|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 15:00:43 GMT -5
Bofa, are you also predicting, if Wisconsin beats Purdue, that the Big10 will get only 5 teams in the tournament? An invitation list strictly by RPI might mean only 5, but I have to believe that the commmitte will bend over backwards to get a sixth . Based on what? Number of teams from a conference is not a criteria for the committee. Purdue will be sitting close to 50 in RPI. Borderline Top 25 wins: none Bad losses: one At least Minnesota has a win over Iowa St. I wouldn't want to go into that selection show with just that.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 18, 2014 17:01:31 GMT -5
If Kentucky gets a seed, I think Purdue heads there, they are well within the travel restriction Given recent history, Purdue isnt a team you want to see in your bracket. If they are healthy, they will give teams fits. They play really hard, are really well coached and arent intimidated by great teams in the tournament. I agree with you in regards to that being a very possible landing spot for them should Kentucky host. I agree that Purdue can go far, especially in an overrated subregional like Kentucky's. IMO this is where bracket unfairness starts to come in, sometimes because of regionalization, but not always. I think many at large teams would have favorable odds to advance out of the Kentucky regional (as well as Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State, if they get seeds), so it's all about which teams are lucky enough to land in those subregionals. Geography certainly favors Big 10 schools to get them. The East Coast teams are usually a little overrated. In the last 3 seasons Big 10 at large teams have gotten the opportunity to be placed in an ACC or SEC subregional 6 times, and have won over the seeded host, thus advancing to the sweet 16 in 5 of them. Pac-12 at large teams never get to be in those subregionals, instead, in that same time span that the Big 10 teams get to beat up on the SEC and ACC, Pac-12 gets @ Penn State, @ Texas, @ Hawaii, @ Wisconsin, @ Nebraska, @minnesota for 2nd round matches. How about we throw some mid level Pac-12 teams in the Kentucky/Louisville/Duke/FSU/Missouri/Tennessee/Texas A&M/UNI/Kansas type subregionals the committee has given us in the last few years and see how they do!
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 17:03:18 GMT -5
Bofa... You don't think the fact that Purdue is 8-1 against teams ranked between 25-58 carries any weight. Why did you choose 58 as your cutoff? The committee won't. Purdue's overall record against the top 50 will be a consideration. It still lacks any wins in the top 25. Irrelevant If it were a question of OSU vs Purdue, it MIGHT come into play. 15 spots of RPI is a serious difference. Add in two wins over top 15 teams and no losses outside the top 75, and it's a no-brainer. Not even close. If you "Can't see OSU ahead of Purdue" you are basing it something that is completely outside of what the committee is doing. Has a top 16 AVCA team ever been ranked 50 in RPI with no top 25 wins and a bad (>100) loss at selection time before? If not, there is no comparison. Of course, your use of 60 betrays your cherry picking favorable results. The committee does not use "wins over top 60 teams" as a criteria, nor AVCA ranking, for that matter. Why? Have they ever demonstrated the behavior you want to give them credit for? Take the names off the sheets and look it just the results, using the same information the committee uses. It's not obvious at all.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 17:09:00 GMT -5
The East Coast teams are usually a little overrated. In the last 3 seasons Big 10 at large teams have gotten the opportunity to be placed in an ACC or SEC subregional 6 times, and have won over the seeded host, thus advancing to the sweet 16 in 5 of them. I tell you, this is as much of indictment of the seeding criteria as you will ever find. How many of those "upsets" involved bottom half of the B1G? Actually, since most of the B1G top half gets seeded, most of them I guess.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 18, 2014 17:11:51 GMT -5
The East Coast teams are usually a little overrated. In the last 3 seasons Big 10 at large teams have gotten the opportunity to be placed in an ACC or SEC subregional 6 times, and have won over the seeded host, thus advancing to the sweet 16 in 5 of them. I tell you, this is as much of indictment of the seeding criteria as you will ever find. How many of those "upsets" involved bottom half of the B1G? Actually, since most of the B1G top half gets seeded, most of them I guess. Yes. Though my point is that pac-12 teams never get the opportunity to play in the type of subregionals that Big 10 teams get to.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 17:15:00 GMT -5
I tell you, this is as much of indictment of the seeding criteria as you will ever find. How many of those "upsets" involved bottom half of the B1G? Actually, since most of the B1G top half gets seeded, most of them I guess. Yes. Though my point is that pac-12 teams never get the opportunity to play in the type of subregionals that Big 10 teams get to. But if teams were seeded better, more Pac 10 teams would be seeded, which would make their paths easier. See my bias corrected RPI. In the top 16, you have UCLA instead of Kentucky. Kills BOTH birds with that one stone.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 18, 2014 17:17:02 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why they seem to default to sending Hawaii to the West Coast. If you are already going to fly from Hawaii, why not fly a little farther?
Of course, there was that one time they sent them to Middle Tennessee (as a seeded team) and they lost.
|
|
|
Post by X-Play on Nov 18, 2014 17:39:53 GMT -5
That one time?
