|
Post by horns1 on Nov 26, 2019 13:15:23 GMT -5
I like it. Although, as a B1G 10 fan, I think Wisconsin and Pitt should flip. However, I don't think it will happen. NCAA has never put the top 4 B1G 10 teams in 4 different regionals. They always have had it so that one will have to beat the other to get to the final four. I believe this is a combination of 2 things other than a conspiracy to force B1G teams to beat each other before the FF. 1) Chance - If the committee didn't make a conscious effort to put these teams in the 4 regions - it would still usually end up being multiple B1G top 4 in the same region. Or, the probability of all 4 being in a different region is much less than 2 or more being in the same region. 2) Pre earned Regional Host - There was more required 'doctoring' of the seeds prior to regional hosts that increased some seeding to be based on geography and thus increasing the chances of same conference/same region. This went away with earned regional hosts. Right now - I think the committee seeds the top 16 in the order they think is correct and let the conferences distribution fall as it comes out. I admire the volleyball and softball committees for not disrupting the integrity of their brackets solely to avoid intra-conference matchups in the round of 16. Women's hoops committee purposely avoids having teams from the same conference come regionals (sweet 16). So, when you have 4 ACC teams or 4 PAC teams seeded in the Top 16, they give more importance to scattering conference opponents across each regional; consequently, they bump teams up/down a seed to fit the seeds into their own rules. And, typically, other teams find themselves being the collateral damage.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2019 13:29:27 GMT -5
I like it. Although, as a B1G 10 fan, I think Wisconsin and Pitt should flip. However, I don't think it will happen. NCAA has never put the top 4 B1G 10 teams in 4 different regionals. They always have had it so that one will have to beat the other to get to the final four. It happened in 2017. The three seeded teams - #1 Penn State, #5 Nebraska, #7 Minnesota - were in different regions. And Wisconsin had the next best RPI by a decent amount (#18) and was in the fourth region.
|
|
|
Post by B1Gminnesotafan on Nov 26, 2019 13:31:00 GMT -5
I like it. Although, as a B1G 10 fan, I think Wisconsin and Pitt should flip. However, I don't think it will happen. NCAA has never put the top 4 B1G 10 teams in 4 different regionals. They always have had it so that one will have to beat the other to get to the final four. It happened in 2017. The three seeded teams - #1 Penn State, #5 Nebraska, #7 Minnesota - were in different regions. And Wisconsin had the next best RPI by a decent amount (#18) and was in thr fourth region. I guess it only seems that way to me.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Nov 26, 2019 14:36:24 GMT -5
If Wisconsin wins out, I feel they should have the #4 seed over Pittsburgh. I was wondering about your logic here. RPI Futures has us at 2, behind Baylor, if we win out. Do you think we'll be punished that much for the Ohio State loss? Or will the allure of having Pitt be at home all the way to the championship be too great for the committee to pass up? ETA: I'm mostly just curious. I'm not one to over-inflate Wisconsin's resume or be too bullish on our prospects. I think my record's pretty clear on that. I was going by the seeds in the thread. A strong case could be made for WI to be the #1 seed. But, a 4-4 non-conference record could hurt them. But, I feel WI should get a top 4 seed.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Nov 26, 2019 14:37:09 GMT -5
I believe this is a combination of 2 things other than a conspiracy to force B1G teams to beat each other before the FF. 1) Chance - If the committee didn't make a conscious effort to put these teams in the 4 regions - it would still usually end up being multiple B1G top 4 in the same region. Or, the probability of all 4 being in a different region is much less than 2 or more being in the same region. 2) Pre earned Regional Host - There was more required 'doctoring' of the seeds prior to regional hosts that increased some seeding to be based on geography and thus increasing the chances of same conference/same region. This went away with earned regional hosts. Right now - I think the committee seeds the top 16 in the order they think is correct and let the conferences distribution fall as it comes out. I admire the volleyball and softball committees for not disrupting the integrity of their brackets solely to avoid intra-conference matchups in the round of 16. Women's hoops committee purposely avoids having teams from the same conference come regionals (sweet 16). So, when you have 4 ACC teams or 4 PAC teams seeded in the Top 16, they give more importance to scattering conference opponents across each regional; consequently, they bump teams up/down a seed to fit the seeds into their own rules. And, typically, other teams find themselves being the collateral damage. I understand this position and it makes the most logical sense. At the same time - I don't like teams from the same conference being bunched up in the same regional or regional semi. I think this becomes a bigger issue given how the schedules typically do not have nonconference matches for the last 10 weeks of the season. This is one of those things where fans of the Big Ten and maybe the PAC do not like conference teams stacked in the same conference, but a fan of Texas may not see that perspective. I know when Kansas was #5 and Texas #4 - I thought it would be nice if they were not in the same region. The year prior, they were both in the FF (which obviously cannot happen if in the same region). Not going to be an issue this year - but a regional final that included Baylor and Texas would stink. If I remember - this came to head back in the late 1980's in men's basketball when the SEC had an unusually great start to the tournament and found they were all eliminating each other long before they had to. I believe it was after this that they changed their seeding to have conference balance. But then basketball seeds everyone and not just the top 16.
