Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stating the Obvious - NCAA Seeding Edition

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Stating the Obvious - NCAA Seeding Edition

    So I went though the bracket with this week's ESPN/USA Today poll and last week's AP poll (this week's wasn't out yet) and compared the seedings given to what the seeding reasonably should be from the following relationship:

    #1 seed == 1-4 national ranking
    #2 seed == 2-8
    #3 seed == 9-12
    #4 seed == 13-16
    #5 seed == 17-20
    #6 seed == 21-24

    Based on this criteria and the available Top-25 data, here's who fared better than ratings would indicate - with conference:

    Better
    (4) Maryland (ACC) [should be 5]
    (3) Georgetown (Big East) [should be 4-5]
    (4) Vanderbilt (SEC) [should be 5-6]
    (3) Pittsburg (Big East) [should be 4-5]
    (3) Baylor (Big 12) [should be 6]
    (2) Villinova (Big East) [should be 3]
    (5) Texas A&M (Big 12) [should be 6]
    (4) Wisconsin (Big 10) [should be 4-5]

    And here's who fared worse:

    Worse
    (9) Northern Iowa (MVC) [should be 6-7]
    (5) Michigan State (Big 10) [should be 3]
    (6) Tennessee (SEC) [should be 4]
    (8) Gonzaga (WCC) [should be 5]
    (5) Butler (Horizon) [should be 2-3]
    (12) UTEP (C-USA) [should be 6]
    (7) BYU (MWC) [should be 4-5]
    (5) Temple (A-10) [should be 4-5]
    (4) Purdue (Big 10) [should be 2-3]

    Notice that while there are 3 BCS teams in the Worse column, there are NO non-BCS teams in the Better column. Also, given the ludicrous seeding of Northern Iowa at 9 and Gonzaga at 8, here are the list of teams that scored an 8 seed or better without being nationally ranked:

    Poseurs
    (8) UNLV (MWC)
    (7) Oklahoma State (Big 12)
    (6) Marquette (Big East)
    (7) Clemson (SEC)
    (8) Texas (Big 12)
    (8) California (Pac-10) [seriously, WTF?]
    (6) Notre Dame (Big 10)
    (7) Richmond (A-10)

    And, just because I can, here are the two most egregious errors made by the selection committee (that haven't already been mentioned here):
    Cornell - a team that was ranked at one point, walked away with the Ivy, and almost beat KU at Allen Fieldhouse: 12-seed.
    Missouri - a team that that shouldn't even be in the tournament: 10-seed.

    I'm really getting sick of this. Yes,. the Mountain West got 4 teams in. Wah-frickin'-Hoo. The Big East got 8 in, and literally HALF of those got some sort of seeding BONUS from the Selection Committee. Meanwhile, The Missouri Valley Conference regular season AND tournament champion, a nationally ranked team, gets relegated to the bottom half of the bracket, as does UTEP, a team with 26 wins in the Mountain West. Butler should probably be in 'Nova's spot.

    I'm really finding it hard to care about this circle-**** of a tournament this morning.

    :clap: :wsu_posters: :yahoo: :clap:
    Tags: None
  • #2
    rankings are subjective polls voted on by a different group that selects and seeds for the tourney and don't match one to one. Some seeds make you scratch your head though and the little guy doesn't get the respect that they deserve in many cases. I do not agree with your Butler over Villanova arguement though. I have not seen anything in Butler's resume to warrant a 2 seed.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Stating the Obvious - NCAA Seeding Edition

      Originally posted by HockeyShock
      I'm really finding it hard to care about this circle-**** of a tournament this morning.
      You're not the only one.
      Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
      RIP Guy Always A Shocker
      Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
      ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
      Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
      Save Shocker Sports - A rallying cry

      Comment

      • #4
        well whatever. I get to still take off work Thursday and Friday just to watch basketball. It would be nice to watch the Shox. But we'll be there next year

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Stating the Obvious - NCAA Seeding Edition

          Originally posted by HockeyShock
          Missouri - a team that that shouldn't even be in the tournament: 10-seed.
          Missouri deserved every bit of that 10 seed. Tell me why they should have missed the tourney. Who missed the tourney that deserved a bid more than them?

