| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SpaceJunkie
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
 Posted: 03/10/15 2:55 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Ark with a 6-10 and KSt with a 7-11 conf record are pretty far out there to me. And Wash St with an RPI of 71 and WVU with a 76. Has anybody with an RPI of 76 ever made it? Why are they in the discussion. |
Because West Virginia has wins over Texas, Oklahoma, Seton Hall and Oklahoma State.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 3:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| SpaceJunkie wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Ark with a 6-10 and KSt with a 7-11 conf record are pretty far out there to me. And Wash St with an RPI of 71 and WVU with a 76. Has anybody with an RPI of 76 ever made it? Why are they in the discussion. |
Because West Virginia has wins over Texas, Oklahoma, Seton Hall and Oklahoma State. |
Then might as well throw in NC St which beat Miami and Duke.
WVU has an RPI of 76. Think about that. There's only 64 teams in the tournament, and their RPI is 76. They have 14 losses. They only have 18 wins. In this day and age it's pretty routine to get 20 wins, and they only have 18. They are four games under .500 in their conference. They have three losses to RPI 100+ teams.
Hey, NCSt beat Texas Tech by 30. WVU lost to Texas Tech TWICE.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 3:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CC has both Seton Hall and DePaul in regardless of outcome today. Both have middlin RPI and bad SOS. I don't see why the loser isn't also on the bubble...except that the bubble is already full to bursting.
CC also has Gonzaga as a last four in, but I dunno on that either.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 3:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
CC has both Seton Hall and DePaul in regardless of outcome today. Both have middlin RPI and bad SOS. I don't see why the loser isn't also on the bubble...except that the bubble is already full to bursting.
CC also has Gonzaga as a last four in, but I dunno on that either. |
I think he's just guessing more than usual.
It's one thing when he has past precedent on which to base his predictions. But he's basically said that this is the worst bubble ever so there is no precedent. He and the committee have to pick two or three teams from a group of six or eight that have no business playing in the NCAA Tournament and normally would never get in. It's hard to predict how the committee is going to make those fine final cuts among equally bad choices.
I saw he had both DePaul and SHU in. I wasn't sure if that was as of today, or that both will be in regardless of who wins and loses tonight. Especially compared to the alternatives, they certainly both belong in. Seriously, how could anyone consider putting in a 14 loss WVU team over either of them for example.
|
|
FollowtheCardinalRule
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 4:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
CC has both Seton Hall and DePaul in regardless of outcome today. Both have middlin RPI and bad SOS. I don't see why the loser isn't also on the bubble...except that the bubble is already full to bursting.
CC also has Gonzaga as a last four in, but I dunno on that either. |
I think he's just guessing more than usual.
It's one thing when he has past precedent on which to base his predictions. But he's basically said that this is the worst bubble ever so there is no precedent. He and the committee have to pick two or three teams from a group of six or eight that have no business playing in the NCAA Tournament and normally would never get in. It's hard to predict how the committee is going to make those fine final cuts among equally bad choices.
I saw he had both DePaul and SHU in. I wasn't sure if that was as of today, or that both will be in regardless of who wins and loses tonight. Especially compared to the alternatives, they certainly both belong in. Seriously, how could anyone consider putting in a 14 loss WVU team over either of them for example. |
I'd say a 14 loss WSU would be in before a 14 loss WVU.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 4:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Colorado State, the top team from the Mountain West, was just upset in the first round of their tournament by the 8th seeded San Jose State. They have a record of 23-7. I don't know if their schedule is strong enough to get them in but my guess is they will be one of those teams on the bubble that the committee talks about.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 5:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| SpaceJunkie wrote: |
| FollowtheCardinalRule wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| ok then, back to bracketology... |
Does Gonzaga really merit an at-large? |
Which one of these teams do? You need to pick two of these (or more if you don't like Miami and/or Arkansas):
Gonzaga
Arkansas State
Duquesne
Kansas State
Stetson
Tulane
TCU
Washington St
West Virginia |
Stetson being in the mix despite no top 100 RPI wins (and only one top 150 win) is amazing to me. |
Ark with a 6-10 and KSt with a 7-11 conf record are pretty far out there to me. And Wash St with an RPI of 71 and WVU with a 76. Has anybody with an RPI of 76 ever made it? Why are they in the discussion. |
Nobody with an RPI of 74 or greater has made the tournament since 2000, which is as far back as my records go. The last time a team with an RPI worse than 67 made the tournament was 2003. As for the others on this list, to quote a certain other thread:
Teams that looked okay
Gonzaga - "Gonzaga has 1 RPI top 50 win and 6 more RPI top 100 wins, but also 4 losses to RPI 51-100 teams." I said they looked okay before, but I'm not as sure now.
