Do You Agree With Charlie Creme?

[triaddukefan]

What is Baylor's resume, other than beating Texas?

They played UCLA close despite not having their head coach and second best player

 

[southie]

Where do you personally see Texas? Kansas City or Albany?

Well, I have no problem saying that South Carolina should be "ranked" ahead of Texas, especially with their 3 wins in the SEC tourney; heck, they could perhaps be ranked ahead of Oregon.

For Texas and South Carolina, it really depends on what the committee does with Miss. State. If they stay as the #2 seed overall, then South Carolina can't be in their bracket, but Texas can.

I think the committee will move Miss. State down one slot to #3. So, that means no conflict with South Carolina at the 2/7 matchup. And, other than Oregon being given preference for the Spokane regional, the S-curve could stay true to form. It would not surprise me if the committee bumped Texas down as far as #10 overall, if they see that any two of UCLA, Ohio State, Florida State, or Tennessee have a better body of work based in the last week of tournament play.

Surprised Crème doesn't project any movement in the bracket for the 1 and 2 seeds.

 

[Vowelguy]

They played UCLA close despite not having their head coach and second best player

Given that the OP said "all NDs resume has is losses," I'm thinking s/he would not include a loss on Bay's resume.

Look at the 64 Creme picked. Against that field, ND is about 13-3 and Baylor 6-1.

 

[southie]

Uh, there were the wins over Fla St x2, SC, Tenn, Ore St, NC St, Duke, USF, DePaul, Marquette, Michigan

What is Baylor's resume, other than beating Texas?

Most Baylor fans can't see the forest through the trees. Read their message board a couple on Sunday night. Most believe that because ND and Miss. State lost a game (one game in Miss. State's case) that Baylor should automatically move up. Most have no clue how the numbers work.

With Texas now out of the RPI Top 10, Baylor has zero wins over anyone in the RPI Top 10. Notre Dame is 5-3 against the Top 10 RPI teams. There are so many reasons why ND remains #1 in the RPI despite having 3 losses.

 

[Bear11]

Most Baylor fans can't se the forest through the trees.

With Texas now out of the RPI Top 10, Baylor has zero wins over anyone in the RPI Top 10. Notre Dame is 5-3 against the Top 10 RPI teams. There are so many reasons why ND remains #1 in the RPI despite having 3 losses.

Well Vowelguy just said that RPI isn't the important metric. And even if it is, Baylor is still a 1 seed by RPI and EVERY other metric except Charlie Creme.

 

[cbraarj]

Notre Dame's resume is largely built around losing to 1 seeds. This does not prove that they themselves are a 1 seed. If RPI is your metric of choice, Baylor is number 4, a 1 seed. That is the lowest any metric or poll has Baylor. Basically every other ranking has us at number 2 overall. It would be a travesty to give us a 2 seed, no matter your thoughts on scheduling.

Baylors resume would be largely built to losing to 1 seeds. If they had the guts to schedule them!

 

[cbraarj]

Despite Mississippi State now picking up a loss, most still consider them a lock for a 1 seed. I have no problem with this, and I think they are a top 3 team nationally. However, I don't understand how they are considered a lock for a top seed while Baylor is expected to get a 2. Mississippi State is now 5th in RPI, which is claimed to be the key metric. They have an RPI SOS of 21, basically the same as Baylor's at 25 (as a side note, I hate bringing up both RPI and RPI SOS, since RPI largely IS SOS, but that is another battle). Massey and Sagarin have Baylor with a stronger schedule, though I realize that likely won't be considered. All metrics I can find have Baylor over Mississippi State. So why is one a lock and the other consider a long shot?

I don't bring this up to argue that Mississippi State should be a 2 seed, because I think they are deserving. I just wanted to highlight some confusing logic that Creme, and perhaps the committee, tends to indulge in.

On the men's side, it has been made known that the committee is de-emphasizing the RPI, and allowing advanced metrics like Massey, Sagarin, KenPom, and ESPN's strength of record. Does anyone know if there is any equivalent movement on the women's side, or will they continue to cling to RPI like it is 1983?

Men and women games are different.

 

[southie]

Well Vowelguy just said that RPI isn't the important metric. And even if it is, Baylor is still a 1 seed by RPI and EVERY other metric except Charlie Creme.

You are good at spinning things to suit your argument. Regardless of what anyone says, including Creme, it's up to the committee. But, it's fun for the rest of us to discuss, speculate, and predict the outcomes.

