Duke or Georgia

[eebmg]

If Duke wins, they can forfeit their game against UConn.
They can take a slow coach to Albany from Durham and get snowed under.
I do not have the key to JPM's brain.

They don't have to throw it the game against Georgia. Georgia is the higher seed and may win it.

Ask the NCAA to make Z ineligible and have to sit out 2 years because going to UConn is like going to a Pro Team and "gosh darn it, it just is not fair"

 

[drweo]

You cant be the best without beating the best. #WEWANTUCONN

Be careful what you wish for...

 

[dtbtbtb]

Duke so we can hear Coach P. Explain how number 23 played really well for UConn and Duke didn't have an answer to her

 

[Wbbfan1]

No Preference , but believe Georgia might be the easier match up. They have less firepower.

However, first have to win tonight against Quinnipiac. Remember UMBC vs Virginia. Anything can happen, even the impossible.

 

[DefenseBB]

I was planning a more in-depth write up on this later, but the RPI is inherently biased toward the SEC and ACC because they only play 16 conference games. I don't know if this was the intent behind the reduced schedules, but it works. It provides a slight boost, and with the small margins in the middle of the RPI, it can move teams up a seed line or 2. Massey has the SEC 4th, and Sagarin 5th. I believe this is an accurate assessment.

...so says the fan with a Big12 bias...Your conference has only 10 teams so you are actually boosted by having Texas and Oklahoma play tough schedules (ahem vs. your pathetic schedule).

Let's do a proper review of the teams actual seeding in the tournament shall we to see how the committee actually views their strengths
ACC has 8 teams: 2- #1's, 1-#3, 1-#4, 1-#5, 2-#8, 1-#10 so at this stage, 4 teams should be advancing but yet 5 could
SEC has 7 teams: 1-#1, 1-#2, 1-#3, 2-#4, 1-#5, 1-#6, so at this stage 5 teams should be advancing and only 4 could and possibly only 3
Big12 has 4 teams: 1-#2, 1-#2, 1-#9, 1-#12 so at this stage 2 teams should be advancing and 3 could
PAC12 has 5 teams: 1-#2, 1-#3, 1-#4, 1-#6, 2-#7 so at this stage 3 teams should be advancing and 5 could. Thumbs up!
Big10 has 5 teams: 1-#3, 1-#5, 1-#6, 1-#7, 2-#10 so at this stage 1 team should be advancing and only OSU could.

Not sure what your point is here as the ACC and SEC teams actually play other good team outside of the conference which the 16 games vs. 18 allows. I don't view the RPI being biased towards the 16 game schedule. Again, the bracket seeding is playing out in favor of the stronger conferences.

 

[toadfoot]

Yes... I think that last sentence and desire might be warping your thinking just a bit. Georgia playing at home makes them a bigger favorite. UCONN beating Georgia is an expected outcome, Duke beating Georgia is not.

Not necessarily. I think Duke could very well be the better team. In significant OOC games Duke beat Oregon St. by 7, OSU by 9 and lost at SC by 20. Georgia in significant OOC games lost by 28 to Texas.
In games against common opponents:
Duke beat Virginia by 7, Georgia beat Virginia by 3.
Duke lost at South Carolina by 20, Georgia lost at home to South Carolina by 12 and during the SEC tournament on a neutral floor by 22.

Not a large sample size to be sure, but it suggests they're pretty comparable. The numbers at least indicate that Duke winning could not be considered an upset.

...so says the fan with a Big12 bias...Your conference has only 10 teams so you are actually boosted by having Texas and Oklahoma play tough schedules (ahem vs. your pathetic schedule).

