Bracketology Feb 26th. Baylor still a #2 Seed.

[Plebe]

I only just noticed, but Baylor is now 4th in the RPI over Louisville. There is really no justification for keeping us as a 2 seed according to their own metrics.

The committee has never gone strictly by RPI ranking. They're way more interested in quality wins. Which just happens to be where Baylor falls flat, compared to the top four.

Baylor vs. RPI top 25: wins over Texas x 2, Stanford; lost to UCLA
Louisville vs. RPI top 25: wins over Notre Dame, Oregon, Ohio State, Duke, NC State; lost to UConn, Florida State

So, Louisville has two wins over teams that are better than anyone Baylor has even played.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

Personally I feel who ever wins the ACC L'ville or ND should get one #1 seed and the other is a #2! UCONN & Miss St. are set as #1's!
Mulkey and Baylor put themselves in this mess by scheduling lousy OOC teams so they do not deserve a #1 but should be a #2! If they scheduled even a 1/2 way decent OOC they would earn a #1!
Oregon St. or Oregon, whoever wins the Pac12 should have a good chance to take the 4th #1 seed.

 

[southie]

Oregon is 9-4 versus the RPI Top 50, and that includes two wins over Texas A&M, two wins over Top 10 UCLA, two wins over USC, Oklahoma, Oregon State, and California.

Oregon is 4-3 versus the RPI Top 25, and that includes two wins over Texas A&M and two wins over Top 10 UCLA.

Losses are @Miss. State, @Louisville, Stanford, and @Oregon State. No bad losses at all, and bonus points (IMO) for those road losses at possible two Top 4 national seeds.

Baylor's body of work does not come close to that, other than a record which has only one blemish in the loss column.

 

[Plebe]

Oregon is 9-4 versus the RPI Top 50, and that includes two wins over Texas A&M, two wins over Top 10 UCLA, two wins over USC, Oklahoma, Oregon State, and California.

Oregon is 4-3 versus the RPI Top 25, and that includes two wins over Texas A&M and two wins over Top 10 UCLA.

Losses are @Miss. State, @Louisville, Stanford, and @Oregon State. No bad losses at all, and bonus points (IMO) for those road losses at possible two Top 4 national seeds.

Baylor's body of work does not come close to that, other than a record which has only one blemish in the loss column.

You think Oregon should be seeded ahead of Baylor? I don't agree.

First of all, you don't get bonus points for losing, especially when the games aren't competitive, which the losses to Miss St and Louisville weren't.

Baylor's two wins over Texas are, in the committee's eyes, better than Oregon's wins over UCLA and Texas A&M.

 

[southie]

You think Oregon should be seeded ahead of Baylor? I don't agree.

Baylor's two wins over Texas are, in the committee's eyes, better than Oregon's wins over UCLA and Texas A&M.

Texas and UCLA are very close, IMO, so those are basically a wash. Then, you compare Oregon's two wins over A&M, and Baylor's win over Stanford, and Oregon still comes out ahead in wins against Top 20 RPI.

What I do think is that Baylor is closer (in ranking) to Oregon than they are to Notre Dame.

Of course, you have to play/schedule the games against tougher opponents in order to even have a chance to win them. And, you need to win a lot of them.

The committee's first reveal had Oregon as the final #1 seed, and Baylor as a #3 seed. Oregon then lost a 2OT game at Oregon State (who is now at #33 RPI). They later suffered a loss at home against Stanford (who s now #15) . Baylor has added two wins over #11 RPI Texas since the first reveal. Perhaps the timing of that first reveal is hurting Oregon and helping Baylor based on "what have you done for me lately" mindset.

If you look at the records versus Top 50 RPI teams for the four #2 seeds in Baylor (7-1), Oregon (9-4), South Carolina (7-6) and Texas (6-4), Baylor played FIVE less games than Oregon and USC. So, based on the rankings, the committee is basically sending a message to Oregon and USC to schedule about 3 less (non-conference) games against Top 50 RPI teams so they can "avoid" losses and not be penalized. In a sense, do what Baylor did and schedule weaker in the non-conference and we'll rank you higher.

