WOW! Respect for The American!

[Jerry1714]

Absolutely there is. When you give Wisconsin the #25 ranking and UConn the #36, despite the below metrics, that has a meaningful affect on the potential paths. Wisconsin gets a 7 and gets a Pitt/Xavier route to the sweet 16 in the East, and we get a 9 and get Colorado/#1 overall Kansas in the South, then yes, the committee got it wrong and that means something.

Wisconsin: 20-12, RPI 41, BPI 36, Ken Pom 32, first round conference tourney loss to Nebraska, 6 top 50 wins, 3 sub 150 losses
UConn: 24-10, RPI 35, BPI 26, Ken Pom 25, conference tourney champions, 3 top 50 wins, 0 sub 100 losses

Literally the only metric they beat us on is top 50 wins, and that's a moronic/simpleton way of viewing things. But the chairman admitted that was probably the #1 factor this year.

There is a number of metrics you ignore that are used which favor Wisky, like Top 25 wins, Top 100 wins, SOS, NCSOS, KPI, ect. Out of 144 bracket projections Wisky's average was a 7, ours was an 8.

Getting hung up a seed line, which is debatable, seems like a waste of time to me. It is never going to be perfect, do I wish we avoided KU, sure, but do I care we are not an 8 instead of a 9, no.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Absolutely there is. When you give Wisconsin the #25 ranking and UConn the #36, despite the below metrics, that has a meaningful affect on the potential paths. Wisconsin gets a 7 and gets a Pitt/Xavier route to the sweet 16 in the East, and we get a 9 and get Colorado/#1 overall Kansas in the South, then yes, the committee got it wrong and that means something.

Wisconsin: 20-12, RPI 41, BPI 36, Ken Pom 32, first round conference tourney loss to Nebraska, 6 top 50 wins, 3 sub 150 losses
UConn: 24-10, RPI 35, BPI 26, Ken Pom 25, conference tourney champions, 3 top 50 wins, 0 sub 100 losses

Literally the only metric they beat us on is top 50 wins, and that's a moronic/simpleton way of viewing things. But the chairman admitted that was probably the #1 factor this year.

Top 50 wins is a stupid measure, as it inflates the mediocre teams from big conferences. Many schools don't have the opportunity to play enough top 50 teams to get those wins, let alone beat them all. It also inflates the difference between say #45 and #65. The reality is that those teams are all but indistinguishable.

 

[jrazz12]

There is a number of metrics you ignore that are used which favor Wisky, like Top 25 wins, Top 100 wins, SOS, NCSOS, KPI, ect. Out of 144 bracket projections Wisky's average was a 7, ours was an 8.

Getting hung up a seed line, which is debatable, seems like a waste of time to me. It is never going to be perfect, do I wish we avoided KU, sure, but do I care we are not an 8 instead of a 9, no.

OK but it's not one seed line, it's 2. By basically every metric and taken as a whole body of work, we should have been a 7 seed, which we all know is much preferable. And I used Wisconsin as the top 7 seed to prove the point that we're at the very least on par with their resume if not better. We have a better resume than Oregon State and Dayton too, both 7 seeds.

Using top 25, 50, 100 wins is moronic. It's a self-fulfilling and arbitrary measurement. The metrics, even RPI, already factor these wins in, that's how you get your ranking where it is in the first place. Same with SOS. And if you must use this tool and look at the wins, why aren't they factoring in the losses? How does a top 50 win compare to a sub 150 loss? Shouldn't those cancel each other out?

I guess my over-arching point is the current way teams are viewed, being so heavily RPI-centric, is wrong and needs to be adjusted. I'm not claiming conspiracy or UConn being targeted. I'm just saying the better metrics show we're 2 seed lines below where we should be, and that's just us. There are other teams 3-4 seed lines +/- where they should be. And that's just bad.

 

[Jerry1714]

OK but it's not one seed line, it's 2. By basically every metric and taken as a whole body of work, we should have been a 7 seed, which we all know is much preferable. And I used Wisconsin as the top 7 seed to prove the point that we're at the very least on par with their resume if not better. We have a better resume than Oregon State and Dayton too, both 7 seeds.

Using top 25, 50, 100 wins is moronic. It's a self-fulfilling and arbitrary measurement. The metrics, even RPI, already factor these wins in, that's how you get your ranking where it is in the first place. Same with SOS. And if you must use this tool and look at the wins, why aren't they factoring in the losses? How does a top 50 win compare to a sub 150 loss? Shouldn't those cancel each other out?

I guess my over-arching point is the current way teams are viewed, being so heavily RPI-centric, is wrong and needs to be adjusted. I'm not claiming conspiracy or UConn being targeted. I'm just saying the better metrics show we're 2 seed lines below where we should be, and that's just us. There are other teams 3-4 seed lines +/- where they should be. And that's just bad.

So the metrics that the committee uses are moronic according to you, ok, but they are still used and matter.