Let's do a proper review of the teams actual seeding in the tournament shall we to see how the committee actually views their strengths
ACC has 8 teams: 2- #1's, 1-#3, 1-#4, 1-#5, 2-#8, 1-#10 so at this stage, 4 teams should be advancing but yet 5 could
SEC has 7 teams: 1-#1, 1-#2, 1-#3, 2-#4, 1-#5, 1-#6, so at this stage 5 teams should be advancing and only 4 could and possibly only 3
Big12 has 4 teams: 1-#2, 1-#2, 1-#9, 1-#12 so at this stage 2 teams should be advancing and 3 could
PAC12 has 5 teams: 1-#2, 1-#3, 1-#4, 1-#6, 2-#7 so at this stage 3 teams should be advancing and 5 could. Thumbs up!
Big10 has 5 teams: 1-#3, 1-#5, 1-#6, 1-#7, 2-#10 so at this stage 1 team should be advancing and only OSU could.

Not sure what your point is here as the ACC and SEC teams actually play other good team outside of the conference which the 16 games vs. 18 allows. I don't view the RPI being biased towards the 16 game schedule. Again, the bracket seeding is playing out in favor of the stronger conferences.

3 SEC teams have already lost, Missouri, LSU and Tennessee leaving only 4. If Duke beats Georgia, the SEC would have only 3 advance to the sweet 16.

 

[Bear11]

...so says the fan with a Big12 bias...Your conference has only 10 teams so you are actually boosted by having Texas and Oklahoma play tough schedules (ahem vs. your pathetic schedule).

Let's do a proper review of the teams actual seeding in the tournament shall we to see how the committee actually views their strengths
ACC has 8 teams: 2- #1's, 1-#3, 1-#4, 1-#5, 2-#8, 1-#10 so at this stage, 4 teams should be advancing but yet 5 could
SEC has 7 teams: 1-#1, 1-#2, 1-#3, 2-#4, 1-#5, 1-#6, so at this stage 5 teams should be advancing and only 4 could and possibly only 3
Big12 has 4 teams: 1-#2, 1-#2, 1-#9, 1-#12 so at this stage 2 teams should be advancing and 3 could
PAC12 has 5 teams: 1-#2, 1-#3, 1-#4, 1-#6, 2-#7 so at this stage 3 teams should be advancing and 5 could. Thumbs up!
Big10 has 5 teams: 1-#3, 1-#5, 1-#6, 1-#7, 2-#10 so at this stage 1 team should be advancing and only OSU could.

Not sure what your point is here as the ACC and SEC teams actually play other good team outside of the conference which the 16 games vs. 18 allows. I don't view the RPI being biased towards the 16 game schedule. Again, the bracket seeding is playing out in favor of the stronger conferences.

I don't have the time to lay out all the math now, but playing 2 fewer conference games means that each ACC and SEC team averages about 1 more win per year. When your entire conference has an additional win, the 75% of RPI that is who you play gets a slight boost. I am not arguing that one conference IS better, but that some have certain advantages in the RPI before any games are played. Since the committee seems to rely heavily on RPI, especially further down the bracket, this is tremendously important. I don't know if it is intentional, but the SEC and ACC are gaming the RPI. We can see this as 3 SEC teams lost to lower seeds, with a couple more close shaves. All of these teams were overseeded according to Massey/Sagarin, but were boosted by a strong, inflated RPI.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

. . . I enjoy when UCONN plays new teams - or at least ones they haven't played in awhile . . .

I think Geno prefers this too. He thinks he has the edge when the other team's players
haven't seen UConn in the flesh.

 

[toadfoot]

I don't have the time to lay out all the math now, but playing 2 fewer conference games means that each ACC and SEC team averages about 1 more win per year. When your entire conference has an additional win, the 75% of RPI that is who you play gets a slight boost. I am not arguing that one conference IS better, but that some have certain advantages in the RPI before any games are played. Since the committee seems to rely heavily on RPI, especially further down the bracket, this is tremendously important. I don't know if it is intentional, but the SEC and ACC are gaming the RPI. We can see this as 3 SEC teams lost to lower seeds, with a couple more close shaves. All of these teams were overseeded according to Massey/Sagarin, but were boosted by a strong, inflated RPI.

