(03-17-2014 04:16 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 03:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:51 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Committee's job is not to seed based on predictions or efficiency but based on accomplishment.

The irony is in the past their motto was ALWAYS that they did not seed on accomplishment: they seed on who they think are the best teams and will likely advance the furthest.

No, no they haven't.

Yes they have. This is not even a debatable topic. May I suggest you read carefully what I said. Because your response was about the current committee. I never mentioned them I said IN THE PAST. And again, this is not even remotely debatable

(03-16-2014 07:13 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Dick Vitale ‏@DickieV 7m

Big 12 has 7 teams in the Dance. / American Athletic Conference got a raw deal in seeding #NoRespect SMU was left out

This^^period.... A football first conference like the B12 getting 70% of its schools in is absolutely absurd. Moreover, the A-10 getting 6 in is ridiculous. Almost every bball analyst thought SMU should have been in and Louisville as a #4 seed was very questionable. The response from two committee members was a joke about why SMU was left out and Louisville being seeded #4. Even if SMU had beaten Houston, the response from those two committee members gave me the impression that SMU wasn’t getting in regardless. SMU sweeping UCONN wasn’t even mentioned; instead, its poor ooc schedule along with the bottom half of our conference also being poor were emphasized. Sweeping UCONN should have at least gotten SMU a play-in game, and Louisville should have been a #2 seed (some analyst had the school as a #1 seed). I won’t even comment on the ineptitude of the committe by placing 3 (out of 4) of our schools in the same region….

(03-18-2014 08:21 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 04:16 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 03:49 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:51 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Committee's job is not to seed based on predictions or efficiency but based on accomplishment.

The irony is in the past their motto was ALWAYS that they did not seed on accomplishment: they seed on who they think are the best teams and will likely advance the furthest.

No, no they haven't.

Yes they have. This is not even a debatable topic. May I suggest you read carefully what I said. Because your response was about the current committee. I never mentioned them I said IN THE PAST. And again, this is not even remotely debatable

I've been predicting tournament teams every single year for the last decade (until this year, just too busy) and getting most of the seeds and all most every team right every year and I've been doing that because I do it based on total body of work. The committee looks heavily at RPI top 25, top 50 and top 100 wins. They looks less heavily but still a bit at bad losses. They've done it this way every year and everyone who makes a living predicting knows it, which is why so many people get it right year after year.

The committee will always tell you (and still tells you) they pick the "Best teams," but they do it based on total body of work and some pretty objective criteria that everyone who predicts will tell you do not really reflect "best team." If it were best team it would reflect stuff like kenpom efficiency or Sagarin predictor. Probably the closest it reflects is Sagarin Pure-Elo, but they use RPI the most in judging total body of work.

(03-17-2014 04:22 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:19 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  The RPI is antiquated and needs to be replaced. But, it is the game we play by. UL (just like UConn, Memphis and UC) was hurt by not having enough top100 RPI wins. And, that was because there weren't enough opportunities in conference. UL went 3-2 OOC against the top100 with losses to 18UK and 26UNC. UL was 3-3 in the Big4. Not a single bad loss. Just not enough 50-100RPI wins. The AAC only has one team like that.

UConn actually had 9 wins in the RPI top 100. And, is 1-100 an arbitrary cutoff? UConn also beat 102 and 104 Indiana and Washington respectively. Is the committee going to compare UConn to, say, St. Louis, both had 9 top 100 victories. So, the committee says, hmmm, they are equal (even though St. Louis's best OOC victory is against Indiana State at 73 while UConn's is Florida). St. Louis's other 8 top 100s are all within the conference. St. Louis's worst loss is to 188 duquesne while UConn's is 143 Houston.

St. Louis RPI, 27. SOS 73.
UConn RPI, 22, SOS 30.

I wrote this one for UConn's site (Team A is UConn and Team B is St. Louis):

Team A / Team B

RPI: 22 / 27

SOS: 30 / 73

Record: 26-8 / 26-6

Top 25 wins: 3 / 2

Top 50 wins: 7 / 5

Top 100 wins: both 9

101-150 wins: 4 / 2

151-200 wins: 4 / 10

201+ wins: 9 / 4

Top OOC victory: #1 in RPI from SEC / #73 in RPI from Missouri Valley (a non tourney team)

Worse loss: 143 RPI / 188 RPI

2nd worse loss: 53 RPI / 89 RPI

Rankings in committee: 26 / 18

Team B had two things over Team A: a better record, fewer wins over 201+s. Good for them on the former (though they had a weaker schedule so it was much easier, and they didn't do as well OOC). On the latter, the committee is essentially crediting Team B for their victory over a Southern Conference team (151-200) which is a better victory than Team A's win over an ACC team (207).
Then there's the issue of these arbitrary cutoffs (for instance, Team A beat a B1G team at #101 RPI and a Pac12 team at #104 RPI).

