NCAA Top 16 Reveal set for Thursday Jan 18th

[Plebe]

You could be right, but those two are not exactly chopped liver. Both have been in the top 25, both are likely Tournament teams. Given that the SOS of Duke is so much stronger than Georgia's they are essentially penalizing them for playing a tough schedule. I can't do the math easily, but if you take out those two losses, I wouldn't be surprised if the remaining schedule would still be tougher.

So which is it NCAA - should you schedule tough or not?

Villanova is in the RPI top 25 right now and so the committee certainly wouldn't consider this a bad loss. Miami, on the other hand, is in the 60s right now. The "top 25" as determined by the AP or coaches' polls are not considered by the committee at all.

Again, I really got nothing. I predicted Duke at #12 and, at the time I made my predictions (which was before the Georgia-A&M game) I didn't even include Georgia among 6 or 7 teams I thought were in contention for the last of the top 16 seeds.

In the past the committee has deviated from RPI and has forgiven teams with weaker SOS by giving precedence to quality wins. But in this case, Georgia's best win (over Texas A&M) is not even as good as Duke's best win (over South Carolina), unless one makes a big deal out of the fact that UGA's win over A&M was on the road.

 

[nwhoopfan]

So which is it NCAA - should you schedule tough or not?

You should be in the SEC. I think that's the main message the committee sent.

 

[easttexastrash]

It says that Corvallis is a tough place to play, that's what it says. Were the #1 seeds from the first reveal supposed to go undefeated for the rest of the season?

It is their 3rd loss of the season. I don’t expect a 1 seed to have that many losses at this point in the season.

 

[Plebe]

It is their 3rd loss of the season. I don’t expect a 1 seed to have that many losses at this point in the season.

But two of those losses were to other #1 seeds. Strength of schedule does matter.

 

[southie]

Well, the first #1 seed has taken it on the chin. What does it say about the committee that one of its #1 seeds has already lost?

Your logic make no sense at all. The four teams in the initial rankings are not all going to go undefeated for the rest of the season. Oregon lost at an arch-rival in a very close game; it happens. Good thing the rankings aren't bothering you.

 

[easttexastrash]

Another “1” bites the dust. Maybe it's hard to have the 1 seed weight on your shoulders.
Baylor will move up to at least 3 in every poll other than the NCAA committee’s ratings. But I guess the committee is proving that there is only one that counts.

I feel like it’s women’s figureskating.

 

[Plebe]

Another “1” bites the dust. Maybe it's hard to have the 1 seed weight on your shoulders.
Baylor will move up to at least 3 in every poll other than the NCAA committee’s ratings. But I guess the committee is proving that there is only one that counts.

I feel like it’s women’s figureskating.

Wow, more whining about the committee from the person who claimed that they didn't care what the committee did.

Kim Mulkey does bear a certain resemblance to Tonya Harding, though.

 

[j66kicker]

Another “1” bites the dust. Maybe it's hard to have the 1 seed weight on your shoulders.
Baylor will move up to at least 3 in every poll other than the NCAA committee’s ratings. But I guess the committee is proving that there is only one that counts.

I feel like it’s women’s figureskating.

Maybe it's like women's figure skating where Baylor has performed very nicely on a routine with a much lower degree of difficulty (Lamar, Coppin State, Central Arkansas, North Dakota, McNeese, Nicholls) than those of the other serious competitors. (Hey, double axel! Wooooo!!!)

 

[nwhoopfan]

Maybe it's hard to have the 1 seed weight on your shoulders.

Do you think the coaches or players really care about the first reveal in mid January? It doesn't mean anything at this point, there is a lot of basketball left to play. Oregon and Louisville didn't lose because of the pressure of being #1 seeds in the early reveal.

 

[easttexastrash]

Do you think the coaches or players really care about the first reveal in mid January? It doesn't mean anything at this point, there is a lot of basketball left to play. Oregon and Louisville didn't lose because of the pressure of being #1 seeds in the early reveal.

