|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 26, 2010 9:53:31 GMT -5
Why don't you just rank teams by average shoe size? This is a great idea. It is simple and objective. Seed the tourney according to shoe size and let them play. ;D No, this is about evaluating conferences. I've got other ideas for the teams, generally involving hair ribbons and tattoos on their lower backs (the tramp stamps). I haven't said anything about it because I am still working out the details on how to quantify and evaluate the different colors of hair ribbons. |
|
|
|
Post by qc on Mar 26, 2010 9:56:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Mar 26, 2010 10:36:56 GMT -5
Will the hair ribbon rating system be "Barrette"?
For the BBall tourney, I get upset when the "minor" conferences get seeded 15 or 16 all the time. The conference may never have won an NCAA game, but if they have to play #1 seeds every year, they're never going to win. Particularly upset that the Big West has fallen that far this year, with UCSB a 15 seed. Hard to get out of that rut, too. Why would a really good player want to go somewhere that guarantees a tourney exit the first round. Volleyball has somewhat the same problem in the geographical placement of teams; I started a thread that went nowhere trying to establish where you want to play to stay away from the big girls; certainly not the Bay Area, eastern Nebraska, central Texas, or West Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
|
Post by qc on Mar 26, 2010 11:17:35 GMT -5
Will the hair ribbon rating system be "Barrette"? For the BBall tourney, I get upset when the "minor" conferences get seeded 15 or 16 all the time. The conference may never have won an NCAA game, but if they have to play #1 seeds every year, they're never going to win. Particularly upset that the Big West has fallen that far this year, with UCSB a 15 seed. Hard to get out of that rut, too. Why would a really good player want to go somewhere that guarantees a tourney exit the first round. If you were a U. Kansas or Syracuse fan, you would be more upset.  Volleyball has somewhat the same problem in the geographical placement of teams; I started a thread that went nowhere trying to establish where you want to play to stay away from the big girls; certainly not the Bay Area, eastern Nebraska, central Texas, or West Pennsylvania. You should move your school to North Carolina, South Carolina, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. If you live in the "Block" (i.e. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana & Wyoming), you're probably going to end up in Seattle or Eugene. If you are in the "Strip" (i.e. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota & North Dakota), you are probably going to play in Lincoln or Austin fairly early in the tourney. If you live in Colorado, nobody knows you exist. (j/k) |
|
|
|
Post by vetcoach on Mar 26, 2010 13:41:30 GMT -5
The Top 15 according to Rich Kern's site and conference rankings average:
1- Big Ten
2- Pac-10
3- Big 12
4- West Coast
5- SEC
6- Mountain West
7- Big West
8- Conference USA
9- Missouri Valley
10- Big Sky
11- ACC
12- WAC
13- Atlantic 10
14- Big East
15- MAC
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 26, 2010 13:42:02 GMT -5
Will the hair ribbon rating system be "Barrette"? For the BBall tourney, I get upset when the "minor" conferences get seeded 15 or 16 all the time. Well, they could get so bad that they get to play in the play-in game. Isn't that a great tournament win? Then again, this is a complete strawman. _Conferences_ don't get seeded. Teams get seeded. And the worst teams get the worst seeds. If these teams got to be good, they will get better seeds. See Butler, for example. How else SHOULD it be done? |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 26, 2010 13:45:22 GMT -5
Will the hair ribbon rating system be "Barrette"? For the BBall tourney, I get upset when the "minor" conferences get seeded 15 or 16 all the time. Well, they could get so bad that they get to play in the play-in game. Isn't that a great tournament win? Then again, this is a complete strawman. _Conferences_ don't get seeded. Teams get seeded. And the worst teams get the worst seeds. If these teams got to be good, they will get better seeds. See Butler, for example. How else SHOULD it be done? Wait! I have it. What they should do is just seed the top 16 teams, and then just match everyone else up geographically. Wow, what a great idea. I mean, who wouldn't like a system like that? |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Mar 26, 2010 13:59:05 GMT -5
tattoos on their lower backs (the tramp stamps). Will the Spandex Antlers be an additive, or a multiplier variable? |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Mar 26, 2010 14:03:54 GMT -5
The Top 15 according to Rich Kern's site and conference rankings average: 1- Big Ten 2- Pac-10 3- Big 12 4- West Coast 5- SEC 6- Mountain West 7- Big West 8- Conference USA 9- Missouri Valley 10- Big Sky 11- ACC 12- WAC 13- Atlantic 10 14- Big East 15- MAC Maybe I'm misunderstanding how RK is ranking the conferences....but some of the them don't seem to be ranked correctly according to their corresponding RKPI (on the RK website. e.g. a conference with RKPI of 0.5290 is ranked lower than the conference with an RKPI of 0.5256) |
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Mar 26, 2010 14:27:55 GMT -5
[
Then again, this is a complete strawman. _Conferences_ don't get seeded. Teams get seeded. And the worst teams get the worst seeds. If these teams got to be good, they will get better seeds. See Butler, for example. How else SHOULD it be done?