I understand your pain. But, like I've said before, it's a numbers game and the bottom half of the league let the top half down. And yes, they have arbitrary cutoffs. Also, you guys beat UF, with one of their starters missing...so, they are probably discounting that victory a little bit.

You guys are about even, but the difference is that you guys have a ton of 201+ wins and St. Louis has 151-200 wins. And, why is this? Because USF, UCF, Rutgers, Houston, and SMU scheduled absurdly weak OOC schedules. It doesn't mean that the bottom half of the AAC was worse quality-wise than that of the A10, but it does mean they scheduled poorer -- and therefore have lower RPIs. That poor scheduling meant you guys racked up 200+ RPI wins in conference and they got <200RPI wins...and hence a better seed.

(03-18-2014 02:01 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 04:22 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:19 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  The RPI is antiquated and needs to be replaced. But, it is the game we play by. UL (just like UConn, Memphis and UC) was hurt by not having enough top100 RPI wins. And, that was because there weren't enough opportunities in conference. UL went 3-2 OOC against the top100 with losses to 18UK and 26UNC. UL was 3-3 in the Big4. Not a single bad loss. Just not enough 50-100RPI wins. The AAC only has one team like that.

UConn actually had 9 wins in the RPI top 100. And, is 1-100 an arbitrary cutoff? UConn also beat 102 and 104 Indiana and Washington respectively. Is the committee going to compare UConn to, say, St. Louis, both had 9 top 100 victories. So, the committee says, hmmm, they are equal (even though St. Louis's best OOC victory is against Indiana State at 73 while UConn's is Florida). St. Louis's other 8 top 100s are all within the conference. St. Louis's worst loss is to 188 duquesne while UConn's is 143 Houston.

St. Louis RPI, 27. SOS 73.
UConn RPI, 22, SOS 30.

I wrote this one for UConn's site (Team A is UConn and Team B is St. Louis):

Team A / Team B

RPI: 22 / 27

SOS: 30 / 73

Record: 26-8 / 26-6

Top 25 wins: 3 / 2

Top 50 wins: 7 / 5

Top 100 wins: both 9

101-150 wins: 4 / 2

151-200 wins: 4 / 10

201+ wins: 9 / 4

Top OOC victory: #1 in RPI from SEC / #73 in RPI from Missouri Valley (a non tourney team)

Worse loss: 143 RPI / 188 RPI

2nd worse loss: 53 RPI / 89 RPI

Rankings in committee: 26 / 18

Team B had two things over Team A: a better record, fewer wins over 201+s. Good for them on the former (though they had a weaker schedule so it was much easier, and they didn't do as well OOC). On the latter, the committee is essentially crediting Team B for their victory over a Southern Conference team (151-200) which is a better victory than Team A's win over an ACC team (207).
Then there's the issue of these arbitrary cutoffs (for instance, Team A beat a B1G team at #101 RPI and a Pac12 team at #104 RPI).

Also, you guys beat UF, with one of their starters missing...so, they are probably discounting that victory a little bit.

You guys are about even, but the difference is that you guys have a ton of 201+ wins and St. Louis has 151-200 wins.

It's just absurd. Vermont is considered a quality win, Maine is considered awful.

By the way, Florida didn't have any starters missing. You're thinking of Wisconsin. When UConn played Florida, the Gators only had the backup combo guard Hill missing.

Lots of teams have players missing over the year. UConn had their second leading scorer missing in the first game against Cincy.

(03-18-2014 02:31 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 02:01 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 04:22 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:19 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  The RPI is antiquated and needs to be replaced. But, it is the game we play by. UL (just like UConn, Memphis and UC) was hurt by not having enough top100 RPI wins. And, that was because there weren't enough opportunities in conference. UL went 3-2 OOC against the top100 with losses to 18UK and 26UNC. UL was 3-3 in the Big4. Not a single bad loss. Just not enough 50-100RPI wins. The AAC only has one team like that.

