WOW! Respect for The American!

[tzznandrew]

You are not alone:
Two Double Digit Seeds favored by Vegas:
#11 Gonzaga -2.5 over #6 Seton Hall
#10 VCU -3 over #7 Oregon State

Ha! Looking at the bracket, I was seriously considering Gonzaga over Seton Hall too.

That said, I'm pretty sure my brackets will be a mess, so this projection is not saying much.

 

[tzznandrew]

I think this is pretty spot on.

With KU being the #1 overall seed that means we are the #1 9 seed, that is 13 spots from being out. I do not think we jumped 13 spots this weekend, we were in before the Cincy game.

Many of us were saying we were much safer than people were suggesting. This seems like further evidence. Likely safer than even the most generous of us thought.

I mean, Tulsa got in despite getting housed by Memphis. There is no conceivable world where a team with a worse resume than us loses to a worse team than we were playing and is in while we were out.

Apparently that Adams 3 changed our teams attitude and seed, but didn't "save" the season with regards to the NCAAs.

 

[auror]

Oregon State had a better RPI, more top 25 wins, more top 50 wins, more top 100 and a MUCH better NCOOC, but hey lets not let facts get in the way!

RPI is terrible and OSU is a great example of it.
Oregon St Tier 'A' 5-9, Tier 'B' 3-1, Rest 11-2
UConn Tier 'A' 5-7, Tier 'B' 3-1, Rest 16-2

So which is better, 2 Tier 'A' losses or 5 "rest" wins?

 

[businesslawyer]

After seeing the brackets, I thought we would have worked our way up to a 7. Oregon St. is a flipping 7 and was said to be a bubble team. Cuse is a 10. No, we weren't respected.

Oh stop. The 9 is far from ridiculous. Could we have been a 7? Sure, but if you think that you can know exactly what seed number is fair for every school, instead of accepting that there is a range within which reasonable people can differ, you're a dope.

 

[David 76]

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

 

[Jerry1714]

Many of us were saying we were much safer than people were suggesting. This seems like further evidence. Likely safer than even the most generous of us thought.

I mean, Tulsa got in despite getting housed by Memphis. There is no conceivable world where a team with a worse resume than us loses to a worse team than we were playing and is in while we were out.

Apparently that Adams 3 changed our teams attitude and seed, but didn't "save" the season with regards to the NCAAs.

Agreed, I thought we could/should be in with a loss to Cincy, but the seeding, specifically Tulsa's inclusion and Cincys being a 9, tells me we were in no matter the outcome of that game.

 

[3rdbass]

I don't even think Tulsa was watching the show after that clunker in the quarterfinals.

Nope and it feels like a makeup for past snubs from the AAC. Monmouth deserved it more than them.

 

[weyuo]

I'm a little surprised Memphis, after going to the AAC Tourney final game didn't get an invite to the NIT. Houston's there but no Memphis. It will be interesting to see if Pastner is back next season.

 

[Rocktheworld]

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

It has been stated that the committee takes much less consideration for conference tournament games. So the answer is Option #1

And I think it's clear that if Cuse and Tulsa made it in, we weren't on the bubble before the tournament.

 

[methodology]

You are not alone:
Two Double Digit Seeds favored by Vegas:
#11 Gonzaga -2.5 over #6 Seton Hall
#10 VCU -3 over #7 Oregon State

Seton Hall is a legit team. Very young but gelled down the stretch. Whitehead is an NBA player and next year will be a superstar in college. They have lots of other weapons on the perimeter and front court. Their defense is top notch also.

Loved the disrespect they got in the big East tourney by vegas, bet them every game and profited 5k.

Probably going to parlay that in taking them vs the zags just have to look at all the numbers and analytics to see if the bet makes sense

 

[don356]

I actually think the 4 ot game helped the league. I did not see one game this weekend where it was not mentioned. It's good to see both teams got in. Cincy actually has a pretty good path. St Joe definitely beatable particularly for a physical team, and Oregon is not a perennial power. Their guys are not going to be season tourney vets while Cincy had UK last year so they have been down that road. If i had to align with a 1, Oregon would be my choice. This Tulsa/Mich. game will be interesting.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Even if the NCAA only uses the RPI to group wins, they look pretty good because the PAC had such a ridiculously inflated RPI.

It's ridiculous. One of the most effed up brackets I remember. Can't even wrap my head around filling one out right now. Not just cause I'm drunk.

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

 

[BoatShow]

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

I'M NOT THAT !!!!

jkjk

 

[AdamaNation]

Getting 4 teams is amazing. We weren't screwed with the seeding, we were snubbed with the matchups. Each team got hosed.

And we will go 4-0 the first round

 

[noeynox]

I'll drop this here rather than starting a new thread. More teams than the SEC and A10. One less than the Big East. Lets set aside that we are dying to get out of this league for a moment. As long as were here, I prefer this to be a multiple bid league.

http://fansided.com/2016/03/13/ncaa-tournament-2016-most-bids-by-conference/

 

[Matrim55]

Ha! Looking at the bracket, I was seriously considering Gonzaga over Seton Hall too.

Don't do it! Seton Hall murders teams that have trouble stopping dribble penetration. Whitehead will feast.

 

[King Jonathan]

I still remember that year when Louisville went 29-5, won the regular season and conference tourney, no bad losses that year, and still was only a 4 seed. And I believe SMU was a top 30 if not top 25 team and got snubbed

 

[Brochacho]

I still remember that year when Louisville went 29-5, won the regular season and conference tourney, no bad losses that year, and still was only a 4 seed. And I believe SMU was a top 30 if not top 25 team and got snubbed

Louisville finished #1 in the kenpom that year. SMU #30.

 

[Jerry1714]

I still remember that year when Louisville went 29-5, won the regular season and conference tourney, no bad losses that year, and still was only a 4 seed. And I believe SMU was a top 30 if not top 25 team and got snubbed

And South Alabama was given an at large over Syracuse a few years back, stuff happens it is not all conspiracy theories.

 

[ctchamps]

And South Alabama was given an at large over Syracuse a few years back, stuff happens it is not all conspiracy theories.

I would eliminate conspiracy. But I wouldn't eliminate bias.

 

[Inyatkin]

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.

 

[tzznandrew]

I still remember that year when Louisville went 29-5, won the regular season and conference tourney, no bad losses that year, and still was only a 4 seed. And I believe SMU was a top 30 if not top 25 team and got snubbed

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.

 

[Jerry1714]

I would eliminate conspiracy. But I wouldn't eliminate bias.

Sure, you have a group of humans it is impossible to eliminate bias.

The committee is all over the map every year, choosing South Alabama over Cuse does not mean the committee "hated" or "screwed" the BE, and giving Lville a 4 seed 3 years ago does not mean the same about the AAC.

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.

 

[King Jonathan]

Sure, you have a group of humans it is impossible to eliminate bias.

The committee is all over the map every year, choosing South Alabama over Cuse does not mean the committee "hated" or "screwed" the BE, and giving Lville a 4 seed 3 years ago does not mean the same about the AAC.

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.

I believe the seeding was more than fair for the AAC this year, and Tulsa was even a stretch in the AAC's favor. I think UCONN winning the tourney and them beating us in the regular season helped their case.

 

[auror]

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 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.