Creme Brktology 2/23 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Creme Brktology 2/23

I went back about 20 years. UConn has been shipped around more than I realized, so my apologies for that.

But I was mostly right. Stanford hasn't been given preferential treatment routinely. Spokane has hosted a lot of the West Regionals, and some other random locations like Fresno, Sacramento, Stockton, Albuquerque and Sioux Falls like I mentioned previously. None of those are familiar locations for Stanford, and they haven't always been assigned to those regions anyway.
 
nwhoopfan said:
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.

I'm going to keep going back further but I'm sure I'll find more results that don't jive with your position.

The Trees haven't been getting the highest seed of Pac 12 teams in recent years and thus have been sent packing themselves.

Also, UConn ALWAYS is either in Connecticut or New York. Baylor rarely has to leave Texas. Other teams routinely get breaks in the Tourney when it comes to geography.


edit--2017 South Carolina was shipped to Stockton (again not a Pac 12 familiar arena) and won the Championship that year; must not have been the weakest #1, again

2016 West Regional was in Sioux Falls, SD, which was due north of the Midwest Regional in Dallas; that location was an absolute joke, not even remotely close to being in the "West."
Expand ...

I should amend my statement to say in years when Stanford was a 1 or 2 seed, which is still a lot of years. And in most of those years they were the only western team in the top 8. They were virtually guaranteed playing in the west region against the weakest one or two seed simply because the other 3 teams were all a long way from the west site and it was always left to the 4th one seed. If Stanford was a 2 seed they got the worst 1 seed for the above reason.

Now just because they were the worst seed doesn't mean they are in fact the worst, but it's more likely than not.
As for the arena, let's say it was S Carolina vs any likely west coast team, like UCLA. It's got to be a thousand miles or more from LA to Portland, but I'll wager on the crowd being heavily for the women from LaLa land.
UConn has made it's own edge with their popularity. It makes hosting a regional within driving distance of Storrs very profitable compared to other sites and that is a huge help in a bidding environment. But that wouldn't mean diddly unless UConn earned their seeding.
 
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.
 
nwhoopfan said:
Also, UConn ALWAYS is either in Connecticut or New York. Baylor rarely has to leave Texas. Other teams routinely get breaks in the Tourney when it comes to geography.
Expand ...
Don’t let facts get in the way of an internet tirade.

Baylor’s last 10 Regional sites [from most recent to oldest]:

Greensboro, NC
Lexington, KY
OK City, OK
Dallas, TX
OK City, OK
Notre Dame, IN
OK City, OK
Des Moines, IA
Dallas, TX
Memphis, TN

...is 8 out of 10 really “rarely”?
 
Adriacus said:
Don’t let facts get in the way of an internet tirade.

Baylor’s last 10 Regional sites [from most recent to oldest]:

Greensboro, NC
Lexington, KY
OK City, OK
Dallas, TX
OK City, OK
Notre Dame, IN
OK City, OK
Des Moines, IA
Dallas, TX
Memphis, TN

...is 8 out of 10 really “rarely”?
Expand ...
Well see, my perceptions are just as off as other people's perceptions. We all have our biases.
 
.-.
TC22 said:
I know SC has lost 3 games but they have more Top 25 wins than anybody and you can't just discount that and they haven't lost to ANYBODY out of the top 25. You have to look at the entire resume. Look at the strength of schedules of the other teams you are putting in front of them. Now I agree they shouldn't have lost some of those games, but they've won a bunch others against the rest of the best. If we don't win both of our remaining games I'm with you but for this week don't shortchange your team just because you think they should be better.
Expand ...
How many top 10 teams has South Carolina beaten? One, and it was Ky, which was ranked 10th at the time, and they are now 17th. They lost to Uconn and N C State, both top 10 teams.
 
Adriacus said:
Don’t let facts get in the way of an internet tirade.

Baylor’s last 10 Regional sites [from most recent to oldest]:

Greensboro, NC
Lexington, KY
OK City, OK
Dallas, TX
OK City, OK
Notre Dame, IN
OK City, OK
Des Moines, IA
Dallas, TX
Memphis, TN

...is 8 out of 10 really “rarely”?
Expand ...

Well......OK City is 3 hours and 45 minutes from Waco, TX, so I'm gonna call it 5 out of 10!

To be honest, not a bad deal overall for Baylor.
 
#1florida said:
I only find 2 top 16 teams that South Carolina beat? Maybe it is my old eyes, playing tricks on me.
Expand ...
looking at the Creme top 16 (based on the committee top 16), they have beaten Kentucky x2, Georgia, Arkansas.
 
.-.
Vowelguy said:
Because the AP & Coaches polls have nothing to do with how seeding is done.
Expand ...
That was not my point. What makes them qualified over a couple of other teams who are deserving.
 
#1florida said:
How many top 10 teams has South Carolina beaten? One, and it was Ky, which was ranked 10th at the time, and they are now 17th. They lost to Uconn and N C State, both top 10 teams.
Expand ...
1614190740253.png


Looks like SCar has beaten 4 top 16 teams out of 7 that they played

If you are looking at AP rankings, you are looking in the wrong place. Look at the NET rankings.
 
Urshurak said:
Well......OK City is 3 hours and 45 minutes from Waco, TX, so I'm gonna call it 5 out of 10!

To be honest, not a bad deal overall for Baylor.
Expand ...
You’ve obviously never made that drive. Best case scenario is 4.5 hours. High traffic, 6 hours.
 
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.
 
.-.
Adriacus said:
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.
Expand ...
I think the committee looks at NET to start with, but mentally adjusts with consideration of AP rankings. The Pure NET rankings can produce oddities like 13-6 Oregon being ranked 7.

But, yeah. You can mix and compare algorithms Massey, NET and even RPI but you can't mix Eyeball polls with them. You certainly cant mix SoS integer calculations with eyeball based ranking.
 
visitingcock said:
I think the committee looks at NET to start with, but mentally adjusts with consideration of AP rankings. The Pure NET rankings can produce oddities like 13-6 Oregon being ranked 7.

But, yeah. You can mix and compare algorithms Massey, NET and even RPI but you can't mix Eyeball polls with them. You certainly cant mix SoS integer calculations with eyeball based ranking.
Expand ...
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.
 
STLCardinal said:
I agree, and will add that many others at ESPN have joined him with their SEC bias.
Expand ...

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.
 
Adriacus said:
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.
Expand ...
Nope. Saw your point perfectly. I was just adding some "confusions."
 
Adriacus said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
nwhoopfan said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
Alydar said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Performance said:
So much for the number one over all getting the easiest route, seems to happen every time UCONN is the over all number one
Expand ...
I worry "MOST" about the stripped guy's with the short whistles, from past experiences. Your season can end with one bad call !
 
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.
 
nwhoopfan said:
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.
Expand ...
They may have been the best of the 1 seeds but the committee put them out there because they were the 4th 1 seed.
 
Alydar said:
They may have been the best of the 1 seeds but the committee put them out there because they were the 4th 1 seed.
Expand ...
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.
 
nwhoopfan said:
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.
Expand ...
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?
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,930
Messages
4,545,412
Members
10,426
Latest member
kmbazz15


Top Bottom