Or did they?

 

[nwhoopfan]

Well, Oregon St. has beaten Oregon 14 straight times, and they don't lose very often in Corvallis. Yeah, you're right, Oregon only lost because of that dang #1 seed in the early reveal.

 

[southie]

Another “1” bites the dust. Maybe it's hard to have the 1 seed weight on your shoulders.
Baylor will move up to at least 3 in every poll other than the NCAA committee’s ratings. But I guess the committee is proving that there is only one that counts.

You guys should really listen to this poster. Baylor was a #1 seed the last two seasons in the NCAA tourney and they crumbled under the pressure twice to the #2 seeds despite playing very close to home.

 

[Plebe]

Another “1” bites the dust. Maybe it's hard to have the 1 seed weight on your shoulders.
Baylor will move up to at least 3 in every poll other than the NCAA committee’s ratings. But I guess the committee is proving that there is only one that counts.

I feel like it’s women’s figureskating.

Again, it (apparently) bears repeating for some of the more obstinate kvetchers among us: Baylor is 0-1 against teams currently ranked in the AP top 25. They should consider themselves lucky to be in the top 10 at all.

It's not rocket science. Baylor's seeding will rise if and when they start beating some top 25 teams, which may happen as early as this coming Thursday against Texas.

 

[southie]

It's not rocket science. Baylor's seeding will rise if and when they start beating some top 25 teams, which may happen as early as this coming Thursday against Texas.

Except Baylor's two best non-conference victories this year are against Stanford and Kentucky, and both lost today. Kentucky is 9-11 on the season and has very little chance to make the NCAA tourney.

 

[Plebe]

Except Baylor's two best non-conference victories this year are against Stanford and Kentucky, and both lost today. Kentucky is 9-11 on the season and has very little chance to make the NCAA tourney.

When I say "top 25 teams," I mean teams that will finish the season in the top 25. The committee, of course, will go by RPI and not by polls. Stanford is currently #23 in RPI and Oklahoma is #34. The win over Kentucky is worthless in terms of resume building.

But ... 7 of Baylor's last 11 games are against teams currently in the RPI top 40. If Baylor runs the table they will rise considerably.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Well, the first #1 seed has taken it on the chin. What does it say about the committee that one of its #1 seeds has already lost?

It says nothing about their seedings. These weren't predictions about which teams were most likely to be the top 4 seeds at the end of the regular season and conference tounraments, but rather an assessment about which teams had proven the most before last Thursday night. Oregon and Louisville had proven a lot more than Baylor at that point, so they were "awarded" 1-seeds. I'll bet that if they were to do a reveal tomorrow, Notre Dame would be one of the new 1-seeds, but that doesn't mean that the committee blew it when they chose and ordered the initial top 16.

 

[easttexastrash]

You guys should really listen to this poster. Baylor was a #1 seed the last two seasons in the NCAA tourney and they crumbled under the pressure twice to the #2 seeds despite playing very close to home.

I suppose like UT crumbled tonight against Baylor. Can anyone seriously think that UT is a FF contender after that performance? Pathetic!

 

[Phil]

It says nothing about their seedings. These weren't predictions about which teams were most likely to be the top 4 seeds at the end of the regular season and conference tounraments, but rather an assessment about which teams had proven the most before last Thursday night. Oregon and Louisville had proven a lot more than Baylor at that point, so they were "awarded" 1-seeds. I'll bet that if they were to do a reveal tomorrow, Notre Dame would be one of the new 1-seeds, but that doesn't mean that the committee blew it when they chose and ordered the initial top 16.

Sorry, but I see it differently.

The NCAA is sending mixed messages, including a message which I think is highly inappropriate.

