think this is interesting:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...ion-system

I'll put this with 2 teams that are really interesting with this case- and would be a fascinating test case with the committee if this were selection Sunday.....

Houston and Providence....

Current RPI- PC 43 Hou 57

tier 1- PC 2-2 Hou 2-1
tier 2- PC 3-3 Hou 1-2
tier 3- PC 4-1 Hou 3-0
tier 4- PC 4-0 Hou 8-1

but new criteria-
PC (RPI: 43 KPI: 36, SOR: 58, AVG: 45.67) (BPI: 63, POM: 57, SAG: 54, AVG: 58) ( AVG: 51.83)
Hou (RPI: 57 KPI: 65, SOR: 43, AVG: 55) (BPI: 43, POM: 44, SAG: 46, AVG: 44.33) ( AVG: 49.67)

Houston numbers are the same as before in terms of the tiers...
for Providence using last year- top 50- 3-3 51-100 4-2 101-200 3-1 and 201-351 3-0

Not to mention- Houston beat Providence.

Last year and before, Houston would have had no chance of being ahead of Providence. Now, I think there's a real shot that Houston would get in over Providence.

My takeaway from that ESPN article is that each committee member is free to rely on whichever metrics they want to use to argue for a certain team being in or out or having a certain seeding if they're in. In other words, there's no one metric or composite of metrics that they're obligated to follow, or that bracket builders can use to confidently predict who's in and who's out.

(01-19-2018 03:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  My takeaway from that ESPN article is that each committee member is free to rely on whichever metrics they want to use to argue for a certain team being in or out or having a certain seeding if they're in. In other words, there's no one metric or composite of metrics that they're obligated to follow, or that bracket builders can use to confidently predict who's in and who's out.

In other words, the committee will make its selections the same way it always has. Subjectively. Which when you get right down to it is the only way they can choose. That's why they get the big bucks.

Providence didn't have some of its key players when they lost to Houston. If PC was healthy outcome could have very well been different

(01-19-2018 05:20 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  Providence didn't have some of its key players when they lost to Houston. If PC was healthy outcome could have very well been different

That's fine, but it also doesn't change the fact that the profile that the way that the committee can/will look at it now is much different than it used to be using the advanced metrics. The grouping thing is pretty big for Providence-
last year- top 50 3-3 vs this year tier 1- 2-2
last year 51-100 4-2 vs this year tier 2- 3-3

that's a pretty big difference. 2 fewer top 2 tier games- both of those wins.

Unless they have a significant superstar, it doesn't really matter. Each team could use the injury excuse to death.

It's about consistency, that's the single biggest factor.

Providence all the way. Creighton's AD is on the committee.

(01-19-2018 07:25 PM)leofrog Wrote:  Providence all the way. Creighton's AD is on the committee.

And he's 1 of many voters. A team won't just make the tourney because of an AD on the committee.

(01-20-2018 02:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:25 PM)leofrog Wrote:  Providence all the way. Creighton's AD is on the committee.

And he's 1 of many voters. A team won't just make the tourney because of an AD on the committee.

1. My comment was sarcastic with all the AAC fans always saying how the deck is stacked against them.
2. He is 1 of 10, so still a bit influential.
3. If you look at past history, it does help to have representation on the committee. If the last spot did come down to Houston and Providence, who do you think the Creighton AD would vote for, and try to sway the committee to vote for?

But, my original comment was sarcastic.

we shall see how rest of season plays out, but a PC team that beat Butler, Xavier and Creighton should see its chances improve

Probably a moot point. I think both teams will end up being safely in.

Houston hasn't garnered an at-large bid in 27 years. Lots of close calls and what not. Gotta finish it. Don't jinx it.

(01-20-2018 10:16 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 02:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:25 PM)leofrog Wrote:  Providence all the way. Creighton's AD is on the committee.

And he's 1 of many voters. A team won't just make the tourney because of an AD on the committee.

1. My comment was sarcastic with all the AAC fans always saying how the deck is stacked against them.
2. He is 1 of 10, so still a bit influential.
3. If you look at past history, it does help to have representation on the committee. If the last spot did come down to Houston and Providence, who do you think the Creighton AD would vote for, and try to sway the committee to vote for?

But, my original comment was sarcastic.