If you look at the records versus Top 50 RPI teams for the #3 seeds in UCLA (8-6), Tennessee (8-5), Florida State (4-5), and Mizzou (4-6), Baylor played FIVE less games than Tennessee and SIX less games than UCLA. Those are huge gaps, IMO. Despite more losses, both UCLA and Tennessee have more wins than Baylor.

Obviously, Baylor comes up way short, IMO, and a lot of it has to do with a weak Big 12 and only Texas and Oklahoma currently in the Top 50 which results in 4 wins for the Bears. The PAC, SEC, and ACC teams just have so many more teams in the Top 50.

Of course, what matters in the end is the committee's criteria and perspective. I just see huge discrepancies in Baylor's number of games played against Top 50 RPI teams compared to so many other teams ranked below them.

 

[Plebe]

Texas and UCLA are very close, IMO, so those are basically a wash. Then, you compare Oregon's two wins over A&M, and Baylor's win over Stanford, and Oregon still comes out ahead in wins against Top 20 RPI.

What I do think is that Baylor is closer (in ranking) to Oregon than they are to Notre Dame.

Of course, you have to play/schedule the games against tougher opponents in order to even have a chance to win them. And, you need to win a lot of them.

The committee's first reveal had Oregon as the final #1 seed, and Baylor as a #3 seed. Oregon then lost a 2OT game at Oregon State (who is now at #33 RPI). They later suffered a loss at home against Stanford (who s now #15) . Baylor has added two wins over #11 RPI Texas since the first reveal. Perhaps the timing of that first reveal is hurting Oregon and helping Baylor based on "what have you done for me lately" mindset.

If you look at the records versus Top 50 RPI teams for the four #2 seeds in Baylor (7-1), Oregon (9-4), South Carolina (7-6) and Texas (6-4), Baylor played FIVE less games than Oregon and USC. So, based on the rankings, the committee is basically sending a message to Oregon and USC to schedule about 3 less (non-conference) games against Top 50 RPI teams so they can "avoid" losses and not be penalized. In a sense, do what Baylor did and schedule weaker in the non-conference and we'll rank you higher.

If you look at the records versus Top 50 RPI teams for the #3 seeds in UCLA (8-6), Tennessee (8-5), Florida State (4-5), and Mizzou (4-6), Baylor played FIVE less games than Tennessee and SIX less games than UCLA. Those are huge gaps, IMO. Despite more losses, both UCLA and Tennessee have more wins than Baylor.

Obviously, Baylor comes up way short, IMO, and a lot of it has to do with a weak Big 12 and only Texas and Oklahoma currently in the Top 50 which results in 4 wins for the Bears. The PAC, SEC, and ACC teams just have so many more teams in the Top 50.

Of course, what matters in the end is the committee's criteria and perspective. I just see huge discrepancies in Baylor's number of games played against Top 50 RPI teams compared to so many other teams ranked below them.

Baylor played fewer games than Oregon vs. top 25 and top 50 competition, true, but their winning percentage in the games they did play is much better, which also matters.

 

[bags27]

It will be a good day for basketball when the RPI is discontinued.

well, a good day for Baylor, at least.

On a more serious note, all of our fingers and toes are crossed for Kristy Wallace.

But if her injury would at least make her appearance in the tournament problematic, I wonder if the selectors take that into consideration. I ask this as a broader question: do injuries to key players near the end of the season factor into the selection process? One would think teams are rewarded on the basis of their previous play, not on a projection going forward. On the other hand, teams are rewarded more for recent play. That's not exactly the same as a projection based on changing personnel, but it's somewhat similar.

 

[oldude]

well, a good day for Baylor, at least.

On a more serious note, all of our fingers and toes are crossed for Kristy Wallace.

But if her injury would at least make her appearance in the tournament problematic, I wonder if the selectors take that into consideration. I ask this as a broader question: do injuries to key players near the end of the season factor into the selection process? One would think teams are rewarded on the basis of their previous play, not on a projection going forward. On the other hand, teams are rewarded more for recent play. That's not exactly the same as a projection based on changing personnel, but it's somewhat similar.

The injury to Alaina Coates last season didn't impact SC's seed, although it could be argued that SC was a better team once the middle opened up for Gray & Davis to drive to the basket. The critical element is that SC won their conference tournament. Should Baylor win the Big12 conference tournament, I don't think losing Wallace will be a factor in their seeding. But should TX, or some other team, upset the Bears, then obviously their seeding would be affected.

