2014-15 Media Love Thread

[RussDaBus]

Gotleib says we are 6 or 7 seed. Saw it on twitter. Not sure how to post it from phone. Sorry.

[shoxlax]

Gotleib says we are 6 or 7 seed. Saw it on twitter. Not sure how to post it from phone. Sorry.

Understand that if it's a smart phone, it's impossible to quote Gottlieb.

[AZ Shocker]

Understand that if it's a smart phone, it's impossible to quote Gottlieb.

Awesome!

[ShockerFever]

Gotleib says we are 6 or 7 seed. Saw it on twitter. Not sure how to post it from phone. Sorry.

He's baaaaaaaaaack.

[Kel Varnsen]

To be fair, when they did the mock selection committee recently, we were a 6 seed. Now, obviously a lot can change if we beat UNI once or twice, but he's not exactly wrong.

[Rixtoy1]

I am about to expose the fact I really know nothing (not really news), but all this agonizing over seeding gives me an ice cream headache.
Last year we were a freaking one seed and look where it got us with the bracket they created.
If you deserve to be national champion, beat who you play and move on to the next game.

(But, I do appreciate that 4 short years ago we were agonizing about whether we would even BE in the tournament, let alone a 4 or 5 seed.)

[jdshock]

I am about to expose the fact I really know nothing (not really news), but all this agonizing over seeding gives me an ice cream headache.
Last year we were a freaking one seed and look where it got us with the bracket they created.
If you deserve to be national champion, beat who you play and move on to the next game.

(But, I do appreciate that 4 short years ago we were agonizing about whether we would even BE in the tournament, let alone a 4 or 5 seed.)

It's all about probabilities. A single-elimination, winner-take-all format does not ensure the best in the country wins the tournament. The higher your seed, the greater your probability of advancing each round.

Last year was an anomaly. Maybe the committee did it on purpose to put Kentucky in the 8/9 game. But Kentucky received the seed they deserved. Even if the committee did it on purpose they had the ability to do it on purpose because Kentucky underperformed all year. Not every year do you have one of the most historically stacked teams of all time underperform so drastically.

"beat who you play and move on" is a viewpoint that just ignores everything about probabilities and match-ups. It assumes the "better" team will win 100 out of 100 times.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

It's all about probabilities. A single-elimination, winner-take-all format does not ensure the best in the country wins the tournament. The higher your seed, the greater your probability of advancing each round.

Last year was an anomaly. Maybe the committee did it on purpose to put Kentucky in the 8/9 game. But Kentucky received the seed they deserved. Even if the committee did it on purpose they had the ability to do it on purpose because Kentucky underperformed all year. Not every year do you have one of the most historically stacked teams of all time underperform so drastically.

"beat who you play and move on" is a viewpoint that just ignores everything about probabilities and match-ups. It assumes the "better" team will win 100 out of 100 times.

This x1000

[pie n eye]

It's all about probabilities. A single-elimination, winner-take-all format does not ensure the best in the country wins the tournament. The higher your seed, the greater your probability of advancing each round.

Last year was an anomaly. Maybe the committee did it on purpose to put Kentucky in the 8/9 game. But Kentucky received the seed they deserved. Even if the committee did it on purpose they had the ability to do it on purpose because Kentucky underperformed all year. Not every year do you have one of the most historically stacked teams of all time underperform so drastically.

"beat who you play and move on" is a viewpoint that just ignores everything about probabilities and match-ups. It assumes the "better" team will win 100 out of 100 times.

I appreciate that you and others are great with stats and probabilities based on historical data but games are not played on paper. That kind of analysis is very useful when analyzing a thousand games but not so much a single game. I said it last year over and over but seeds don't win games, basketball teams do.

Edit: removed the great from basketball teams because it confused my point.

[ShoxFan45]

I am concerned that we may be extremely under-seeded depending on what happens with UNI over the next two weeks. I can see scenarios where we fall pretty far, just based off the number of good wins. It is not anyone's fault, but we don't have very many quality wins. This is because of the sucky MVC and the fact that our non-conference opponents completely bombed.

