Creme Brktology 2/23 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Creme Brktology 2/23

Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
21,279
Reaction Score
50,299
I agree, and will add that many others at ESPN have joined him with their SEC bias.

The NCAA committee rankings had 5 SEC teams. Are they biased too?
And even if they are, they determine what will happen so their rankings are the best starting point for what the bracket will look like. All Creme did was update the committee rankings based on the results from the last week.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,060
Reaction Score
17,759
Think you missed my point.

Some folks argue forcefully against using NET rankings for seeding but then insist on using NET rankings to determine which victories are “quality” wins [for seeding]. NET rankings are going to be “unusual” this year due to the limited volume of non-conference games, unbalanced schedules, teams shutting down, etc. This year proves the limitations of a computer based system. That said, comments on this board prove the limitation of the eyeball test.

To be honest, there is little difference among teams 1-8. That said, it would be very easy for the selection committee to create some really imbalanced quadrants [even more than the usual high amount of imbalance].

Not really worried about seeding position. Do think we may see 1-2 teams giftwrapped a trip to the Final Four while others are faced with much tougher 2nd weekend matches.
Nope. Saw your point perfectly. I was just adding some "confusions."
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
21,279
Reaction Score
50,299
Find it interesting that some folks prefer to ignore the NET rankings for seeding but insist on using them to compare “good” wins [for seeding]. Interesting mental maneuver.
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.

Oregon is #6 in the NET; I can assure you they will not be ranked #6 by the committee nor even seeded as a 2.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,616
Reaction Score
25,683
I guess I'm not really seeing what you're seeing @Alydar . Should the top team in the West not be seeded somewhere in the West? Do you think Stanford didn't earn their seed many of those years? UConn, Stanford and Notre Dame are the only 3 schools that have consistently gotten to the Final 4 over an extended time frame, and I don't think you can credit "easy" brackets for that.

How about we look at how the other 1 seeds get sited. Since UConn has had the top seed the most they often have the "privilege" of getting placed in the closest site, which has usually been in the Northeast. The second No 1, using the NCAA's policy at the time, would be placed in the closest of the remaining sites and the third 1 seed would get the closest of the 2 remaining regions while the 4th seed gets what's left. If any west coast is picked as the west regional (and I can't remember even one year when the west region was anywhere else) then Portland is the furthest region for any of the 4 one seeds, leaving it open for the PAC12 team that is the highest seed, whether it be a 1 or 2 seed. In all the other regionals the 1 seed got there because of their S curve position, not by a geographical anomaly in the seeding procedures.
I'm not saying this has been done deliberately, just that it is an edge, however big or small.
 

nwhoopfan

hopeless West Coast homer
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
28,781
Reaction Score
53,000
How about we look at how the other 1 seeds get sited. Since UConn has had the top seed the most they often have the "privilege" of getting placed in the closest site, which has usually been in the Northeast. The second No 1, using the NCAA's policy at the time, would be placed in the closest of the remaining sites and the third 1 seed would get the closest of the 2 remaining regions while the 4th seed gets what's left. If any west coast is picked as the west regional (and I can't remember even one year when the west region was anywhere else) then Portland is the furthest region for any of the 4 one seeds, leaving it open for the PAC12 team that is the highest seed, whether it be a 1 or 2 seed. In all the other regionals the 1 seed got there because of their S curve position, not by a geographical anomaly in the seeding procedures.
I'm not saying this has been done deliberately, just that it is an edge, however big or small.
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.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
517
Reaction Score
719
So much for the number one over all getting the easiest route, seems to happen every time UCONN is the over all number one
I worry "MOST" about the stripped guy's with the short whistles, from past experiences. Your season can end with one bad call !
 

