Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Selection Committee Metrics
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
EverRespect Online
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 23,972
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 658
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
I'd like to see it go back to 64 and eliminate the play in round. It is ridiculous.
01-31-2018 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ThreeifbyLightning Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,600
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 223
I Root For: Jenna Webb
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
(01-31-2018 02:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  ...and eliminate the play in round. It is ridiculous.

Agreed on that portion, but I like the idea of giving the top eight seeds a bye. It allows 16 additional teams to make the field from the traditional 64 number (or 12 more in current terms) which would ensure that virtually the top 50 teams are likely to be in the tournament. Anything beyond that and then you're going to start seeing 16-15 teams getting at large bids, because of the conference they are from.

It's very difficult for non-power conference teams to penetrate the top 20 to 25 metrics, but we are often in that 35 to 50 range with some of our better programs that absolutely deserve to be in the tournament.
01-31-2018 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Online
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 23,972
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 658
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
(01-31-2018 02:17 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  ...and eliminate the play in round. It is ridiculous.

Agreed on that portion, but I like the idea of giving the top eight seeds a bye. It allows 16 additional teams to make the field from the traditional 64 number (or 12 more in current terms) which would ensure that virtually the top 50 teams are likely to be in the tournament. Anything beyond that and then you're going to start seeing 16-15 teams getting at large bids, because of the conference they are from.

It's very difficult for non-power conference teams to penetrate the top 20 to 25 metrics, but we are often in that 35 to 50 range with some of our better programs that absolutely deserve to be in the tournament.

That is because they keep changing the evaluation criteria. Our better programs used to have no problem getting bids. That changed about 5 years ago when they essentially ditched the RPI and that is what needs to change back. I don't think watering it down even more will do much unless they made a .500 conference record a requirement, else they will be inviting bad P5 teams, and I don't think earning an 8 seed as opposed to a 9 is special enough to earn a bye. You could make a better argument for top 4 seed byes, but more often than not an 8 seed is going to be someone like Kansas State that finishes something like 18-12 (10-8). I don't think that warrants a bye.
01-31-2018 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ThreeifbyLightning Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,600
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 223
I Root For: Jenna Webb
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
(01-31-2018 02:28 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:17 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  ...and eliminate the play in round. It is ridiculous.

Agreed on that portion, but I like the idea of giving the top eight seeds a bye. It allows 16 additional teams to make the field from the traditional 64 number (or 12 more in current terms) which would ensure that virtually the top 50 teams are likely to be in the tournament. Anything beyond that and then you're going to start seeing 16-15 teams getting at large bids, because of the conference they are from.

It's very difficult for non-power conference teams to penetrate the top 20 to 25 metrics, but we are often in that 35 to 50 range with some of our better programs that absolutely deserve to be in the tournament.

That is because they keep changing the evaluation criteria. Our better programs used to have no problem getting bids. That changed about 5 years ago when they essentially ditched the RPI and that is what needs to change back. I don't think watering it down even more will do much unless they made a .500 conference record a requirement, else they will be inviting bad P5 teams, and I don't think earning an 8 seed as opposed to a 9 is special enough to earn a bye. You could make a better argument for top 4 seed byes, but more often than not an 8 seed is going to be someone like Kansas State that finishes something like 18-12 (10-8). I don't think that warrants a bye.

The top eight seeds in the entire tournament my friend - in other words the top eight teams in the nation. Teams one through eight. Not an "8 seed" in each individual bracket. So, seeds #1 and #2 in each of the four brackets would be the only ones getting a bye.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2018 02:34 PM by ThreeifbyLightning.)
01-31-2018 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EverRespect Online
Free Kaplony
*

Posts: 23,972
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 658
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
(01-31-2018 02:33 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:28 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:17 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  ...and eliminate the play in round. It is ridiculous.

