|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 23, 2014 19:57:41 GMT -5
I think they wanted to make sure each seed played an AQ-caliber team in the first round, and they didn't have enough to go around without flying somebody out. This is not part of their process. All unseeded teams are supposed to be considered the same when it comes to spreading them around in the 16 sub-regionals. They do assess the quality of the teams inside each sub-regional once they have them distributed, for the purpose of figuring out which team plays the seeded team in the first round. So they just f'ed up with Fairfield & Utah?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 23, 2014 20:07:19 GMT -5
I think they wanted to make sure each seed played an AQ-caliber team in the first round, and they didn't have enough to go around without flying somebody out. This is not part of their process. All unseeded teams are supposed to be considered the same when it comes to spreading them around in the 16 sub-regionals. They do assess the quality of the teams inside each sub-regional once they have them distributed, for the purpose of figuring out which team plays the seeded team in the first round. There's no way this is true. How do you explain Utah to State College?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 23, 2014 20:09:32 GMT -5
This is not part of their process. All unseeded teams are supposed to be considered the same when it comes to spreading them around in the 16 sub-regionals. They do assess the quality of the teams inside each sub-regional once they have them distributed, for the purpose of figuring out which team plays the seeded team in the first round. So they just f'ed up with Fairfield & Utah? I think they SHOULD do what you are saying they do do, but the fact is that their published methodology does not attempt to ensure that the 17-32 teams are evenly distributed.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 23, 2014 20:11:06 GMT -5
This is not part of their process. All unseeded teams are supposed to be considered the same when it comes to spreading them around in the 16 sub-regionals. They do assess the quality of the teams inside each sub-regional once they have them distributed, for the purpose of figuring out which team plays the seeded team in the first round. There's no way this is true. How do you explain Utah to State College? There were like 6-10 years in a row when PSU got all three opponents among the weakest in the entire field. Then they get the last PAC-12 team ONE time, and you act like this means the committee has a policy that is opposite to what they say they have?
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Nov 23, 2014 20:18:01 GMT -5
The cupcake argument is valid. But seriously, from 2007 through 2010, or for 2012 and 2013--who in the tournament fields--"seeded" lower that 32nd would have defeated PSU?
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 23, 2014 20:25:04 GMT -5
The cupcake argument is valid. But seriously, from 2007 through 2010, or for 2012 and 2013--who in the tournament fields--"seeded" lower that 32nd would have defeated PSU? Two points: 1. In a perfect world with a competitively balanced bracket, Penn State should been playing a team in the 17-32 range in the 2nd round. 2. Due to the collection of cupcakes at Penn State in those years, other 1st/2nd round pods were much tougher than they should have been. I'm pretty sure there are even examples of two teams from the 17-32 range having to play each other in the 1st round.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 23, 2014 20:37:14 GMT -5
The cupcake argument is valid. But seriously, from 2007 through 2010, or for 2012 and 2013--who in the tournament fields--"seeded" lower that 32nd would have defeated PSU? I'm not talking about that! Well, kind of I am, but that's not the point. The point is that the NCAA does not have the rule that you guys are saying they have. They SHOULD have that rule, sure. But they don't. An unseeded team is an unseeded team, and they don't try to make sure that all the sub-regionals are balanced. The PSU history is an example of the effect of the NCAA policy, not a dig at PSU in particular.
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Nov 23, 2014 20:47:31 GMT -5
I actually think I took it as it was intended. Fortunately, "for the integrity of the game", PSU did the NCAA the favor of being good enough to have won most of their matches anyway.
|
|