The only thing Baylor has in its favor above Notre Dame and Louisville is that they only have one loss on the season; that's it. Baylor can't use that argument over Miss. State, though.

If Notre Dame isn't given a #1 seed based on their body of work (versus Baylor's), it would be a travesty and sends the wrong message. Forget that they are still the #1 RPI team if you don't like RPI rankings. Their resume dwarfs Baylor's plain as day.

 

[Bear11]

You are good at spinning things to suit your argument. Regardless of what anyone says, including Creme, it's up to the committee. But, it's fun for the rest of us to discuss, speculate, and predict the outcomes.

The only thing Baylor has in its favor above Notre Dame and Louisville is that they only have one loss on the season; that's it. Baylor can't use that argument over Miss. State, though.

If Notre Dame isn't given a #1 seed based on their body of work (versus Baylor's), it would be a travesty and sends the wrong message. Forget that they are still the #1 RPI team if you don't like RPI rankings. Their resume dwarfs Baylor's plain as day.

I'm not spinning things, I'm stating facts. And having fewer losses than other teams is actually a very good argument for being a better team. Once again, EVERY metric and poll has Baylor as a one seed. If the committee ignores all those metrics, then they are admitting that the whole process is entirely arbitrary. Notre Dame would have an undeniable resume if they had a win over Louisville or UConn. They do not. They do have wins over a lot of good teams. Baylor does too, unless you are willing to admit that 3 wins over Texas and sweeping the Big 12 and Stanford are not good wins.

I find it interesting that last year, Baylor was 7th in RPI and had a worse RPI SOS (despite playing a tougher nonconference schedule than this year, I don't really get this), yet there was little debate about getting a 1 seed. It seems like the committee is moving the goalposts a bit.

 

[southie]

I'm not spinning things, I'm stating facts. And having fewer losses than other teams is actually a very good argument for being a better team. Once again, EVERY metric and poll has Baylor as a one seed. If the committee ignores all those metrics, then they are admitting that the whole process is entirely arbitrary. Notre Dame would have an undeniable resume if they had a win over Louisville or UConn. They do not. They do have wins over a lot of good teams. Baylor does too, unless you are willing to admit that 3 wins over Texas and sweeping the Big 12 and Stanford are not good wins.

No, Baylor does not have close to the number of quality wins that Notre Dame has. Since you follow Massey and the other metrics aside from RPI, perhaps you will share the W/L records of the two teams against Top 10 and/or Top 25 teams based on their rankings in those other metrics.

 

[LoTrader]

I sure hope the selection committee ignores Charlie Creme. Just get this week over and on to the Monday Selection Show already.

 

[Orangutan]

Here's a visual on the ND vs. Baylor argument.

Screenshot of ND's games against RPI top 50:

9-3 vs. Top 25. 6-0 vs. 26-50. 15-3 overall against top 50.

 

[Orangutan]

Screenshot of Baylor's games against top 50:

4-1 against top 25. 2-0 against 26-50. 6-1 overall against top 50.

 

[Orangutan]

Notre Dame's resume is largely built around losing to 1 seeds.

ND has three RPI wins against teams higher ranked than anyone Baylor has played.

ND has 5 more top 25 wins and 9 more top 50 wins.

 

[Bear11]

No, Baylor does not have close to the number of quality wins that Notre Dame has. Since you follow Massey and the other metrics aside from RPI, perhaps you will share the W/L records of the two teams against Top 10 and/or Top 25 teams based on their rankings in those other metrics.

According to Sagarin, Baylor is 8-1 against top 25, Notre Dame 10-3. That's not a big gap. He also has Baylor rated much higher.

Citing records against Top X teams is the kind of arbitrary nonsense that metrics like Sagarin and RPI are supposed to avoid. Who cares who has if one team has more wins against teams in the top 37, if the rating clearly has one team ranked higher anyway? Baylor is 20-1 against RPI top 100 teams, Notre Dame is 21-3. There's a number for anything if you choose the right cutoff. If RPI is the metric, then make Notre Dame a 1 seed, but give the same to Baylor. If it is not, and it is based on other metrics or "eye test", then give it to Baylor, because all agree Baylor is the better team.

 

[Bear11]

ND has three RPI wins against teams higher ranked than anyone Baylor has played.