I would strongly suspect that it’s deliberate and driven by money. The more teams a conference gets in the field, the more money there is to distribute to the membership.

 

[Hongster]

Javaman. I have nothing against you but this kind of poles is bad for the MOJO! Because the old saying "Be Careful what you wish for"

 

[CocoHusky]

Not necessarily. I think Duke could very well be the better team. In significant OOC games Duke beat Oregon St. by 7, OSU by 9 and lost at SC by 20. Georgia in significant OOC games lost by 28 to Texas.
In games against common opponents:
Duke beat Virginia by 7, Georgia beat Virginia by 3.
Duke lost at South Carolina by 20, Georgia lost at home to South Carolina by 12 and during the SEC tournament on a neutral floor by 22.

Not a large sample size to be sure, but it suggests they're pretty comparable. The numbers at least indicate that Duke winning could not be considered an upset.

I disagree and apparently so did the selection committee, which is why Georgia gets to play this game at home. Here is how it really work. If you are a top 16 seed you get to play your first two games at home. If you are a top 16 seed and you lose either of your first two games that is considered an upset-just ask TN.

 

[toadfoot]

I disagree and apparently so did the selection committee, which is why Georgia gets to play this game at home. Here is how it really work. If you are a top 16 seed you get to play your first two games at home. If you are a top 16 seed and you lose either of your first two games that is considered an upset-just ask TN.

I know how it works and just because the committee seeds a team as #4 doesn’t mean they deserve to be a #4. The results from the tournament so far demonstrate quite clearly that the SEC teams were over seeded.

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

All upsets tonight; @triaddukefan, I'll see you in Albany! To my furry friends from Storrs, I'll see you in Albany, also. 2 rows behind the USC bench on Saturday and 3 behind the scorer's table on Monday.

 

[LoTrader]

The RPI system needs to be placed firmly in the bottom of the dustbin.

 

[bballnut90]

I think you miscalculated a bit. If today goes chalk, the PAC12 will have 4 in the Sweet 16, not 3 (Oregon St. and Oregon are already in, and UCLA and Stanford are favored). The ACC only gets 5 in the S16 if Duke beats Georgia tonight (Louisville, Notre Dame, NC State, Florida State, Duke). If that happens, SEC has only 3 (Texas A&M, South Carolina, Mississippi State, and NOT Georgia). Bolded teams already punched their S16 tickets.

I really struggled there...thanks for fixing that haha.

 

[bballnut90]

Ooph, Georgia really hurt my argument there. I’m now a tad nervous for Ok State/Mississippi State considering Ok State gave MS St their best game of the season aside from the SEC Tournament loss.

 

[CocoHusky]

I know how it works and just because the committee seeds a team as #4 doesn’t mean they deserve to be a #4. The results from the tournament so far demonstrate quite clearly that the SEC teams were over seeded.

Yea your seedings makes way more sense!

 

[EricSD]

I realize that the discussion regarding the seedings is certainly a lively one, and based on the results, the SEC certainly underperformed, but the seedings are done based on strength of schedule and results during the regular season. I don't recall Duke fans losing their minds when they got a 5 seed and did not get to host the 1st 2 rounds (they may have - I just am not aware of it).

Bottom line, I don't have any issue with the seedings, but I think what IS clear is that the SEC and Big 10 certainly got smoked... Also, I'm LOVING the upsets and close games. SC won their first 2 games by a COMBINED 21 points. tOSU and FSU go down in flames do double digit seeded MAC teams. 11 Creighton and 12 FGCU both had great games the first round. It's made for an incredibly exciting tourney. Sure by the time we get to the elite 8, it may be all top seeds, but the 3-9 seeds had a world of trouble against the lower seeded teams thus far!

