That committee is all over the place

[champs99and04]

With all the griping about the seeding, how would you seed it? Let's see some brackets.

My one seeds would have been Nova, Gonzaga, Duke, and Kentucky. Kansas gets bumped down to the two line for me for losing to TCU in the conference tournament. (I know they beat Duke and Kentucky but I simply don't think they're as good or as talented as those two).

I'd have had North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, and Louisville on the two line. My threes would be West Virginia, SMU, Baylor, and Arizona. Virginia, Florida State, Oregon, and Purdue would have been my fours.

Other team I would have seeded differently: I would have given Rhode Island a seven, St. Mary's a five, Dayton a nine, Wisconsin a six, and Wichita State a six. Wake would have been a nine, Maryland would have been a ten, and Creighton would have been a nine.

I would have ultimately mimicked it, in some way, after the Vegas odds. It's a tough balance to strike because I'm essentially penalizing Kansas and Arizona for winning a lot of close games, but I think that has to be considered, and I think you should try to minimize the amount of games where a lower seed is favored over a higher one.

 

[uconngb]

My one seeds would have been Nova, Gonzaga, Duke, and Kentucky. Kansas gets bumped down to the two line for me for losing to TCU in the conference tournament. (I know they beat Duke and Kentucky but I simply don't think they're as good or as talented as those two).

I'd have had North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, and Louisville on the two line. My threes would be West Virginia, SMU, Baylor, and Arizona. Virginia, Florida State, Oregon, and Purdue would have been my fours.

Other team I would have seeded differently: I would have given Rhode Island a seven, St. Mary's a five, Dayton a nine, Wisconsin a six, and Wichita State a six. Wake would have been a nine, Maryland would have been a ten, and Creighton would have been a nine.

I would have ultimately mimicked it, in some way, after the Vegas odds. It's a tough balance to strike because I'm essentially penalizing Kansas and Arizona for winning a lot of close games, but I think that has to be considered, and I think you should try to minimize the amount of games where a lower seed is favored over a higher one.

Duke lost SEVEN games in conference and finished FIFTH in their conference. I get they had a great run in the tourney, but the regular season has to count for something. I would not have them higher than a 3 seed.

 

[auror]

The fact it happens and the reason they do it seem quite obvious.

I think this is the definition of confirmation bias.

Enjoy your existence.

 

[freescooter]

You guys are forgetting to the critical Protect Duke and UNC stall Costs rule. And it's corallary the Make Damned Sure They Play As Many Games As Possible in North Carolina. Seems to me the Committee succeeded very well with both.

 

[whaler11]

I think this is the definition of confirmation bias.

Enjoy your existence.

3 mid majors got at large bids.

2 play each other - the third plays the best mid-major in the country.

What a wild coincidence!

 

[auror]

Duke lost SEVEN games in conference and finished FIFTH in their conference. I get they had a great run in the tourney, but the regular season has to count for something. I would not have them higher than a 3 seed.

Even with the 8 losses, they had the 4th best BPI Resume rank in the country, because they played a ton of good teams. They played in 23 'A' or 'B' games. In fact, 18 of their games were 'A' Rank, which is pretty ridiculous. They went 11-7 in such games.

UNC played in 17 and went 11-6. UNC went 5-1 in 'B' games and Duke went 5-0, but with a "bad" loss to #104 NC St.

I'm in camp UNC #1 and Duke #2, but to act like they aren't right there neck and neck with each other is absurd.

 

[auror]

3 mid majors got at large bids.

2 play each other - the third plays the best mid-major in the country.

What a wild coincidence!

You have a sample size of 2 from 1 year and no explanation as to why the same wasn't carried out every time in previous years and dismiss out of hand any consideration of S-Curve, bracketing principles, geography, etc. VCU was the last 10th seed on the S-Curve and was matched with the best 7 seed and sent to the farthest away pod. Seems pretty easily explainable.

 

[whaler11]

You have a sample size of 2 from 1 year and no explanation as to why the same wasn't carried out every time in previous years and dismiss out of hand any consideration of S-Curve, bracketing principles, geography, etc. VCU was the last 10th seed on the S-Curve and was matched with the best 7 seed and sent to the farthest away pod. Seems pretty easily explainable.

I don't really think it's all that valuable an exercise to dig through all the prior years to show this happens coincidentally very often since you've already made up your mind.

 

[HuskyHawk]

My one seeds would have been Nova, Gonzaga, Duke, and Kentucky. Kansas gets bumped down to the two line for me for losing to TCU in the conference tournament. (I know they beat Duke and Kentucky but I simply don't think they're as good or as talented as those two).