Agreed on that portion, but I like the idea of giving the top eight seeds a bye. It allows 16 additional teams to make the field from the traditional 64 number (or 12 more in current terms) which would ensure that virtually the top 50 teams are likely to be in the tournament. Anything beyond that and then you're going to start seeing 16-15 teams getting at large bids, because of the conference they are from.

It's very difficult for non-power conference teams to penetrate the top 20 to 25 metrics, but we are often in that 35 to 50 range with some of our better programs that absolutely deserve to be in the tournament.

That is because they keep changing the evaluation criteria. Our better programs used to have no problem getting bids. That changed about 5 years ago when they essentially ditched the RPI and that is what needs to change back. I don't think watering it down even more will do much unless they made a .500 conference record a requirement, else they will be inviting bad P5 teams, and I don't think earning an 8 seed as opposed to a 9 is special enough to earn a bye. You could make a better argument for top 4 seed byes, but more often than not an 8 seed is going to be someone like Kansas State that finishes something like 18-12 (10-8). I don't think that warrants a bye.

The top eight seeds in the entire tournament my friend - in other words the top eight teams in the nation. Teams one through eight. Not an "8 seed" in each individual bracket. So, seeds #1 and #2 in each of the four brackets would be the only ones getting a bye.
Ok, that makes more sense.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
01-31-2018 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BeagleUSM Offline
Thrillsville
*

Posts: 8,445
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 310
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: Hattiesburg
Post: #36
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
WKU has a shot if they slip up in the conference tourney provided they go 16-2 or something like that in conference play. Will be tough for MTSU IMO. They needed to win at least 1 vs Auburn, USC, or Miami.

Not to brag but I do a bracketology each week. Ranked above Palm and Lunardi in the BracketMatrix. Just so you guys don’t think I’m some random hack that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 03-wink
01-31-2018 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUFan518 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,367
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 24
I Root For: WKU
Location: Lexington KY
Post: #37
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
(01-31-2018 10:23 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 10:09 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 09:41 AM)CincyDave Wrote:  The current problem for WKU, assuming we win out (other than maybe a loss to MTSU again) is the Ohio loss. That loss looks worse and worse everyday. Missouri State and Wisconsin losses also don't look very good.

Every team in the nation has multiple "bad losses" this season besides maybe 1-3 teams....Plus those two losses were without 2 players which with Power conf. teams they give them a benefit of the doubt, for us probably not but its an angle to play....Either or we need to worry about ourselves taking care of business on what we control....We win every game rest of the season and tournament we don't have to worry about it, if we lose 1 or 2 games along the way we will be sweating regardless what Ohio, Missouri St, Austin Peay, etc does....Remember RPI is just one metric used, no telling what they actually use in that room...I am sure it varies depending on what conference you are from and the politics of the day...

MT doesn't have any bad losses yet. Emphasis on yet.

But as you indicate it is very easy for a team to take a night off on a game they should win easily that looks bad at selection time. We lost three games to Auburn, USC and Miami by an average of a little over three points. We lost the USC and Miami games in the waning seconds. Either of those two we could have won - the ball just didn't bounce our way late. Had we gotten either of those we would be in much better shape.

Here is what I believe based on the direction and trend that the NCAA is moving towards. If we could be 30-4 with an RPI in the low 30s and not get an NCAA bid (which is exactly what would have happened last year) there is very little chance either one of us are getting an at large this year. Either MT or wkcc will have to win out and lose the championship game of the tournament. That's about the only scenario I can see either of us getting an at large.

Might be true, but this season the Pac 12 hardly has any tournament worthy teams and the A-10 has had a very down season also....Even Big 10 doesn't have any strong teams past top 5...
01-31-2018 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dahbeed Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,685
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 414
I Root For: wku toppahs!!!
Location: in womans fantasies
Post: #38
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
(01-31-2018 02:46 PM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  WKU has a shot if they slip up in the conference tourney provided they go 16-2 or something like that in conference play. Will be tough for MTSU IMO. They needed to win at least 1 vs Auburn, USC, or Miami.

