Big East Proved NCAA Selection Committee “Wrong Again”

[navery12]

Beating a top 10 team at home is more impressive than beating a non-ranked team on the road.

The entire in conference schedule for Seton Hall was tougher.

The MWC is a weak conference overall.

Let me know when you stop moving the goal posts and I'll continue this discussion. It's very hard to refute your points when you aren't even sure what you're arguing yet

 

[auror]

Beating a top 10 team at home is more impressive than beating a non-ranked team on the road.

The entire in conference schedule for Seton Hall was tougher.

The MWC is a weak conference overall.

San Diego State has been a ranked team pretty much all season and 5 seeds are top 20 teams.

It is much harder to beat a top 25 team in the road than a top 5-10 team at home. Significantly so.

 

[August_West]

I absolutely had them in. But for reasons I don’t their computer rankings were low, and below the other bubble Big East teams. But I would have had them in on 13-7 and no terrible OOC losses alone.

Seton Hall shot themselves in the foot in the OOC. No doubt about it. Its why they were even considered for the bubble. But this snub really sticks in my craw because it is pure disrespect for the BigEast as a conference rather than being a garden variety bubble team in bubble team out snub. St. Johns and Providence fit that latter category. I'm fine with them in, I'm fine with them out.

Im not a conspiracy guy, but that one has me frothing. I don't like what it portends for the league as a whole.

 

[upstater]

Let me know when you stop moving the goal posts and I'll continue this discussion. It's very hard to refute your points when you aren't even sure what you're arguing yet

I'm 100% sure you just don't like the answers

Wins over top opponents should mean something.
Seton Hall didn't lose to Butler like Boise St did.
The Big East is simply a tougher conference than the MW.

If you don't like my criteria, how in the world do you like the committee's?

They go from telling us the OOC is not very relevant to emphasizing it.

 

[Travelman6]

Let's at least see what happens in the sweet 16. One close loss and 2 in the e8 and at least one in the final four should be expected. I'd even say 2 in the e8 and one ff team is needed before we can say that.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Just. Keep. Winning

Save this chat for later.

 

[superjohn]

Seton Hall shot themselves in the foot in the OOC. No doubt about it. Its why they were even considered for the bubble. But this snub really sticks in my craw because it is pure disrespect for the BigEast as a conference rather than being a garden variety bubble team in bubble team out snub. St. Johns and Providence fit that latter category. I'm fine with them in, I'm fine with them out.

Im not a conspiracy guy, but that one has me frothing. I don't like what it portends for the league as a whole.

It's ridiculous going 13-7 in the second best league with the #1 overall team, a #2 seed, and #3 seed and you get left out. I don't buy into the conspiracy though, it would have merit if they went with all Big 10 and SEC teams but the Mountain West has 6 teams in and nobody cares about the Mountain West.

Val assured us the committee told them they will look at Net going forward so we should be good. Lolz.

 

[upstater]

San Diego State has been a ranked team pretty much all season and 5 seeds are top 20 teams.

It is much harder to beat a top 25 team in the road than a top 5-10 team at home. Significantly so.

The committee doesn't know what it's doing.

It's nonsensical to point to the committee's seeding as evidence that their seeding is correct. They pretty much proved last year that their seeding (which diverged from the polls quite a bit) was bad.

Do I think it's harder to beat SD St. on the road than Marquette at home? No, of course not.

 

[navery12]

I'm 100% sure you just don't like the answers

Wins over top opponents should mean something.
Seton Hall didn't lose to Butler like Boise St did.
The Big East is simply a tougher conference than the MW.

If you don't like my criteria, how in the world do you like the committee's?

They go from telling us the OOC is not very relevant to emphasizing it.

You're just posting a bunch of nonsense. I think your criteria is garbage as is the committee's. Right now your criteria appears to be ignore all of the Big East teams' warts because go Big East.

You're just choosing what numbers matter and what numbers don't, and it changes from post to post depending on what argument you've changed to at that second. And what you posted as I type this is a perfect example. San Diego State is a top 25 team in every metric, was ranked multiple times throughout the season, including at the end. Yet upstater says they're actually not a top team so I should believe that.

But since you want answers, here you go

Beating a top 10 team at home is more impressive than beating a non-ranked team on the road.

This is irrelevant, San Diego State is not an unranked team

The entire in conference schedule for Seton Hall was tougher.

Completely irrelevant since we're talking about OOC losses

The MWC is a weak conference overall.

It is worse than the Big East, sure. But this is really just showing your ignorance about college basketball outside of the Big East

 

[auror]

Do I think it's harder to beat SD St. on the road than Marquette at home? No, of course not.