I'd have had North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, and Louisville on the two line. My threes would be West Virginia, SMU, Baylor, and Arizona. Virginia, Florida State, Oregon, and Purdue would have been my fours.

Other team I would have seeded differently: I would have given Rhode Island a seven, St. Mary's a five, Dayton a nine, Wisconsin a six, and Wichita State a six. Wake would have been a nine, Maryland would have been a ten, and Creighton would have been a nine.

I would have ultimately mimicked it, in some way, after the Vegas odds. It's a tough balance to strike because I'm essentially penalizing Kansas and Arizona for winning a lot of close games, but I think that has to be considered, and I think you should try to minimize the amount of games where a lower seed is favored over a higher one.

The real key in my opinion is that that second tier of P5 teams, schools like Maryland, South Carolina, Miami etc. tend to be overseeded as a group. Wichita State is seeded lower than Arkansas or Vandy? How? Vermont gets a 13. Really? Put Vermont against Vandy straight up and I'd take Vermont. URI definitely is underseeded at 11.

 

[kobe]

People on here think the seeding and matchups aren't influenced by potential TV ratings and money?

They're never going to seed the field in the interest of "getting it right."

Mick, is that you? No, I do not. However I do believe the changing of the requirements to allow most teams to stay closer to their geographic footprint has lead to more appealing match ups. If you think they actually discuss those issues in the bracketing, you are probably wrong. It's all done by a computer.

 

[kobe]

Duke lost SEVEN games in conference and finished FIFTH in their conference. I get they had a great run in the tourney, but the regular season has to count for something. I would not have them higher than a 3 seed.

They had 8 top 25 wins and 4 more top 50 wins. I think getting a 2 seed was the penalty for having the 8 losses overall.

 

[beakumhawks]

Suddenly the committee looks like they did a pretty good job.

 

[uconngb]

They had 8 top 25 wins and 4 more top 50 wins. I think getting a 2 seed was the penalty for having the 8 losses overall.

This is typical different rules applying to Duke and they are overseeded, as always. I'm sorry, but you can't just marginalized the entire reagular season. They finished FIFTH in their conference. FIFTH. They lost 7 conference games. I understand they had a lot of top 50 wins, but they also lost to Georgia Tech at home. And Syracuse, who is not a tournament team and has an RPI of 84. I said they deserve a 3 seed at best, so maybe we're splitting hairs, but they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt. It's a friggin joke, but that's just the way it is and will always be. And of course they'll get knocked out early again, so at least we have that to look forward to.

 

[uconngb]

This is typical different rules applying to Duke and they are overseeded, as always. I'm sorry, but you can't just marginalized the entire reagular season. They finished FIFTH in their conference. FIFTH. They lost 7 conference games. I understand they had a lot of top 50 wins, but they also lost to Georgia Tech at home. And Syracuse, who is not a tournament team and has an RPI of 84. I said they deserve a 3 seed at best, so maybe we're splitting hairs, but they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt. It's a friggin joke, but that's just the way it is and will always be. And of course they'll get knocked out early again, so at least we have that to look forward to.

Correction, meant NC State loss at home...but same difference.

 

[champs99and04]

This is typical different rules applying to Duke and they are overseeded, as always. I'm sorry, but you can't just marginalized the entire reagular season. They finished FIFTH in their conference. FIFTH. They lost 7 conference games. I understand they had a lot of top 50 wins, but they also lost to Georgia Tech at home. And Syracuse, who is not a tournament team and has an RPI of 84. I said they deserve a 3 seed at best, so maybe we're splitting hairs, but they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt. It's a friggin joke, but that's just the way it is and will always be. And of course they'll get knocked out early again, so at least we have that to look forward to.

If we can finish ninth in 2011 and get a three seed, Duke can finish fifth this year and get a two.

The problem I have is that you can't overlook Duke finishing fifth and then reward UNC for winning the regular season title, especially in a conference where the schedules are so imbalanced. Their resume becomes suspect under further scrutiny - only one of their top 50 wins came on the road (@ #40 Wake) and all five of their top 25 wins came at home. They lost on a neutral court to two teams seeded below them and they lost two games to teams that did not make the tournament.

Duke winning @ Notre Dame and @ Virginia carries more weight to me, in addition to their wins over Florida, Louisville, UNC, Rhode Island, and Notre Dame on neutral courts. That, in addition to their injuries, makes them a one seed in my opinion.