It is not about who has "proven the most". Baylor has proven a lot ( and I mean before the Texas game). They had one anomalous game against UCLA when they were missing both Lauren Cox and Kim Mulkey, and I bet that the team had some emotions related to those issues. Other than that, they had one every single game by more than 20 points. Granted, the scheduling strength wasn't particularly strong, but if the NCAA didn't have this irrational objection to looking at margin of victory, they could figure out just like every computer model can figure out that Baylor is definitely one of the top four teams in the country and probably in the top two.

Their overemphasis on strength of schedule is virtue signaling. They aren't sending a message that you should be good at playing basketball they are sending a message that you should follow some artificial rules we think are important.

And they can't even follow their own nonsense rules.

They didn't pick Notre Dame as one of the top four teams.

You want strength of schedule? Notre Dame signed up for the strongest strength of schedule in the country. Despite that scheduling, they only lost two games both of which were to teams in the top four. The schedule strength was stronger than Oregon who had as many losses, one of which was to a decent team but far weaker than the teams that beat Notre Dame.

One can make a case that Notre Dame has suffered horrendous injuries and thus may underperform in the future. But which is it? Is the selection a projection of how they will do in the future or how they done in the past? If it's how they are likely to do the future I can justify dropping Notre Dame a notch but you have to move Baylor up. If it's how they've done in the past, you can't even knock Baylor down without introducing your artificial rule (that how you've done in the past doesn't mean how you play on the court but how you schedule your games), and under that measure Notre Dame ought to be in the top four.

I know the selection process is tough but I don't see any way out of the conclusion that the NCAA judged Notre Dame by one set of standards and Baylor by a different set of standards.

 

[Fightin Choke]

Sorry, but I see it differently.

The NCAA is sending mixed messages, including a message which I think is highly inappropriate.

It is not about who has "proven the most". Baylor has proven a lot ( and I mean before the Texas game). They had one anomalous game against UCLA when they were missing both Lauren Cox and Kim Mulkey, and I bet that the team had some emotions related to those issues. Other than that, they had one every single game by more than 20 points. Granted, the scheduling strength wasn't particularly strong, but if the NCAA didn't have this irrational objection to looking at margin of victory, they could figure out just like every computer model can figure out that Baylor is definitely one of the top four teams in the country and probably in the top two.

Their overemphasis on strength of schedule is virtue signaling. They aren't sending a message that you should be good at playing basketball they are sending a message that you should follow some artificial rules we think are important.

And they can't even follow their own nonsense rules.

They didn't pick Notre Dame as one of the top four teams.

You want strength of schedule? Notre Dame signed up for the strongest strength of schedule in the country. Despite that scheduling, they only lost two games both of which were to teams in the top four. The schedule strength was stronger than Oregon who had as many losses, one of which was to a decent team but far weaker than the teams that beat Notre Dame.

One can make a case that Notre Dame has suffered horrendous injuries and thus may underperform in the future. But which is it? Is the selection a projection of how they will do in the future or how they done in the past? If it's how they are likely to do the future I can justify dropping Notre Dame a notch but you have to move Baylor up. If it's how they've done in the past, you can't even knock Baylor down without introducing your artificial rule (that how you've done in the past doesn't mean how you play on the court but how you schedule your games), and under that measure Notre Dame ought to be in the top four.

I know the selection process is tough but I don't see any way out of the conclusion that the NCAA judged Notre Dame by one set of standards and Baylor by a different set of standards.

I considered all the factors that you did, but just reached a different conclusion than you. In not awarding Baylor a #1 seed, the committee just following recent past precedent. Last year Maryland was rated much higher in the human polls and computer rankings (Sagarin, Massey, etc.) than the committee's seeding (and the RPI). It seemed the committee was penalizing Brenda for very a weak schedule. I interpret Baylor's rank in the initial seeding (9th overall) as consistent with last year's seeding of Maryland.