But the UNI game(s) mean much more to this team seeding-wise than they probably should.

Dropping to 7-9 if we lose two to UNI seems possible. Then again, I don't believe we will drop two to UNI. But still.

[jdshock]

That kind of analysis is very useful when analyzing a thousand games but not so much a single game.

Which is why seeds are so important: the game only gets played once. I don't understand how people have a problem with that.

I've made up a few numbers to clarify this. As a 1 seed, in the first round we face a team that we would beat 100 times out of 100 and in the second round a team that we would beat 85 times out of 100. As a 4 seed we face someone in the first round that we would beat 75 out of 100 times and in the second round a team we would beat 55 times out of 100.

If the games had been played 1000 times, both the 1 seed and the 4 seed would advance. Because the game is played only once, both could lose. The 1 seed has a better chance of advancing.

To think "great basketball teams" win games is obviously not a controversial statement. To say "great basketball teams" win EVERY game they should win is obviously naive. Respecting the probabilities of advancing based on seeds means you're at least willing to acknowledge that sometimes the ball bounces a different way: shots don't fall, calls don't get made, whatever it is.

[jocoshock]

We have been in the 4-6 range for some time now. The possibility of landing as a 6 or 7 is not outrageous given our resume now, especially if we drop not one, but two more games to Northern Iowa.

Personally, I have only two concerns.
1) I don't want to be a 5 seed.
2) I want to play a P5 team. We get no credit for beating VCU or Butler, and if we lose to VCU or Butler in the first round, then we still haven't played anyone in the minds of the P5 pinhead bigots..

[ShockerEngr]

I appreciate that you and others are great with stats and probabilities based on historical data but games are not played on paper. That kind of analysis is very useful when analyzing a thousand games but not so much a single game. I said it last year over and over but seeds don't win games, great basketball teams do.

And sometimes, great basketball teams lose games they shouldn't. Which is part of why the run last year was so special.

[pie n eye]

Which is why seeds are so important: the game only gets played once. I don't understand how people have a problem with that.

I've made up a few numbers to clarify this. As a 1 seed, in the first round we face a team that we would beat 100 times out of 100 and in the second round a team that we would beat 85 times out of 100. As a 4 seed we face someone in the first round that we would beat 75 out of 100 times and in the second round a team we would beat 55 times out of 100.

If the games had been played 1000 times, both the 1 seed and the 4 seed would advance. Because the game is played only once, both could lose. The 1 seed has a better chance of advancing.

To think "great basketball teams" win games is obviously not a controversial statement. To say "great basketball teams" win EVERY game they should win is obviously naive. Respecting the probabilities of advancing based on seeds means you're at least willing to acknowledge that sometimes the ball bounces a different way: shots don't fall, calls don't get made, whatever it is.

I edited "great" out of my OP because it muddles my point. Seeds don't win or play games, basketball teams do. You could give Missouri State a #1 seed but it doesn't mean they're going to magically become a good basketball team. You could give Kentucky a #16 seed but they're not going to lose in the first round.

[jdshock]

I edited "great" out of my OP because it muddles my point. Seeds don't win or play games, basketball teams do. You could give Missouri State a #1 seed but it doesn't mean they're going to magically become a good basketball team. You could give Kentucky a #16 seed but they're not going to lose in the first round.

But if MoSt DID get a 1 seed, they'd probably go further than if they were a 6 seed. Because teams like Kentucky are not 16 seeds is exactly why high seeds are likely to go further.

Is there anything that I could say that would convince you it's better to have a high seed than a low seed? Like, what evidence could I show you? For you to win this argument and convince me to switch sides, you'd have to show me that seeds historically don't matter. According to kenpom or whoever, you'd have to show me that 1 seeds, 4 seeds, and 9 seeds all have equally difficult paths to the championship game.