Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Did the new selection system help mid majors?
Author Message
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,794
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 346
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #21
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
Due to my chronic wonkiness, I couldn't help myself once again. I created an 80 team field, based on five rating services rather than a selection committee. The ratings I used were the Massey Composite, KenPom, Sagarin, ESPN BPI and NCAA RPI.

I took the ratings for each school, threw out the highest and lowest ranks for each school, and averaged the remaining three. My 80 team field includes all 32 conference champions plus the 48 highest ranked non champions at large. Then I seeded them based strictly by rank, with the top 48 schools given a first round bye. The other 32 would play the first round on Tuesday and Wednesday, just like the current play-in games. However, they would be played at the 8 sub-regional sites so the 16 winners who advance don't have to travel somewhere else.

I did put a limit of 40 teams from the six power conferences (P5 + Big East), leaving 40 spots for the remaining 26 conferences.

Using this method, 3 schools who received bids this year would not have made my 80 team field. They were (seeds in parentheses) Alabama (9), Providence (10), and Syracuse (11).

15 schools are in my 80 team field who did not get one of the 68 bids this year. Their seeds based on average ranking are shown before the school name.

8....Louisville (ACC)
8....St Mary's (WCC)
9....Notre Dame (ACC)
9....Baylor (B12)
10...USC (PAC)
10...Penn State (B1G)
12...Maryland (B1G)
13...Middle Tennessee (CUSA)
13...Boise State (MWC)
14...Western Kentucky (CUSA)
15...Louisiana (SBC)
15...Vermont (AEAS)
15...BYU (WCC)
15...Old Dominion (CUSA)
16...South Dakota (SUM)

Six of these are from power conferences, and nine from mid-majors, meaning the mid majors got 75% of the additional 12 spots.
03-12-2018 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,052
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 69
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #22
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
^ That method might actually be better than a selection committee. At least it’s objective and everyone would know where they stand.
03-12-2018 04:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,794
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 346
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #23
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 04:24 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  ^ That method might actually be better than a selection committee. At least it’s objective and everyone would know where they stand.

One thing I noticed while compiling these numbers. When you include all five rankings, there are some real outliers, both high and low. In some cases, even for teams that made the field as at larges, there was a difference of as many as 60 spots from the best computer ranking to the worst. But when you took out all the highs and lows, there was a remarkable consistency in the remaining three.

At the end of the day, there wasn't a great difference in where teams would be seeded. On one hand, you could say that means the committee does a pretty good job. On the other hand, if just using the rankings gives nearly the same result as the committee, why do you need the committee?

There is a need for the committee, though, even if the teams are selected and seeded by the rankings. Somebody has to decide which #4s play which #13s and where. Those kinds of things need human intervention to make sure conference mates don't face each other too early, and to take fans' travel needs into consideration.
03-12-2018 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
msm96wolf Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,482
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 111
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

Sorry, the true power conferences average typically over 50% of the conference in the NCAA. With the remaining winning non-ncaa teams going to the NIT. AAC has come nowhere this. Averaging only 3 bids in a five year period. Actually due to the weak B10 and P12, those conferences teams knocked AAC teams out of the NIT this year. AAC has potential but has yet to prove it is a power conference year in and year out.
03-12-2018 07:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BullsFanInTX Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,328
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 195
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 07:17 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

Sorry, the true power conferences average typically over 50% of the conference in the NCAA. With the remaining winning non-ncaa teams going to the NIT. AAC has come nowhere this. Averaging only 3 bids in a five year period. Actually due to the weak B10 and P12, those conferences teams knocked AAC teams out of the NIT this year. AAC has potential but has yet to prove it is a power conference year in and year out.

True the AAC averages 3 bids a year, but up until this year only had 11 teams. All the other power conferences (other than Big East) had more teams, thus more spots.

By the way, which mid major conf has averaged 3 bids a year over the past 5?

And by the way, part 2, which mid major conference has had 3 teams with top 6 sees in 1 tournament. Heck, how many major conferences have 3 teams with top 6 seeds.

