No.Quote:
Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK
I don't see your logic. For one thing, your definition of good/bad seeding is not THE definition. The seeding choices of the NCAA don't have to be based solely on perceived strength. Seeding could be their main leverage for encouraging teams to schedule with the RPI in mind.
Note: This argument doesn't mean I always agree with NCAA seeding choices.
And if that's the case, that's a bastardization of the NCAAT seeding process, and is absolutely improper and frankly, total BS. If they are doing anything with seeding other than properly seeding teams on merit, then they are perverting the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by camion
Wait, what? Are you saying that scheduling more difficult teams and then performing well against them is something other than merit?Quote:
Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK
No, to clarify: the point was made by another poster, or so it seemed, that the NCAA used scheduling as a reward/punishment for teams OUTSIDE of, or in addition to, their deserved performance. I believe he said that the RPI rewarded scheduling more than results, and that the NCAA would sometimes seed teams partially on scheduling over merit as a way to try and change their scheduling behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
Some coaches prefer to bring their teams along slowly, scheduling more cupcakes...while others like to jump right into the fire early. Both are legitimate ways to run a program and the NCAA should only concern themselves with the merits of the team at seeding time...not so much how they got there.
If a team is a 10 seed on merit, after examining their results including the schedule they faced, then to "punish" them on top of that for a schedule the NCAA doesn't like by giving them a 12 or 13 seed is simply inappropriate - because a teams seeding impacts other teams as well. No 4th seed should have to face a legit ten seed simply because the NCAA punished that team with a 13 seed. And no legit ten seed should have to start out with a 4 seed simply because the NCAA didn't really like the way they got to their merited ten.
My understanding of the other poster's point was that the NCAA used scheduling as a carrot and a stick, above and beyond the normal merit considerations (which of course inherently contemplates sos.) I further understood him to say this was proper. If that was his point, then I think that's totally improper. If I missed his point, then, well, never mind...
Given there is no morals or customs associated with seeding, i'm not sure how one could say any practice is objectively proper or improper.Quote:
Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK
The NCAA has a huge vested interest in good games, and they can use both the RPI and NET have factors that help reward the kind of scheduling they want to see. RPI, obviously is SOS. With NET, the 10 point cap serves to limit the bonus you get for beating up on a crappy team...so you'll get a far better boost by playing a better team and beating them by about 10.
Frankly, given that I hate watching crappy basketball in november, I'm all for the NCAA rewarding teams for scheduling tough. Make it double, triple more important than it is today...IDC...
Except that NET doesn't really do that because of its unadjusted efficiency component, which absolutely does reward a team for beating the absolute life out of crappy teams. Even a series of crappy teams. That's the entire crux of this NCSU example. They dismantled a handful of woeful, sub-300 KP teams in their NCSOS and were rewarded handsomely in the NET for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by uh_no
And hey, listen, I'm with you on the scheduling. Any time I look at the game slate and there are no top-25 matchups on a given day, I'm majorly bummed. I'm also VERY surprised by the seeming stout defense of the RPI here, because, huh?! Stacking SoS on top of SoS on top of SoS to rank and weigh teams was and is a vile, misguided way to handle the selection and seeding. That's (until I saw this thread) a universal opinion held by the galaxy of college basketball people. Even the NCAA people who were using it until this season. So, again, huh?!
While beating up on poor teams may help their "raw NET ranking," I don't think that's the primary thing the committee looks at when making seedings/decisions. They look at the W-L records of the various quadrants. So, a team with an inflated NET ranking, but a record of something 0-2 against Q1 and 2-6 against Q2 (with the rest of their games being 100% victories against Q3 and Q4) will not get a very good seed. That's on the team sheets and what they look at. This is what happens to top teams in lower-tier conferences to some extent as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by English
Agree with you on the second paragraph.
I'm not trying to say they did it perfectly, or that the ranking is not problematic in other ways...just that there ARE components of it which incentivize playing better teams, and that I'm okay with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by English
I think unadjusted efficiency is the biggest flaw and hope they adjust it moving forward. I'm completely fine with the 10 point limit and would love if they even more directly factored in NCSOS to encourage playing good teams. Yeah you could get burned if some of the teams you schedule end up stinking, but such is life.
With due respect, that's incredibly cynical. There are indeed proper and improper contemplations for seeding...and there is an inherent ethic to it (moral is the wrong word here) - because there is only one reason for seeding to even exist, as opposed to just random scheduling.Quote:
Originally Posted by uh_no
After all this discussion, we finally have some news, in that the NCAA released their as-of-today Top 16 seeds yesterday:
East Region: 1. Duke (1 overall), 2. Michigan (6), 3. Marquette (12), 4. Iowa St. (13)
South Region: 1. Tennessee (2), 2. North Carolina (7), 3. Purdue (9), 4. Nevada (14)
West Region: 1. Gonzaga (4), 2. Michigan St. (8), 3. Kansas (10), 4. Louisville (15)
Midwest Region: 1. Virginia (3), 2. Kentucky (5), 3. Houston (11), 4. Wisconsin (16)
Certainly, much of this will change between now and March, but it's still interesting to get a little snapshot of how the committee is thinking. Especially now that we have the NET rankings updating relatively frequently.
No major surprises in here, but one that jumps out at me is Kansas as the 10th overall team. Neither Kenpom nor Torvik have them that high, and even NET has them at #18 (as of 2/8). Seemingly, what props them up with the committee is their SOS. As ever, this is extremely disappointing to me. If you didn't have NET, and only looked at W-L records, then of course SOS would be relevant. But if you have NET, it doesn't make any sense to carve SOS out and give it such priority. SOS is already factored into the NET ratings!