 

[bballnut90]

I realize that the discussion regarding the seedings is certainly a lively one, and based on the results, the SEC certainly underperformed, but the seedings are done based on strength of schedule and results during the regular season. I don't recall Duke fans losing their minds when they got a 5 seed and did not get to host the 1st 2 rounds (they may have - I just am not aware of it).

Bottom line, I don't have any issue with the seedings, but I think what IS clear is that the SEC and Big 10 certainly got smoked... Also, I'm LOVING the upsets and close games. SC won their first 2 games by a COMBINED 21 points. tOSU and FSU go down in flames do double digit seeded MAC teams. 11 Creighton and 12 FGCU both had great games the first round. It's made for an incredibly exciting tourney. Sure by the time we get to the elite 8, it may be all top seeds, but the 3-9 seeds had a world of trouble against the lower seeded teams thus far!

Most of the 1/2 seeds really separated themselves this year from the rest of the pack. The top 7 ranked teams (SC, Notre Dame, Mississippi State, UCONN, Baylor, Louisville, and Oregon) have just 5 combined losses when you take out head to head battles and if you remove the Tennessee wins over SC when Wilson was out. I'll be surprised if any of these teams get bounced before the Elite 8.

The rest of the seeds 2-6, besides maybe UCLA and Texas, have had significant ups and downs this year. It's definitely showing in their play this tournament.

 

[ASweet3781]

SEC and ACC are top heavy leagues. Outside of their top 2 not impressive. Big 12 is somewhat underrated. Pac 12 clearly the best. Their teams are well coached on both ends.

 

[CocoHusky]

There were 2 double digit seeds (10 Oregon & 12 Quinnipiac) that made it to the sweet sixteen last year. For there to be more than two this year, 11 Creighton would have to beat 3 UCLA or 12 FGCU would have to beat 4 Stanford. I suppose it’s possible but if it doesn’t happen we are almost exactly where we last year. Have not seen anything in the tournament yet that was drastically different from results in the regular season or was easily predictable by the RPI. If you don't believe in the RPI then you probably don't believe in seedings. But to make up your own seedings to justify "conference dominance or weakness is a r e a c h.

 

[Bear11]

There were 2 double digit seeds (10 Oregon & 12 Quinnipiac) that made it to the sweet sixteen last year. For there to be more than two this year, 11 Creighton would have to beat 3 UCLA or 12 FGCU would have to beat 4 Stanford. I suppose it’s possible but if it doesn’t happen we are almost exactly where we last year. Have not seen anything in the tournament yet that was drastically different from results in the regular season or was easily predictable by the RPI. If you don't believe in the RPI then you probably don't believe in seedings. But to make up your own seedings to justify "conference dominance or weakness is a r e a c h.

The RPI is not a valid way to rank teams or an accurate predictor of results. This has been proven time and again, with analysts on the men's side showing that it is one of the worst predictors of tournament success among the many metrics out there. We follow it because the committee uses it, not because it is a good metric. Look at how Sagarin/Massey ranked the teams that were "upset" and compare to RPI, and you will see the flaws. Every one was ranked higher by RPI.

 

[CocoHusky]

The RPI is not a valid way to rank teams or an accurate predictor of results. This has been proven time and again, with analysts on the men's side showing that it is one of the worst predictors of tournament success among the many metrics out there. We follow it because the committee uses it, not because it is a good metric. Look at how Sagarin/Massey ranked the teams that were "upset" and compare to RPI, and you will see the flaws. Every one was ranked higher by RPI.

Think about what you are saying. The RPI is invalid but the committee continues to use it-probably just to aggravate certain fans. There are other metrics out there that would have better predicted the “upsets” and it is those metrics that the committee should use for seeding? So if the committee uses those other metrics there should be no more “upsets” in the tournament? As a huge UCONN fan sign me up and tell Mississippi state that UCONN want’s a rematch from 2017 and tell Baylor not to bother showing up for the Championship game if they make it that far this year. Upsets happen regardless of which model you use.