The AAC is not considered by anyone to be a mid major. Sorry, try again.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 11:02 PM by BullsFanInTX.)
03-12-2018 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BullsFanInTX Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,328
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 195
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 07:33 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

But, they are. There are 6 major conferences, P5 + Big East.

Because you say so?

Show me a link to any credible pundit who lists the AAC is a mid major, and I will show you 10 that don't.

Show us just one credible pundit, who lists the AAC as a mid major....waiting.

(and by the way, I don't personally consider the MWC or A10 mid majors either, but who knows where the actual line is, except it's below AAC).

Even ESPN, who updates their daily bubble watch, lists 7 conferences specifically: SEC, ACC, B10, B12, P12, Big East, and AAC. The rest are all listed under "others". That is a fact.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 11:10 PM by BullsFanInTX.)
03-12-2018 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,300
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
If you want to make this a non-P5 thing the non-P5 picked up 10 at-large bids to the 26 picked up by the P5.

That makes things seem a lot closer to the historical norm of at-large bids when many of the BE/AAC were in conferences such as the A10 or MVC up until a few years ago.
03-12-2018 11:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 25,220
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1050
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 07:17 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

Sorry, the true power conferences average typically over 50% of the conference in the NCAA. With the remaining winning non-ncaa teams going to the NIT. AAC has come nowhere this. Averaging only 3 bids in a five year period. Actually due to the weak B10 and P12, those conferences teams knocked AAC teams out of the NIT this year. AAC has potential but has yet to prove it is a power conference year in and year out.

So the Pac-12 is a mid-major? Im afraid nobody uses your definition.
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2018 10:48 AM by Attackcoog.)
03-13-2018 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 12,400
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 355
I Root For: Velvet Millkman
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
TV ratings for the conference championship games this past weekend. Note how well the AAC did. They are vastly being underpaid by the networks.


ACC Championship game 3.435 M Viewers
Big 12 Championship 2.852 M
SEC Championship 2.553 M
AAC Championship game 2.091 M
MWC Championship game 1.587 M
Big East Championship game 1.491 M
PAC 12 Championship game 612K


http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/sk...-2018.html
03-13-2018 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DBSUC1982 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 30
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 02:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 11:54 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas A&M and Alabama got into the NCAAs with worse records than Mississippi State who finished 22-11. 'Bama was 8-10 in conference play. MS ST & A&M were both 9-9 in conference. Supposedly, the RPI defined the differences. Still, a 4th seed in the NIT looks low for the Bulldogs. MS ST wasn't considered a bubble team for the NCAAs either.

Penn State is another that seems NIT low, given their season wins over OSU who did comfortably squeeze into the NCAAs.

NC-SOS was, supposedly, the moral of this year's story. TAMU was 11, Bama 28, and MSU 284.

That Louisville wasn't in the first-out group, and that Nebraska doesn't even get a home game was most intriguing. Maryland was the highest major snub...no clue what happened there.

But doesn't RPI already factor that in if 75% of a team's ranking is comprised of opponents (about 11-13 of which are OOC teams) and opponents' opponents records? Why count it twice? I never understood that.
03-13-2018 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DBSUC1982 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 30
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 04:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  Due to my chronic wonkiness, I couldn't help myself once again. I created an 80 team field, based on five rating services rather than a selection committee. The ratings I used were the Massey Composite, KenPom, Sagarin, ESPN BPI and NCAA RPI.

I took the ratings for each school, threw out the highest and lowest ranks for each school, and averaged the remaining three. My 80 team field includes all 32 conference champions plus the 48 highest ranked non champions at large. Then I seeded them based strictly by rank, with the top 48 schools given a first round bye. The other 32 would play the first round on Tuesday and Wednesday, just like the current play-in games. However, they would be played at the 8 sub-regional sites so the 16 winners who advance don't have to travel somewhere else.

I did put a limit of 40 teams from the six power conferences (P5 + Big East), leaving 40 spots for the remaining 26 conferences.

Using this method, 3 schools who received bids this year would not have made my 80 team field. They were (seeds in parentheses) Alabama (9), Providence (10), and Syracuse (11).