|
|
|
Post by flyingMoose on Nov 26, 2019 14:52:19 GMT -5
... the highest-finishing team (regular season record) ... AAC --------------- Tulane Regular season record in the *conference*. Thus, for the AAC, this is Southern Methodist. And, yeah, you are right. Someone needs to start an NIVC thread eventually. Hopefully, you will not have a personal interest in doing that.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 26, 2019 14:57:08 GMT -5
I admire the volleyball and softball committees for not disrupting the integrity of their brackets solely to avoid intra-conference matchups in the round of 16. Women's hoops committee purposely avoids having teams from the same conference come regionals (sweet 16). So, when you have 4 ACC teams or 4 PAC teams seeded in the Top 16, they give more importance to scattering conference opponents across each regional; consequently, they bump teams up/down a seed to fit the seeds into their own rules. And, typically, other teams find themselves being the collateral damage. I understand this position and it makes the most logical sense. At the same time - I don't like teams from the same conference being bunched up in the same regional or regional semi. I think this becomes a bigger issue given how the schedules typically do not have nonconference matches for the last 10 weeks of the season. This is one of those things where fans of the Big Ten and maybe the PAC do not like conference teams stacked in the same conference, but a fan of Texas may not see that perspective. I know when Kansas was #5 and Texas #4 - I thought it would be nice if they were not in the same region. The year prior, they were both in the FF (which obviously cannot happen if in the same region). Not going to be an issue this year - but a regional final that included Baylor and Texas would stink. If I remember - this came to head back in the late 1980's in men's basketball when the SEC had an unusually great start to the tournament and found they were all eliminating each other long before they had to. I believe it was after this that they changed their seeding to have conference balance. But then basketball seeds everyone and not just the top 16. Well, since the B1G, SEC, ACC, and PAC 12 no longer have a true round-robin (play every team twice) conference schedule, and no conference tournament (like in hoops), why should it matter if they are in the same regional? Only a few schools will have already played each other twice. Just because they are in the same conference does not mean teams already played each other twice.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,324
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 26, 2019 15:07:20 GMT -5
No bubble team profile for Michigan? My only disagreement is with Green Bay and Milwaukee; I just can't see them sending 4 from the Horizon. I wouldn't be surprised to see only NKU and Wright State get in. That SOS for Milwaukee should be disqualifying on its own but they are also on the wrong side of 50. It's a big reach for a team from that league. South Dakota’s S.O.S is just as bad as Milwaukee’s. There’s not many alternatives. I don’t really think you are off base though. Blue agrees with you. And I have said that i think Green Bay and Milwaukee come as a package. Either both in, or both out. But if GB gets in above Milwaukee - it’s a shame.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,324
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 26, 2019 15:07:35 GMT -5
Will texas get a top 4 seed? what do you think? Take it to the bank!
