a feeling it was a compromise to the old school folks after following the current criteria for everybody else. No wonder it was a heated discussion as the chair implied on Sunday last week. I think since it was a #1 seed they wanted somebody playing well. Not saying I agree with it.

 

[Briancuse]

UK an 8, Harvard a 12, Lville a 4 to name a few.

What is so wrong with Lville getting a 4?

 

[Chris02M]

there were a few minor mistakes on seeding but Wichita wasn't one of them.

Colorado was the biggest mistake by far

 

[Chris02M]

What is so wrong with Lville getting a 4?

could of made a case for 3 but 1 seed line is no big deal and that get to be in there preferred regional

 

[Chris02M]

UMass finished 5th in an unbalanced schedle in a 6 bid league, so that does not mean 6 seed is unrealistic... especially given their strong OOC performance for a team below the 5 line.


Where are the Kentucky wins? The number of top 50 wins (and %) offset by # of bad losses mattered this year. It was the main factor how I seeded teams, and I can tell you it was consistently applied, because I was pretty bang on for seeds this year. I had Kentucky as a #7.

The committee used the eye test for basically one team in the tournament. Virginia. That was the one inconsistency, that they did not extend anywhere after that. I have a feeling it was a compromise to the old school folks after following the current criteria for everybody else. No wonder it was a heated discussion as the chair implied on Sunday last week. I think since it was a #1 seed they wanted somebody playing well. Not saying I agree with it.

it was probably an overreaction after seeing Michigan get waxed by state who was a 4 seed

 

[Briancuse]

could of made a case for 3 but 1 seed line is no big deal and that get to be in there preferred regional

They had no good non conf wins, and they played in a lousy league, I thought a 4 was fair.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

I understand disputing matchups but I can't recall a tournament with so few blowouts and so many overtime games. The matchups have been pretty even regardless of seeding.

This says to me that the blue bloods are hurt by the one and dones and programs with senior leadership are getting an edve. Have nothing to back that up, just opinion and conjecture.

 

[Chris02M]

They had no good non conf wins, and they played in a lousy league, I thought a 4 was fair.

borderline 3-4. Id have seeded them over creighton

 

[victor]

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 . 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.

If Wichita St. was a three or a four what does that make us. That was a high quality game between two teams that could shoot as opposed to the rock fight I saw last night. They ran into a hot Kentucky team that's all.

 

[bpo57]

I can explain it from my perspective. I went to the final four last year. I like Wichita State's style of play, thought they were impressive last year, and was rooting like hell for them to knock off Louisville. They had them on the ropes, and would have beaten them if Hancock hadn't had something like 15 points in 90 seconds to cut what was something like an 18 point lead to 3 very quickly. They came an eyelash away from making the national championship game last season. Seeing them live and with all the players they had returning, there was no doubt that they were going to be good as hell this year.

I actually pulled for them a bit this year, too. Until our game at Pitt, when ESPN had Marshall in the studio, with them running what amounted to a WSU infomercial as he sat there and badmouthed us. After that, I stopped pulling for them. Then, he had a bunch of arrogant comments at the end of the season, only to chump out in the second round. I still like the players and the style of play, I just don't like the coach anymore, and enjoyed seeing them flame out today.

What were the bad things he said about SU?

 

[bpo57]

They had no good non conf wins, and they played in a lousy league, I thought a 4 was fair.

A lousy league that has more teams left in the tournament than the BE and ACC combined.