I think there is some conference self-serving for sure. I used to really gnash my teeth with BYU and Holmoe. I think twice his clubs were out of the discussion only to find their way magically into the field. I mean, you can't expect a committee member to not value their home conference to some degree...but the selections are a bit curious at times.

(01-22-2018 09:30 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 10:16 AM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-20-2018 02:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 07:25 PM)leofrog Wrote:  Providence all the way. Creighton's AD is on the committee.

And he's 1 of many voters. A team won't just make the tourney because of an AD on the committee.

1. My comment was sarcastic with all the AAC fans always saying how the deck is stacked against them.
2. He is 1 of 10, so still a bit influential.
3. If you look at past history, it does help to have representation on the committee. If the last spot did come down to Houston and Providence, who do you think the Creighton AD would vote for, and try to sway the committee to vote for?

But, my original comment was sarcastic.

I think there is some conference self-serving for sure. I used to really gnash my teeth with BYU and Holmoe. I think twice his clubs were out of the discussion only to find their way magically into the field. I mean, you can't expect a committee member to not value their home conference to some degree...but the selections are a bit curious at times.

You do understand that whenever his team is discussed, Holmoe (or any other AD) is required to leave the room? Similarly, Conference commissioners on the committee are expected to be silent during any discussion involving a team from their conference.

It should also be pointed out that, despite significant "representation" on the committee by people with ties to schools or conferences outside the P6, the power conferences are still overwhemingly the recipients of the available at-large bids.

AAC will get two at-large. You need a top 45 RPI

(01-22-2018 02:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  AAC will get two at-large. You need a top 45 RPI

You do understand the AAC is projected to have 4 teams finishing in the top 42 in RPI? And if Temple can get 2 unexpected wins, they could get in the top 40 as well in RPI. It's VERY possible the AAC winds up with 5 overall....

(01-22-2018 02:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  AAC will get two at-large. You need a top 45 RPI

You do understand the AAC is projected to have 4 teams finishing in the top 42 in RPI? And if Temple can get 2 unexpected wins, they could get in the top 40 as well in RPI. It's VERY possible the AAC winds up with 5 overall....

I also understand politics. And I think they will wind up with only 3 in the top 45-50, although one will be close.

The SEC deserves 8 but will get 7, and pretty much the same for the Big East (deserve 7 get 6) and Big 12 (desreeve 8 get 7). The ACC arguably has 10 schools, but will get 8 or 9 in only. I am at 25 at-large already. The B1G probably deserves only 4 but will get 5, the P12 deserves 3 but will get 4 (they have a bunch of schools like Houston hovering at the margin, and their power says they can't go down below those thresholds fof 5 and 4 -- these really come at the expense of the Big East and ACC, not the AAC). That brings the total to 32 schools. I give 2 of the 4 remaining to the AAC. St. Mary's and Gonzaga are both in, so the WCC gets 1 at-large.

That leaves 1 at large and 6 conferences are shorted. My own WAG is that last spot will be reserved for a mid-major conference with a top school 45 school that loses in it's conference tourney.

My analysis of 2 at large for the AAC is based on the above, and the unlikelihood that they would win a proxy fight in the committee for the last spot against a B1G, ACC or B12 school, if it doesn't go to some tourney upset Mid-Major.

Pac 12 really has no chance of 4 at all. UCLA is 4th team- but their projected RPI right now is 63.

I'd say that the ACC will be really hard pressed to get even 9. Virginia Tech is the team probable on the bubble at 18-13 and they have OOC SOS of 324. Teams like that never make the tourney. Notre Dame is at 8- and they have a projected RPI of 57.8- due to an OOC SOS of 216. I think it's VERY possible the ACC winds up with only 7.

Big 12- you have to look at the teams at the margin. Kansas St is projected to be 8th team by RPI. The problem for them- OOC SOS is only 326. So 7 for them is the max.....

I think looking-
ACC- 7- 6 at large
BE- 7- 6 at large
B12- 7- 6 at large
B10- 5- 4 at large
P12- 3- 2 at large
SEC- 8- 7 at large
so right there adding in WCC team- you have 32 at larges. AAC will get 3 of those last 4 pretty easily leaving 1 spot left.

MWC will get two in - Boise and Nevada

(01-22-2018 03:11 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  MWC will get two in - Boise and Nevada

far from a lock. If it came to it, SMU blew out Boise. I think if Nevada loses, they're in. But far from the same for Boise- with a OOC SOS of 190.