Nope. Saw your point perfectly. I was just adding some "confusions."
The NET rankings (and RPI before) are used primarily to group teams — eg, quadrant 1 etc. No evidence that the rankings per se are used. Just compare the committee rankings vs the NET rankings at the time.
The S curve gets set aside all the time for one reason or another. And I think the S curve is a fairly recent invention anyway.
I worry "MOST" about the stripped guy's with the short whistles, from past experiences. Your season can end with one bad call !
They may have been the best of the 1 seeds but the committee put them out there because they were the 4th 1 seed.
They certainly weren't considered the best prior to the tournament; they weren't even the best team in their conference. They got creamed at Louisville and then lost to them again in the ACC tournament. They also took a nonconference loss at UConn.
I was using the S curve to seed golf tournaments 45 years ago. It's a standard method in a one and done tournament.
Yes, I believe they are biased to the extent that they want to keep ESPN happy. ESPN puts a lot into their SEC Network and what better way to get advertising returns than having those teams be successful. I realize they own other networks but the SEC Network is obviously big to them. I don't think the committee would leave a deserving team out over this, but seeding, yes I believe ESPN has an influence.
"They."
It would be a question I would like to see ESPN put to the committee chairman. "Who sets the P & P's?
Oh brother.
Teams with winning conference records only?
Until this year any team that didn't have a winning conference record couldn't qualify unless they won the their Conference tournament. This year they are using COVID as an excuse to get some in like Mississippi State, Washington St, and North Carolina. All Power 5 Conference teams. I don't think that they should just change the rules to let some more P5 schools, there a some good Mid-Majors that will be left out that should be in it.
Let me rephrase. The concept of an S curve is not new, but the constant referencing to it in NCAA Tourneys (especially women's; men's may have preceded it) seems like a relatively new development to me.
I'm pretty sure this year they are considering teams w/ less than .500 records overall. There have been many, many teams with losing records in conference who did not win their conference tournament included in the field over the years.
Dunno about that. Men's tournament have been using it for years, and the women's tournament basically followed the men's rules, with a few exceptions for geography/attendance.
Where are you getting that from? Almost 100% sure that has never been the case.
I'm positive it's not correct. I'm sure you can find many SEC teams that had sub .500 conference records that got in. An example of a team I don't even need to look up to confirm, Ionescu's Fr. season the Ducks were 8-10 in the Pac 12, they did not win their conference tourney, but they managed to advance to the Elite 8 in the NCAA Tourney that year.
Many many many times. Grew up in central Texas, went to Texas A&M. Have family in Waco. Still at 5 out of 10. Sorry man.
Arkansas throws a wrench in this for me. I think they’re much better than their record shows. They just seem to be inconsistent at times.
290 miles through Fort Worth & the 135 merge in Denton. Ticket traps at the border [both sides] and in Norman. Never ending construction in Denton, Ardmore, Paul’s Valley, Norman & Moore. But you are the one person to do it in under 4 hours. LOL. Dream on. I drive it every week both ways. Not happening.