So what about Notre Dame seeding? I expected Notre Dame to be ranked 4th (most likely) or 5th overall (as low as ND should be ranked). While their SOS was first or second at the time of the seeding, they had 2 losses, whereas Louisville, Mississippi St. and UConn were undefeated. The 4th spot went to Oregon, and that seemed a bit strange because both teams had 2 losses and the Irish had a tougher schedule. I didn't let it bother me because it's so early that a lot can change. What was the committee thinking? Both Oregon's losses were earlier in the season than Notre Dame's second loss, and ND got destroyed recently by Louisville, which had to factor into their seeding. ND also had suffered injuries, so the committee may have wanted ND to perform better than they did at the Yum center before awarding them a #1 seed. Could their total lack of defense been caused by their short roster? The Irish aren't getting any of those players back this season, so they had to prove they could play at an elite level with just Nelson and Patterson on the bench. After a rough start, I think they proved that against Tennessee. I think if the committee weer to rank the teams right now, ND would be 4th and Baylor would be better than 9th.

 

[Phil]

We are in total agreement that the Baylor decision is consistent with Maryland decision last year.

It was virtue signaling last year, not something I support and it is virtue signaling this year, not something I support. Last year's decision doesn't look so bad because Maryland ended up ranked ninth by Massey which does deserve a three seed, and they were upset by Oregon, making it almost impossible to make a case that they were missed seeded.

You make a rational argument for choosing Oregon over Notre Dame but I simply disagree. Putting weight on the timing of the losses is getting deep into the weeds. While I might be willing to accept that an opening game loss deserves a little discounting, the Oregon losses were the fourth and ninth games of the season both by double digits. Not exactly opening day jitters and not exactly close calls.

While the Notre Dame loss to Louisville was a blowout, the NCAA has deliberately devised a metric that ignores margin of victory. So which is it NCAA, is margin of victory relevant or not relevant?

I'm sorry to say we probably know the answer. Margin of victory is irrelevant unless the NCAA wants a different conclusion and then in that particular case it is relevant.

 

[dogged1]

We are in total agreement that the Baylor decision is consistent with Maryland decision last year.

It was virtue signaling last year, not something I support and it is virtue signaling this year, not something I support. Last year's decision doesn't look so bad because Maryland ended up ranked ninth by Massey which does deserve a three seed, and they were upset by Oregon, making it almost impossible to make a case that they were missed seeded.

You make a rational argument for choosing Oregon over Notre Dame but I simply disagree. Putting weight on the timing of the losses is getting deep into the weeds. While I might be willing to accept that an opening game loss deserves a little discounting, the Oregon losses were the fourth and ninth games of the season both by double digits. Not exactly opening day jitters and not exactly close calls.

While the Notre Dame loss to Louisville was a blowout, the NCAA has deliberately devised a metric that ignores margin of victory. So which is it NCAA, is margin of victory relevant or not relevant?

I'm sorry to say we probably know the answer. Margin of victory is irrelevant unless the NCAA wants a different conclusion and then in that particular case it is relevant.

Pretty interesting debate for a couple of stat geeks. Just out of curiosity, do either of you have an idea of the motivation, why would the NCAA want to downgrade ND? You would think that with the better national name recognition they would want to push ND. Better geographic balance?

 

[Fightin Choke]

Pretty interesting debate for a couple of stat geeks. Just out of curiosity, do either of you have an idea of the motivation, why would the NCAA want to downgrade ND? You would think that with the better national name recognition they would want to push ND. Better geographic balance?

The committee is not comprised of NCAA administrators or staff; rather, it is a collection of athletic director types selected across a cross-section of Division 1 NCAA schools, each serving a 5-year term. To see the current make-up of the committee, click on this LINK.

I do not believe that the committee is treating Notre Dame unfairly. In fact, there is a member of Notre Dame on the committee (senior associate athletic director Jill Bodensteiner). But I'll bet she is trying to act impartial in regards to Notre Dame, or at least recusing herself from any discussion of Notre Dame's seeding. Besides, these early seedings are just preliminary, so in the vast configuration of things, they are not important (except as Charlie Creme says, to get a glimpse into the thinking of the committee).