But if we switch to Sagarin and Massey (which I know aren't official) Baylor has 3 wins better than any of Notre Dame's. Yes they are all Texas, but that still counts for something. It is all arbitrary.

 

[Bigpetunia]

Of all the potential opponents out there, I believe that Baylor, even without Kristy Wallace, presents the most threatening obstacle to UConn's capturing NC #12. They are less formidable without Kristy, and may even lose a game to Texas as they adjust (although I doubt it), but their two "bigs", and the extremely effective passing game that has developed between the two, create huge matchup problems for everyone. Their one loss, absent both Cox and Mulkey, was an aberration, and they, in my opinion, are a much more deserving #1 seed than ND. Then again, ND will always be ranked, in every sport, higher than they deserve!

 

[LoTrader]

According to Sagarin, Baylor is 8-1 against top 25, Notre Dame 10-3. That's not a big gap. He also has Baylor rated much higher.

Citing records against Top X teams is the kind of arbitrary nonsense that metrics like Sagarin and RPI are supposed to avoid. Who cares who has if one team has more wins against teams in the top 37, if the rating clearly has one team ranked higher anyway? Baylor is 20-1 against RPI top 100 teams, Notre Dame is 21-3. There's a number for anything if you choose the right cutoff. If RPI is the metric, then make Notre Dame a 1 seed, but give the same to Baylor. If it is not, and it is based on other metrics or "eye test", then give it to Baylor, because all agree Baylor is the better team.

How about a "Play in" 1-seed game to settle this argument. Game could be played at a neutral court, with NCAA referees from the Western conferences .

 

[Bear11]

How about a "Play in" 1-seed game to settle this argument. Game could be played at a neutral court, with NCAA referees from the Western conferences .

If it is really down to these 2, then theoretically they should be placed in the same regional so this would happen. Unfortunately, the NCAA will probably play for money and prevent this for geographic reasons. I'm afraid Baylor could end up with Mississippi State, putting 2 of the likely top 3 teams in one bracket and keeping one of them out of the final four.

 

[Orangutan]

But if we switch to Sagarin and Massey (which I know aren't official) Baylor has 3 wins better than any of Notre Dame's. Yes they are all Texas, but that still counts for something. It is all arbitrary.

If we switch to a metric that doesn't matter, it favors Baylor. Yes, but it's a metric that doesn't matter.

Heck, Sagarin and Massey both have ND at 4 and Louisville at 5. But that's not how it's going to happen in reality. The RPI is the only ranking that is part of the official criteria and ND is #1 in the RPI.

 

[LoTrader]

If it is really down to these 2, then theoretically they should be placed in the same regional so this would happen. Unfortunately, the NCAA will probably play for money and prevent this for geographic reasons. I'm afraid Baylor could end up with Mississippi State, putting 2 of the likely top 3 teams in one bracket and keeping one of them out of the final four.

The great thing about the NCAA 64 team tournament, is that both Baylor and Notre Dame will have to win a few other games before they will play each other. Upsets happen, and each team will need to win before they get the chance at settling this for the Baylor and Notre Dame fans.

 

[Bear11]

If we switch to a metric that doesn't matter, it favors Baylor. Yes, but it's a metric that doesn't matter.

Heck, Sagarin and Massey both have ND at 4 and Louisville at 5. But that's not how it's going to happen in reality. The RPI is the only ranking that is part of the official criteria and ND is #1 in the RPI.

I accept this. But if the RPI is the metric, then Baylor should get a 1 seed too as they are ranked number 4.

Honestly, the fact that UConn is not number one in the RPI invalidates the whole concept, but I realize it is here for now.

 

[Orangutan]

Baylor is 20-1 against RPI top 100 teams, Notre Dame is 21-3. There's a number for anything if you choose the right cutoff.

I don't think the fact that Baylor went 14-0 against RPI 51-100 is particularly instructive with regards to their NCAA tournament prospects and I don't think the committee will either.

 

[Orangutan]

I accept this. But if the RPI is the metric, then Baylor should get a 1 seed too as they are ranked number 4.

Honestly, the fact that UConn is not number one in the RPI invalidates the whole concept, but I realize it is here for now.

There are, in fact, many selection criteria:

In no specific priority order, the committee considers the following criteria in the selections process:

Ability to elevate
Availability of talent
Bad losses
Common opponents
Competitive in losses
Conference record
Early competition versus late competition
Head to head
Non-conference record
Overall record
Regional rankings
Relative strength of schedule
RPI
Significant wins
Strength of conference
Winnability

I could see Baylor getting a #1 and I wouldn't be outraged if it happens. But in the past it seems that the committee has chosen to reward beating good teams rather than not losing but playing a less-impressive schedule.

