Originally posted by Jamar Howard 4 President
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How the Selection Committee SHOULD Look at Resumes
Collapse
X
-
Combine the NCAA and NIT tournaments into one large tournament. Get rid of the post-season conference tournaments to allow an additional 3 rounds. That would allow most teams into the main tourney, meaning the other minor tournaments would no longer be necessary. Let a computer figure out the seeds and locations.
I'm only joking about all of this. Anyone that has "The Onion" link, feel free to post it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by im4wsu View PostDo you know what the 30%, 54% and 59% would be for teams in the 20-40 RPI range and also the 1-20 range?I developed these numbers purely from 2016. I bet if you combined the last 3 years you would get a more accurate distribution, but this should be close enough to get the idea.RPI 1-20 RPI 21-40 RPI 41-60 vs top 25 55% 31% 30% vs 26-50 69% 54% 54% vs 51-100 80% 73% 59%
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jamar Howard 4 President View PostRPI 1-20 RPI 21-40 RPI 41-60 vs top 25 55% 31% 30% vs 26-50 69% 54% 54% vs 51-100 80% 73% 59%
I developed these numbers purely from 2016. I bet if you combined the last 3 years you would get a more accurate distribution, but this should be close enough to get the idea.
Thanks, JH4P. Not too much to differentiate 21-40 and 41-60 groups until the 51-100 level."I not sure that I've ever been around a more competitive player or young man than Fred VanVleet. I like to win more than 99.9% of the people in this world, but he may top me." -- Gregg Marshall 12/23/13 :peaceful:
---------------------------------------
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare:
"We have to pass it, to find out what's in it".
A physician called into a radio show and said:
"That's the definition of a stool sample."
Comment
-
Originally posted by im4wsu View PostThanks, JH4P. Not too much to differentiate 21-40 and 41-60 groups until the 51-100 level.
Comment
-
Something about JH4P’s first post in reminded of the book “Paradox of Choice” that reviewed similar situations over custody battles. A fun, but impossible experiment with blind resumes would be interesting to me.
• The experiment would have the following elements/tricks
• Without telling the committee, each blind resume comparison will be reviewed two times throughout the process. There would be a randomized order in comparisons, but the goal would be for the committee to not realize they have already looked at this particular comparison.
• The key difference between the first and second review would be how the question is framed by the chair for each review:
• First time through - Which team should be included based on the blind resume comparison?
• Second time through – Which team should not be included based on the blind resume comparison?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the same Blind Resume is chosen for both questions. With either question the “average” team that is missing great wins or terrible losses will be ignored. The bi-polar team with a couple of signature wins and a couple of terrible losses will be chosen because you have something to point at to justify your decision.
I suspect this year’s committee spent a lot more time on “why a team should be included.”Last edited by proshox; March 23, 2016, 10:46 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 60Shock View PostIt should not happen, but just how much weight does the name brand of Syracuse versus little ol' St. Mary's carry into the equation?
Comment
-
Originally posted by proshox View Post
I wouldn’t be surprised if this year’s committee spent a lot more time on “why a team should be included.”"You Don't Have to Play a Perfect Game. Your Best is Good Enough."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by proshox View PostProbably a fair statement, but in my controlled experiment team names would not be available."You Don't Have to Play a Perfect Game. Your Best is Good Enough."
Comment
Comment