History is shown us that based upon the metrics the committee uses to seed the tournament that the best that 95% of the midmajor autobid recipients can get is a 12. But somehow, year after year, the 12s consistently pull upsets. This tells me that there is something wrong with the metrics and that these midmajors are being under seeded. The midmajors are clearly sending teams that are better than their seeds reflect.

Nice reward for Kansas State. Why is the Big 12 co-champs drawing a 30 win team in the first round? UC Irvine was underseeded and K-State paid for it

part of this years seeds was the mid-major group was a lot stronger this year than in prior years... You had New Mexico St, Murray St, and Liberty all as 12's- along with Oregon that's as strong of a 12 line as you ever see. Can't see putting UC Irvine ahead of any of those teams.

(03-23-2019 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  part of this years seeds was the mid-major group was a lot stronger this year than in prior years... You had New Mexico St, Murray St, and Liberty all as 12's- along with Oregon that's as strong of a 12 line as you ever see. Can't see putting UC Irvine ahead of any of those teams.

UC Irvine won on the road at Saint Mary's (whereas New Mexico St lost at home) and beat Montana at home. Two wins ooc over NCAA teams. They also won at Texas A&M, who despite being sub .500 overall constituted a quad 2 win. Maybe they should've been flip flopped with NMSU?

15 of the top 16 seeds won.

The bottom 15 seeds are out.

What exactly is the problem?

The 5 seeds are the bottom of the top 20. The way the seeding works the 12s (overall 46-50 ... 51 if you go to UCI, since Oregon is from a major conference, and they normally don't fall there) are the top of the mid-major conference tourney winners, with the highest NET (RPI before) and usually on at least a 3 or 4 game winning streak (Oregon is now on a 9 game game streak). The 5's are not protected, unlike the 1s to 4s.

The 6 seeds get the winners of the play-ins, who have a win under their belt. So it is always a fight. 7-10 is churn, anyone can win here, none constitutes an upset.

There is only 1 double digit match up this weekend, #12 Oregon vs #13 UC Irvine. We should expect 12 of the 15 top four seeds to survive, and maybe 2 "churn" schools (7-10) to survive (two upsets). That would be typical and statistically expected.

So basically it works as designed. Seeds 1-4 nearly guaranteed to win, 5-12 close to 50-50 for all rounds, 13-16 almost guaranteed to be knocked out early. It ain't broke, so why fix it?

(03-23-2019 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  part of this years seeds was the mid-major group was a lot stronger this year than in prior years... You had New Mexico St, Murray St, and Liberty all as 12's- along with Oregon that's as strong of a 12 line as you ever see. Can't see putting UC Irvine ahead of any of those teams.

I think the 12-line should have been where the play-in’s were. When you consider Oregon, Murray State, and NMSU to SJU, Temple, and ASU...those were some very strong 12’s to some “out there” last-in selections. And those play-in’s get the softer 6?

The 10 and 11 lines could have been interchangeable to 12 and 13, imo. Minnesota, Ohio State, Seton Hall...it wouldn’t be a crime if you swap them for UCI, Liberty, or dare I say it...Vermont.

(03-23-2019 10:43 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Nice reward for Kansas State. Why is the Big 12 co-champs drawing a 30 win team in the first round? UC Irvine was underseeded and K-State paid for it

I think UCI was seeded right about where they deserved to be seeded. You have to look at the quality of their competition. The Big West was not a strong conference. UCSB had the second highest Net Ranking in the Big West at 164. The Big West only had three of their nine teams end up with winning records. UCI did have an impressive win at St. Mary's, but then they had a bad loss at Pacific.

I am happy for UCI. I watched them live when they played at California Baptist (CBU) back in December and they looked like a well coached team, but not the team that beat Kansas State yesterday. They escaped with a 69-66 win over CBU. In fairness, CBU did beat New Mexico State and they ended up with a Net Ranking of 165, right behind UCSB. UCI beating Kansas State was more a reflection of who the better team was yesterday, not if they were under-seeded.