 

[kobe]

This is typical different rules applying to Duke and they are overseeded, as always. I'm sorry, but you can't just marginalized the entire reagular season. They finished FIFTH in their conference. FIFTH. They lost 7 conference games. I understand they had a lot of top 50 wins, but they also lost to Georgia Tech at home. And Syracuse, who is not a tournament team and has an RPI of 84. I said they deserve a 3 seed at best, so maybe we're splitting hairs, but they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt. It's a friggin joke, but that's just the way it is and will always be. And of course they'll get knocked out early again, so at least we have that to look forward to.

There is no weight given to the place you finish in the conference especially with the unbalanced schedules. Duke had the 3rd hardest schedule in the ACC while UNC who finished 1st had the 12th hardest. Duke played all 8 of the other NCAA tournament teams on the road (plus Syracuse) while UNC only played 4 of the 8. That's why the standings are irrelevant. Remember UConn finished 9th in the Big East and got a 3 seed after winning the conference tournament.

I think Duke cost themselves the 1 seed by losing to NC State at home and that neutral game against Kansas. Had they won those two, they'd clearly be a 1 seed to me.

 

[BlueDogs]

Its all about the P5....end of story. Check this out: Illinois St. coach challenges power conference teams after Tourney snub

 

[Dogdeacon]

If we can finish ninth in 2011 and get a three seed, Duke can finish fifth this year and get a two.

The problem I have is that you can't overlook Duke finishing fifth and then reward UNC for winning the regular season title, especially in a conference where the schedules are so imbalanced. Their resume becomes suspect under further scrutiny - only one of their top 50 wins came on the road (@ #40 Wake) and all five of their top 25 wins came at home. They lost on a neutral court to two teams seeded below them and they lost two games to teams that did not make the tournament.

Duke winning @ Notre Dame and @ Virginia carries more weight to me, in addition to their wins over Florida, Louisville, UNC, Rhode Island, and Notre Dame on neutral courts. That, in addition to their injuries, makes them a one seed in my opinion.

I can't believe anyone outside of a Dook fan would devote time to arguing for a better seed. They've got at least 30 years of favorable tourney matchups, seedings, locations etc.. To nitpick over a 1 vs a 2 seed for poor Dook is crazy town. UNC griping esp given that they should be on probation is warranted.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Its all about the P5....end of story. Check this out: Illinois St. coach challenges power conference teams after Tourney snub

P5 + 1

The current system sucks. The only way to fix this is to start from scratch. Which will never happen. The NCAA since it's a voluntary association never set level playing field rules like professional leagues do.

The Ideal NCAA (I'm walking into Utopia right now)

(1) Regional conferences only
(2) No more than 8 members per conference
(3) Two auto-bids per conferences
(4) No at-large bids
(5) Salary cap for administrators
(6) TV airtime shared among members of conferences equally

Just removing the at-large bid and making auto-bids equally distributed across conferences would return parity to the NCAA Division I because players will choose to play in a good mid-major that will make the tourney rather than a crappy team in major conference as they do now.

Of course, I'm crazy to even write this down. There is absolutely no chance of this ever happening. This would be as close to amateurism and fairness as it can get

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

Duke lost SEVEN games in conference and finished FIFTH in their conference. I get they had a great run in the tourney, but the regular season has to count for something. I would not have them higher than a 3 seed.

Sounds like our 2011 resume but better. We were a 3 seed.

 

[whaler11]

P5 + 1

The current system sucks. The only way to fix this is to start from scratch. Which will never happen. The NCAA since it's a voluntary association never set level playing field rules like professional leagues do.

The Ideal NCAA (I'm walking into Utopia right now)

(1) Regional conferences only
(2) No more than 8 members per conference
(3) Two auto-bids per conferences
(4) No at-large bids
(5) Salary cap for administrators
(6) TV airtime shared among members of conferences equally

Just removing the at-large bid and making auto-bids equally distributed across conferences would return parity to the NCAA Division I because players will choose to play in a good mid-major that will make the tourney rather than a crappy team in major conference as they do now.

Of course, I'm crazy to even write this down. There is absolutely no chance of this ever happening. This would be as close to amateurism and fairness as it can get

If you limit conferences to 8 teams and give 2 autobids per conference that is like 90 autobids....

 

[Jerry1714]

3 mid majors got at large bids.

2 play each other - the third plays the best mid-major in the country.

What a wild coincidence!

This is my issue, complain about the seeds all you want but the difference between a 4/5/6 is negligible, but the way the committee always pits good mid majors against each other is infuriating.

 

[uconngb]

People, it's Dook.....everything is always slanted in their favor. Where have you been the last 30 years???