 

[Vowelguy]

But if her injury would at least make her appearance in the tournament problematic, I wonder if the selectors take that into consideration. I ask this as a broader question: do injuries to key players near the end of the season factor into the selection process?
.

Yes injuries matter.
The goal is to create a *bslanced bracket*. If loss of a player significantly weakens a team, then their seed will be downgraded.

Baylor has a chance to show its quality in the B12 tourney. If it still wins, then maybe it’s still in contention fir a 1, though I gotta say it seems a lot less likely.

But if say Texas kills them, then I might drop Baylor to #7 in the committee rankings.

 

[Orangutan]

Personally I feel who ever wins the ACC L'ville or ND should get one #1 seed and the other is a #2! UCONN & Miss St. are set as #1's!
Mulkey and Baylor put themselves in this mess by scheduling lousy OOC teams so they do not deserve a #1 but should be a #2! If they scheduled even a 1/2 way decent OOC they would earn a #1!
Oregon St. or Oregon, whoever wins the Pac12 should have a good chance to take the 4th #1 seed.

Oregon St. is RPI #33 and their schedule is ranked #102. They are nowhere close to the 1 line even with a conference tournament win. Or the 2 line, for that matter.

 

[LoTrader]

Oregon St. is RPI #33 and their schedule is ranked #102. There is no way they will get on the 1 line with 6 losses instead of a 3-loss ND or 3-loss Louisville, both of whom have played better competition. Oregon perhaps has a longshot chance, but I doubt they make it either.

What will it take to get Oregon State into the top 16? In the last Charlie Creme bracket, he still has Oregon State as a #5 seed. I was pleased that Charlie has Duke moved to a #4 seed, and Maryland finally bounced out of the top 16. In any case, my belief is that the PAC12 is destined to have only 3 representatives in the top 16 (injustice), and that it will be either Stanford, or, Oregon State, depending on the results of the PAC12 Tournament. Although, if Oregon State and Stanford both lose their 1st game in the PAC12 Tournament, PAC12 could end up with just 2 x TOP 16 representatives.

 

[Bear11]

well, a good day for Baylor, at least.

On a more serious note, all of our fingers and toes are crossed for Kristy Wallace.

But if her injury would at least make her appearance in the tournament problematic, I wonder if the selectors take that into consideration. I ask this as a broader question: do injuries to key players near the end of the season factor into the selection process? One would think teams are rewarded on the basis of their previous play, not on a projection going forward. On the other hand, teams are rewarded more for recent play. That's not exactly the same as a projection based on changing personnel, but it's somewhat similar.

I don't hate on the RPI because it hates Baylor, but because it is a flawed method for creating a ranking. It may have made sense 30 years ago when information on teams was limited and computers couldn't do as much, but not anymore. As of the other day, UConn is no longer number 1 in the RPI. If a ranking can't pick the top team when it is that obvious to everyone else, why should we trust if for anything? It is baffling that the committee clings to it. It would not be difficult to come up with something better while still adhering to their guidelines.

As for any debate on Baylor, I think we have to hold off until we know the status of Kristy Wallace, or how we compete without her in the Big 12 tournament. The team still has immense talent, but it is a large blow at this point in the season. I would not blame the committee if they decided to move us down a seed line.

 

[shizam]

Just looked at the latest RPI. If Louisville advances to the ACC Final and loses... its record vs the top 50 RPI would be 13-3 vs Baylor's 7-1 perhaps.... if they win the Big 12. Havent looked at the possible Big 12 bracket yet. Assuming Louisville faces Syracuse and Duke/State on the way to the final.

Baylor will get #1 see

You must not watch the same basketball I watch.

The worst defense I have ever seen was by ND verse L’villle this year. Myisha Hines-Alllen looked like Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Westbeld and Nelson were atrocious. Hines-Allen scores 31 with 3 contested shots.

 

[scubadog]

Interesting how this could force Huskies to play Stanford, SC and Baylor just get to the championship game. Seems like a bunch of " bologna " to me !

 

[triaddukefan]

Baylor will get #1 see

Not if they lose in the Big 12 tournament

 

[shizam]

Not if they lose in the Big 12 tournament

Good point they lost last year and who would have thought West Virginia would have beaten them