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,324
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 26, 2019 15:08:25 GMT -5
If Wisconsin wins out, I feel they should have the #4 seed over Pittsburgh. They will probably overtake Pitt at that point. Wisconsin has opportunity to rise — Pitt not so much. 4 is their ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 26, 2019 15:15:33 GMT -5
Only a few schools will have already played each other twice. The PAC-12 is very close to a full round robin -- every year teams play 9 teams twice and 2 teams once.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2019 15:23:22 GMT -5
I believe this is a combination of 2 things other than a conspiracy to force B1G teams to beat each other before the FF. 1) Chance - If the committee didn't make a conscious effort to put these teams in the 4 regions - it would still usually end up being multiple B1G top 4 in the same region. Or, the probability of all 4 being in a different region is much less than 2 or more being in the same region. 2) Pre earned Regional Host - There was more required 'doctoring' of the seeds prior to regional hosts that increased some seeding to be based on geography and thus increasing the chances of same conference/same region. This went away with earned regional hosts. Right now - I think the committee seeds the top 16 in the order they think is correct and let the conferences distribution fall as it comes out. I admire the volleyball and softball committees for not disrupting the integrity of their brackets solely to avoid intra-conference matchups in the round of 16. Women's hoops committee purposely avoids having teams from the same conference come regionals (sweet 16). So, when you have 4 ACC teams or 4 PAC teams seeded in the Top 16, they give more importance to scattering conference opponents across each regional; consequently, they bump teams up/down a seed to fit the seeds into their own rules. And, typically, other teams find themselves being the collateral damage. Well the committees just follow rules that are given to them. Basketball has different rules than volleyball and softball. Not sure if that makes their actions admirable. That said, I disagree. After three months of conference play, I'd MUCH rather see inter-conference matchups in the NCAA tournament. I'd be very happy if volleyball adjusted their bracketing procedures to require that the top 4 seeded teams from the same conference be in different regions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2019 15:32:27 GMT -5
It seems like they could typically do this with only minor adjustments - maybe one spot either way. The difference between being a 12 seed and an 11 or 13.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Nov 26, 2019 16:15:22 GMT -5
I admire the volleyball and softball committees for not disrupting the integrity of their brackets solely to avoid intra-conference matchups in the round of 16. Women's hoops committee purposely avoids having teams from the same conference come regionals (sweet 16). So, when you have 4 ACC teams or 4 PAC teams seeded in the Top 16, they give more importance to scattering conference opponents across each regional; consequently, they bump teams up/down a seed to fit the seeds into their own rules. And, typically, other teams find themselves being the collateral damage. Well the committees just follow rules that are given to them. Basketball has different rules than volleyball and softball. Not sure if that makes their actions admirable. That said, I disagree. After three months of conference play, I'd MUCH rather see inter-conference matchups in the NCAA tournament. I'd be very happy if volleyball adjusted their bracketing procedures to require that the top 4 seeded teams from the same conference be in different regions. Well, next week we can take the committee's Top 16 seeds and bump some teams up or down a spot to see if we could come up with a bracket that would avoid intra-conference matchups in the round of 16. That will allow us to speculate as to which teams would benefit, and which teams wouldn't if the committee employed such a strategy.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Nov 26, 2019 16:31:40 GMT -5
Well the committees just follow rules that are given to them. Basketball has different rules than volleyball and softball. Not sure if that makes their actions admirable. That said, I disagree. After three months of conference play, I'd MUCH rather see inter-conference matchups in the NCAA tournament. I'd be very happy if volleyball adjusted their bracketing procedures to require that the top 4 seeded teams from the same conference be in different regions. Well, next week we can take the committee's Top 16 seeds and bump some teams up or down a spot to see if we could come up with a bracket that would avoid intra-conference matchups in the round of 16. That will allow us to speculate as to which teams would benefit, and which teams wouldn't if the committee employed such a strategy. For 2018: ACTUAL: (1) Stanford, (16) Washington State, (9) Creighton, (8) Penn State (4) BYU, (15) UCF, (12) Pittsburgh, (5) Texas (3) Illinois, (14) Marquette, (11) USC, (6) Wisconsin (2) Minnesota, (15) Oregon, (10) Kentucky, (7) Nebraska Using Men's Basketball Bracketing Principles: (1) Stanford, (16) Marquette, (9) Creighton, (8) Penn State* (4) BYU, (13) Oregon, (12) Pittsburgh, (5) Wisconsin (3) Illinois, (14) UCF, (11) USC, (6) Texas (2) Minnesota, (15) Washington State, (10) Kentucky, (7) Nebraska* Basically results in two changes - avoids Stanford vs Washington State in the Sweet 16 and avoids an Illinois-Wisconsin regional final (we get Illinois-Texas instead). * The MBB rules state "Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines." I got to Nebraska/Penn State at #7/#8 and they were the 4th and 5th teams from the Big Ten. I don't know if the MBB committee would seed Nebraska lower to strictly follow that rule or not since they'd be replaced with another Big Ten team.
|
|