Ok, rant over. Great win for Duke yesterday which keeps us above the fray, for now.
I agree with you on Kansas. I also find the relatively high seedings of Nevada, Houston, and Marquette discouraging. Reminiscent of the RPI. Yes, I root for Marquette, but still don't think they're that good. Of course, we still have a month for things to sort out a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hingeknocker
This would be a somewhat annoying draw. Despite having the #1 overall seed, we would have (by their rating and assuming results held to seed) the toughest Sweet-16 opponent and the second-toughest elite-8 opponent. And the second-toughest sum of remaining seeds. In terms of summing seeds, the foursomes in the Midwest and West are notably worse than those in the East and South.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hingeknocker
True, but for reasons related to the law of averages and regression to the mean, I'm fine with avoiding Michigan State.Quote:
Originally Posted by CDu
That would make for an interesting second weekend. Michigan has the whole fab five storyline which the media would eat up. Marquette of course has Wojo. And Iowa State can absolutely bomb away from three, which always makes for a dangerous tournament opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hingeknocker
KP has nevada at 17. A 4 seed is reasonableQuote:
Originally Posted by MChambers
KP has houston at 19...the 3 seed is slightly high
KP has marquette at 29...a stupid overseed.
So marquette is the only real head scratcher here, especially since their SOS isn't particularly good either...but i'm quite happy if the committee wants to put them in our region :D :D
I don't have that much of a problem with Kansas and Marquette as 3 seeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by MChambers
Kansas is 18-6. All the other teams in the 3-4 range (except Nevada and Houston) have at least 6 losses. Kansas has more quality wins (Michigan St, Tennessee, Marquette, Villanova, Iowa St, Texas Tech) then any of those other teams. I am just glad RPI is done. With Kansas at #1 in those rankings I feel the committee would have a hard time placing them below a 2 seed because of that
Marquette only has 4 losses and has beat Wisconsin, Louisville, Kansas St, Buffalo (and now Villanova). I actually thought that inclusion of Marquette as a 3 and Villanova not in the top 16 at all was interesting. But then Marquette beat Nova yesterday. Marquette predictive rankings are around 30 so the committee is putting them a bit high based on W-L. But they do have 5 quality wins against a not horrible non-con schedule.
I agree that Nevada and Houston are hard to quantify. They only have 1 loss each. But Houston has only one win over a surefire NCAA team (LSU) while Nevada has none (Utah St and Arizona St are their best wins). KenPom and T-Rank both have them as about 4 seeds.
I stand corrected on Nevada, I guess. I was looking at T-Rank, which has them at 22, but I think I'm right on Houston and Marquette. Maybe time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by uh_no
Thanks for putting this on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hingeknocker
There are so many scenarios that could play out in the final month of the season. Here are a few things I think:
Write in pen that Gonzaga is going to get a 1 Seed. They are blowing out their conference opponents and may end up as the #1 overall seed if Duke stumbles down the stretch.
The ACC and the SEC will get at least 2 of the other 1 Seeds.
I would say that Duke has wrapped up a 1 Seed, but there are still a lot of tough games ahead, including the two against UNC, at Louisville, at Virginia Tech, and at Syracuse left to play. Meanwhile, Virginia or UNC could put themselves into position for another 1 Seed after the game on Monday. It would really help Duke if Virginia wins that game.
The SEC has two teams in contention with Tennessee and Kentucky. They will play each other as many as three times before the SEC Tournament is over. Tennessee is ripe for an upset in my opinion. They have won a ton of games but mostly against the bottom tier of teams in their conference. In the final month, they will start playing the better SEC teams, including Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Auburn. Kentucky could vault them for a 1 Seed by splitting the regular season over Tennessee while the Vols drop a game or two in their other matchups.
The B1G still has several teams in contention for a 1 Seed in Michigan and Michigan State. The Wolverines have home-and-home matchups with MSU and Maryland yet ahead of them and a tough game at Minnesota. Meanwhile, after stopping their skid of 3 straight losses, MSU still has that home-and-home with Michigan and has a tough game at Wisconsin on Tuesday night. My guess is that both of the Michigan schools accumulate another pair of losses in conference play before the season ends while Purdue sneaks in with a soft schedule to grab the B1G regular season title. Given all that, I think the two Michigan schools and Purdue will end the year on the 2 and 3 Seed lines.
My prediction from today is that you'll see Duke, Gonzaga, Virginia, and Kentucky as 1 seeds with Tennessee, Michigan, North Carolina, and Purdue as 2-seeds. This is also a pretty good scenario for Duke.
East: (1) Duke, (2) Purdue
South: (1) Virginia, (2) Tennessee
Midwest: (1) Kentucky, (2) Michigan
West: (1) Gonzaga, (2) North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by MChambers
I don't view this as RPI driven at all. In my observation, the Committee has tended to do the Top 4 seeds in a way that much closer tracks the AP poll, and rewards wins and losses, than it did the RPI or any metrics approach.
Nevada was highly ranked at the beginning of the season and remains so (#7 this week, and has just 1 loss, albeit a major clunker). Houston is something like 22-1 against a decent schedule and is ranked #9 in the AP Poll, and Marquette, while never a great computer team because of its iffy defense, has won alot of games, including a number of good non-con wins over Louisville, Wisconsin, Kansas St. and Buffalo and is #10 in the AP Poll.
So, those teams getting top 3-4 seeds is no mystery at all.
That's a good way of looking at it. Having said that, we've discussed on these boards the problems with the polls, so it is discouraging that the Committee doesn't pay more attention to better measures of quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nugget