          Comment

          • #6
            Good analysis Hockey. It is just insidious. We will go on being props for the BCS NCAA tournament.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Stating the Obvious - NCAA Seeding Edition

              Originally posted by Jamar Howard 4 President
              Originally posted by HockeyShock
              Missouri - a team that that shouldn't even be in the tournament: 10-seed.
              Missouri deserved every bit of that 10 seed. Tell me why they should have missed the tourney. Who missed the tourney that deserved a bid more than them?
              Because they got crushed by Nebraska
              Follow me on twitter: https://twitter.com/Shox_KCfan

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Stating the Obvious - NCAA Seeding Edition

                Originally posted by newshock1234
                Originally posted by Jamar Howard 4 President
                Originally posted by HockeyShock
                Missouri - a team that that shouldn't even be in the tournament: 10-seed.
                Missouri deserved every bit of that 10 seed. Tell me why they should have missed the tourney. Who missed the tourney that deserved a bid more than them?
                Because they got crushed by Nebraska
                ...and losses to Vandy, Richmond, Oklahoma, and Oral Roberts. In fact, their "quality" OOC win was over Old Dominion. If we don't deserve to be in. they sure as hell don't deserve to be in.

                :clap: :wsu_posters: :yahoo: :clap:

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by TurFin
                  rankings are subjective polls voted on by a different group that selects and seeds for the tourney and don't match one to one. Some seeds make you scratch your head though and the little guy doesn't get the respect that they deserve in many cases. I do not agree with your Butler over Villanova arguement though. I have not seen anything in Butler's resume to warrant a 2 seed.
                  Wins over Ohio State, Xavier, and Siena, their only loss to a team that didn't make the NCAA was UAB. Oh, and not only did they run the Horizon League, they haven't lost since December 22nd of last year.

                  Versus a team that's lost six times since the start of February, including losses to UConn, and a 1st round tourney loss to Marquette. And they finished 4th in the Big East.

                  Yeah, I totally understand why you'd think 'Nova was better. :roll:

                  :clap: :wsu_posters: :yahoo: :clap:

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Stating the Obvious - NCAA Seeding Edition

                    Originally posted by HockeyShock
                    Originally posted by newshock1234
                    Originally posted by Jamar Howard 4 President
                    Originally posted by HockeyShock
                    Missouri - a team that that shouldn't even be in the tournament: 10-seed.
                    Missouri deserved every bit of that 10 seed. Tell me why they should have missed the tourney. Who missed the tourney that deserved a bid more than them?
                    Because they got crushed by Nebraska
                    ...and losses to Vandy, Richmond, Oklahoma, and Oral Roberts. In fact, their "quality" OOC win was over Old Dominion. If we don't deserve to be in. they sure as hell don't deserve to be in.

                    :clap: :wsu_posters: :yahoo: :clap:
                    I don't follow your logic on this. How do those games make their resume worse than ours?

                    They got crushed by Nebraska (RPI 150) - We got crushed by Drake (RPI 180): Advantage Missouri

                    They lost at Oral Roberts (RPI 127) - We lost at Evansville (RPI 251): Advantage Missouri

                    They lost at Oklahoma (RPI 117) - We lost at Creighton (RPI 115): Wash

                    They lost on a neutral court to Richmond (RPI 24) - We lost on a neutral court to Pitt (RPI 15): Slight Advantage WSU

                    They lost at Vandy (RPI 26) - We won at Cleveland St. (RPI 163): Wash (this is generous, since losing at Vandy is probably better for the resume than winning at Cleveland St.)