MSGRET

MSG, US Army Retired
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
6,277
Reaction Score
34,704
I'm sorry but there is no way that teams with a losing Conference record should be considered. The only way the Mississippi State, Washington State, and North Carolina should get into the NCAA Tournament is that they win their Conference Tournament. Teams with winning Conference records should be the only ones that are eligible for the Tourney.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,616
Reaction Score
25,683
I'm pretty sure that statement won't hold up to scrutiny. In 2018 Notre Dame was the #1 seed shipped out West, and since they cut the nets down they clearly weren't the weakest #1. Last 2 Tourneys the games have been played in Portland and Spokane, which are not arenas the Pac 12 teams are familiar with.
They may have been the best of the 1 seeds but the committee put them out there because they were the 4th 1 seed.
 

Plebe

La verdad no peca pero incomoda
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
19,373
Reaction Score
69,542
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.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
6,616
Reaction Score
25,683
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 was using the S curve to seed golf tournaments 45 years ago. It's a standard method in a one and done tournament.
And you are right, they supersede it all the time. I've always felt that the committee is powerless. It's whoever gets to set the "Policies & Procedures" who has the power. Anyone know who that is?
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2021
Messages
110
Reaction Score
790
The NCAA committee rankings had 5 SEC teams. Are they biased too?
And even if they are, they determine what will happen so their rankings are the best starting point for what the bracket will look like. All Creme did was update the committee rankings based on the results from the last week.
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.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,060
Reaction Score
17,759
I was using the S curve to seed golf tournaments 45 years ago. It's a standard method in a one and done tournament.
And you are right, they supersede it all the time. I've always felt that the committee is powerless. It's whoever gets to set the "Policies & Procedures" who has the power. Anyone know who that is?
"They."
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
21,279
Reaction Score
50,299
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.
Oh brother.

the committee is 10 people on an ever changing basis from different schools — all but one (at most) not from the SEC. all of these other conference representatives just roll over for the SEC? All of these people on this committee over the years and NOT ONE has ever come forward to say that the SEC got preferential treatment or ESPN had undue influence on the process?

Yeah that’s absolutely believable.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,060
Reaction Score
17,759
I'm sorry but there is no way that teams with a losing Conference record should be considered. The only way the Mississippi State, Washington State, and North Carolina should get into the NCAA Tournament is that they win their Conference Tournament. Teams with winning Conference records should be the only ones that are eligible for the Tourney.
Teams with winning conference records only?

17-6 Arkansas is only 7-6 in the SEC. they could easily end up with a losing conference record. But hey, let’s not count their non-conference record with wins over Baylor and UConn
 

MSGRET

MSG, US Army Retired
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
6,277
Reaction Score
34,704
Teams with winning conference records only?

17-6 Arkansas is only 7-6 in the SEC. they could easily end up with a losing conference record. But hey, let’s not count their non-conference record with wins over Baylor and UConn
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.
 

nwhoopfan

hopeless West Coast homer
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
28,781
Reaction Score
53,000
I was using the S curve to seed golf tournaments 45 years ago. It's a standard method in a one and done tournament.
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.
 

nwhoopfan

hopeless West Coast homer
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
28,781
Reaction Score
53,000
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.
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.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
21,279
Reaction Score
50,299
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.
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.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
21,279
Reaction Score
50,299
Until this year any team that didn't have a winning conference record couldn't qualify unless they won the their Conference tournament.
Where are you getting that from? Almost 100% sure that has never been the case.
 

nwhoopfan

hopeless West Coast homer
Joined
Feb 16, 2017
Messages
28,781
Reaction Score
53,000
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.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
491
Reaction Score
1,824
Marquette tops #24DePaul today. There go two of our top 25 wins. But maybe Marquette becomes top 25 and we pick up 2 replacement wins.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,655
Reaction Score
6,403
You’ve obviously never made that drive. Best case scenario is 4.5 hours. High traffic, 6 hours.
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.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
1,655
Reaction Score
6,403
I'm sorry but there is no way that teams with a losing Conference record should be considered. The only way the Mississippi State, Washington State, and North Carolina should get into the NCAA Tournament is that they win their Conference Tournament. Teams with winning Conference records should be the only ones that are eligible for the Tourney.
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.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
160
Reaction Score
418
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.
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.
 

Online statistics

Members online
478
Guests online
3,625
Total visitors
4,103

Forum statistics

Threads
155,780
Messages
4,031,405
Members
9,864
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom