Bracketology (11/12)

[bbg95]

Nov 16, 2024 22:00:48 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Nov 16, 2024 21:47:09 GMT -5 bbg95 said:

Yeah, seems like they were just looking for a reason to give it to Stanford instead of San Diego.

I don't remember the details - but Trojansc wrote that the last weekend of games changed some T25 wins and RPI to Stanford's favor.  My thinking (and I have zero data to support this) - it was/is very easy to switch #4 and #5 at the last minute - and wait for all matches to play.  You could flip 12 and 13 or leave them the same and no one would know the difference.  You start switching around at 17 through 64 - and you all kinds of things to consider (especially 33-64) as you now have to rework optimal travel considerations.  

I suppose that's plausible, but I don't think the committee is immune to brand bias. As Trojan said, they seemed to care a lot about that but ignored other things that happened at the end of the season with RPI. That makes me think they predisposed to giving it to Stanford.

[c4ndlelight]

USD v Stanford was actually very close criteria wise. Both had two top ten wins against non-regional hosts - similar profiles down.

I would have given it to SD because I thought they were better, but Stanford got the edge most likely for being Stanford (c.f. PSU getting seeded at 26). But that was much closer than the Creighton v PSU:Stanford discussions today. p
PSU/Stanford would not be getting it on name.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 16, 2024 22:05:42 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

USD v Stanford was actually very close criteria wise. Both had two top ten wins against non-regional hosts - similar profiles down.

I would have given it to SD because I thought they were better, but Stanford got the edge most likely for being Stanford (c.f. PSU getting seeded at 26). But that was much closer than the Creighton v PSU:Stanford discussions today. p
PSU/Stanford would not be getting it on name.

Is top 10 wins a written criteria?  It may be, just trying to understand.

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 16, 2024 22:08:38 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Nov 16, 2024 22:05:42 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

USD v Stanford was actually very close criteria wise. Both had two top ten wins against non-regional hosts - similar profiles down.

I would have given it to SD because I thought they were better, but Stanford got the edge most likely for being Stanford (c.f. PSU getting seeded at 26). But that was much closer than the Creighton v PSU:Stanford discussions today. p
PSU/Stanford would not be getting it on name.

Is top 10 wins a written criteria?  It may be, just trying to understand.

Significant wins is.

For hosting a regional? Yes. They clearly take it into account Top 10. Is Top 25/50 part of the “criteria”?

[trojansc]

Speaking of brand bias, this one is probably even more egregious than Penn State IMO:

Team A

RPI: 11
Record v. 1-25 : 2-4
Record v. 26-50 : 6-0
Last 10: 9-1
Top 25 wins: #20 (home), #20 (away)

Team B

RPI: 21
Record v. 1-25 : 2-6
Record v. 26-50 : 5-1
Last 10: 8-2
Top 25 wins: #17, #25 (both at home)

-Team A had 0 losses outside the Top 25, while Team B had losses to #26 and #74.
-Team A also won common opponents criteria.

Team B hosted, Team A didn't.

[c4ndlelight]

One thing the committee has been consistent on is that significant wins and losses are different in the context of hosting a regional versus getting a seed versus making a tournament.

This is fair and one of the few things the committee does correctly. Beating a bunch of fringe at large caliber teams will say a lot about whether a team is tournament caliber. It probably says very little about whether a team should get a top 4 seed.

[jwvolley]

Nov 16, 2024 22:08:38 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Nov 16, 2024 22:05:42 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

USD v Stanford was actually very close criteria wise. Both had two top ten wins against non-regional hosts - similar profiles down.

I would have given it to SD because I thought they were better, but Stanford got the edge most likely for being Stanford (c.f. PSU getting seeded at 26). But that was much closer than the Creighton v PSU:Stanford discussions today. p
PSU/Stanford would not be getting it on name.

Is top 10 wins a written criteria?  It may be, just trying to understand.

Written or not, they've specifically mentioned it in multiple years now (including this year). Flexibility of crtieria like significant wins. 