Every single RPI related metric favors Oregon State. Everyone. The same for Dayton except for Top 25 wins, we have 1 they have 0 and sub 150 losses they have 1 and we have 0.

Your entire argument for us to be a 7 seed ignores the RPI and everything related to it. That is a bad argument since the committee uses it, and probably favors it.

I find it hilarious that so many on this board thought we needed to make the AAC final or win it to get in a week ago, but now want to be a 7 seed.

 

[jrazz12]

So the metrics that the committee uses are moronic according to you, ok, but they are still used and matter.

Every single RPI related metric favors Oregon State. Everyone. The same for Dayton except for Top 25 wins, we have 1 they have 0 and sub 150 losses they have 1 and we have 0.

Your entire argument for us to be a 7 seed ignores the RPI and everything related to it. That is a bad argument since the committee uses it, and probably favors it.

I find it hilarious that so many on this board thought we needed to make the AAC final or win it to get in a week ago, but now want to be a 7 seed.

Well I, like you, disagreed that we were on the bubble's cliff pre-tourney. Our resume was and is still better than it gets credit for.

And I'm not disagreeing with you that the RPI is the center of all the discussion, I'm saying it shouldn't be. There's a reason all the Pac 12 teams are higher than they should be, and the mediocre Pac 12 teams (Oregon State, USC, Colorado) did not fall below an 8 seed. 7 teams in the tourney and not a single one is below an 8 seed? It's a self-fulfilling metric.

 

[Jerry1714]

Well I, like you, disagreed that we were on the bubble's cliff pre-tourney. Our resume was and is still better than it gets credit for.

And I'm not disagreeing with you that the RPI is the center of all the discussion, I'm saying it shouldn't be. There's a reason all the Pac 12 teams are higher than they should be, and the mediocre Pac 12 teams (Oregon State, USC, Colorado) did not fall below an 8 seed. 7 teams in the tourney and not a single one is below an 8 seed? It's a self-fulfilling metric.

I do not disagree with your view of the RPI, but it is what it is, thus it hard to make an argument that UConn should be a 7.

It will be interesting to see how the PAC12 does this tournament, the committee clearly valued them and their RPI numbers, but the advanced metrics view them much differently.

I am actually ok with Oregon States seed (because of their RPI numbers), the one I have the most difficult time grasping is USC's. That teams numbers are not good, and if you watch them, they suck.

 

[jrazz12]

I do not disagree with your view of the RPI, but it is what it is, thus it hard to make an argument that UConn should be a 7.

It will be interesting to see how the PAC12 does this tournament, the committee clearly valued them and their RPI numbers, but the advanced metrics view them much differently.

I am actually ok with Oregon States seed (because of their RPI numbers), the one I have the most difficult time grasping is USC's. That teams numbers are not good, and if you watch them, they suck.

I've watched a lot of hoops this year, especially the past few weeks, and I tend to think the Pac12 is about to perform to their advanced metric level instead of RPI. I picked against just about every Pac12 team, and could see not a single one making the sweet 16.

My problem ultimately is we've heard for the past few years that the committee is starting to look at advanced metrics more, and this is where we show really well. But not one time did I hear Castiglione say anything yesterday relating to Ken Pom, BPI or otherwise. Every reference was to RPI. And that's troubling and reverses course of the last few years. If you factor in the advanced metrics and the Brimah absence, we're at least a 7, strong argument for a 6 even. If you just look at RPI, we're a 9. And that's not right.

 

[auror]

My problem ultimately is we've heard for the past few years that the committee is starting to look at advanced metrics more, and this is where we show really well. But not one time did I hear Castiglione say anything yesterday relating to Ken Pom, BPI or otherwise. Every reference was to RPI. And that's troubling and reverses course of the last few years. If you factor in the advanced metrics and the Brimah absence, we're at least a 7, strong argument for a 6 even. If you just look at RPI, we're a 9. And that's not right.

I've been saying that for weeks.

As an aside, Castiglione did reference advanced metrics at least once, when discussing Wichita St's inclusion. Although he generally just says "their metrics" when he means some of the more advanced non-RPI ratings.

 

[AtlHusky]

...I'm not even going to touch the matchup issues, or the fact that Kansas is in the South with the hardest region instead of the Midwest. But it's a piss poor bracket.

I agree that you shouldn't touch the matchup issues.

When discussing matchups for a #1, IMO, it doesn't make sense to analyze deeper than the #5:

UVA - Midwest - #2 MSU, #3 Utah, #4 ISU, #5 Purdue
KU - South - #2 'Nova, #3 Miami, #4 Cal, #5 MD

Not sure how you say the MW is easier for a 1 seed than the South, I don't agree. In fact, MSU should have been the #1 IMO, and is much better than Villanova. To me, the rest of the top seeds in each region are a wash

As for KU's natural region, MW makes more sense than the South, until you look at the Regional sites and realize that Louisville is virtually the same distance from Lawrence as Chicago.