Izzo complaint about seeding and possible impact of 20 game schedule | The Boneyard

Izzo complaint about seeding and possible impact of 20 game schedule

S

Scrutineer

Joined
Aug 5, 2017
Messages
4,004
Reaction Score
10,511
A couple observations after reading Izzo's comments in the following article:
Tom Izzo not happy with NCAA tournament seeding, treatment of Big Ten

1. Izzo complained loudly, possibly rightfully, about his seeding as a 2 vs Duke, but maybe he ought to go after whoever is responsible for their tournament final being played so late (same for the AAC, by the way). What if he lost to Michigan and had already been given a better seeding (like against Gonzaga)? TV rules the roost.

2. Also, he touts how demanding it is for his team to play 20 games against opponents in such a tough conference. Really? They can't play a double round robin in 20 games anymore than they can in 18 games and by eliminating two games against outside competition the league loses 28 chances to prove just how tough they are.
 
I mean, he's right in some respects.

I don't know what conceivable aggregate reasoning exists for North Carolina over Mich St.

Mich St had a better KenPom, better Q1 record, better Q1+Q2 record. Committee giving Duke overall #1 means it discounted the games without Zion, so UNC's 2 best wins should hold less weight. They both had top 5 SoS. Etc. etc.
 
Every year the Big 10 gets more invitations to the dance and every year they are a failure. This year I believe they have the most teams in the tournament.
 
auror said:
Mich St had a better KenPom, better Q1 record, better Q1+Q2 record. Committee giving Duke overall #1 means it discounted the games without Zion, so UNC's 2 best wins should hold less weight. They both had top 5 SoS. Etc. etc.
Expand ...

It's almost as if the logic went like this:

1. Duke lost 3 games without Zion. You can't really count those, so they're really a 2-loss team and should be the overall #1.

2. Oh wow, UNC has 2 wins over the overall #1!
 
Scrutiner said:
A couple observations after reading Izzo's comments in the following article:
Tom Izzo not happy with NCAA tournament seeding, treatment of Big Ten

1. Izzo complained loudly, possibly rightfully, about his seeding as a 2 vs Duke, but maybe he ought to go after whoever is responsible for their tournament final being played so late (same for the AAC, by the way). What if he lost to Michigan and had already been given a better seeding (like against Gonzaga)? TV rules the roost.

2. Also, he touts how demanding it is for his team to play 20 games against opponents in such a tough conference. Really? They can't play a double round robin in 20 games anymore than they can in 18 games and by eliminating two games against outside competition the league loses 28 chances to prove just how tough they are.
Expand ...

Did he notice how many teams are in with losing record in their conference? And 13-14 even 15 loss teams?
 
B1G did the same thing in football.. moved to 9 conference games and its wound up costing them.

The NCAA criteria across all sports is the same if you’re a P5. Load up on wins against the Arkansas States, Prairie View A&M’s, and San Jose State’s of the world as much as possible and then win games against the other inflated record teams in your league. That will guarantee you a postseason birth.
 
MSU got screwed but OH St is another team that got gifted a bid in the B10, so odd choices in many respects, both ways, from the committee. That Indiana was even in discussion for a bid is insane. What an awful bubble it was this year, too bad this can not go back down to 64 teams and make it mandatory to finish .500 in conference to get a bid (if you can't go at least 9-9 or 10-10 why exactly do you deserve a bid? (cough Oklahoma and St. Johns especially.) Any way, seeing as Oh St got such a gift (a 9!) one would think MSU being a 1 would have been obvious. I think they deserved it more than OH st. deserved a bid.
 
Conference tournaments do more harm than good.
 
Especially ones that end on Sunday.

Well, conferences need to seriously consider moving up a day and finishing on Saturday. No winner from Sunday helped their seed by winning. At least it strongly seems that way.

Look at the winners on Sunday: Cincy, MSU and Auburn. Projected to be 7, 2 and 5, respectfully and all three got the same seeds they were projected to get BEFORE Sunday. Cincy should have gotten a 5, 6 at worst, MSU deserved the 1 especially for the 3 game sweep of Michigan and Auburn deserved at least a 4. All three were not helped at all for winning their conference tourneys (on Sunday). I REALLY hope the American moves up a day like the ACC, Big east and Big 12 to Saturday, no reason not to.
 
Travelman32 said:
Especially ones that end on Sunday.

Well, conferences need to seriously consider moving up a day and finishing on Saturday. No winner from Sunday helped their seed by winning. At least it strongly seems that way.

Look at the winners on Sunday: Cincy, MSU and Auburn. Projected to be 7, 2 and 5, respectfully and all three got the same seeds they were projected to get BEFORE Sunday. Cincy should have gotten a 5, 6 at worst, MSU deserved the 1 especially for the 3 game sweep of Michigan and Auburn deserved at least a 4. All three were not helped at all for winning their conference tourneys (on Sunday). I REALLY hope the American moves up a day like the ACC, Big east and Big 12 to Saturday, no reason not to.
Expand ...

ESPN owns the tv rights to the AAC tournament. The tournament schedule was adjusted by the AAC to finish on Sunday in order to get the final on either ESPN or ESPN2 rather than one of the other ESPN family of networks when the rights contract was signed.
 
You guys are cute trying to pretend that bids and seeding is are based on performance. Do you actually think cbs wants UNC Duke in the Elite 8? Lots of things go into the tourney rankings. Performance might be one of them.
 
freescooter said:
You guys are cute trying to pretend that bids and seeding is are based on performance. Do you actually think cbs wants UNC Duke in the Elite 8? Lots of things go into the tourney rankings. Performance might be one of them.
Expand ...
Yes it’s based primarily on performance. Though I’m sure they do mess with the brackets a bit afterwards to get some entertaining matchups (also stuff like home field advantage factors in).

When you’re seeding 68 teams that don’t play each other, it becomes very subjective, especiallt in the way ncaa is set up in which there’s no parity in schedules. Certainly no kind of conspiracy. That being said I do absolutely think there is inherent bias towards conferences like the ACC and big 10/12 (particularly towards the big 12 this year....)

Football on the other hand...
 
He has a point. If they were a borderline 1 seed, they shouldn't be in Duke's region. Either way I would like to tell him to put a sock in it.
 
Who cares?
The two rat faces (K and Izzo) are never happy unless they are #1 and the refs are in their back pockets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
265
Guests online
6,820
Total visitors
7,085
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,190
Messages
4,344,164
Members
10,153
Latest member
veivoli


.
..
Top Bottom