That committee is all over the place

[whaler11]

Arizona is in for a war in the second round with St. Mary's.

Won't be surprised if Seton Hall ends up the favorite against Arkansas by tip after Arkansas opened as a 1.5 pt fave.

If a 15 has some life to me it's 19.5 pt dog Jacksonville State against Louisville. I think Northern Kentucky (+20) covers but can't win against Kentucky.

 

[Jaker]

They kept Cuse out, so I have absolutely no complaints, they should have done the same last year.

 

[superjohn]

You mean the league the Big East sold its name to.

No, I mean the Big East.

 

[FriarJ]

Me neither, I'm more of an NBA guy. If UConn's not involved I don't watch.

Lol

 

[Jaker]

I am going to watch and pull for the ZAGS hard.

 

[auror]

Depending how you want to define mid major there were either 3 or 4 at large bids. If you don't count the AAC - you've got Dayton, St Mary's and VCU.

St Mary's and VCU play each other and Dayton is a 6.5 point underdog to their 10 seed Wichita State - who is probably the single most underseeded team in the history of the 64 team tourney.

Now you can pretend that's an accident if you like.

Weird how it happens every year. Enjoy Kentucky in the second round again Wichita!

I don't have to pretend it's an accident. You're confirmation bias-ing all over the place. Did they forget to conspire last year to make Dayton play Temple? Far as I can see, there weren't any last year.

2 years ago the 5-12 had one with Northern Iowa vs. Wyoming... because every single 12 seed was a mid major so Northern Iowa had to play somebody. Not sure why the committee didn't go with the Wichita St. vs. Davidson matchup, though. Real missed opportunity to get the mids to play each other.

 

[whaler11]

I don't have to pretend it's an accident. You're confirmation bias-ing all over the place. Did they forget to conspire last year to make Dayton play Temple? Far as I can see, there weren't any last year.

2 years ago the 5-12 had one with Northern Iowa vs. Wyoming... because every single 12 seed was a mid major so Northern Iowa had to play somebody. Not sure why the committee didn't go with the Wichita St. vs. Davidson matchup, though. Real missed opportunity to get the mids to play each other.

Sure in a prior tournament they didn't align every single mid-major means there is no bias against them.

 

[auror]

Sure in a prior tournament they didn't align every single mid-major means there is no bias against them.

So you are arguing that there is a conspiracy that occasionally mid majors are intentionally pitted against each other? What is the reason to more often but not always have mid majors play against each other? Do they not do it every time because they are afraid people will catch on to their (they being the predominantly mid major represented selection committee) plan? We would always make mid majors play if it weren't for you meddling bracketologists!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The OP is correct. The Committee is making it up as they go along to help the majors. This bracket looks like Fox, ESPN and CBS sat down Saturday night and negotiated the field and the seedings. It is impossible to ignore an overwhelming bias towards the "protected" (P5+1) conferences. Anyone that argues differently in the media is part of the problem, or if they are just a fan, they are just being argumentative.

Anyone that is familiar with youth or high school basketball knows that there are tournaments all over the country (and our state) that are seeded, and the results are generally accepted without any serious claim or evidence of bias. In fact, I think the organizers of most of the youth or high school tournaments I am familiar with do a fantastic job. Somehow a handful of volunteers can get it right with tournaments for 11 year old kids, but the NCAA has the same bias issues every single year with a tournament that has over a billion dollars riding on it. These mistakes are not an accident. It is deliberate.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

But with the high seeds (top 16) it is 4 ACC, 3 Big 12, and 3 PAC12. 2 SEC, 2 NBE, 1 Big10 and 1WCC. I think people overrate leagues by the number of team they get in. 4 of the New Big East seeds are below 8 seeds.

1E Villanova
10E Marquette
11E Providence/USC
6MW Creighton
9S Seton Hall
4S Butler
11W Xavier

Three of them got seeds 8 or better

I think what hurt the Big East was that they diluted the bids. If they got six in instead of 7 team perhaps they could've gotten better seeding. Too many upsets and injuries that were probably taken into account.

 

[willie99]

Just bureaucrats being bureaucrats, applying logic and rules inconsistently is the essence of their very existence. It's how they're genetically inclined to behave

 

[freescooter]

Mick Cronin, please call your office.

 

[Windsorlocks]

You mean the league the Big East sold its name to.