UConn actually had 9 wins in the RPI top 100. And, is 1-100 an arbitrary cutoff? UConn also beat 102 and 104 Indiana and Washington respectively. Is the committee going to compare UConn to, say, St. Louis, both had 9 top 100 victories. So, the committee says, hmmm, they are equal (even though St. Louis's best OOC victory is against Indiana State at 73 while UConn's is Florida). St. Louis's other 8 top 100s are all within the conference. St. Louis's worst loss is to 188 duquesne while UConn's is 143 Houston.

St. Louis RPI, 27. SOS 73.
UConn RPI, 22, SOS 30.

I wrote this one for UConn's site (Team A is UConn and Team B is St. Louis):

Team A / Team B

RPI: 22 / 27

SOS: 30 / 73

Record: 26-8 / 26-6

Top 25 wins: 3 / 2

Top 50 wins: 7 / 5

Top 100 wins: both 9

101-150 wins: 4 / 2

151-200 wins: 4 / 10

201+ wins: 9 / 4

Top OOC victory: #1 in RPI from SEC / #73 in RPI from Missouri Valley (a non tourney team)

Worse loss: 143 RPI / 188 RPI

2nd worse loss: 53 RPI / 89 RPI

Rankings in committee: 26 / 18

Team B had two things over Team A: a better record, fewer wins over 201+s. Good for them on the former (though they had a weaker schedule so it was much easier, and they didn't do as well OOC). On the latter, the committee is essentially crediting Team B for their victory over a Southern Conference team (151-200) which is a better victory than Team A's win over an ACC team (207).
Then there's the issue of these arbitrary cutoffs (for instance, Team A beat a B1G team at #101 RPI and a Pac12 team at #104 RPI).

Also, you guys beat UF, with one of their starters missing...so, they are probably discounting that victory a little bit.

You guys are about even, but the difference is that you guys have a ton of 201+ wins and St. Louis has 151-200 wins.

It's just absurd. Vermont is considered a quality win, Maine is considered awful.

By the way, Florida didn't have any starters missing. You're thinking of Wisconsin. When UConn played Florida, the Gators only had the backup combo guard Hill missing.

Lots of teams have players missing over the year. UConn had their second leading scorer missing in the first game against Cincy.

I think you should have a higher seed because you are a better team, but I was merely telling why you don't. This is why the RPI has long been an antiquated means of comparing teams. But, regardless, the reason why we all got the shaft has to do with the scheduling of the bottom of the conference and how that killed our in-conference RPI.

As to Florida, even the NH Register puts it this way:

Quote: UConn already beat the Gators this season. Granted, it was back in early December, before a rowdy sellout at Gampel, and Florida was down a couple of key players. And it took a Napier buzzer-beater just to nab that one.

Player availability is something the committee uses when they give credit for wins. So, yes, you got credit for Florida, but they probably discounted it somewhat.

(03-18-2014 02:31 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  It's just absurd. Vermont is considered a quality win, Maine is considered awful.

Vermont lost by 1 point to Duke at Duke. Maine was swept by first year transitional Division I UMass-Lowell by double digits in both games. Maine won 5 games all year. Vermont beat Maine twice, both by larger margins than UConn beat Maine, including once in Maine's own arena. Do you seriously not see any difference between Vermont and Maine, to the point of calling it absurd?

(03-18-2014 04:15 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 02:31 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  It's just absurd. Vermont is considered a quality win, Maine is considered awful.

Vermont lost by 1 point to Duke at Duke. Maine was swept by first year transitional Division I UMass-Lowell by double digits in both games. Maine won 5 games all year. Vermont beat Maine twice, both by larger margins than UConn beat Maine, including once in Maine's own arena. Do you seriously not see any difference between Vermont and Maine, to the point of calling it absurd?

There is absolutely no difference. UConn plays these 2 teams yearly. And yearly it's just a matter of how bored everybody is. I see absolutely no reason why a team should get so much more credit for beating Vermont or NJIT or any of the other 100-150 low majors compared to the 250-300s. UConn has never lost to these teams for at least 35 years so it simply doesn't matter to me where they are ranked from 100-300.

(03-18-2014 02:52 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  [quote='upstater1' pid='10564643' dateline='1395171083']
[quote='pharaoh0' pid='10564474' dateline='1395169314'}

As to Florida, even the NH Register puts it this way:

Quote: UConn already beat the Gators this season. Granted, it was back in early December, before a rowdy sellout at Gampel, and Florida was down a couple of key players. And it took a Napier buzzer-beater just to nab that one.

Player availability is something the committee uses when they give credit for wins. So, yes, you got credit for Florida, but they probably discounted it somewhat.

What player other than Hill?