Teams that need a lot of luck
Arkansas State - " Arkansas State has wins over UALR and Chattanooga, but 4 losses to teams with sub-100 RPIs." I put them in the "praying" category.
Duquesne - "Duquesne has a win over RPI 37 Pitt, but no other wins over teams in the RPI top 70 and 2 bad losses."
Stetson - "Stetson has no RPI top 100 wins."
TCU - "I’m a bit torn about this one. The Horned Frogs were 0-4 v. RPI top 100 OOC, their only RPI top 25 win was against Texas during the Longhorns’ swoon and they’re just 9-9, but they have do have 3 RPI top 50 wins and 7 RPI top 100 wins. Still, I just have a hard time seeing the committee reaching down for them."
Tulane - "Tulane has a win over UALR, but losses to Tulsa and Temple."
Teams I took out of consideration:
"I’m also going to eliminate . . . Kansas State, Washington State and West Virginia, because I’m not aware of a team with an RPI worse than 60 and a losing conference record getting an at large bid." I don't see any reason to consider any of these teams now.
Revisiting this, I'm inclined to think that TCU may have a better shot right now, partly because of the early loss by Gonzaga in its tourney, but I'm not exactly convinced that's the case.
You can, of course, read all of the analysis here.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 5:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| Colorado State, the top team from the Mountain West, was just upset in the first round of their tournament by the 8th seeded San Jose State. They have a record of 23-7. I don't know if their schedule is strong enough to get them in but my guess is they will be one of those teams on the bubble that the committee talks about. |
RPI 71 (before today's game), SOS 225, 0 RPI top 50 wins, 3-4 v. RPI top 100, 3 losses (including today) to sub-RPI 100 teams. I don't think they have a chance.
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 5:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Yeah Gonzaga looks OK. And I won't be shocked if they take TCU over Tulane.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/10/15 7:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| Colorado State, the top team from the Mountain West, was just upset in the first round of their tournament by the 8th seeded San Jose State. They have a record of 23-7. I don't know if their schedule is strong enough to get them in but my guess is they will be one of those teams on the bubble that the committee talks about. |
RPI 71 (before today's game), SOS 225, 0 RPI top 50 wins, 3-4 v. RPI top 100, 3 losses (including today) to sub-RPI 100 teams. I don't think they have a chance. |
LOL...no chance at all. That's a pretty shitty resume.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66928
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/12/15 7:16 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stetson's loss in the ASun semis should end whatever faint hope the Hatters had of sneaking in.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
larmarch5
Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Posts: 424
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/12/15 2:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I wonder if the committee considers "ascending" vs "descending" teams, that is how they perform at the end of the season vs the beginning of the season. Do they toss out anomalies, "one hit wonder" games, whether they are unexpected losses or wins?
|
|
SpaceJunkie
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/12/15 9:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| larmarch5 wrote: |
| I wonder if the committee considers "ascending" vs "descending" teams, that is how they perform at the end of the season vs the beginning of the season. Do they toss out anomalies, "one hit wonder" games, whether they are unexpected losses or wins? |
Vanderbilt still got a #8 seed last year despite losing 8 out of their last 10 regular season games and going 1-and-done in the SEC Tournament, so from that I assume ascending or descending towards the end doesn't hold much, if any, weight.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/13/15 12:14 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| larmarch5 wrote: |
| I wonder if the committee considers "ascending" vs "descending" teams, that is how they perform at the end of the season vs the beginning of the season. Do they toss out anomalies, "one hit wonder" games, whether they are unexpected losses or wins? |
I think they use different measures, depending on what they are doing. In deciding if a team deserves to be in the field the entire season is considered, but if they are comparing 2 teams to say, decide who is a 2 seed and who is a 3, they might use other factors. For example, Who should be the overall 2nd seed, Notre Dame or South Carolina. Notre Dame wins the RPI battle and their win over Duke was more impressive. Comparing best wins however, Notre Dame has their win against Tenn while SC has two wins against Tenn. Both teams lost to UConn, ND's at home and SC's at UConn. But Notre Dame has that bad loss to Miami while SC lost at highly ranked Kentucky. I think Notre ame is the better team but the committee can put either on top and have an arguement to support their decision.
