FINALIZED 2017 Bracketology (11/26)

[trojansc]

Nov 27, 2017 0:04:14 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

Maryland and Iowa are without a doubt better than High Point. Haven't seen North Texas, so can't say about them, but picking High Point is just a mistake IMO.

conferenceusa.com/watch/?Archive=17412&path=north_texas

North Texas is a fun team to watch.

[eastcoastopp]

Nov 27, 2017 0:13:18 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 27, 2017 0:04:14 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

Maryland and Iowa are without a doubt better than High Point. Haven't seen North Texas, so can't say about them, but picking High Point is just a mistake IMO.

conferenceusa.com/watch/?Archive=17412&path=north_texas

North Texas is a fun team to watch.

I LOVE North Texas! So glad they made it in.

[trojansc]

Nov 27, 2017 0:25:28 GMT -5 eastcoastopp said:

Nov 27, 2017 0:13:18 GMT -5 trojansc said:

conferenceusa.com/watch/?Archive=17412&path=north_texas

North Texas is a fun team to watch.

I LOVE North Texas! So glad they made it in.

?? in the NIVC? Lol. They weren't selected to the NCAA's.

[TuesdayGone]

Nov 27, 2017 0:03:36 GMT -5 n00b said:

Nov 26, 2017 23:29:30 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Here is what Dave Shondell wrote to Steve Aird on Twitter:

"Those who compete in this league understand the level of your team and the value of our league. Someday, the committee will have the confidence and expertise to look beyond a number based on a formula. I have walked in your shoes. You will get to that dance, very soon, very soon."



This was Steve Aird's original post:

"My beautiful 7 year old daughter MJ was in full tears. We were not good enough to make the tourney. And I got to teach her that the beauty is never in the result, but the journey. And for that...I am forever grateful. #TerpsRising"

Shodell is a piece of work. He was a cry baby when Purdue got left out a few years ago too. Maryland was a 50/50 proposition no matter how you looked at it. Straight RPI - not good enough. Straight Pablo - not good enough. Using all of the criteria - trojansc had the Terps as the last in and the committee had them as the first out.

Look beyond the formula to the eye test? Well, it really depends on what match you saw and that's the issue with the eye test. I watched them play once this year and I thought they looked terrible against Ohio State. Their setters were MISERABLE. Of course Shondell is pumping them up because he got beat by them. How about that match where TOLEDO took them 5? Probably didn't look so great. Or losing -11, -15, -16 to Nebraska? I think those scores are a reasonable goal for Stony Brook on Friday.

Maryland getting left out is not the issue with this committee. It's putting High Point in.

How about the time they swept the 3rd place team in the PAC?
www.umterps.com/ViewContent.dbml?CONTENT_ID=2131869&DB_OEM_ID=29700#GAME.BOX

[n00b]

The more I look at it...

High Point would've been only the second team in nine years to have a top 40 RPI and miss the tournament. It's hard to say that the committee selecting them was inconsistent.

[trojansc]

Nov 27, 2017 0:37:13 GMT -5 n00b said:

The more I look at it...

High Point would've been only the second team in nine years to have a top 40 RPI and miss the tournament. It's hard to say that the committee selecting them was inconsistent.

Or you could look at it as High Point was the only team selected for an at-large with ZERO top-50 wins in at least 10 years. Tulsa, who had zero top 50 wins and was similar RPI as you mentioned, was left out.

Really though, how many teams in the top 40 RPI end up having 0 top 50 wins? Whether AQ or at-large, the number has to be very very miniscule.

[trojansc]

SMU was left out at 40 or 41 or so and had a top-25 win, one year can't remember. I'll look it up later

[trojansc]

Also, UNLV's RPI last year was 33.

The committee said UNLV was one of the last two teams into the NCAA Tournament (not sure if they were the very last). But with that, UNLV had a top-50 RPI win over 30-something Boise State.

I think it's more than realistic that if UNLV with a better RPI and better victory was barely in last year, High point at 39 with no significant victory should probably be out.

[jaypak]

Nov 26, 2017 23:54:58 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 26, 2017 23:51:51 GMT -5 jaypak said:

North Texas was totally hosed.  No problem with LSU.  As for the other three:

Winning % vs Top 100
High Point  .400
Iowa          .348
Maryland    .300

High Point Winning % vs. Top 50 = .000

It's really great that High Point went 4-2 vs. 51-100. High Point won four games in the top 100. All four were 51-100... But look at Maryland. Maryland won two games 1-25, and one game 26-50. That's three top 50 wins vs. 0 for High Point. Maryland also didn't lose to a team with an RPI of worse than 44. High Point lost to THREE teams with an RPI of 50 or worse, and 1 team with an RPI of 100 or worse.