I watched that game, Wilbekin played. Just look at the boxscore. Wilbekin didn't play against Wisconsin, he did play against UConn.

Wilbekin played 35 minutes.

(03-18-2014 05:21 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 02:52 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  [quote='upstater1' pid='10564643' dateline='1395171083']
[quote='pharaoh0' pid='10564474' dateline='1395169314'}

As to Florida, even the NH Register puts it this way:

Quote: UConn already beat the Gators this season. Granted, it was back in early December, before a rowdy sellout at Gampel, and Florida was down a couple of key players. And it took a Napier buzzer-beater just to nab that one.

Player availability is something the committee uses when they give credit for wins. So, yes, you got credit for Florida, but they probably discounted it somewhat.

What player other than Hill?

I watched that game, Wilbekin played. Just look at the boxscore. Wilbekin didn't play against Wisconsin, he did play against UConn.

Wilbekin played 35 minutes.

It was just Hill (who doesn't even start for the Gators)...

Some people need to do their homework before posting...

(03-17-2014 12:22 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:08 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I understand the arguments being used...

The problem is those arguments are inconsequential to whether SMU is a tournament team. THEY ARE. Everyone knows it.

The committee needs to admit the flaws in their formula. The first step in solving a problem is admitting it.

School (vs RPI 1-25, vs RPI 26-50, vs RPI 51-100, vs. RPI 100+)
NC State (1-7 , 2-2 , 3-1 , 15-3)
SMU (3-4 , 1-1 , 0-1 , 19-3)

Top 100 wins: NC State has 6, SMU has 4

This came down to top100 RPI wins and the conference. SMU had better quality wins, but NC State had more wins and played in the better RPI conference. NC State also play 5 <100 OOC games (they went 2-3), whereas SMU only played 2 (they went 0-2). So, NC State gets the bid.

Huh?

I thought better quality wins was what it was all about, not total wins.

(03-18-2014 08:48 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:22 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:08 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I understand the arguments being used...

The problem is those arguments are inconsequential to whether SMU is a tournament team. THEY ARE. Everyone knows it.

The committee needs to admit the flaws in their formula. The first step in solving a problem is admitting it.

School (vs RPI 1-25, vs RPI 26-50, vs RPI 51-100, vs. RPI 100+)
NC State (1-7 , 2-2 , 3-1 , 15-3)
SMU (3-4 , 1-1 , 0-1 , 19-3)

Top 100 wins: NC State has 6, SMU has 4

This came down to top100 RPI wins and the conference. SMU had better quality wins, but NC State had more wins and played in the better RPI conference. NC State also play 5 <100 OOC games (they went 2-3), whereas SMU only played 2 (they went 0-2). So, NC State gets the bid.

Huh?

I thought better quality wins was what it was all about, not total wins.

I am just pointing out the system (you can see other posts where I talk about reasons why this is antiquated). "quality" is not the best word here because RPI does not actually measure quality. But, SMU had more <25RPI wins, but SMU also did most of its work outside of the RPI100. And the OOC tilt clearly goes to State. SMU and State were the last two teams, and NC State slightly won out based on using the RPI wins.

(03-18-2014 09:47 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:48 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:22 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:08 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I understand the arguments being used...

The problem is those arguments are inconsequential to whether SMU is a tournament team. THEY ARE. Everyone knows it.

The committee needs to admit the flaws in their formula. The first step in solving a problem is admitting it.

School (vs RPI 1-25, vs RPI 26-50, vs RPI 51-100, vs. RPI 100+)
NC State (1-7 , 2-2 , 3-1 , 15-3)
SMU (3-4 , 1-1 , 0-1 , 19-3)

Top 100 wins: NC State has 6, SMU has 4

This came down to top100 RPI wins and the conference. SMU had better quality wins, but NC State had more wins and played in the better RPI conference. NC State also play 5 <100 OOC games (they went 2-3), whereas SMU only played 2 (they went 0-2). So, NC State gets the bid.

Huh?

I thought better quality wins was what it was all about, not total wins.

I am just pointing out the system (you can see other posts where I talk about reasons why this is antiquated). "quality" is not the best word here because RPI does not actually measure quality. But, SMU had more <25RPI wins, but SMU also did most of its work outside of the RPI100. And the OOC tilt clearly goes to State. SMU and State were the last two teams, and NC State slightly won out based on Coach K making a stink.