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 16, 2024 22:12:47 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Speaking of brand bias, this one is probably even more egregious than Penn State IMO:

Team A

RPI: 11
Record v. 1-25 : 2-4
Record v. 26-50 : 6-0
Last 10: 9-1
Top 25 wins: #20 (home), #20 (away)

Team B

RPI: 21
Record v. 1-25 : 2-6
Record v. 26-50 : 5-1
Last 10: 8-2
Top 25 wins: #17, #25 (both at home)

-Team A had 0 losses outside the Top 25, while Team B had losses to #26 and #74.
-Team A also won common opponents criteria.

Team B hosted, Team A didn't.

But who was that #20? If Marquette ….

[trojansc]

Nov 16, 2024 22:18:24 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

But who was that #20? If Marquette ….

It was Florida State. Team B lost to Florida State (which is why Team A won common opponents).

Want to know who #25 was? Mississippi State (who beat Team B in the re-match anyways)

[bluepenquin]

Nov 16, 2024 22:10:04 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Nov 16, 2024 22:08:38 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Is top 10 wins a written criteria?  It may be, just trying to understand.

Significant wins is.

For hosting a regional? Yes. They clearly take it into account Top 10. Is Top 25/50 part of the “criteria”?

I thought 25/50 were.  I think they show up on the nitty gritty, while record against the T10 doesn't.  But I really don't know.

Does beating #10 vs. beating #11 really matter for regional hosting?

I know SOS matters, but does non-conference SOS matter?  

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 16, 2024 22:20:33 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 16, 2024 22:18:24 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

But who was that #20? If Marquette ….

It was Florida State. Team B lost to Florida State (which is why Team A won common opponents).

Want to know who #25 was? Mississippi State (who beat Team B in the re-match anyways)

Oh yeah. Florida definitely got the bias that year.

[bluepenquin]

Nov 16, 2024 22:17:28 GMT -5 jwvolley said:

Nov 16, 2024 22:08:38 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Is top 10 wins a written criteria?  It may be, just trying to understand.

Written or not, they've specifically mentioned it in multiple years now (including this year). Flexibility of crtieria like significant wins. 

And we take what they say was important, or was it just an after the fact explanation?  

[c4ndlelight]

Nov 16, 2024 22:20:38 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

Nov 16, 2024 22:10:04 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

Significant wins is.

For hosting a regional? Yes. They clearly take it into account Top 10. Is Top 25/50 part of the “criteria”?

I thought 25/50 were.  I think they show up on the nitty gritty, while record against the T10 doesn't.  But I really don't know.

Does beating #10 vs. beating #11 really matter for regional hosting?

I know SOS matters, but does non-conference SOS matter?  

Beating 10 vs 11 doesn’t matter. But beating 10 versus 24 definitely does. It’s a “top 10”-type win.

Both SD and Stanford had 2 wins against teams that were solidly top 10 (ie in the discussions for a 2 seed but not a 1 seed).

The Nitty Gritty isn’t a criterion - it’s a report they get but none of the columns are labeled “significant wins”

[bluepenquin]

Nov 16, 2024 22:16:39 GMT -5 c4ndlelight said:

One thing the committee has been consistent on is that significant wins and losses are different in the context of hosting a regional versus getting a seed versus making a tournament.

This is fair and one of the few things the committee does correctly. Beating a bunch of fringe at large caliber teams will say a lot about whether a team is tournament caliber. It probably says very little about whether a team should get a top 4 seed.

I think this is true.

What we haven't seen is a team with a boatload of #11-20 wins, the best non-conference SOS, an overall SOS that is basically the same as who they are competing with, a better RPI, better record.

[c4ndlelight]

One other item of note is the decreasing importance of nitty gritty as they expanded to seeding to 32.

“Top 25” wins no longer have the same meaning when the committee is seeding to 32. They are clearly looking at their own rankings there - basically abrogating the T25 context.