Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Alydar, post: 2011242, member: 730"] I didn't start on this topic criticizing where MD was placed. My complaint was that MSSt had a very uncompetitive schedule and noted that Massey ranked Miss St behind MD. Using your standard, look at the teams MSSt chose to play and then explain why they should get a 1 seed. What exactly is their resume? Here are the Massey top 10 and their rating: 1 CT - 3.23 SOS - 1 2 BU - 2.95 SOS- 7 3 SC - 2.75 SOS-3 4 Fl St - 2.65 SOS-10 5 Wash - 2.64 SOS-12 6 MD - 2.63 SOS-25 7 MSSt - 2.62 SOS-16 8 N Dame - 2.58 SOS-2 ______________________________ 9 OSU - 2.50 10 UT - 2.47 Notice that the gap between 1 & 2 is 0.28 while the total gap between 4 & 8 is 0.o7. And notice that Florida St and MD are ranked above MSSt. Then look at how MSSt's SOS looks next to the other projected 1 seeds and tell me if it fits. Now if you think that RPI is a better method of ranking teams I accept your opinion. I like the Massey method. Besides giving more credit to wins over elite teams, it considers MOV, something RPI ignores. But while the committee has stated that they use RPI as a tool to identify the 64 team field, they have said they use multiple standards in ranking those 64 teams into a 64 team S curve. I just have no idea how they can move MSSt to a top 4 based on their resume. And I can understand not putting MD there also. Frankly, I'd pick Fla St, based on wins over Duke, VTech & Louis. along with their impressive 2 pt loss to UConn. To my way of thinking, given the steep drop off in talent in wcbb, a win over a No 50 by an elite team is not much more impressive than a win over No 150. If a team avoids scheduling games against elite level teams then that should work against them. MD fits that except that they did schedule UConn. MSSt also fits that. They scheduled exactly one of those games, Texas, and it was played in their house. The rest of their wins may have been against less bad teams than MD's but they were bad nevertheless and should work against them as much as MD's bad wins work against them. The SOS used by the committee and quoted by ESPN considers a win over No 50 as being a lot better than a win over No 100. When it comes to ranking elite level teams among themselves I don't. And that is where their difference between MSSt & MD lies. And that's basically where I disagree with that version of the SOS. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,536

Messages: 4,400,627

Members: 10,214

Latest member: illini2013