WOW! Respect for The American!

[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.

 

[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.