People talking about how "flukey" this tournament has been

[tzznandrew]

Well, if you look at a system like Sagarin's ELO (and it doesn't take scoring margin into consideration, so the NCAA should consider adopting it over the RPI if they are afraid of encouraging blow outs), the top four looks like this:

1. Florida
2. UConn
3. Kentucky
4. Wisconsin

Now, granted, this takes into consideration games played in the tournament. But why wouldn't those actually matter?

 

[sportsart]

UConn killed off the BCS and now we killed off March Madness. Wait for it....

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

We'd be getting much more respect if we had actually beaten 2 of the teams that a ton of the experts picked to win the whole thing. The closest game we played was against the 10 seed. We've now beaten a 2, 3, 4, and 1 with some room to spare. This is no fluke.

 

[caw]

Tells me what I thought about Pitino and UL was correct. They like to run the score up when they can.

Even looking at his three other ways of looking at it UK is mostly in the top 5 and UConns lowest ranking is 12.

UConn took out UF, MSU
UK took out UL and WSU

Pre tournament those were 4 of the 5 favorites with Arizona being the fifth. Both team earned their way.

 

[caw]

Heck KenPom has the two teams as 9/10.

 

[CTMike]

That's what never makes sense to me about the flukey argument. Once you reach the championship game - that's no fluke. You've beaten the best of the best to get there, and that's what makes it great.

 

[UConn5]

I just want one more flukey win this year.

 

[BlueMAB]

Listening to ESPN has been sickening this morning.

After escaping St. Joe's in OT, UConn has not only been the underdog, but has increased their margin of victory in every game since. While the quality of the opponents has also improved.

This can only mean one thing.

 

[Rondogg]

Kentuky wins nail biters and we win going away. Yet they are favored?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Well, if you look at a system like Sagarin's ELO (and it doesn't take scoring margin into consideration, so the NCAA should consider adopting it over the RPI if they are afraid of encouraging blow outs), the top four looks like this:

1. Florida
2. UConn
3. Kentucky
4. Wisconsin

Now, granted, this takes into consideration games played in the tournament. But why wouldn't those actually matter?

How would the Selection Committee been able to include games in their seeding assessment when those games had not been played yet?

UConn got underseeded because the AAC got no respect, and Kentucky got underseeded because the Committee wanted to screw Wichita State. UConn should have been a 5 and Kentucky should have been a 6. which is about where the RPI would have put them.

 

[tzznandrew]

How would the Selection Committee been able to include games in their seeding assessment when those games had not been played yet?

UConn got underseeded because the AAC got no respect, and Kentucky got underseeded because the Committee wanted to screw Wichita State. UConn should have been a 5 and Kentucky should have been a 6. which is about where the RPI would have put them.

They can't. And I can't look back and see where people were before the tournament. But my guess is they were higher in ELO than they were in RPI, and ELO is a better measure of a team's success than the RPI is (especially if you don't want to count scores).

My point is that, when you include the games played in the tournament, you end up with the four remaing teams playing best counting all those games.

And that is pretty rare.

And, if you go back and do this with previous years, you don't get 1-4. For instance, just last year you got:

1. Louisville (Champ)
2. Michigan (Runner-up)
3. Duke (E8)
4. Indiana (S16)

In 2011-2012:

1. Kentucky (Champ)
2. Syracuse (E8)
3. Kansas (Runner Up)
4. Ohio State (FF)

In 2010-11:

1. Ohio State (S16)
2. UConn (Champ)
3. San Diego State (S16)
4. Kansas (E8)