Officially #2 AP

[uconngb]

It’s all up to the sportswriters. They know best.

 

[uconngb]

You didn't prove anything except the fact that you're a megalomaniac knowitall.

It says impact right in the post you initially responded to. & St. John's benefited from it's #5 ranking last year.

View attachment 116204

Nice attempt at dodging…..except it didn’t work

 

[upstater]

Nice attempt at dodging…..except it didn’t work

If quoting directly the post you responded to didn't work, then you are absent of facts.

St. John's

KenPom: 15
Torvik: 16
AP Ranking: 5 (6th before the BET)

Result: 2 seed

Clearly, they went away from the metrics and rated St. John's closer to the analyst consensus.

 

[JohnFSilver]

You are just continuing to prove how little you know about college basketball. You should just stop. AP rankings have NOTHING TO DO WITH SEEDING in the NCAA tournament. Never have, never will.

Let's look at last year, just as one example:

AZ was a 4 seed. They were ranked #21 in the last top 25 poll
BYU was a 6 seed. They were ranked #17 in the last top 25 poll.
St Marys was a 7 seed. They were ranked #20 in the last top 25 poll.
Gonzaga was an 8 seed. They were ranked #24 in the last top 25 poll.
Kentucky was a 3 seed. They were ranked #18 in the last top 25 poll,.
Clemson was a 5 seed. They were ranked #13 in the last top 25 poll.

I could go on. And that is just from LAST year. Each one of those teams was seeded at least two lines off of where their ranking indicated they should be. Some higher, some lower.

Poll rankings don't mean SQUAT for seeding purposes.

They mean something. It is just a data point though, as is KenPom, Net, and eye test counts too. Right now? UConn is a 1 seed. It will be
Settle In February. I would say they lose 2-3 games they will be a 2 seed.

 

[uconn_jack]

Bottom line, the selection committee uses analytics ratings when it suits them, just like every other "criteria" they use.

 

[uconngb]

If quoting directly the post you responded to didn't work, then you are absent of facts.

St. John's

KenPom: 15
Torvik: 16
AP Ranking: 5 (6th before the BET)

Result: 2 seed

Clearly, they went away from the metrics and rated St. John's closer to the analyst consensus.

You are giving ONE example and NOWHERE can you point to anything or anyone that said the seeding was based on the ranking. It’s a relationship that just doesn’t exist but you are somehow trying to force it.

You wouldn’t find one expert or committee member or frankly, anyone that knows anything about college basketball that would say poll rankings determine seedlings.

But keep trying pal.,,,,it’s fun watching you gyrate

 

[auror]

If quoting directly the post you responded to didn't work, then you are absent of facts.

St. John's

KenPom: 15
Torvik: 16
AP Ranking: 5 (6th before the BET)

Result: 2 seed

Clearly, they went away from the metrics and rated St. John's closer to the analyst consensus.

Their resume metrics put them as a 2 seed. Committee members consider other metrics aside from KenPom and Torvik.

 

[upstater]

View attachment 116212
Their resume metrics put them as a 2 seed. Committee members consider other metrics aside from KenPom and Torvik.

Well you have the NET in line with KenPom and Torvik as well. KPI is 3rd seed.

Still seems out of whack.

There are others.

What would you say are primary?

 

[upstater]

You are giving ONE example and NOWHERE can you point to anything or anyone that said the seeding was based on the ranking. It’s a relationship that just doesn’t exist but you are somehow trying to force it.

You wouldn’t find one expert or committee member or frankly, anyone that knows anything about college basketball that would say poll rankings determine seedlings.

But keep trying pal.,,,,it’s fun watching you gyrate

Plenty of other examples.

You just try to ignore them as you did when I originally wrote this

 

[auror]

Well you have the NET in line with KenPom and Torvik as well. KPI is 3rd seed.

Still seems out of whack.

There are others.

What would you say are primary?

The committee discusses a full resume, including all of the metrics and the actual games.

The more you dig into the actual results on a resume, the more you eventually just wind up at the resume metrics WAB or SOR because they do a pretty good job of summarizing it. So especially at the bubble cutline, where the most thorough discussion takes place, the committee results definitely skew towards the resume metrics. Not necessarily because they use them as the guiding star, but because the process itself is similar to the way the metric is calculated.

But outliers in the predictive metrics and especially big wins or whatever can skew the results in a direction, like UNC being far better than all the teams under consideration in the predictive metrics likely getting them a bid last season when the resume impressiveness according to the resume metrics was otherwise similar (despite the utter terrible performance in Q1).

 

[upstater]

The committee discusses a full resume, including all of the metrics and the actual games.

The more you dig into the actual results on a resume, the more you eventually just wind up at the resume metrics WAB or SOR because they do a pretty good job of summarizing it. So especially at the bubble cutline, where the most thorough discussion takes place, the committee results definitely skew towards the resume metrics. Not necessarily because they use them as the guiding star, but because the process itself is similar to the way the metric is calculated.

But outliers in the predictive metrics and especially big wins or whatever can skew the results in a direction, like UNC being far better than all the teams under consideration in the predictive metrics likely getting them a bid last season when the resume impressiveness according to the resume metrics was otherwise similar (despite the utter terrible performance in Q1).

When I looked at the last few years, I saw a lot of variance between the metrics I was looking at (NET, KenPom, Torvik) in the 1st through 3 seeds. I'm sure as you get down to the 35-40th ranked teams, that it becomes much more hazy.

 

[FearThePups]

I am not counting the MSU game as anything. Beyond worthless to even count it as an evaluation.

Yeah. I’m sure Tom Izzo was just fine with the L.

 

[FearThePups]

First off, it doesn't "impact" seeding...I believe I proved my point

and Secondly, your exact quote was "probably because this stuff DETERMINES seeding". I think that's a little different than "impact"

So why don't you just admit you have no clue what you are talking about, AND you are completely trying to walk back what you said without admitting it. I guess you have a severe dysfunction in remembering YOUR OWN WORDS. Unreal

Gotta love the boneyard 🥊