There's an argument for Maryland, for sure.  But it's not as cut and dried as your position would make it.  There are data points to support High Point over Maryland other than solely RPI.  But it's clear that RPI was strongly the data point that mattered most throughout the bracket, which is why it's even more inexcusable that North Texas didn't get in, over NC State if not others.

[n00b]

Nov 27, 2017 0:32:51 GMT -5 TuesdayGone said:

Nov 27, 2017 0:03:36 GMT -5 n00b said:

Shodell is a piece of work. He was a cry baby when Purdue got left out a few years ago too. Maryland was a 50/50 proposition no matter how you looked at it. Straight RPI - not good enough. Straight Pablo - not good enough. Using all of the criteria - trojansc had the Terps as the last in and the committee had them as the first out.

Look beyond the formula to the eye test? Well, it really depends on what match you saw and that's the issue with the eye test. I watched them play once this year and I thought they looked terrible against Ohio State. Their setters were MISERABLE. Of course Shondell is pumping them up because he got beat by them. How about that match where TOLEDO took them 5? Probably didn't look so great. Or losing -11, -15, -16 to Nebraska? I think those scores are a reasonable goal for Stony Brook on Friday.

Maryland getting left out is not the issue with this committee. It's putting High Point in.

How about the time they swept the 3rd place team in the PAC?
www.umterps.com/ViewContent.dbml?CONTENT_ID=2131869&DB_OEM_ID=29700#GAME.BOX

How about it?

There's no doubt Maryland had good wins. They had 17 matches against Top 50 teams and won 3 of them. Those 3 are definitely good wins. And it's why it's so hard to compare Big Ten schools with Conference USA or Big South schools. Even if you DID try to watch every team out there, the sample size is so small that you can't tell anything for sure. If you watched Maryland vs Toledo and High Point vs Georgia, you'd pick High Point. If you watched Maryland vs USC and High Point vs UNCG, then you take Maryland. Add in the fact that who knows if all of those Big South matches are even available to watch.

[eastcoastopp]

Nov 27, 2017 0:26:59 GMT -5 trojansc said:

Nov 27, 2017 0:25:28 GMT -5 eastcoastopp said:

I LOVE North Texas! So glad they made it in.

?? in the NIVC? Lol. They weren't selected to the NCAA's.

Yes! I didn't mean the NCAA's. As a team, I really like them and what they've done this year.

[BeachbytheBay]

in the end TSC, doesn't it leave you with the feeling/judgement that the committee ended focusing on seedings/pairings etc. and simply didn't spend the time or critically evaluate the bubble teams?

I'll say one thing - I thought this year was a little unique in one aspect - the western teams seemed to be top heavy (in other words mostly in teh top 30), and then there was this big vacuum like there weren't any western teams between 30-70 range (ok, Hawaii) - usually there's been more all these western bubble type teams like UNLV last year, Long Beach, Pacific, LMU, Santa Clara, even the 6-9 place Pac-12 teams, and so then the RPI bias is frustrating. just an odd year in that regard, a big chasm / drop-off out west after the top 30ish. this year was kind of interesting in that regard

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2017 0:47:27 GMT -5 jaypak said:

Nov 26, 2017 23:54:58 GMT -5 trojansc said:

High Point Winning % vs. Top 50 = .000

It's really great that High Point went 4-2 vs. 51-100. High Point won four games in the top 100. All four were 51-100... But look at Maryland. Maryland won two games 1-25, and one game 26-50. That's three top 50 wins vs. 0 for High Point. Maryland also didn't lose to a team with an RPI of worse than 44. High Point lost to THREE teams with an RPI of 50 or worse, and 1 team with an RPI of 100 or worse.

There's an argument for Maryland, for sure.  But it's not as cut and dried as your position would make it.  There are data points to support High Point over Maryland other than solely RPI.  But it's clear that RPI was strongly the data point that mattered most throughout the bracket, which is why it's even more inexcusable that North Texas didn't get in, over NC State if not others.

This is why the same criteria has to be used with every team whatever it may be. People may not like results but Atleast it’s fair. They can’t continue to do what they have been doing and use different criteria as they see fit.

[eastcoastopp]

The most important question...what person's house are we all watching these regionals at?

[gobruins]

Nov 26, 2017 21:16:02 GMT -5 trojansc said:

I'm beyond fuming. High Point?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having a hard time seeing why are you so upset about High Point.

You had them as the First Four Out. Committee had them Last Four In. So, only slightly higher than you had them. Not sure that is cause for OUTRAGE!


Overall, you were amazingly close to what the actual selection were. You missed just two of the teams, but those 2 missed, you had as Last Four In, and the 2 who were chosen were in your First Four Out. Combined, the Last 4 In and First 4 Out, the 8 teams were exactly the same as the 8 teams the committee had. You only missed on 2 seeds, and they were your #15 and #16 seeds. Great job!