Well, you're wrong by every known metric.

SDSU isn't top 25 only by the committee. Also AP Poll (people) and basically every computer metric (KenPom, Torvik, EvanMiya, etc,).

Beating SDSU on road in WAB based on Torvik ranks would be worth +0.73 wins above bubble and Marquette at home +0.57.

Beating us at home is +0.79, so there are some home wins worth more than a road SDSU win, but by and large a top 25 road win is the hardest thing to win in college basketball.

There's a reason all three of our losses were on the road. And all four of Purdue's and Houston's losses were away from home.

So either you're undervaluing Sweet Sixteen SDSU who was in the national championship game last year or winning on the road. Neither is correct.

 

[superjohn]

Well, you're wrong by every known metric.

SDSU isn't top 25 only by the committee. Also AP Poll (people) and basically every computer metric (KenPom, Torvik, EvanMiya, etc,).

Beating SDSU on road in WAB based on Torvik ranks would be worth +0.73 wins above bubble and Marquette at home +0.57.

Beating us at home is +0.79, so there are some home wins worth more than a road SDSU win, but by and large a top 25 road win is the hardest thing to win in college basketball.

There's a reason all three of our losses were on the road. And all four of Purdue's and Houston's losses were away from home.

So either you're undervaluing Sweet Sixteen SDSU who was in the national championship game last year or winning on the road. Neither is correct.

Torvik has St. John's at 18, Kenpom 25, NET 32

 

[Karmacop]

Let's compare blind resumes as of Selection Sunday:

TEAM A:

NET Ranking: 26
KenPom Rank: 42
Q1 Record: 6-5 (4-4 Q1A and 2-1 Q1B)
Q1 + Q2 Record: 9-9
Q3 + Q4 Record: 11-1
Best Three Wins: (1) Neutral to NET 16; (2) Away to NET 20; (3) Away to NET 22
Worst Loss: Home to NET 76

Team B:

NET Ranking: 67
KenPom Rank: 60
Q1 Record: 5-8 (3-5 Q1A and 2-3 Q1B)
Q1 + Q2 Record: 9-11
Q3 + Q4 Record: 13-1
Best Three Wins: (1) Home to NET 2; (2) Home to NET 14; (3) Away to NET 32
Worst Loss: Home to NET 103

There isn't a huge amount of difference between these two, but all of these metrics do lean towards Team A over Team B. Over the whole season, Team A seems to be slightly better than Team B, and if I were on the committee that's who I would pick if it came down to these two teams.

If you're going to pick Team B, what would your rationale be? It would have to be that Team B has the best single win of the two. But they also have the worst loss, and overall Team A has better NET, KenPom, Q1 record and Q1 + Q2 record than Team B.

 

[businesslawyer]

Let's compare blind resumes as of Selection Sunday:

TEAM A:

NET Ranking: 26
KenPom Rank: 42
Q1 Record: 6-5 (4-4 Q1A and 2-1 Q1B)
Q1 + Q2 Record: 9-9
Q3 + Q4 Record: 11-1
Best Three Wins: (1) Neutral to NET 16; (2) Away to NET 20; (3) Away to NET 22
Worst Loss: Home to NET 76

Team B:

NET Ranking: 67
KenPom Rank: 60
Q1 Record: 5-8 (3-5 Q1A and 2-3 Q1B)
Q1 + Q2 Record: 9-11
Q3 + Q4 Record: 13-1
Best Three Wins: (1) Home to NET 2; (2) Home to NET 14; (3) Away to NET 32
Worst Loss: Home to NET 103

There isn't a huge amount of difference between these two, but all of these metrics do lean towards Team A over Team B. Over the whole season, Team A seems to be slightly better than Team B, and if I were on the committee that's who I would pick if it came down to these two teams.

If you're going to pick Team B, what would your rationale be? It would have to be that Team B has the best single win of the two. But they also have the worst loss, and overall Team A has better NET, KenPom, Q1 record and Q1 + Q2 record than Team B.

That’s well done, but to be definitive you have to do what the committee does, which is look not just at the composite Quad 1 and 2 numbers, but note how high or low in the Quads the actual games were.

 

[Karmacop]

Here's a third team to compare:

TEAM C:

NET Ranking: 54
KenPom Rank: 70
Q1 Record: 2-7 (1-3 Q1A and 1-4 Q1B)
Q1 + Q2 Record: 10-10
Q3 + Q4 Record: 13-0
Best Three Wins: (1) Away to NET 35; (2) Neutral to NET 29; (3) Home to NET 43
Worst Loss: Away to NET 124

Here, Team B has a better argument. Team C has a slightly better Q1 + Q2 record and NET ranking, but that's it. Team C's record against Q1 teams is abysmal, and that's who you're going to play in the tourney as an at-large selection on a neutral court. The worst losses are comparable, but Team B has much better "best wins" than Team C.