Who knows what the committee will decide, but it would have ramifications in where they play their regional games. Does the committee want ND in Greensboro and therefore shut out UNC and Duke from that site, or do they want S Carolina in Greensboro along with a traditional ACC team?
The reality is that they can do either.
Take Tenn. If Harrison hadn't been injured the games Tenn lost early to Texas and UTC might be discounted due to Harrison being out. But now that Harrison is unavailable along with Jones, who played in those games, the committee could put Baylor in as the overall 5th seed and make Fla St the 6th.
Bottom line is that the Committee can build a justification for a lot of different seedings.
|
|
FollowtheCardinalRule
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 5153
Location: Denver
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/13/15 2:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Western Kentucky doing its best to burst a bubble.
Old Dominion leads, 53-50 with 5 to go.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/13/15 2:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| larmarch5 wrote: |
| I wonder if the committee considers "ascending" vs "descending" teams, that is how they perform at the end of the season vs the beginning of the season. Do they toss out anomalies, "one hit wonder" games, whether they are unexpected losses or wins? |
I think they use different measures, depending on what they are doing. |
Well, they say they don't. And indeed that they eliminated "last ten" as a criterion several years ago.
But what they plainly do consider, and say they consider very strongly, is strength of schedule, where ND is 3rd and South Carolina is 16th. In part because ND beat one of the likely 1 seeds and three of the likely 2 seeds while SCar beat only one of the likely 2 seeds.
I think it's fans who try to use all kinds of extraneous things to justify their desired outcomes more than the committee. The Committee has too much to do to be comparing trivia. They have a nice organized data sheet that lays out all the pertinent information in a nice organized fashion. And they use that data and their own subjective impressions.
It's really not rocket science.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66928
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/13/15 2:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Well, they say they don't. And indeed that they eliminated "last ten" as a criterion several years ago. |
They replaced it with "last 12"
http://i2.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa7/release/sites/default/files/images/2014/03/12/revised_principles_and_procedures-7-19-13.pdf
| Quote: |
| complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head‐to‐head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings. |
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/13/15 3:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Well, they say they don't. And indeed that they eliminated "last ten" as a criterion several years ago. |
They replaced it with "last 12"
http://i2.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa7/release/sites/default/files/images/2014/03/12/revised_principles_and_procedures-7-19-13.pdf
| Quote: |
| complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head‐to‐head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings. |
|
Actually, that says it's available in the data, not that it's a factor to specifically be considered and weighted, which it used to be. What it says is:
"Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings,
head‐to‐head results, chronological results, Division I results, non‐conference results, home and away results, results in the last
twelve games, rankings, polls and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings."
They also say they don't consider the polls as a factor either, but it's also part of the data provided to committee members.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/13/15 3:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Well, they say they don't. And indeed that they eliminated "last ten" as a criterion several years ago. |
They replaced it with "last 12"
http://i2.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa7/release/sites/default/files/images/2014/03/12/revised_principles_and_procedures-7-19-13.pdf
| Quote: |
| complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head‐to‐head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings. |
|
Actually, that says it's available in the data, not that it's a factor to specifically be considered and weighted, which it used to be. What it says is:
"Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings,
head‐to‐head results, chronological results, Division I results, non‐conference results, home and away results, results in the last
twelve games, rankings, polls and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings."
