Temple/Nova

[Jerry1714]

Thank you August - West for agreeing. Our conference gets no respect and frankly, does not deserve any. And our out of conference schedule was not strong enough to make up for our pathetic conference. How many quality wins do we have? 4?

He did not agree with you

 

[Jerry1714]

I really fear people are in for a Rude awakening. I feel that people think that what happened to other AAC teams the last couple years can't happen to UConn because we are UConn and we are a bigger "brand" than anything else in the AAC, and we are recent 2 time title winners...yada yada yada.

Unfortunately my gut tells me none of that matters. We will get just as screwed as any other AAC team if we limp in the selection room with a Bubble-y resume.

We just have to win games like tonight. Just win and we dont worry. I feel very ill at ease getting the nod over other bubble teams out of this conference.

Temple did not get in last year and had a case I guess, their Kenpom was 57 and no at large team had a worse Kenpom then them last year, and their BPI was 63, again worse than any at large team. So them not getting in was in line with their metrics. Cincy with 10 losses and RPI 46 and Kenpom 34 was definitely not slighted on their seed, an 8. SMU I agree was poorly seeded last year.

I really think the whole ACC got royally screwed last year is very overblown.

 

[August_West]

Temple did not get in last year and had a case I guess, their Kenpom was 57 and no at large team had a worse Kenpom then them last year, and their BPI was 63, again worse than any at large team. So them not getting in was in line with their metrics. Cincy with 10 losses and RPI 46 and Kenpom 34 was definitely not slighted on their seed, an 8. SMU I agree was poorly seeded last year.

I really think the whole ACC got royally screwed last year is very overblown.

Its two years.

 

[Jerry1714]

Its two years.

Well since it was not last year, it can only be 1 year, so for 2014:

Louisville - 4 seed - RPI 19, Kenpom 3, BPI 3 - Awful seed by the metrics, in line with RPI
Cincy - 5 seed - RPI 20 - Kenpom 25, BPI 24 - Seed in line with all the number
UConn - 7 seed - RPI 23 - Kenpom 26, BPI 18 - Very bad seed, should have been a 5
Memphis - 8 seed - RPI 34 - Kenpom 46, BPI 43 - Seed may be a little generous, in line with RPI but not metrics
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31 - BPI is only metric supporting their inclusion.

So 2 seeds were poorly seeded that year and 3 were seeded properly, so in the last two years, 3 teams were seeded poorly and 5 were seeded properly.

I do not think any of the poorly seeded teams were egregious mistakes (except maybe UConn but that worked out OK), and when you take into account all the factors of seeding (location, conferences matching up, ect.) it is not as bad people make it out to be and no team has been left that out that should definitely been in he tournament.

Point is if UConn has the numbers to be in they will be in.

 

[August_West]

Well since it was not last year, it can only be 1 year, so for 2014:

Louisville - 4 seed - RPI 19, Kenpom 3, BPI 3 - Awful seed by the metrics, in line with RPI
Cincy - 5 seed - RPI 20 - Kenpom 25, BPI 24 - Seed in line with all the number
UConn - 7 seed - RPI 23 - Kenpom 26, BPI 18 - Very bad seed, should have been a 5
Memphis - 8 seed - RPI 34 - Kenpom 46, BPI 43 - Seed may be a little generous, in line with RPI but not metrics
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31 - BPI is only metric supporting their inclusion.

So 2 seeds were poorly seeded that year and 3 were seeded properly, so in the last two years, 3 teams were seeded poorly and 5 were seeded properly.

I do not think any of the poorly seeded teams were egregious mistakes (except maybe UConn but that worked out OK), and when you take into account all the factors of seeding (location, conferences matching up, ect.) it is not as bad people make it out to be and no team has been left that out that should definitely been in he tournament.

Point is if UConn has the numbers to be in they will be in.

But you used the kenPom and BPI number to validate Temples exclusion last year, so if we are going to do that then 2 years ago Lousiville was AT WORST a two (and by BPI and KenPom a 1) 2 years ago and got a Four seed. UConn as you admitted was a 5 and got a 7. Forget that it worked out (though ecstatic that it did). SMU should have been in. Even more than Temple last year.

