WOW! Respect for The American!

[businesslawyer]

I think it's interesting. I think it seems like they're picking arbitrary things to judge these teams on, but the truth is these teams are being judged on everything. I think the committee is talking these things out and they end up distilling the most defining characteristic of the resume. Monmouth 3 sub-200 losses, Cuse and Tulsa top 50 record, South Carolina terrible schedule, St Bonn inflated RPI, SMC nonconf schedule, SDSU record against good teams, etc. Isn't that the preferred process than blindly following some metric or system? Human eyes and knowledge and all that, watching over 500 games every season? I actually like that they disagreed with the groupthink internet hivemind.

I have beef with some of the conclusions they reached (Monmouth got jobbed), but I think the process is working as intended.

This. They are trying to eliminate easily maniputable formulae, and instead look at everything and make a call. Which means sometimes you will disagree with their call.

 

[Inyatkin]

This. They are trying to eliminate easily maniputable formulae, and instead look at everything and make a call. Which means sometimes you will disagree with their call.

I agree that would be ideal, but it's hard to say if they're looking at everything or picking and choosing depending on the situation. I get that bracket prognosticators are flawed, but when literally none of them picks Tulsa but the committee puts them in, it's impossible to know what they're looking for.

 

[intlzncster]

I see your avatars and I keep thinking you're the same person.

I'M NOT THAT !!!!

Just remember, BoatShow is the ghetto version of @tzznandrew

 

[intlzncster]

Look at Tulsa on Bracket Matrix. Dozens of projections, and not one had Tulsa in the field. Only the committee itself.
It's hard to judge whether projections are good or not when the committee just does whatever it feels like. RPI here, advanced metrics over there, eye test sometimes. There has to be some consistency, you'd think.

I'd rather the system be chalk, based on some sort of metrics/formula. With the play in games decided by the committee, based on the 'whatever' they usually use.

 

[intlzncster]

They also had no good out of conference wins. They were underseeded, sure, but you look at who they beat and it wasn't really impressive.

Similarly, that SMU team beat no one out of conference, with a sub-300 NCSOS, and they finished the season weak, with a loss in the first round of the AAC to a sub-100 Houston team.

And the committee puts huge emphasis on your NCSOS; they say so every single year.

That's kind of fair, because you don't have a choice about your conference games, but your NCS is up to you.

 

[jrazz12]

I think it's interesting. I think it seems like they're picking arbitrary things to judge these teams on, but the truth is these teams are being judged on everything. I think the committee is talking these things out and they end up distilling the most defining characteristic of the resume. Monmouth 3 sub-200 losses, Cuse and Tulsa top 50 record, South Carolina terrible schedule, St Bonn inflated RPI, SMC nonconf schedule, SDSU record against good teams, etc. Isn't that the preferred process than blindly following some metric or system? Human eyes and knowledge and all that, watching over 500 games every season? I actually like that they disagreed with the groupthink internet hivemind.

I have beef with some of the conclusions they reached (Monmouth got jobbed), but I think the process is working as intended.

I think this is accurate for the most part in terms of selecting the field, but that's the easy part of the job. Could an argument be made for Monmouth and St. Mary's and against Tulsa and Syracuse? Absolutely. But that's not where the real issue lies, as this is maybe a 1 or 2 team issue every year.

Where the real failure is, and my beef with the committee every season, is in the seeding, which means so much to the flow of the tournament. This is where they have literally dozens of errors, and they only had a few dozen teams to seed.

Looking at the S-curve for their 1-68 quickly:
- A&M over Kentucky
- Oregon State is 28???
- The following teams with worse resumes when you look at all metrics seeded higher than us: Dayton, Wisconsin, Texas Tech, Colorado, USC, Oregon State, Providence, Butler, Cincy
- Michigan St behind UVA
- Cal ranked 14, ahead of Kentucky
- Gonzaga behind Michigan, Vandy, Syracuse, Temple

And there's many others. In another thread, someone pointed out when you take the average ranking across all metrics (RPI, Ken Pom, BPI, etc) and the number of seed lines off from where they are slotted and where they should be is pretty bad, especially for the Pac 12.

This is where they are failing miserably and need some better direction. 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.

 

[HuskyHawk]

So, if we were a 10 or 11 before our tourney, then those wins moved us to a nine.
Options:
1)Wins over Cinci, Temple & Memphis in the AAC tourney did little to our seed
2) we were bubble and those wins moved us a little more
3) Conspiracy. We really earned a 6 or 7 seed.

Option #3 coming from BY which believed we and our conference sucked

The reality is obvious to me. While they didn't go full "Jay Bilas", the committee all but disregarded conference tournaments. You can see the evidence of it easily. A&M is a 3 and Kentucky a 4. Virginia stayed on the #1 line while Michigan State is a #2. Indiana stayed as a #5.