(03-23-2019 03:05 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-23-2019 10:43 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Nice reward for Kansas State. Why is the Big 12 co-champs drawing a 30 win team in the first round? UC Irvine was underseeded and K-State paid for it

I think UCI was seeded right about where they deserved to be seeded. You have to look at the quality of their competition. The Big West was not a strong conference. UCSB had the second highest Net Ranking in the Big West at 164. The Big West only had three of their nine teams end up with winning records. UCI did have an impressive win at St. Mary's, but then they had a bad loss at Pacific.

I am happy for UCI. I watched them live when they played at California Baptist (CBU) back in December and they looked like a well coached team, but not the team that beat Kansas State yesterday. They escaped with a 69-66 win over CBU. In fairness, CBU did beat New Mexico State and they ended up with a Net Ranking of 165, right behind UCSB. UCI beating Kansas State was more a reflection of who the better team was yesterday, not if they were under-seeded.

Correct reading. K State's Bruce Weber coach has come under a lot of criticism for the way he failed to treat the game as an elimination game and sat his star PG with 2 fouls, when he only averages 2.4 per game (fluke pick ups) most of the 1st half letting UCI back in the game. But also K State's best 3 point shooter was out with injury which made it hard for them to score against the zone. They were not likely to get far anyway.

That is the only things standing between all 16 of the top 16 seeds surviving. 1-14 and 16 getting through is pretty solid seeding.

It's not a "flaw", it's just a limitation that is unavoidable because of the multitude of teams and the limited number of non-conference games. People have to accept that there is no 100% accurate way to compare teams that don't play each other and have few if any common opponents.

A Big Ten homer might argue that even a 8-12 Big Ten team is definitely better than the typical mid-major conference champ, while a hardcore defender of mid-majors might argue that every 25-win mid major is more deserving than a power team that is .500 in its own conference. But it's all just your opinion or mine or someone else's. There is no "scientific" way to settle those arguments. Every computer ranking is just someone's idea of a good way to try to settle it, but there's no definitive answer.

There is also no good way to compare teams in one "category" across different seasons, or even teams within the same category in the same season. Maybe one year there are a few top mid majors that are underrated, and maybe the next year none of them are great. And maybe the same is true for power conference teams that win half their conference games. Or just this season, is it really certain that Nevada deserved a 7-seed and UC Irvine a 13-seed? No, it's not.

(03-23-2019 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  part of this years seeds was the mid-major group was a lot stronger this year than in prior years... You had New Mexico St, Murray St, and Liberty all as 12's- along with Oregon that's as strong of a 12 line as you ever see. Can't see putting UC Irvine ahead of any of those teams.

NM State, Murray State, and Liberty were all selected to win by most. SEC just isn't a basketball conference and I believe every entrant has struggled so far. Auburn, LSU and Kentucky twice, Tennessee, Miss State definitely have. Even Kentucky struggled with Wofford's chuck and luck approach. Kentucky and Florida have good programs but the others are just inconsistent from year to year.

(03-23-2019 03:05 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-23-2019 10:43 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Nice reward for Kansas State. Why is the Big 12 co-champs drawing a 30 win team in the first round? UC Irvine was underseeded and K-State paid for it

I think UCI was seeded right about where they deserved to be seeded. You have to look at the quality of their competition. The Big West was not a strong conference. UCSB had the second highest Net Ranking in the Big West at 164. The Big West only had three of their nine teams end up with winning records. UCI did have an impressive win at St. Mary's, but then they had a bad loss at Pacific.

I am happy for UCI. I watched them live when they played at California Baptist (CBU) back in December and they looked like a well coached team, but not the team that beat Kansas State yesterday. They escaped with a 69-66 win over CBU. In fairness, CBU did beat New Mexico State and they ended up with a Net Ranking of 165, right behind UCSB. UCI beating Kansas State was more a reflection of who the better team was yesterday, not if they were under-seeded.