Not to brag but I do a bracketology each week. Ranked above Palm and Lunardi in the BracketMatrix. Just so you guys don’t think I’m some random hack that doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 03-wink

Appreciate you clearing that up. Here I was thinking you might be some random hack that doesn’t know what you’re talking about! lol

Good stuff.
01-31-2018 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
69topper Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 110
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 4
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
(01-31-2018 02:05 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 11:43 AM)69topper Wrote:  I've always thought they should go to 128 teams being invited. It would only be one more game and after one game you are down to 64 teams and back on schedule. Think of all the revenue that would be generated from just one more game plus you would for sure have all the team's in that truly deserve to be in the tournament. No team could truly ***** about being left out. The teams that are on the bubble couldn't complain too much if they are the first team out if they are that low. I'm sure some would but nothing's perfect unless everyone is invited. The main things is that no team would finish at 27-3 and be left out while some p5 team gets in at 18-13.
The NIT and other sideshow tournaments would go by the wayside but I guarantee that every college kid would rather play in the ncaa tournament than the nit. I've been proposing this for 40yrs. Seems like a no brainer to me. Thoughts on this anyone?

Somebody will always find a way to *****. Merica.

I believe 80 is the right number rather than 128. Give the top 8 seeds a bye -- seeds #1 and #2 in each bracket and carry the tournament from there as usual.

Following on 69's thoughts above, only seeding the top 32 presents some problems. Eight and nine seeds are virtually interchangeable. If you are an eight seed and 32nd seed overall but then draw what would be a 16 seed while the #1 seed gets what would otherwise be a nine seed in the first round then you have some consternation. Seed is therefore necessary. The problem is the fact that too much subjectivity is intertwined into both seeding and the selection process. The only way around this is to sign all teams an indiscriminate number randomly generated that then can be matched without bias to their record, results, and other metrics. Removing team names would create at least a little bit of objectivity. "Eye test" should not be a selective factor as it invites way too much bias and subjectivity.
01-31-2018 06:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
69topper Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 110
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 4
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Selection Committee Metrics
(01-31-2018 06:13 PM)69topper Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 02:05 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  
(01-31-2018 11:43 AM)69topper Wrote:  I've always thought they should go to 128 teams being invited. It would only be one more game and after one game you are down to 64 teams and back on schedule. Think of all the revenue that would be generated from just one more game plus you would for sure have all the team's in that truly deserve to be in the tournament. No team could truly ***** about being left out. The teams that are on the bubble couldn't complain too much if they are the first team out if they are that low. I'm sure some would but nothing's perfect unless everyone is invited. The main things is that no team would finish at 27-3 and be left out while some p5 team gets in at 18-13.
The NIT and other sideshow tournaments would go by the wayside but I guarantee that every college kid would rather play in the ncaa tournament than the nit. I've been proposing this for 40yrs. Seems like a no brainer to me. Thoughts on this anyone?

Somebody will always find a way to *****. Merica.

I believe 80 is the right number rather than 128. Give the top 8 seeds a bye -- seeds #1 and #2 in each bracket and carry the tournament from there as usual.

Following on 69's thoughts above, only seeding the top 32 presents some problems. Eight and nine seeds are virtually interchangeable. If you are an eight seed and 32nd seed overall but then draw what would be a 16 seed while the #1 seed gets what would otherwise be a nine seed in the first round then you have some consternation. Seed is therefore necessary. The problem is the fact that too much subjectivity is intertwined into both seeding and the selection process. The only way around this is to sign all teams an indiscriminate number randomly generated that then can be matched without bias to their record, results, and other metrics. Removing team names would create at least a little bit of objectivity. "Eye test" should not be a selective factor as it invites way too much bias and subjectivity.
32 seeds I stated was a subjective number I just threw out there. My real point was that I don't feel all teams should be seeded. Blind draw after initial seeding was done whatever that was determined to be.
01-31-2018 06:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.