The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Seeds matter but UC has underachieved.

Record as 1 through 4 seed, 17-10.
Huggins got off a hot start and then had some of the worst luck in the late 90's. Either way UC has never lost a first round game in the "protected seed" range. Mick or whoever coaches UC needs more seeds in this range as this is where the majority of UC's tournament wins have come from.

Record as 5 and 6 seed, 6-5
Two Sweet 16's have come from this seed group. UC has only lost 1 first round game in this seed range. It is another reason why I as pretty upset with not getting a 6 seed after the conference tournament as this seed group is a lot better than the next one.

Record as 7 through 10. 3-8
Both Huggins and Cronin have struggled in the tossup range seeds. Only three first round wins, no second weekend advancement.

Bottom line: UC has blown high seeds since 1997 but the numbers clearly show that since 1992 better seeds equals more tournament wins. Huggins had UC at the 4 seed line or better range nine times, Mick has hit that mark once. Some of this is the changing landscape of college basketball and how teams are selected. For example this past year UC had a top 20 RPI but as we all know that metric isn't used anymore. This 28 win UC team and the 30 win UC team from two years ago would have been 4 seeds back in the 1990's as the committee pretty much seeded off the RPI. Huggins was a master at building a schedule to maximize this. Conference realignment also seemingly has hurt the perception of UC's brand as well. UC has only been the clear cut best team in the American once and received a two seed. Going forward UC has to be the undisputed clear cut best team in the American to get a protected seed, also a shift in tactics to drive up metrics is needed as seeding is based on efficiency rankings like the NET and Kenpom.

(03-27-2019 07:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Huggins was a master at building a schedule to maximize this.

We did a really good job scheduling to maximize RPI. At the time it was more so no playing 200+ teams and feasting on the 50-100s who were not good enough to beat you but still good enough to strengthen your computer ratings.

Even though RPI would have really helped this team I'm very glad it's gone. Any rating that doesn't take into account margin of victory is not worthwhile. It would actually frustrate me when people would discuss RPI this year, I wouldn't follow it even when it was still a criteria and assumed people wouldn't even keep it anymore.

Will be interested to get five years of data post NET....bet after five years of NET the P5's have 95%+ of the protected seeds, which I fully believe was the intent of going to this new ranking system. IE, the committee/NCAA 'moved the goal post' on mid majors/low majors.

(03-27-2019 07:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Seeds matter but UC has underachieved.

Record as 1 through 4 seed, 17-10.
Huggins got off a hot start and then had some of the worst luck in the late 90's. Either way UC has never lost a first round game in the "protected seed" range. Mick or whoever coaches UC needs more seeds in this range as this is where the majority of UC's tournament wins have come from.

Record as 5 and 6 seed, 6-5
Two Sweet 16's have come from this seed group. UC has only lost 1 first round game in this seed range. It is another reason why I as pretty upset with not getting a 6 seed after the conference tournament as this seed group is a lot better than the next one.

Record as 7 through 10. 3-8
Both Huggins and Cronin have struggled in the tossup range seeds. Only three first round wins, no second weekend advancement.

Bottom line: UC has blown high seeds since 1997 but the numbers clearly show that since 1992 better seeds equals more tournament wins. Huggins had UC at the 4 seed line or better range nine times, Mick has hit that mark once. Some of this is the changing landscape of college basketball and how teams are selected. For example this past year UC had a top 20 RPI but as we all know that metric isn't used anymore. This 28 win UC team and the 30 win UC team from two years ago would have been 4 seeds back in the 1990's as the committee pretty much seeded off the RPI. Huggins was a master at building a schedule to maximize this. Conference realignment also seemingly has hurt the perception of UC's brand as well. UC has only been the clear cut best team in the American once and received a two seed. Going forward UC has to be the undisputed clear cut best team in the American to get a protected seed, also a shift in tactics to drive up metrics is needed as seeding is based on efficiency rankings like the NET and Kenpom.

good call out

Your RPI number was never all that important. The current grouping mechanism is better, but what always mattered was your record against RPI top 50/top 100. UC didn't get a 1 seed in 2002 because they were 5 in the RPI. They got a 1 seed because they were an absurd 8-2 v. RPI top 50, 17-3 v. RPI top 100.

That same year RPI number 8 Indiana was a 5 seed. The committee never really has looked at your RPI Number and put you there.

(03-27-2019 09:01 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Your RPI number was never all that important. The current grouping mechanism is better, but what always mattered was your record against RPI top 50/top 100. UC didn't get a 1 seed in 2002 because they were 5 in the RPI. They got a 1 seed because they were an absurd 8-2 v. RPI top 50, 17-3 v. RPI top 100.

That same year RPI number 8 Indiana was a 5 seed. The committee never really has looked at your RPI Number and put you there.