 

[Bear11]

Think about what you are saying. The RPI is invalid but the committee continues to use it-probably just to aggravate certain fans. There are other metrics out there that would have better predicted the “upsets” and it is those metrics that the committee should use for seeding? So if the committee uses those other metrics there should be no more “upsets” in the tournament? As a huge UCONN fan sign me up and tell Mississippi state that UCONN want’s a rematch from 2017 and tell Baylor not to bother showing up for the Championship game if they make it that far this year. Upsets happen regardless of which model you use.

Of course there will always be upsets. But if one metric consistently rates certain higher teams compared to another, and then those teams lose, you have to reconsider that metric. Sagarin and Massey are indisputably better at ranking teams than RPI. They aren't "politically correct" but they are better. Simply google "RPI basketball flaws" and you will get a host of articles explaining this.

Sagarin has Georgia, Mizzou, and LSU at 30, 34, and 45 respectively. RPI has them at 26, 24, and 29. RPI had Ohio State at 6, Sagarin at 10. Oregon State is 42 in RPI and 12 in Sagarin. There is a consistent pattern here, and it does not favor RPI.

 

[CocoHusky]

Of course there will always be upsets. But if one metric consistently rates certain higher teams compared to another, and then those teams lose, you have to reconsider that metric. Sagarin and Massey are indisputably better at ranking teams than RPI. They aren't "politically correct" but they are better. Simply google "RPI basketball flaws" and you will get a host of articles explaining this.
Sagarin has Georgia, Mizzou, and LSU at 30, 34, and 45 respectively. RPI has them at 26, 24, and 29. RPI had Ohio State at 6, Sagarin at 10. Oregon State is 42 in RPI and 12 in Sagarin. There is a consistent pattern here, and it does not favor RPI.

Ah... Google, don't know why I did not think of that. When I google I find an equal number of articles advocating for or stating a case against RPI as I do for or against Sagarin. Not I don't know what to think. I also think the committe uses RPI.

 

[Bear11]

Ah... Google, don't know why I did not think of that. When I google I find an equal number of articles advocating for or stating a case against RPI as I do for or against Sagarin. Not I don't know what to think. I also think the committe uses RPI.

I would be interested to see these articles advocating for RPI. I have not seen them.

Basketball RPI: Why it's a lousy way to pick teams for the NCAA Tournament.
The NCAA Is Modernizing The Way It Picks March Madness Teams
The RPI is Not the Real Predictive Indicator
Analysis | RPI appears to have too much influence in the NCAA tournament seeding process
March Madness: Why RPI Is Not a Great Measurement of a Team's Ability
The Ratings Percentage Index Myth
RPI doesn't (and shouldn't) matter

 

[CTtransplant]

I was planning a more in-depth write up on this later, but the RPI is inherently biased toward the SEC and ACC because they only play 16 conference games. I don't know if this was the intent behind the reduced schedules, but it works. It provides a slight boost, and with the small margins in the middle of the RPI, it can move teams up a seed line or 2. Massey has the SEC 4th, and Sagarin 5th. I believe this is an accurate assessment.

Please do the write up. I do not immediately see why this would be so, and would appreciate you giving us more details.

 

[CTtransplant]

I don't have the time to lay out all the math now, but playing 2 fewer conference games means that each ACC and SEC team averages about 1 more win per year. When your entire conference has an additional win, the 75% of RPI that is who you play gets a slight boost. I am not arguing that one conference IS better, but that some have certain advantages in the RPI before any games are played. Since the committee seems to rely heavily on RPI, especially further down the bracket, this is tremendously important. I don't know if it is intentional, but the SEC and ACC are gaming the RPI. We can see this as 3 SEC teams lost to lower seeds, with a couple more close shaves. All of these teams were overseeded according to Massey/Sagarin, but were boosted by a strong, inflated RPI.

Now I see where you are coming from, and you make an interesting point. I hope you find the time to quantify the effect a little more.