They also say they don't consider the polls as a factor either, but it's also part of the data provided to committee members. |
Here's pretty much all that the principles document says about the *actual* principles for selecting teams (and, curiously enough, most of it's in the section on RPI, which essentially is an explanation that you shouldn't assume that RPI controls everything):
(At the very top of the "Principles for Selecting At-Large Teams")
"The committee shall select the 32 best teams to fill the at large berths.
There is no limit on the number of teams the committee may select from one conference."
(From the section on RPI)
"Each committee member independently evaluates a vast pool of information available during the process to develop individual preferences. It is these opinions, developed after many hours of personal observations (e.g., games watched), review of regional rankings submitted by coaches, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics, senior woman administrators, commissioners and review and comparison of objective data that dictate how each individual ultimately will vote on all issues related to the selection, seeding and bracketing process.
While the various elements of the RPI are important in the evaluation process, the tournament bracket each year is based on the subjectivity of each individual committee member to select the best at‐large teams"
Draw your own conclusions. I think that, reasonably, most of us presume that the information they say they look at is included in their evaluation, but they don't actually bind themselves to anything other than choosing what they think are the best teams.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 03/13/15 4:07 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Well, they say they don't. And indeed that they eliminated "last ten" as a criterion several years ago. |
They replaced it with "last 12"
http://i2.turner.ncaa.com/dr/ncaa/ncaa7/release/sites/default/files/images/2014/03/12/revised_principles_and_procedures-7-19-13.pdf
| Quote: |
| complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head‐to‐head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings. |
|
Actually, that says it's available in the data, not that it's a factor to specifically be considered and weighted, which it used to be. What it says is:
"Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings,
head‐to‐head results, chronological results, Division I results, non‐conference results, home and away results, results in the last
twelve games, rankings, polls and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings."
They also say they don't consider the polls as a factor either, but it's also part of the data provided to committee members. |
Here's pretty much all that the principles document says about the *actual* principles for selecting teams (and, curiously enough, most of it's in the section on RPI, which essentially is an explanation that you shouldn't assume that RPI controls everything):
(At the very top of the "Principles for Selecting At-Large Teams")
"The committee shall select the 32 best teams to fill the at large berths.
There is no limit on the number of teams the committee may select from one conference."
(From the section on RPI)
"Each committee member independently evaluates a vast pool of information available during the process to develop individual preferences. It is these opinions, developed after many hours of personal observations (e.g., games watched), review of regional rankings submitted by coaches, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics, senior woman administrators, commissioners and review and comparison of objective data that dictate how each individual ultimately will vote on all issues related to the selection, seeding and bracketing process.
While the various elements of the RPI are important in the evaluation process, the tournament bracket each year is based on the subjectivity of each individual committee member to select the best at‐large teams"
Draw your own conclusions. I think that, reasonably, most of us presume that the information they say they look at is included in their evaluation, but they don't actually bind themselves to anything other than choosing what they think are the best teams. |
Well, on a quick perusal I don't find anything specific on the women's side; it certainly had been a criteria on the men's side and was specifically abandoned as a criteria and replaced by a "total body of work" standard for the men in 2011.
From Yahoo Sport in 2011:
"• If you’re hot … so what? – Before last week I’d always heard that teams who finish the regular season on a high note were looked upon more favorably by the committee. Not true. One of the first things we were told last week was that a school’s results in its final 10-12 games aren’t any more important than the scores from its first 10-12 games.
“It can be visually deceptive,” said David Worlock, the NCAA’s Associate Director for the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship. “We want basketball to be on people’s radar in November. Those games that you see in November are all important games.”
And from ESPN at the same time:
"[Gene Smith, OhSt AD and chair of NCAA tournament selection committee] reminded reporters that the committee no longer subscribes to any official "last 12 games" criteria, but that each committee member can take each team's recent performance into consideration if he or she so desires. Basically, how your team's recent performance will be viewed depends on the subjective whim of each committee member."
I believe the women did the same thing at the same time, and as evidence of the impact many people look at Vandy last year which went 2-9 in its last 11 games and still got a bid despite a marginal record. If "last ten" were still something specifically considered, they would have stayed home.
|
|
|
|
