The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-07-2018 11:10 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(02-07-2018 09:30 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-07-2018 08:55 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(02-06-2018 06:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Rag, smu didn't set any bar. Uc was the only tournament task smu beat all season. They objectively had the resume of a 7 seed when it comes to traditional metrics. Committee seeded them higher than they could have but litter than what they were skill wise. Uc had a better resume than smu but lost to them twice. Seemed like cutie split the difference. Different season. Different resumes.

Same league

The committee does not seed based on conference. Its why Gonzaga and Wichita State have both been given one seeds by the committee... as has St Joes. It's why UC got a 1 seed in CUSA. It's why SD State got a 2 seed from the MWC and the the MWC had 5 teams in the NCAA tournament in 2013 (with New Mexico as high as a 3 despite having 6 losses. The Committee cares about resume. Certain resume factors often give an advantage to power conference teams because they get more chances against other tournament caliber teams, but no conference is limited by what the conference got the year before. We've seen the PAC 12 get 1 team in (where it's regular season champ was left out) because of how bad the resumes were one year. The factors the committee considers are consistent. Your focus on the league is misplaced.

The committee cares about money.
All references to past seeding prior to P5 formation is irrelevant counselor. Just ask Mick about the money match ups. And the highest AAC seed was? That's the only league that is in question.

LOL. I've been able to predict fairly accurately the committee's seeds for a decade plus every year. I never use "money match ups" as a criteria. The committee is open about their criteria and their seeding / who is included is almost always completely justifiable based on that criteria. I have issues with how they prioritize certain things and their use of the RPI as a grouping mechanism, but it's pretty easy to follow and they are remarkably consistent in how they apply it. There have been a couple of weird outliers over the years, but even those haven't been ones you could call "money match ups".... (Example Air Force's inclusion back in 2006 was inconsistent with committee criteria)