FIFY

(03-18-2014 09:51 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 09:47 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I am just pointing out the system (you can see other posts where I talk about reasons why this is antiquated). "quality" is not the best word here because RPI does not actually measure quality. But, SMU had more <25RPI wins, but SMU also did most of its work outside of the RPI100. And the OOC tilt clearly goes to State. SMU and State were the last two teams, and NC State slightly won out based on Coach K making a stink.

FIFY

Don't blame Coach K...blame the teams in conference that didn't give SMU opportunities to rack up better RPI wins. It is what it is. And, if you want to blame someone for speaking out, look at Aresco. He didn't do enough to defend his league and highlight why the seeding and team clustering was disappointing. He should have highlighted that his league should not have been penalized for not giving its higher ranked teams more opportunities at better RPI wins.

Someone pointed out to me that Detroit last year had a 60 RPI.

UConn scheduled them.

They fell off the map of the continent this year.

And somehow this matters a lot to the committee!

(03-19-2014 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  Someone pointed out to me that Detroit last year had a 60 RPI.

UConn scheduled them.

They fell off the map of the continent this year.

And somehow this matters a lot to the committee!

Yes. It is the system that the committee uses. But, UConn's problem wasn't Detroit. UConn only had 6 opportunities for high RPI wins and 2 for okay ones. The A10 had 9 teams with <100RPIs. Basically every game they played in conference improved their RPI. There weren't many "bad losses" and most of the wins counted as good or okay wins.

Just ask Memphis fans about losing in CUSA...or for that matter, winning in CUSA. Memphis had good teams, but they needed a few good OOC wins and had to go undefeated in conference to even sniff a good seed.

(03-19-2014 09:42 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  Someone pointed out to me that Detroit last year had a 60 RPI.

UConn scheduled them.

They fell off the map of the continent this year.

And somehow this matters a lot to the committee!

Yes. It is the system that the committee uses. But, UConn's problem wasn't Detroit. UConn only had 6 opportunities for high RPI wins and 2 for okay ones. The A10 had 9 teams with <100RPIs. Basically every game they played in conference improved their RPI. There weren't many "bad losses" and most of the wins counted as good or okay wins.

Just ask Memphis fans about losing in CUSA...or for that matter, winning in CUSA. Memphis had good teams, but they needed a few good OOC wins and had to go undefeated in conference to even sniff a good seed.

This system is really antiquated, to say the least. It might have made sense back when there were 150 teams, but now with 450+ teams, it's gotten out of control.

Apparently, there is a school out there in D1 named the Incarnate Word!

(03-19-2014 10:21 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:42 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  Someone pointed out to me that Detroit last year had a 60 RPI.

UConn scheduled them.

They fell off the map of the continent this year.

And somehow this matters a lot to the committee!

Yes. It is the system that the committee uses. But, UConn's problem wasn't Detroit. UConn only had 6 opportunities for high RPI wins and 2 for okay ones. The A10 had 9 teams with <100RPIs. Basically every game they played in conference improved their RPI. There weren't many "bad losses" and most of the wins counted as good or okay wins.

Just ask Memphis fans about losing in CUSA...or for that matter, winning in CUSA. Memphis had good teams, but they needed a few good OOC wins and had to go undefeated in conference to even sniff a good seed.

This system is really antiquated, to say the least. It might have made sense back when there were 150 teams, but now with 450+ teams, it's gotten out of control.

Apparently, there is a school out there in D1 named the Incarnate Word!

I 100% agree. We really need to find a better way to judge teams.

(03-19-2014 11:43 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 10:21 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:42 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 09:14 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  Someone pointed out to me that Detroit last year had a 60 RPI.

UConn scheduled them.

They fell off the map of the continent this year.

And somehow this matters a lot to the committee!

Yes. It is the system that the committee uses. But, UConn's problem wasn't Detroit. UConn only had 6 opportunities for high RPI wins and 2 for okay ones. The A10 had 9 teams with <100RPIs. Basically every game they played in conference improved their RPI. There weren't many "bad losses" and most of the wins counted as good or okay wins.

Just ask Memphis fans about losing in CUSA...or for that matter, winning in CUSA. Memphis had good teams, but they needed a few good OOC wins and had to go undefeated in conference to even sniff a good seed.

This system is really antiquated, to say the least. It might have made sense back when there were 150 teams, but now with 450+ teams, it's gotten out of control.

Apparently, there is a school out there in D1 named the Incarnate Word!

I 100% agree. We really need to find a better way to judge teams.

Any new way will produce just as many whiners (and legitimate gripes) about being snubbed and poor seeding. It's inevitable.