Weak conference aside, UCI won at Saint Mary's whereas NMSU lost at home to them. UCI won at Cal Baptist, NMSU split with them. UCI also beat Montana, the Big Sky champs. Won at Texas A&M, a quad 2 road win despite them being sub .500 overall. They did strike out vs Butler on the road, Toledo on a neutral court and Utah State at home. But their ooc schedule was solid.

Maybe the problem isn't underseeding mid-major teams. Maybe the problem is overseeding the #5 seeds, who seem to be "upset" at a disproportional rate. The only 4 seed to lose in the first round (Kansas State) should have been a 6 or 7 based on their NET ranking. 5 seed Marquette should have been an 8 or 9 based on NET. Maybe the committee is overthinking things.

Well they do it a lot better in the women, but there isn't as much balance.

There were only 4 first round upsets-2 9s and 2 10s won.

Also there are only 5 in the round of 32 who aren't from P5 conferences:
#5 Marquette
#5 Gonzaga
#6 South Dakota St.
#7 BYU
#10Buffalo

There is less depth in the women's dide, so the fall off greater.

The men, if you pair seeds:

1 & 2 -> 8 of 8
3 & 4 -> 7 of 8

5 & 6 -> 4 of 8
7 & 8 -> 4 of 8
9 & 10 -> 4 of 8
11 & 12 -> 4 of 10 (2 eliminated on play-in)

13 & 14-> 1 of 8
15 &16 -> 0 of 10 (2 eliminated on play-in)

That looks like a bell curve, with the middle pretty even. Variance due to small sample size.

So far today we have one 1 seed, two 2 seeds, one 3 seed and one 4 seed through, with another 3 seed off to a good start and a 14 point 1st half lead, and another 2 seed leading by 15 in the 2nd half. That is 5 for 5 likely 7 for 7 with the higher seeds. The only other game left is KU vs Auburn, a 4 vs 5 (the one 5 I thought should be a 4 instead of K State), which regardless of result would not constitute a true upset (ditto tomorrow 12 Oregon vs 13 UCI). All those middle seeds you guys are complaining about --and the middle is all pretty even, results say toss-ups 5 thru 12-- are falling away against those top 4 seeds.

Update Sunday Morning: all 7 seeds 1-4 beast seeds 6 and lower Saturday. (Kansas - Auburn was a 4 v 5, seeding toss up)
Sunday first report, 2 seed Tennessee up by 21 over 10 seed Iowa at half.

This complaint is bogus, and the results are well within the expected norm.

(03-23-2019 05:45 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(03-23-2019 03:05 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-23-2019 10:43 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Nice reward for Kansas State. Why is the Big 12 co-champs drawing a 30 win team in the first round? UC Irvine was underseeded and K-State paid for it

I think UCI was seeded right about where they deserved to be seeded. You have to look at the quality of their competition. The Big West was not a strong conference. UCSB had the second highest Net Ranking in the Big West at 164. The Big West only had three of their nine teams end up with winning records. UCI did have an impressive win at St. Mary's, but then they had a bad loss at Pacific.

I am happy for UCI. I watched them live when they played at California Baptist (CBU) back in December and they looked like a well coached team, but not the team that beat Kansas State yesterday. They escaped with a 69-66 win over CBU. In fairness, CBU did beat New Mexico State and they ended up with a Net Ranking of 165, right behind UCSB. UCI beating Kansas State was more a reflection of who the better team was yesterday, not if they were under-seeded.

Weak conference aside, UCI won at Saint Mary's whereas NMSU lost at home to them. UCI won at Cal Baptist, NMSU split with them. UCI also beat Montana, the Big Sky champs. Won at Texas A&M, a quad 2 road win despite them being sub .500 overall. They did strike out vs Butler on the road, Toledo on a neutral court and Utah State at home. But their ooc schedule was solid.