I am talking about the 1990’s. RPI, last ten games, and conference standings ruled the day. The shift started in the 2000’s when the internet made it easier to analyze data.

(03-27-2019 09:23 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:01 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Your RPI number was never all that important. The current grouping mechanism is better, but what always mattered was your record against RPI top 50/top 100. UC didn't get a 1 seed in 2002 because they were 5 in the RPI. They got a 1 seed because they were an absurd 8-2 v. RPI top 50, 17-3 v. RPI top 100.

That same year RPI number 8 Indiana was a 5 seed. The committee never really has looked at your RPI Number and put you there.

I am talking about the 1990’s. RPI, last ten games, and conference standings ruled the day. The shift started in the 2000’s when the internet made it easier to analyze data.

I was too young to be straight up analyzing the committee back then but you're going to have to show me that is true. Looking at 1996 as an example. Bearcats were 4th in RPI got a 2 seed. Purude was 12th in RPI but got a 1 seed. Louisville was 16, but a 6 seed. There is always going to be strong correlation between metrics and seed, but I'm not convinced they ever seeded by RPI (though last 10 was a factor until like 2007).

(03-27-2019 09:32 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:23 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:01 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Your RPI number was never all that important. The current grouping mechanism is better, but what always mattered was your record against RPI top 50/top 100. UC didn't get a 1 seed in 2002 because they were 5 in the RPI. They got a 1 seed because they were an absurd 8-2 v. RPI top 50, 17-3 v. RPI top 100.

That same year RPI number 8 Indiana was a 5 seed. The committee never really has looked at your RPI Number and put you there.

I am talking about the 1990’s. RPI, last ten games, and conference standings ruled the day. The shift started in the 2000’s when the internet made it easier to analyze data.

I was too young to be straight up analyzing the committee back then but you're going to have to show me that is true. Looking at 1996 as an example. Bearcats were 4th in RPI got a 2 seed. Purude was 12th in RPI but got a 1 seed. Louisville was 16, but a 6 seed. There is always going to be strong correlation between metrics and seed, but I'm not convinced they ever seeded by RPI (though last 10 was a factor until like 2007).

My point is that the 2017 and 2019 Bearcats would have been seeded much higher than a 6 and 7 based on the what the committee prioritized 20 years ago. The perception was also different as the power 5/BCS split didn’t hurt the Great Midwest and the early days of C-USA.

UC needs to adjust to the changing world of college basketball. Increasing efficiency should be a premium. No longer can you just accept playing out a lead against an inferior opponent without concern about how much you win by. I believe the SEC sent a notice to thier coaches about playing out the end of games to drive up their NET and Kenpom numbers.

Playing and winning against quad 1 is a priority, avoiding bad losses, and if you are going to lose make sure you keep the margin close.

(03-27-2019 09:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:32 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:23 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:01 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Your RPI number was never all that important. The current grouping mechanism is better, but what always mattered was your record against RPI top 50/top 100. UC didn't get a 1 seed in 2002 because they were 5 in the RPI. They got a 1 seed because they were an absurd 8-2 v. RPI top 50, 17-3 v. RPI top 100.

That same year RPI number 8 Indiana was a 5 seed. The committee never really has looked at your RPI Number and put you there.

I am talking about the 1990’s. RPI, last ten games, and conference standings ruled the day. The shift started in the 2000’s when the internet made it easier to analyze data.

I was too young to be straight up analyzing the committee back then but you're going to have to show me that is true. Looking at 1996 as an example. Bearcats were 4th in RPI got a 2 seed. Purude was 12th in RPI but got a 1 seed. Louisville was 16, but a 6 seed. There is always going to be strong correlation between metrics and seed, but I'm not convinced they ever seeded by RPI (though last 10 was a factor until like 2007).

My point is that the 2017 and 2019 Bearcats would have been seeded much higher than a 6 and 7 based on the what the committee prioritized 20 years ago. The perception was also different as the power 5/BCS split didn’t hurt the Great Midwest and the early days of C-USA.

UC needs to adjust to the changing world of college basketball. Increasing efficiency should be a premium. No longer can you just accept playing out a lead against an inferior opponent without concern about how much you win by. I believe the SEC sent a notice to thier coaches about playing out the end of games to drive up their NET and Kenpom numbers.

Playing and winning against quad 1 is a priority, avoiding bad losses, and if you are going to lose make sure you keep the margin close.

I get what you're saying, I just don't know that I agree that UC would have been seeded much differently.

I do agree that they need better efficiency numbers, but the only way to do that is to be better on the court. Efficiency isn't really something you can game.

(03-27-2019 09:53 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:32 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:23 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 09:01 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Your RPI number was never all that important. The current grouping mechanism is better, but what always mattered was your record against RPI top 50/top 100. UC didn't get a 1 seed in 2002 because they were 5 in the RPI. They got a 1 seed because they were an absurd 8-2 v. RPI top 50, 17-3 v. RPI top 100.

