NCAA Tourney Talk

[forevershockerfan]

Thank goodness we did get 2 teams to the Sweet 16. Just think if all 4 Valley Teams would have faltered in the 1st round. Yikes!! Then the cry babies could have proclaimed these words----"See, I told you so, I told you so." All 4 Valley Teams did have a tough 1st Round game too.

[RoyalShock]

Drake's seed isn't that difficult to figure out, really.

How many teams that are in the tournament did they beat? One. Show me a 4-seed that Drake should replace? I don't see one. Every 4-seed has more impressive wins than Drake. Look at 6-seed Marquette. Yes, they had nine losses, but only one was outside the RPI top-30, and that was to #55. Drake had two losses outside the top-100.

I'm trying to figure out how Oklahoma gets a 6-seed with 11 losses, two of them being to Colorado (161) and Nebraska (95).

Barring a truly magical season (such as an awesome OOC and only 1 or 2 losses in conference), a 4-5 seed is about the best an MVC team can expect. That's why the non-conference is so important in the Valley.

BCS teams are always going to have a seeding advantage. They get plenty of games to play against tournament-caliber competition so their resumes will look better. That's one of the reasons ISU probably didn't get in. They didn't have ample opportunity to make up for their loss to E. Michigan or their four losses outside the top 100. They also had no wins against at-large teams. At least Baylor only had one loss outside the top 100 and three wins against tournament teams. In looking at good wins vs. bad losses, I don't see where ISU has a case against the teams that got in ahead of them. Don't fall into the RPI trap!

And that leads into my annual RPI perspective lecture: The RPI has nothing to do with seeding. The committee does not look at it for that purpose. They only use it to evaluate good wins and bad losses.

[7hottamales]

Jeez, I just fail to see the slight here...

Of course that may have something to do with the fact that I root against the rest of the Valley as I have long seen them as the opposition to getting what we want rather than buddies helping us get to post season. I'd prefer the Gonzaga, Winthrop, & Memphis situations of being the dominant team in the league. It basically ensures NCAA bids (Gonzaga/Winthrop) and high seeds (Memphis).

I don't see Illinois State making it as being good for us. I see it as being good for Illinois State.

0-5 against the field and a blowout loss in the most visible game does not an NCAA tournament team make.

[Indy23]

Also, how in the world did 11-loss OU receive a 6 seed? They lost at home to the kitties who really struggled on the road throughout the season. And don’t say RPI because supposedly it’s irrelevant now.

Just a guess, but I know Blake Griffin and Longar Longar have been hurt quite a bit this year. They might have been given a lower seed because Griffin is back. I believe they do take injuries to star players into account when seeding (assuming the injured star player is back on the court).

[7hottamales]

Drake's seed isn't that difficult to figure out, really.

How many teams that are in the tournament did they beat? One. Show me a 4-seed that Drake should replace? I don't see one. Every 4-seed has more impressive wins than Drake. Look at 6-seed Marquette. Yes, they had nine losses, but only one was outside the RPI top-30, and that was to #55. Drake had two losses outside the top-100.

I'm trying to figure out how Oklahoma gets a 6-seed with 11 losses, two of them being to Colorado (161) and Nebraska (95).

Barring a truly magical season (such as an awesome OOC and only 1 or 2 losses in conference), a 4-5 seed is about the best an MVC team can expect. That's why the non-conference is so important in the Valley.

BCS teams are always going to have a seeding advantage. They get plenty of games to play against tournament-caliber competition so their resumes will look better. That's one of the reasons ISU probably didn't get in. They didn't have ample opportunity to make up for their loss to E. Michigan or their four losses outside the top 100. They also had no wins against at-large teams. At least Baylor only had one loss outside the top 100 and three wins against tournament teams. In looking at good wins vs. bad losses, I don't see where ISU has a case against the teams that got in ahead of them. Don't fall into the RPI trap!

And that leads into my annual RPI perspective lecture: The RPI has nothing to do with seeding. The committee does not look at it for that purpose. They only use it to evaluate good wins and bad losses.

Some sanity!

I really have no problem with the teams that got in or with the seeding too much. I am a little surprised with OU getting a 6, but their non-con wins over Arkansas, Gonzaga, and West Virginia must have weighed heavily. I figure the committee must have given them some injury consideration as well since their two best players spent most of the season taking turns getting hurt. I see OU as probably closer to an 8 or 9.

[forevershockerfan]

Actually, I thought they seeded Drake slightly higher then I thought they would. It would have been nice for Ill. State to get in but no shock that they didn't. However, my understanding was all Valley teams get a cut from the Dance proceeds of inner Conference teams that make it, not just the teams that make it into the Dance. Is this true?