15 schools are in my 80 team field who did not get one of the 68 bids this year. Their seeds based on average ranking are shown before the school name.

8....Louisville (ACC)
8....St Mary's (WCC)
9....Notre Dame (ACC)
9....Baylor (B12)
10...USC (PAC)
10...Penn State (B1G)
12...Maryland (B1G)
13...Middle Tennessee (CUSA)
13...Boise State (MWC)
14...Western Kentucky (CUSA)
15...Louisiana (SBC)
15...Vermont (AEAS)
15...BYU (WCC)
15...Old Dominion (CUSA)
16...South Dakota (SUM)

Six of these are from power conferences, and nine from mid-majors, meaning the mid majors got 75% of the additional 12 spots.

So if I'm understanding this 65 of the 68 (less Prov., Ala. & Syr.) team actual field would've made your 80 team field, meaning the bottom 12 of the 15 you listed would't have made the 68 team field using your system. So Louisville, St. Mary's & ND would've replaced the above 3? If so then 1 more mid-major would have made the 68 team field using your system. Interesting.
03-13-2018 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,357
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 84
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #32
Did the new selection system help mid majors?
Doesn’t matter how they do it, the mids are gonna get as little as possible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
03-14-2018 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,755
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 288
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

Idiotic statement. The American has 6 schools with multiple Final Four appearances. Three Top 20 teams this year. Hell, it produced the national champ in 2014.
03-15-2018 04:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,316
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 83
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-13-2018 01:08 PM)DBSUC1982 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 02:33 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 11:54 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas A&M and Alabama got into the NCAAs with worse records than Mississippi State who finished 22-11. 'Bama was 8-10 in conference play. MS ST & A&M were both 9-9 in conference. Supposedly, the RPI defined the differences. Still, a 4th seed in the NIT looks low for the Bulldogs. MS ST wasn't considered a bubble team for the NCAAs either.

Penn State is another that seems NIT low, given their season wins over OSU who did comfortably squeeze into the NCAAs.

NC-SOS was, supposedly, the moral of this year's story. TAMU was 11, Bama 28, and MSU 284.

That Louisville wasn't in the first-out group, and that Nebraska doesn't even get a home game was most intriguing. Maryland was the highest major snub...no clue what happened there.

But doesn't RPI already factor that in if 75% of a team's ranking is comprised of opponents (about 11-13 of which are OOC teams) and opponents' opponents records? Why count it twice? I never understood that.

Yes, and just as the new grouping system, it's yet another dimension to (dis)qualify the metric.

I think, where it comes to the groupings and other dimensions, you look for teams that still produce against top teams, in and out of the conference, but take some damage in their overall number. TAMU was 6-8 against Group 1, Bama 7-7...when we consider the NC-SOS for Mississippi State, and then flip it on the group breakdown, at 2-8...MSU's 22-11 to TAMU's 20-12 and Bama's 19-15 looks a lot different. MSU got to the same or better conference mark than others who may be in the tournament, but, perhaps clearly, not the same way.
03-15-2018 08:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,544
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 356
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #35
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

According to this article from yahoo, you ARE correct!

From the article:

"Wichita State has transitioned from the team that pulls off the upset to the team that gets upset. That's courtesy of switching from the mid-major Missouri Valley Conference to the power-seven American Athletic Conference this past season"


Article
(This post was last modified: 03-16-2018 09:59 PM by cuseroc.)
03-16-2018 09:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl at the moon Offline
Eastern Screech Owl
*

Posts: 3,538
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 100
I Root For: Rice:NatlChamps
Location: 20mi from THE STAR
Post: #36
Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-16-2018 09:57 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

According to this article from yahoo, you ARE correct!

From the article:

"Wichita State has transitioned from the team that pulls off the upset to the team that gets upset. That's courtesy of switching from the mid-major Missouri Valley Conference to the power-seven American Athletic Conference this past season"


Article


Changing nicknames from the Shockers to the Shockees?
03-17-2018 08:45 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.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.