You can't really put a weak conference schedule aside. Plus, a 24 point loss at home to Utah State, a 10 point loss at home to Long Beach State (Net ranking of 234), a 17 point loss on the road to a 16-17 Butler team, and a road loss at Pacific (Net ranking of 210). There is not enough strength in the schedule for the committee to overlook the losses.

But even if you want to put all that aside, how much higher should UCI have been seeded? If they lost to a #8 seed by 24 at home, they are certainly not an #8 seed. So should they have been a #12 seed? Or a #11 seed? Is UCI better than NMSU at #12? I think the committee got it right on UCI.

What does everyone think of seeding the top 4 seeds and doing a blind draw for the rest?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-24-2019 03:28 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  What does everyone think of seeding the top 4 seeds and doing a blind draw for the rest?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Give it up. The tourney committee did a good job:

Sweet 16, seed School

East:
1 Duke
2 Michigan State
3 Louisiana State
4. Virginia Tech

South
1 Virginia
2 Tennessee
3 Purdue
12 Oregon

West
1 Gonzaga
2 Michigan
3 Texas Tech
4 Florida State

Midwest
1 North Carolina
2 Kentucky
3 Houston
5 Auburn (beat 4 Kansas)

All four 2 vs 3, two 1 vs 4, one 1 vs 5 (close), and a 1 vs 12
That is as close to calling chalk as you can get.

My only gripe was Auburn (18 seed) and K State (15 seed) should have been swapped. I just felt winning the SEC tournament was more important than K State winning the B12 regular season. I also thought Oregon and St. Mary's should have been swapped (I have no respect for this SMC squad, NET gave them a rating way above the eye test), but I understand the NET saddled Oregon with a low rating due to all the injuries they suffered early on. They remind me of Valvano's NC State team (I do not think they will get that far). But I can't blame the committee for that one, injuries and a slow start, plus all the crap the P12 had this year with Arizona and UCLA basically neutered gave everyone a false read on the conference. It is what it is.

But overall you can't complain. They got it right, overall seeds 1-12, 14, 16, 18 and 48 got through.

(03-24-2019 09:43 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 03:28 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  What does everyone think of seeding the top 4 seeds and doing a blind draw for the rest?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Give it up. The tourney committee did a good job:

Sweet 16, seed School

East:
1 Duke
2 Michigan State
3 Louisiana State
4. Virginia Tech

South
1 Virginia
2 Tennessee
3 Purdue
TBA 12 Oregon vs 13 UC Irvine (Oregon just looks way better in the first half)

West
1 Gonzaga
2 Michigan
3 Texas Tech
4 Florida State

Midwest
1 North Carolina
2 Kentucky
TBA (3 Houston leading 11 Ohio State 60-49 with 7:25 to go, so looks on schedule)
5 Auburn (beat 4 Kansas)

That is as close to chalk as you can get

Houston pulling away in foul time. They're in-up 15 with 18 seconds left.
Basically, they hit the sweet 16 except for the two Kansas schools.
And UCI has tied the game with a 12-0 run to start the 2nd half.

Oregon has scored 6 in a row to go up 4 after going scoreless for 9:05.

These are two streaky teams.

(03-23-2019 10:37 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  History is shown us that based upon the metrics the committee uses to seed the tournament that the best that 95% of the midmajor autobid recipients can get is a 12. But somehow, year after year, the 12s consistently pull upsets. This tells me that there is something wrong with the metrics and that these midmajors are being under seeded. The midmajors are clearly sending teams that are better than their seeds reflect.

I'd say its more that once you get beyond the Top 4 seeds which are conference championship level P5 teams the teams are pretty even 5 to 12. Its more about the matchup in the middle tier of teams rated #17 to #48.

Once you get into #13, #14, #15 its teams that are 75 to 100 in strength. But if they have a great night they can get lucky. 16 seeds are average mid major teams so going against the very best so they almost neve win.