[RoyalShock]

I guess with the injury factor I can understand OU's seeding a little more.

But, 7hot, I can't agree with your assesment that ISU getting in only helps ISU.

The simple reason it helps is financial. The more MVC teams in, and the more they win, the more money comes the way of all MVC schools (which helps with coaching hires and recruiting budgets).

While I can't prove it, I would think that teams who get at-large births are looked at more favorably when it comes time to schedule games against quality opponents. Getting those games improves not just that team's RPI, but the RPI of teams who play them. That then helps the quality wins vs. bad losses when a team is getting looked at for an at-large bid. It's a process that feeds on itself. And I think we've been seeing the value in that for the past several years.

Just the fact that in a down year we were talking about the possibility of getting our 2nd-best team in the tournament says a lot.

[Indy23]

Drake's seed isn't that difficult to figure out, really.

How many teams that are in the tournament did they beat? One. Show me a 4-seed that Drake should replace? I don't see one. Every 4-seed has more impressive wins than Drake. Look at 6-seed Marquette. Yes, they had nine losses, but only one was outside the RPI top-30, and that was to #55. Drake had two losses outside the top-100.

I'm trying to figure out how Oklahoma gets a 6-seed with 11 losses, two of them being to Colorado (161) and Nebraska (95).

Barring a truly magical season (such as an awesome OOC and only 1 or 2 losses in conference), a 4-5 seed is about the best an MVC team can expect. That's why the non-conference is so important in the Valley.

BCS teams are always going to have a seeding advantage. They get plenty of games to play against tournament-caliber competition so their resumes will look better. That's one of the reasons ISU probably didn't get in. They didn't have ample opportunity to make up for their loss to E. Michigan or their four losses outside the top 100. They also had no wins against at-large teams. At least Baylor only had one loss outside the top 100 and three wins against tournament teams. In looking at good wins vs. bad losses, I don't see where ISU has a case against the teams that got in ahead of them. Don't fall into the RPI trap!

And that leads into my annual RPI perspective lecture: The RPI has nothing to do with seeding. The committee does not look at it for that purpose. They only use it to evaluate good wins and bad losses.

Good post Royal. The quality wins BCS teams rack up (and the lack of sub-100 losses) really hurt non-BCS bubble teams, especially now that the committee isn't using the RPI like they did a few years ago.

[RoyalShock]

Thanks, Indy. But I'm not sure about your last comment. The committee has said for probably the past decade that the RPI is just a tool to evaluate schedules. There was, of course, a false perception among fans that it meant more than that. It looks like that perception still exists, to a point.

[7hottamales]

I guess with the injury factor I can understand OU's seeding a little more.

But, 7hot, I can't agree with your assesment that ISU getting in only helps ISU.

The simple reason it helps is financial. The more MVC teams in, and the more they win, the more money comes the way of all MVC schools (which helps with coaching hires and recruiting budgets).

While I can't prove it, I would think that teams who get at-large births are looked at more favorably when it comes time to schedule games against quality opponents. Getting those games improves not just that team's RPI, but the RPI of teams who play them. That then helps the quality wins vs. bad losses when a team is getting looked at for an at-large bid. It's a process that feeds on itself. And I think we've been seeing the value in that for the past several years.

Just the fact that in a down year we were talking about the possibility of getting our 2nd-best team in the tournament says a lot.

I realize I'm in the minority and I totally understand the other side of the argument...I just have never liked the other schools in the Valley so it's much easier for me to fixate on my counterexamples. I fully understand that I may be wrong, but I am definitely jealous of Gonzaga's situation.

It doesn't really matter anyways, because the window of opportunity to create that situation was probably wasted during the period of Cohen, Thompson, and Smithson. There's probably too much competitive balance in the league for any one team to rise above the fray and become a perennial top 20 program.

Having said that, how many times in the past 20 years has the Valley gotten only 1 team in?

[7hottamales]

Thanks, Indy. But I'm not sure about your last comment. The committee has said for probably the past decade that the RPI is just a tool to evaluate schedules. There was, of course, a false perception among fans that it meant more than that. It looks like that perception still exists, to a point.

The RPI just needs to be trashed. It is atrocious. If they would just use something much more comprehensive and meaningful for objective evaluation and they wouldn't have to play all these games with what it's used for and what it's not used for.

[rrshock]

So, from what I took from the committe chair was this:

1. They don't use the RPI.
2. The OOC SOS was very important.
3. Conference affiliation doesn't play into it?

I understand #2, but #1 is their excuse for excluding a couple of non-BCS schools that had much better ratings that some of them that they let in.