I would like to see the number of the last 4 in who got in over SMU 2 years ago. There was a ton of talking head squawking about that. and they don't squawk about the AAC unless its egregious.

 

[tzznandrew]

Well since it was not last year, it can only be 1 year, so for 2014:

Louisville - 4 seed - RPI 19, Kenpom 3, BPI 3 - Awful seed by the metrics, in line with RPI
Cincy - 5 seed - RPI 20 - Kenpom 25, BPI 24 - Seed in line with all the number
UConn - 7 seed - RPI 23 - Kenpom 26, BPI 18 - Very bad seed, should have been a 5
Memphis - 8 seed - RPI 34 - Kenpom 46, BPI 43 - Seed may be a little generous, in line with RPI but not metrics
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31 - BPI is only metric supporting their inclusion.

So 2 seeds were poorly seeded that year and 3 were seeded properly, so in the last two years, 3 teams were seeded poorly and 5 were seeded properly.

I do not think any of the poorly seeded teams were egregious mistakes (except maybe UConn but that worked out OK), and when you take into account all the factors of seeding (location, conferences matching up, ect.) it is not as bad people make it out to be and no team has been left that out that should definitely been in he tournament.

Point is if UConn has the numbers to be in they will be in.

Louisville was on a tear, and their seed was really shocking at the time. SMU lost a brutal game against Houston in the AAC tournament, and so probably didn't deserve it that year. UConn was also hurt by their seed, but like you said, it didn't matter in the end.

I don't know how to check non-end-of season KenPom, but SMU was also poorly treated last year by most people's thoughts:

SMU - 6 seed - RPI 12 - BPI 24

When you look at it, you think they probably should have been a 4 or so, but it is in line with the advanced metrics.

End of story here is that they seem to pick and choose the metric, and so we can't have an RPI in the 40s.

 

[Jerry1714]

But you used the kenPom and BPI number to validate Temples exclusion last year, so if we are going to do that then 2 years ago Lousiville was AT WORST a two (and by BPI and KenPom a 1) 2 years ago and got a Four seed. UConn as you admitted was a 5 and got a 7. Forget that it worked out (though ecstatic that it did). SMU should have been in. Even more than Temple last year.

I would like to see the number of the last 4 in who got in over SMU 2 years ago. There was a ton of talking head squawking about that. and they don't squawk about the AAC unless its egregious.

Two years ago:
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31
Last four in:
Iowa - RPI 55 - Kenpom 24, BPI 26 - Iowa deserved it over SMU
Tenn - RPI 40 - Kenpom 14, BPI 25 - No debate Tenn deserved it over SMU
Xavier - RPI 47 - Kenpom 43, BPI 54 - X had better RPI and Kenpom - big BPI difference between the 2
NC State - RPI 54 - Kenpom 67, BPI 61 - Here is the only case to be made, but SMU played the 135th SOS as opposed to NC State's 23rd SOS

No way it can be considered egregious, it probably came down to 2 teams, NC State and SMU, and outside of BPI and SOS the numbers are identical.

And I agreed Lvill should have been seeded better that year, never disputed that.

 

[August_West]

Two years ago:
SMU - Out - RPI 53 - Kenpom 64, BPI 31
Last four in:
Iowa - RPI 55 - Kenpom 24, BPI 26 - Iowa deserved it over SMU
Tenn - RPI 40 - Kenpom 14, BPI 25 - No debate Tenn deserved it over SMU
Xavier - RPI 47 - Kenpom 43, BPI 54 - X had better RPI and Kenpom - big BPI difference between the 2
NC State - RPI 54 - Kenpom 67, BPI 61 - Here is the only case to be made, but SMU played the 135th SOS as opposed to NC State's 23rd SOS

No way it can be considered egregious, it probably came down to 2 teams, NC State and SMU, and outside of BPI and SOS the numbers are identical.

And I agreed Lvill should have been seeded better that year, never disputed that.

thanks for the legwork.
Andrew said it more succinctly than I ever can. We can't be in a position where the committee can be arbitrary with us.