In years past UConn might have moved up, but it seems that the committee is now minimizing the weight of conference tournament games.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Great selection Sunday for the American. Huge. I'm just glad Connecticut is in. Time to start of run to the F4!!! LETS GOOO!!

 

[Inyatkin]

Calipari got killed for complaining about seeding, but he had a good point. It's not the team with the bad seed that's punished, it's who they play. The example he used was Wichita State in 2014, which got Kentucky as an 8 and then would've had Louisville as a 4. Not sure any team has been hurt by bad seeding worse than them, and they were undefeated.

 

[Jerry1714]

Looking at the S-curve for their 1-68 quickly:
- A&M over Kentucky
- Oregon State is 28???
- The following teams with worse resumes when you look at all metrics seeded higher than us: Dayton, Wisconsin, Texas Tech, Colorado, USC, Oregon State, Providence, Butler, Cincy
- Michigan St behind UVA
- Cal ranked 14, ahead of Kentucky
- Gonzaga behind Michigan, Vandy, Syracuse, Temple

All of these teams are in the same seed pool of 7-10 seeds and things have to be done regarding geography and conference affiliation (ie, PC and Butler may have been a 10 but BE has two 2 seeds so they may needed to be bumped to a 9 to avoid that).

Per Bracket Matrix Largest seeding differences were Oregon State (7 vs. 8.84 avg), USC (8 vs. 9.15 avg), and Wichita State (11 vs. 9.86 avg).

When you are arguing that a 8 should be a 9, or 3 seeded AM should be a 4 and UK should be a 3, are these really meaningful gripes?

 

[intlzncster]

The committee "screwing" the AAC narrative infuriates me. They gave us the benefit of the doubt this year with Tulsa and Temple, Cincy was seeded correctly and everyone thought UConn would be an 8 or 9 and they were. Last year you can debate Temple getting in or not, but no one mentions Cincy being over seeded with an 8. The last 2 years the committee gave the AAC more or less what it earned.

The problem with this is it hurts league perception imo. Good teams left out in prior years, who might have won some games. Then less than good teams like Tulsa this year, who probably won't, making the league look like it can't win games in the Dance. No benefit of the doubt in future years?

 

[tzznandrew]

Calipari got killed for complaining about seeding, but he had a good point. It's not the team with the bad seed that's punished, it's who they play. The example he used was Wichita State in 2014, which got Kentucky as an 8 and then would've had Louisville as a 4. Not sure any team has been hurt by bad seeding worse than them, and they were undefeated.

To be fair, based on actual resume I thought Kentucky at an 8 was fair. Turned out, though, that they had figured their poop out in the SEC tournament, and were playing like a much higher seed.

 

[businesslawyer]

All of these teams are in the same seed pool of 7-10 seeds and things have to be done regarding geography and conference affiliation (ie, PC and Butler may have been a 10 but BE has two 2 seeds so they may needed to be bumped to a 9 to avoid that).

Per Bracket Matrix Largest seeding differences were Oregon State (7 vs. 8.84 avg), USC (8 vs. 9.15 avg), and Wichita State (11 vs. 9.86 avg).

When you are arguing that a 8 should be a 9, or 3 seeded AM should be a 4 and UK should be a 3, are these really meaningful gripes?

The answer is no, they are not. They dont' claim that they rank the teams on a pure 1 to 68 S curve and then fill in the brackets -- they move teams a line or two to deal with geography, spreading out teams from the same conference, giving teams that deserve a local venue the venue but not giving mediocre teams home court advantage, etc. Add that to the fact that disagreeing over one or two seed lines ignores reasonable diverging opinions, and the complaint of, say Calipari is just idiotic.

 

[Inyatkin]

To be fair, based on actual resume I thought Kentucky at an 8 was fair. Turned out, though, that they had figured their poop out in the SEC tournament, and were playing like a much higher seed.

Right, but the eye test figures in somewhere. This was the preseason No. 1 team that was coming off its strongest play of the year in the conference tournament, and undefeated Wichita St. gets them in round 2? With Louisville waiting? That was rough.

 

[jrazz12]

All of these teams are in the same seed pool of 7-10 seeds and things have to be done regarding geography and conference affiliation (ie, PC and Butler may have been a 10 but BE has two 2 seeds so they may needed to be bumped to a 9 to avoid that).

Per Bracket Matrix Largest seeding differences were Oregon State (7 vs. 8.84 avg), USC (8 vs. 9.15 avg), and Wichita State (11 vs. 9.86 avg).

When you are arguing that a 8 should be a 9, or 3 seeded AM should be a 4 and UK should be a 3, are these really meaningful gripes?

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.

 

[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.