Besides being sent to Kentucky that time, Hawaii also has been sent to Texas and Colorado for subregionals (and they won) in the last ten years just off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Nov 18, 2014 17:51:41 GMT -5
here's what else is counter-intuitive - if more Pac-12 teams get in, the last Pac-12 team is more likely to lose and make people say 'I told you they weren't that good', or if UCLA hosts (vs. Kentucky), they will be one of the likely seeds not to advance
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 18:43:51 GMT -5
The East Coast teams are usually a little overrated. In the last 3 seasons Big 10 at large teams have gotten the opportunity to be placed in an ACC or SEC subregional 6 times, and have won over the seeded host, thus advancing to the sweet 16 in 5 of them. Getting back to this comment. In the last three season, 14 of the 48 seeded teams have not made it past the second round, so a success rate of 71%. Of those seeded teams losing, here is the conference breakdown of teams that lost vs total number of seeded teams SEC: 4/6 ACC: 2/3 Big 12: 2/8 PacTen: 2/11 B1G: 1/13 MVC: 1/1 Big East: 1/1 Big West: 1/4 MWC: 0/1 Three and maybe 4 of these things are not like the others. While the B1G, Big 12 and PacTen get more seeds, the seeds they do get are more successful, and substantially so, particularly with eastern teams. Oh, you say, maybe it's because they are seeded lower? So what I did was to just look at those seeded 9 or lower. The average expected ranking for teams from 9 - 16 is 12.5. If you look only at the non-B1G, Big 12 and PacTen teams seeded 9 - 16, their average is 12.4, so they are a little better than the average 9-16s (which means that B1GPacTen12 seeded 9-16 are a little worse, but not much either way). Here are the results for the 9-16 seeds ACC: 2/3 SEC: 2/4 Big 12: 2/4 Big East: 1/1 Big West: 1/3 PacTen: 1/3 B1G: 0/4 Here the Big 12 gets exposed a little bit, and it's the fact that 3 of their wins are Texas seeded very high. Thus, for lower half seeds, they struggle like the ACC, SEC etc. Meanwhile, the B1G and PacTen combined have won 6/7, and if you throw in the Big West, it's up to 8/10. I know the committee will say they aren't predicting results, and that they don't base selections are past year's results, and I am not suggesting they do so. However, they do insist they are trying to identify "the best teams" and these data are telling us their criteria for identifying those "best teams" is failing them. Who's doing the upsetting? Well, the PacTen and B1G teams, it's easy. The two PacTen upsets are to the B1G. The B1G upset is to the Big 12. As pointed out, a lot of the upsets are by the non-seeded B1G teams. Instead of detailing who upset who, I think it's instructive to compare B1GPac12Ten seeds and their brackets with the others. What I looked at is how likely seeds are to advance if there is a B1GPac12Ten team in their group. Of the 48 seeded teams, 22 of them had a non-seeded team from the BigThree Conferences. Of these, 13 made it on, so a success rate of 59%. Therefore, seeded teams are less likely to advance if there is a non-seeded team from the Big3. It also means that of the teams that did not have one of those opponents, 81% (21/26) made it to the next round. Now, those groupings include Big3 seeded teams. If you look only at non-Big3 teams that are seeds in groups that have at least one Big3 team, there have been 11 of them. Only FOUR have made it to the regionals. Those 4 were San Diego, Kentucky, Hawaii and Pepperdine. The breakdown of those who lost by conference and who beat them: SEC 3 (B1G, B1G, B1G) ACC 1 (B1G; Duke lost to American last year but there were no Big3 teams in the group) Big East (Louisville, when they were there) 1 (B1G) MVC 1 (lost to SEC, who had beaten a Big 12 team) Big West 1 (Hawaii lost to BYU) So 3/4 of the western teams with a Big3 team in the group won, whereas only 1/5 eastern team (Kentucky) advanced to the regionals. These teams are getting hammered, and the committee keeps throwing them to the wolves. Man, maybe they should figure out this seeding approach isn't working. It's not identifying the best teams.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 18, 2014 18:57:23 GMT -5
Don't forget the WCC hasn't had a seed not make it.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 19:19:58 GMT -5
Don't forget the WCC hasn't had a seed not make it. Sorry, I lumped them all in with the west teams (Pepperdine is the only one from the last three years, I think)
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 18, 2014 19:20:40 GMT -5
Don't forget the WCC hasn't had a seed not make it. Sorry, I lumped them all in with the west teams (Pepperdine is the only one from the last three years, I think) USD 2013 and BYU 2012
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 19:24:24 GMT -5
Sorry, I lumped them all in with the west teams (Pepperdine is the only one from the last three years, I think) USD 2013 and BYU 2012 Still lumped in the west. I think I called BYU still MWC probably. Doesn't matter. Hawaii is the only non-PacTen team out west to lose, and they lost to BYU.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 18, 2014 19:43:27 GMT -5
RPI, RPI, RPI. If I was a mathematician, I would put a lot of stock in this formula. However, the NCAA tournament committee has the means to evaluate the team's by more than RPI. I think it is time they operate like mens and women's basketball committees. I've never looked into it. Do you know that the women's basketball committee doesn't just use mostly RPI? My impression is that it does. The men's basketball committee doesn't, for sure, but there is money on the line.
|
|