 

[Karmacop]

That’s well done, but to be definitive you have to do what the committee does, which is look not just at the composite Quad 1 and 2 numbers, but note how high or low in the Quads the actual games were.

Agreed, although there is enough difference between Team A and Team B that I'm not sure that would have made a difference here. And the "best three wins" is a rough shorthand for how good the best Q1 wins were (along with Q1A and Q1B breakdowns).

Now, Team B vs. Team C, yeah that's closer.

I'm sure folks can figure it out, but:

Team A = Boise State
Team B = Seton Hall
Team C = Virginia

 

[businesslawyer]

Agreed, although there is enough difference between Team A and Team B that I'm not sure that would have made a difference here. And the "best three wins" is a rough shorthand for how good the best Q1 wins were (along with Q1A and Q1B breakdowns).

Now, Team B vs. Team C, yeah that's closer.

I'm sure folks can figure it out, but:

Team A = Boise State
Team B = Seton Hall
Team C = Virginia

agree.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Marquette is a 2 seed, SD is a 5. SD wasn't even in the top 25 when they seeded. And you leave out beating UConn. Home or away that's a big deal.

Again, this is a new emphasis on the OOC that didn't exist t all last year.

If you know your criteria are all screwed up (and they are or else Mich St or Virginia don't get in over Indiana St) then the proper thing to do is insure some balance between conferences.

6 MWC and 3 BE is a colossal failure

BE vs. MWC misses the point -- the Big XII and SEC were severely overrated. Virginia was also a joke.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Seton Hall shot themselves in the foot in the OOC. No doubt about it. Its why they were even considered for the bubble. But this snub really sticks in my craw because it is pure disrespect for the BigEast as a conference rather than being a garden variety bubble team in bubble team out snub. St. Johns and Providence fit that latter category. I'm fine with them in, I'm fine with them out.

Im not a conspiracy guy, but that one has me frothing. I don't like what it portends for the league as a whole.

The "no 13-7 major conference team was left out" comment should be a 6-alarm fire for the conference and its national perception.

 

[upstater]

BE vs. MWC misses the point -- the Big XII and SEC were severely overrated. Virginia was also a joke.

Here's the problem I have with this (and I agree about Virginia and Michigan St): these are just tougher conferences than the MW. The MWC has to prove itself in the tournament eventually. It's a weak conference that is getting too much deference. With the SEC and B12, they've at least had good years recently.

 

[upstater]

Well, you're wrong by every known metric.

SDSU isn't top 25 only by the committee. Also AP Poll (people) and basically every computer metric (KenPom, Torvik, EvanMiya, etc,).

Beating SDSU on road in WAB based on Torvik ranks would be worth +0.73 wins above bubble and Marquette at home +0.57.

Beating us at home is +0.79, so there are some home wins worth more than a road SDSU win, but by and large a top 25 road win is the hardest thing to win in college basketball.

There's a reason all three of our losses were on the road. And all four of Purdue's and Houston's losses were away from home.

So either you're undervaluing Sweet Sixteen SDSU who was in the national championship game last year or winning on the road. Neither is correct.

They were not top 25 when the committee seeded them. They were out of the 25.

The committee was using these metrics which clearly favored the MWC but you have to see beyond the metrics to realize that conference is weak. They've never really been strong or had good showings in the tournament.

I happen to think a win over UConn is much harder than a road win over San Diego St. It surprises me you dont believe this, no matter what Torvik has to say about it. UConn had a record setting BE W/L this year. Clearly, it was a tall task beating them even at home.

 

[upstater]

You're just posting a bunch of nonsense. I think your criteria is garbage as is the committee's. Right now your criteria appears to be ignore all of the Big East teams' warts because go Big East.

You're just choosing what numbers matter and what numbers don't, and it changes from post to post depending on what argument you've changed to at that second. And what you posted as I type this is a perfect example. San Diego State is a top 25 team in every metric, was ranked multiple times throughout the season, including at the end. Yet upstater says they're actually not a top team so I should believe that.

But since you want answers, here you go

Beating a top 10 team at home is more impressive than beating a non-ranked team on the road.

This is irrelevant, San Diego State is not an unranked team

The entire in conference schedule for Seton Hall was tougher.

Completely irrelevant since we're talking about OOC losses

The MWC is a weak conference overall.