If OOC SOS plays such an important part, then no wonder the bigs won't play the not-so-bigs in the pre-conference games. It is really easy to hold them back if they don't have anyone good to play.

This new philosophy makes WSU's trips to Orlando and Maui the next 2 years extrememly important. These are the best chances for the team to beat quality non-con opponents. Since no one really seems to want to play the MVC teams any other way.

[ShockRef]

Drake's seed isn't that difficult to figure out, really.

How many teams that are in the tournament did they beat? One. Show me a 4-seed that Drake should replace? I don't see one. Every 4-seed has more impressive wins than Drake. Look at 6-seed Marquette. Yes, they had nine losses, but only one was outside the RPI top-30, and that was to #55. Drake had two losses outside the top-100.

I'm trying to figure out how Oklahoma gets a 6-seed with 11 losses, two of them being to Colorado (161) and Nebraska (95).

Barring a truly magical season (such as an awesome OOC and only 1 or 2 losses in conference), a 4-5 seed is about the best an MVC team can expect. That's why the non-conference is so important in the Valley.

BCS teams are always going to have a seeding advantage. They get plenty of games to play against tournament-caliber competition so their resumes will look better. That's one of the reasons ISU probably didn't get in. They didn't have ample opportunity to make up for their loss to E. Michigan or their four losses outside the top 100. They also had no wins against at-large teams. At least Baylor only had one loss outside the top 100 and three wins against tournament teams. In looking at good wins vs. bad losses, I don't see where ISU has a case against the teams that got in ahead of them. Don't fall into the RPI trap!

And that leads into my annual RPI perspective lecture: The RPI has nothing to do with seeding. The committee does not look at it for that purpose. They only use it to evaluate good wins and bad losses.

Logical post, that utilizes facts. Indeed, hard to argue against.
The OU 11 seed also mystifies yours truly, along with Arizona even getting a bid.
If you watched OU get blasted Saturday, you know they are not a very good team.
When the selection committee implements certain criteria that teams must meet, the process will be based on facts, instead of gut feelings.
Point being: No team should be considered if they don't have a winning conference record. I don't care if they were 'close loses' or a certain player didn't play. This isn't horse shoes and a loss is a loss.
If you lose, you don't get invited - you stay home. 8)

[7hottamales]

Drake's seed isn't that difficult to figure out, really.

How many teams that are in the tournament did they beat? One. Show me a 4-seed that Drake should replace? I don't see one. Every 4-seed has more impressive wins than Drake. Look at 6-seed Marquette. Yes, they had nine losses, but only one was outside the RPI top-30, and that was to #55. Drake had two losses outside the top-100.

I'm trying to figure out how Oklahoma gets a 6-seed with 11 losses, two of them being to Colorado (161) and Nebraska (95).

Barring a truly magical season (such as an awesome OOC and only 1 or 2 losses in conference), a 4-5 seed is about the best an MVC team can expect. That's why the non-conference is so important in the Valley.

BCS teams are always going to have a seeding advantage. They get plenty of games to play against tournament-caliber competition so their resumes will look better. That's one of the reasons ISU probably didn't get in. They didn't have ample opportunity to make up for their loss to E. Michigan or their four losses outside the top 100. They also had no wins against at-large teams. At least Baylor only had one loss outside the top 100 and three wins against tournament teams. In looking at good wins vs. bad losses, I don't see where ISU has a case against the teams that got in ahead of them. Don't fall into the RPI trap!

And that leads into my annual RPI perspective lecture: The RPI has nothing to do with seeding. The committee does not look at it for that purpose. They only use it to evaluate good wins and bad losses.

Logical post, that utilizes facts. Indeed, hard to argue against.
The OU 11 seed also mystifies yours truly, along with Arizona even getting a bid.
If you watched OU get blasted Saturday, you know they are not a very good team.
When the selection committee implements certain criteria that teams must meet, the process will be based on facts, instead of gut feelings.
Point being: No team should be considered if they don't have a winning conference record. I don't care if they were 'close loses' or a certain player didn't play. This isn't horse shoes and a loss is a loss.
If you lose, you don't get invited - you stay home. 8)

The Zona bid follows the same logic as the OU seed. Zona was 16-6 when healthy...and Bayless is the heart and soul of that team. I think the question of how heavily injuries should be weighed is a very valid one.

[ShockRef]

And while were ranting, the Baylor selection sucks too.
Any team that goes 5-8 in their last 13 games and gets punked by Colorado in first game of their tournament needs to be home in Waco.
That was embarrassing. 8)