That same year RPI number 8 Indiana was a 5 seed. The committee never really has looked at your RPI Number and put you there.

I am talking about the 1990’s. RPI, last ten games, and conference standings ruled the day. The shift started in the 2000’s when the internet made it easier to analyze data.

I was too young to be straight up analyzing the committee back then but you're going to have to show me that is true. Looking at 1996 as an example. Bearcats were 4th in RPI got a 2 seed. Purude was 12th in RPI but got a 1 seed. Louisville was 16, but a 6 seed. There is always going to be strong correlation between metrics and seed, but I'm not convinced they ever seeded by RPI (though last 10 was a factor until like 2007).

My point is that the 2017 and 2019 Bearcats would have been seeded much higher than a 6 and 7 based on the what the committee prioritized 20 years ago. The perception was also different as the power 5/BCS split didn’t hurt the Great Midwest and the early days of C-USA.

UC needs to adjust to the changing world of college basketball. Increasing efficiency should be a premium. No longer can you just accept playing out a lead against an inferior opponent without concern about how much you win by. I believe the SEC sent a notice to thier coaches about playing out the end of games to drive up their NET and Kenpom numbers.

Playing and winning against quad 1 is a priority, avoiding bad losses, and if you are going to lose make sure you keep the margin close.

I get what you're saying, I just don't know that I agree that UC would have been seeded much differently.

I do agree that they need better efficiency numbers, but the only way to do that is to be better on the court. Efficiency isn't really something you can game.

Better on the court, yes. You can control it though. Up 19 against Wichita State, stop attacking, only win by 10. That is a philosophy issue. Second unit needs to be better but there has to be a killer instinct from the top down.

(03-27-2019 10:00 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Better on the court, yes. You can control it though. Up 19 against Wichita State, stop attacking, only win by 10. That is a philosophy issue. Second unit needs to be better but there has to be a killer instinct from the top down.

I think people overstate how much you can control it. UC had great efficiency numbers last year because they were a better team. UC gave up leads this year because they had real liabilities, not because they really took their foot off the gas.

(03-27-2019 07:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Seeds matter but UC has underachieved.

Record as 1 through 4 seed, 17-10.

Record as 5 and 6 seed, 6-5

Record as 7 through 10. 3-8

Take out the first two years and UC is....

10-8 as a 1 through 4 seed

19-21 overall

The overall I don't care so much about but 10-8 as a 1 to 4 seed is not good at all.

(03-29-2019 08:24 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 07:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Seeds matter but UC has underachieved.

Record as 1 through 4 seed, 17-10.

Record as 5 and 6 seed, 6-5

Record as 7 through 10. 3-8

Take out the first two years and UC is....

10-8 as a 1 through 4 seed

19-21 overall

The overall I don't care so much about but 10-8 as a 1 to 4 seed is not good at all.

Still better than 7 through 10. Underachievers heck yea.

(03-29-2019 03:10 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 08:24 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 07:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Seeds matter but UC has underachieved.

Record as 1 through 4 seed, 17-10.

Record as 5 and 6 seed, 6-5

Record as 7 through 10. 3-8

Take out the first two years and UC is....

10-8 as a 1 through 4 seed

19-21 overall

The overall I don't care so much about but 10-8 as a 1 to 4 seed is not good at all.

Still better than 7 through 10. Underachievers heck yea.

Another interesting fact...since 1992 we have NEVER been the lower seed in the opening round.

(03-29-2019 05:34 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 03:10 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 08:24 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 07:47 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Seeds matter but UC has underachieved.

Record as 1 through 4 seed, 17-10.

Record as 5 and 6 seed, 6-5

Record as 7 through 10. 3-8

Take out the first two years and UC is....

10-8 as a 1 through 4 seed

19-21 overall

The overall I don't care so much about but 10-8 as a 1 to 4 seed is not good at all.

Still better than 7 through 10. Underachievers heck yea.

Another interesting fact...since 1992 we have NEVER been the lower seed in the opening round.

10 seed vs 7 Creighton in 2013.

(03-29-2019 05:45 PM)cincybb51 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 05:38 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 05:34 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 03:10 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 08:24 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Take out the first two years and UC is....

10-8 as a 1 through 4 seed

19-21 overall

The overall I don't care so much about but 10-8 as a 1 to 4 seed is not good at all.

Still better than 7 through 10. Underachievers heck yea.

Another interesting fact...since 1992 we have NEVER been the lower seed in the opening round.

10 seed vs 7 Creighton in 2013.

also 9 seed vs 8 St. Joseph's in 2016

Totally forgot the Creighton year. And I could’ve sworn we were the 8 vs St Joes. Oh well, Nevermind.