We are only a year removed from 30-2 Maryland getting a 3-seed with the chair of the committee stating, “It was tough because we felt Maryland didn’t test themselves in the same manner as [other] teams we were considering at the time.”

 

[Bear11]

I don't think the fact that Baylor went 14-0 against RPI 51-100 is particularly instructive with regards to their NCAA tournament prospects and I don't think the committee will either.

That's my point. If you use arbitrary cutoff points you can find a number for anything. The point of the RPI is to do the comparisons for you, so we don't have to make this sort of arbitrary comparison.

I have nothing against Notre Dame, you obviously have a great team. I just firmly believe that Baylor should be a 1 seed and Notre Dame seems the most likely to fall. I really just want some consistency from the committee.

 

[southie]

According to Sagarin, Baylor is 8-1 against top 25, Notre Dame 10-3. That's not a big gap. He also has Baylor rated much higher.

Citing records against Top X teams is the kind of arbitrary nonsense that metrics like Sagarin and RPI are supposed to avoid. Who cares who has if one team has more wins against teams in the top 37, if the rating clearly has one team ranked higher anyway? Baylor is 20-1 against RPI top 100 teams, Notre Dame is 21-3. There's a number for anything if you choose the right cutoff. If RPI is the metric, then make Notre Dame a 1 seed, but give the same to Baylor. If it is not, and it is based on other metrics or "eye test", then give it to Baylor, because all agree Baylor is the better team.

I give up. By your logic, who cares about the "ranking" of Notre Dame or Baylor? What matters is their body of work, and that's what the committee used last season as Maryland didn't measure up.

Committee does not use just RPI. No matter how you slice (spin) it, Notre Dame comes out on top in my book, and most likely the committee's. We'll find out soon enough.

 

[scubadog]

Agree or not I certainly like the Albany bracket for UConn. Baylor, Texas, Oregon. You can have them. I'd rather face SCar in the E8 than any of them.

While I understand your reasoning. SC has Wilson, a better player than anyone on Baylor, Texas or Oregon. Plus she is a senior and has a good supporting cast with championship experience. SC also has Dawn , probably a better coach also. SC is going to be a very tough out, and will not give up the title easily. People will think I'm crazy, but I don't want any part of them until the FF. After watching non stop wcbb since last week. I thought they along with Louisville performed the best.

 

[Orangutan]

That's my point. If you use arbitrary cutoff points you can find a number for anything. The point of the RPI is to do the comparisons for you, so we don't have to make this sort of arbitrary comparison.

It is not like there is one cutoff point that favors Baylor and one cutoff point that favors Notre Dame. When comparing RPI wins, every plausible cutoff point favors Notre Dame. 100 is not a plausible cutoff point.

This is not an arbitrary comparison. It speaks directly to one of the selection criteria "significant wins".

 

[Vowelguy]

That's my point. If you use arbitrary cutoff points you can find a number for anything. The point of the RPI is to do the comparisons for you, so we don't have to make this sort of arbitrary comparison.

I have nothing against Notre Dame, you obviously have a great team. I just firmly believe that Baylor should be a 1 seed and Notre Dame seems the most likely to fall. I really just want some consistency from the committee.

The RPI is an objective measure, but it is JUST ONE TOOL.
The overall process is of course arbitrary - it is done by a committee of humans.

You seem upset that the process is not 100% scientific or formula based. That has never been claimed, nor is it even possible. The committee evaluates numerous criteria (incl RPI) and does its best to come up with 64 teams, a 1-64 ranking, and a fair bracket.

 

[Bear11]

It is not like there is one cutoff point that favors Baylor and one cutoff point that favors Notre Dame. When comparing RPI wins, every plausible cutoff point favors Notre Dame. 100 is not a plausible cutoff point.

This is not an arbitrary comparison. It speaks directly to one of the selection criteria "significant wins".

I'm really tempted to go into an in-depth rant about the arbitrary nature of RPI as a whole, but this probably isn't the place for that. It is what it is and it won't be changing this year. I do enjoy a good debate about rankings, especially now that we have no basketball to watch for a week. I hope our teams meet in the tournament so this argument can be played out on the floor.