[/quote]
Well, they say it's teams, not conferences. And if St. Mary's hadn't have won their conference tournament the Gaels would probably not have made the tourney (didn't last year with a similar record). Would have taken a 9th Big East team and given them a 9 seed. (I'm not really upset with the teams the bball committee takes, just some of the seeding.)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 26, 2010 14:29:34 GMT -5
The Top 15 according to Rich Kern's site and conference rankings average: 1- Big Ten 2- Pac-10 3- Big 12 4- West Coast 5- SEC 6- Mountain West 7- Big West 8- Conference USA 9- Missouri Valley 10- Big Sky 11- ACC 12- WAC 13- Atlantic 10 14- Big East 15- MAC Maybe I'm misunderstanding how RK is ranking the conferences....but some of the them don't seem to be ranked correctly according to their corresponding RKPI (on the RK website. e.g. a conference with RKPI of 0.5290 is ranked lower than the conference with an RKPI of 0.5256) Maybe because it isn't based on average RPI? This looks more like Pablo, which is a good idea, since Pablo gives a more realistic view of relative team strength. RPI suffers, especially in conference comparison, from systematic regional bias that has nothing to do with team quality. In RPI, you would find the ACC rated a lot higher, and the WAC, for example, a lot lower. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 26, 2010 14:37:24 GMT -5
Well, they say it's teams, not conferences. And if St. Mary's hadn't have won their conference tournament the Gaels would probably not have made the tourney (didn't last year with a similar record). Well, if St Mary's didn't win their conference tournament, they would have been viewed lower in the committee's eyes than they were. How much lower is not clear, but lower. So presuming that they were the lowest of the 10 seeds, if they would have been viewed lower, than they would have been somewhere less than that. Now, the worst seeded at-large team in the tournament was UTEP, who was a 12 seed. That means that if losing in the conference tournament would have changed the committee's view of St Mary's by 5 teams, then yes, they would have dropped out of the tournament field. It would have been close. And it wouldn't have been a Big East team, it would have been Illinois. |
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Mar 26, 2010 14:43:38 GMT -5
The Top 15 according to Rich Kern's site and conference rankings average: 1- Big Ten 2- Pac-10 3- Big 12 4- West Coast 5- SEC 6- Mountain West 7- Big West 8- Conference USA 9- Missouri Valley 10- Big Sky 11- ACC 12- WAC 13- Atlantic 10 14- Big East 15- MAC Big Sky above ACC is a riot. WCC above SEC is interesting. WAC above Big East and Atlantic 10 is a smiler for West Coast types. By the way, do the observations regarding RPI being east coast friendly apply to basketball? |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Mar 26, 2010 14:46:27 GMT -5
The Top 15 according to Rich Kern's site and conference rankings average: 1- Big Ten 2- Pac-10 3- Big 12 4- West Coast 5- SEC 6- Mountain West 7- Big West 8- Conference USA 9- Missouri Valley 10- Big Sky 11- ACC 12- WAC 13- Atlantic 10 14- Big East 15- MAC Big Sky above ACC is a riot. WCC above SEC is interesting. WAC above Big East and Atlantic 10 is a smiler for West Coast types. By the way, do the observations regarding RPI being east coast friendly apply to basketball? I remember someone mentioned a link about it in hockey, but I think that m basketball is far less regionalized in quality and scheduling so it is probably less of a geographic issue. However, the mid-major bias in basketball RPI is extremely well-recognized. |
|
|
|
Post by david on Mar 26, 2010 15:18:04 GMT -5
So now we're focused on conference strength, what I'm getting at is this- which of these conferences are "at least 5 teams will make it in", which are "1-bid" conferences, and which will get 2 or 3 depending on RPI?
It's not like Pablo and RPI trump conference affiliation, right? If the 8th Big 10 team had a higher RPI than the 2nd MAC team, wouldn't the 2nd MAC team probably get in to the tourney first because there is an upper limit to the number of teams the NCAA would take?
And if the season-champ of a conference not on the list of top 15 were to not win their conference tourney, and have an RPI of, say, 50- they're out, right?
|
|