It is worse than the Big East, sure. But this is really just showing your ignorance about college basketball outside of the Big East

WRONG: They were not ranked when the committee seeded them.

That's what I wrote.

Just because you can't read, that's not my fault.

MWC has never accomplished anything or shown any strength in the tournament, yet it is shown deference based on completely bogus metrics.

To top it off, the committee didn't even care about OOC last year when it dropped UConn from a 2 to a 4.

 

[HuskyNan]

Seton Hall cruises past UNLV to reach NIT semifinals

Seton Hall hosted UNLV in the quarterfinals of the NIT on Wednesday night at Walsh Gym.

www.nj.com

 

[bazz&boujee]

Saying more Big East teams should of gotten in is a perfectly rational argument. However, it is in no way an objective fact concluding that anyone was deliberately “screwed”. If you spend the entire season somewhere between Last 4 byes and First 4 out, don’t be surprised when you don’t make it. Those MWC teams were all projected to be higher than 10 seeds anyway..

 

[auror]

They were not top 25 when the committee seeded them. They were out of the 25.

The committee was using these metrics which clearly favored the MWC but you have to see beyond the metrics to realize that conference is weak. They've never really been strong or had good showings in the tournament.

I happen to think a win over UConn is much harder than a road win over San Diego St. It surprises me you dont believe this, no matter what Torvik has to say about it. UConn had a record setting BE W/L this year. Clearly, it was a tall task beating them even at home.

Lol. Great gotcha! They were 28th (3rd receiving votes), had been ranked the week before, and were about to be ranked the next day. They had just made their conference title game beating the top seed #18 along the way. The point is not actually the ranking, the point is how people felt about the team at the time. People thought they were top 25 good (many of their metrics were top 20 on top of being ranked a lot this season), so sweeping them (and winning there on the road) was seen as very good for Boise St.

The metrics do not all "clearly favor the MWC." 1 of the 2 predictive metrics on the committee's teamsheet, BPI, is mechanically biased against the MWC (there is a controversial elevation adjustment which hits many of the MWC home wins hard). SOR, 1 of the 2 resume metrics on the teamsheet, uses BPI as the base of it's calculations (like WAB uses T-Rank). This is one of the biggest reasons why the MWC was almost universally seeded lower than the consensus/BracketMatrix. I'm not sure what you mean the conference has never had good showings in the tournament. San Diego St literally made the title game last season.

San Diego St. is 70-6 at home the last 5 years. 92% winning %. They won 14/15 at home this year. They're 24-3 at home the last 3 years in conference play (88%). Generously counting the semi-neutral Gonzaga and St. John's in the BET wins, UConn went 9-3 on the road this year (75% and much worse last year). Winning on the road is really hard. Yeah it's probably pretty comparable to beat this year's UConn team at your place vs. SDSU at their place.

 

[upstater]

Lol. Great gotcha! They were 28th (3rd receiving votes), had been ranked the week before, and were about to be ranked the next day. They had just made their conference title game beating the top seed #18 along the way. The point is not actually the ranking, the point is how people felt about the team at the time. People thought they were top 25 good (many of their metrics were top 20 on top of being ranked a lot this season), so sweeping them (and winning there on the road) was seen as very good for Boise St.

The metrics do not all "clearly favor the MWC." 1 of the 2 predictive metrics on the committee's teamsheet, BPI, is mechanically biased against the MWC (there is a controversial elevation adjustment which hits many of the MWC home wins hard). SOR, 1 of the 2 resume metrics on the teamsheet, uses BPI as the base of it's calculations (like WAB uses T-Rank). This is one of the biggest reasons why the MWC was almost universally seeded lower than the consensus/BracketMatrix. I'm not sure what you mean the conference has never had good showings in the tournament. San Diego St literally made the title game last season.

San Diego St. is 70-6 at home the last 5 years. 92% winning %. They won 14/15 at home this year. They're 24-3 at home the last 3 years in conference play (88%). Generously counting the semi-neutral Gonzaga and St. John's in the BET wins, UConn went 9-3 on the road this year (75% and much worse last year). Winning on the road is really hard. Yeah it's probably pretty comparable to beat this year's UConn team at your place vs. SDSU at their place.

The MWC conference has not proven itself in the tourney.

The committee acted as though they are anything other than a really good mid-major.

Remember the years when the AAC got 2 or 3? That was when it had Houston, UConn, Memphis, Temple, SMU.

I'm not buying this idea that beating SD St on the road is as good a win as beating UConn but regardless, the league road for Seton Hall was much harder. They walloped UNLV tonight. And again the MWC showed weakness in the tourney