Of the original 7 BE teams in 1979, 4 are in the NBE, one is in the American. Of the 16 BE teams in 2011-12, 7 are in the NBE, 3 are in the American. The NBE, even with 3 new Midwest teams added, seems much closer in spirit to what Gavitt had in mind in 1979. Would the American really more resemble Gavitt's vision with SMU, Houston, Memphis, Tulsa, and Tulane then the present NBE does? The BE was in a near constant state of flux right up to the Catholic 7 leaving after 2012. Teams were added, such as Villanova in 1980, only one year after its founding in 1979. And teams left. The NBE has 7 of the teams present when the league was at its max size of 16 teams in 2012. Anyway, the above is the reasoning I use when I conclude the NBE was really the logical choice to keep the conference name Big East. When you look at how the BIg East evolved, beginning with a 7 team league in 1979, the NBE seems to me to be the latest incarnation of that league, and it seems like that far more then the American conference does. I don't see the NBE as having unfairly inherited the conference name at all. I see it as the most logical choice to have inherited the conference name.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Of the original 7 BE teams in 1979, 4 are in the NBE, one is in the American. Of the 16 BE teams in 2011-12, 7 are in the NBE, 3 are in the American. The NBE, even with 3 new Midwest teams added, seems much closer in spirit to what Gavitt had in mind in 1979. Would the American really more resemble Gavitt's vision with SMU, Houston, Memphis, Tulsa, and Tulane then the present NBE does? The BE was in a near constant state of flux right up to the Catholic 7 leaving after 2012. Teams were added, such as Villanova in 1980, only one year after its founding in 1979. And teams left. The NBE has 7 of the teams present when the league was at its max size of 16 teams in 2012. Anyway, the above is the reasoning I use when I conclude the NBE was really the logical choice to keep the conference name Big East. When you look at how the BIg East evolved, beginning with a 7 team league in 1979, the NBE seems to me to be the latest incarnation of that league, and it seems like that far more then the American conference does. I don't see the NBE as having unfairly inherited the conference name at all. I see it as the most logical choice to have inherited the conference name.

Why even respond to such idiotic comment? The current Big East is the BIG EAST. Bottom line. Anyone that calls it something else is just sour grapes or has underlying competing business interests (i.e: ESPN). Solid basketball league with the defending national champion. All I wish that Connecticut would join the league again and make it a party.

 

[captainron2]

Why even respond to such idiotic comment? The current Big East is the BIG EAST. Bottom line. Anyone that calls it something else is just sour grapes or has underlying competing business interests (i.e: ESPN). Solid basketball league with the defending national champion. All I wish that Connecticut would join the league again and make it a party.

Psst... Did you read his post? He agrees with you.

 

[whaler11]

So you are arguing that there is a conspiracy that occasionally mid majors are intentionally pitted against each other? What is the reason to more often but not always have mid majors play against each other? Do they not do it every time because they are afraid people will catch on to their (they being the predominantly mid major represented selection committee) plan? We would always make mid majors play if it weren't for you meddling bracketologists!

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

 

[CTBasketball]

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."

 

[Devland]

Of the original 7 BE teams in 1979, 4 are in the NBE, one is in the American. Of the 16 BE teams in 2011-12, 7 are in the NBE, 3 are in the American. The NBE, even with 3 new Midwest teams added, seems much closer in spirit to what Gavitt had in mind in 1979. Would the American really more resemble Gavitt's vision with SMU, Houston, Memphis, Tulsa, and Tulane then the present NBE does? The BE was in a near constant state of flux right up to the Catholic 7 leaving after 2012. Teams were added, such as Villanova in 1980, only one year after its founding in 1979. And teams left. The NBE has 7 of the teams present when the league was at its max size of 16 teams in 2012. Anyway, the above is the reasoning I use when I conclude the NBE was really the logical choice to keep the conference name Big East. When you look at how the BIg East evolved, beginning with a 7 team league in 1979, the NBE seems to me to be the latest incarnation of that league, and it seems like that far more then the American conference does. I don't see the NBE as having unfairly inherited the conference name at all. I see it as the most logical choice to have inherited the conference name.

For the most part,with the exception of Villanova, the bottom half of the old Big East is in the NBE and the top half is now in the ACC. And The American Conference got stuck with the crappy management team the Old Big East always had.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Psst... Did you read his post? He agrees with you.

Totally read his comment and I agreed with him. I was building on his comment

Again... The original comment made by Devland is idiotic. The spirit of the Big East lives on in the current conference... It's alot more than buying the name and the rights to MSG. The new Big East is the BIG EAST

 

[beakumhawks]

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

 

[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 shit 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.