                    They won on a neutral court over ODU (RPI 29) - We won at home over Texas Tech (RPI 65): Advantage Missouri

                    They only have 3 losses to teams not in the NCAA tournament and no losses to teams outside the top 150 of the RPI - We have 6 losses to teams not in the NCAA tournament and 2 losses to teams outside of the top 150 RPI: Advantage Missouri

                    They have wins over 4 teams in the NCAA tournament, including a win over Kansas St. (RPI 6) - We have a win over 1 team in the NCAA tournament, being UNI (RPI 17): Advantage Missouri

                    At the end of the day, they had only 1 more loss than us while playing a harder schedule. They had more and better quality wins and their worst loss was still better than our second worst loss.
                    "Cotton scared me - I left him alone." - B4MSU (Bear Nation poster) in reference to heckling players

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Stating the Obvious - NCAA Seeding Edition

                      Originally posted by The Mad Hatter

                      They lost on a neutral court to Richmond (RPI 24) - We lost on a neutral court to Pitt (RPI 15): Slight Advantage WSU

                      They lost at Vandy (RPI 26) - We won at Cleveland St. (RPI 163): Wash (this is generous, since losing at Vandy is probably better for the resume than winning at Cleveland St.)
                      It's not a wash. Cleveland State was a tourney team last year and we won on the road. Road wins are always more valuable than road losses, especially when the home team wins somewhere north of 60% of the time.

                      As for picking nits with the RPI, the Drake/Nebraska comparison is more of a wash because Nebraska gets an automatic RPI boost playing in the Big 12. You can't tell me Nebraska is better than Drake, even this year.

                      Also, they're the team that celebrates the fact that they came across the border and massacred Kansans, in the act of supporting slavery I might add. I don't have to be a Beaker to not like Missou. And whether or not they did better than us, they certainly don't deserve a 10-seed.

                      :clap: :wsu_posters: :yahoo: :clap:

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Universities that have football teams that participate in the BCS gain 1.75 seed places.

                        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/03/15/selection.bias/index.html?eref=sihp

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Anthroshock
                          Universities that have football teams that participate in the BCS gain 1.75 seed places.

                          http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp
                          It is a long article but well worth the read. Besides the obvious BCS bias (+1.75) they also found that bubble teams that had one of their own conference members on the committee had a far better chance of dancing. A few interesting paragraphs about the 2006 selections:

                          After several years of predicting the tournament field using their Dance Card formula, Coleman and Lynch noticed they usually missed two or three at-large teams a year. They also noticed the teams they missed on seemed to have similar characteristics. They realized they needed to change the formula after the 2006 tournament.
                          For most, the defining memory of the 2006 tournament is watching George Mason, an at-large team from the Colonial Athletic Association, crash the Final Four. For Coleman, DuMond and Lynch, it was that selection Sunday. Air Force hadn't even bothered to gather as a team to watch the selection show. The Falcons got an at-large bid. Meanwhile, George Mason's situation looked dire thanks to a pair of losses to Hofstra -- a team with a similar resume and an RPI of 30. George Mason got an at-large bid. Hofstra didn't. "I need someone to explain this process to me," Hofstra coach Tom Pecora told The Buffalo News.
                          .... In looking at the at-large bids that year, DuMond noticed a common complaint that can best be described with a passage from a story John Markon wrote for the March 14, 2006 edition of the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch.
                          This year, everyone's complaining about the same three or four choices - Air Force, Utah State, California and George Mason. We've heard all the arguments based on RPI, quality losses, record in the most recent 10 games, etc.
                          Let's make it slightly simpler:
                          Air Force: A Mountain West Conference AD, Chris Hill of Utah, was on the committee.
                          California: A Pacific 10 Conference AD, Dan Guerrero of UCLA, was on the committee.
                          Utah State: Western Athletic Conference Commissioner Karl Benson was on the committee.
                          George Mason: Mason AD Tom O'Connor was on the committee.


                          Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz0iJWSwzHa

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Simple - Have 10 well known mathematicians (or statisticians) make up the selection committee. Statistics do not lie, it is the real record of what teams do or do not do.

                            Having members on the committee that have obvious Basketball affiliations is the basis for bias to begin with.

                            You need members that can be more objective without the built-in subjective bias already being there.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Snapshot9
                              Statistics do not lie,
                              there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X