GAME Selection Sunday Thread 6pm ET CBS

ericd7633 said:
I've never thought conference placement should have any indication on selection/seeding. Not all P5/6 conferences are created equal and with the imbalanced schedules, teams can have a better record while not being as good of a team. It's why in football a team that finished 9-3 in the SEC should be ranked higher than a team that finished 9-3 in the P12 or ACC.

There are some bad teams in the bottom of the leagues. If you're fortunate enough to play the bottom of the league a ton, that really doesn't indicate you're a good team. That's why that Alabama team got left out, and I'd guess a poor OOC record as well. OOC is weighted pretty heavily, but I think it's good. The reason why the P12 only has 3 teams is because the league shit the bed OOC. Going 11-7 or 12-6 in that league this year doesn't mean a whole lot.
Click to expand...

You say that but I don't see the B1G doing that well OOC either with the exception of Purdue and maybe Wisconsin.
 
Volbound1700 said:
I do think Iowa was probably under seeded but they are not a top tier win. I don't think they were in the top 10 this season (granted the polls do not mean much) and their RPI is 26: College Basketball Rankings 2021-22 - RPI.

Texas A&M beat Arkansas 2x who is a 4 seed with an RPI of 22 and Auburn who is a 2 seed with an RPI of 7. (Purdue came in at 12 in the RPI so Auburn, on a neutral court, is a bigger win than anything Michigan achieved).

I am not saying RPI should have been the be-all, end-all but all of these items should have been factored.

It was clear that the Committee setup the bracket last week and only did minor tweaks this week.

In the scheme of things, Tennessee did NOT screwed as bad as teams like Texas A&M or Virginia Tech.
Click to expand...

RPI isn't used by the committee anymore. The reason Arkansas is seeded higher than Iowa is because they had better wins throughout the season. Iowa rates better in the NET, BPI, KenPom and Sagarin. If we're taking about who is better from an analytical perspective Iowa beats Arkansas in all of them. But I was fine with where each team was seeded because Arkansas had great wins during the season, Iowa really came on late but couldn't match that. If Arkansas is a top tier win, Iowa, by definition is that as well.

The committee has always put an emphasis on wins against the at-large field. Michigan has a lot of them. A&M has more than ND, which is my issue with the committee. I thought Michigan was in a good spot after beating OSU the last game of the season.
 
ericd7633 said:
RPI isn't used by the committee anymore. The reason Arkansas is seeded higher than Iowa is because they had better wins throughout the season. Iowa rates better in the NET, BPI, KenPom and Sagarin. If we're taking about who is better from an analytical perspective Iowa beats Arkansas in all of them. But I was fine with where each team was seeded because Arkansas had great wins during the season, Iowa really came on late but couldn't match that. If Arkansas is a top tier win, Iowa, by definition is that as well.

The committee has always put an emphasis on wins against the at-large field. Michigan has a lot of them. A&M has more than ND, which is my issue with the committee. I thought Michigan was in a good spot after beating OSU the last game of the season.
Click to expand...

It all makes sense but it is a circular argument because they select who gets in and who does not so basically it is # of wins against teams we select to be in tournament.

I also think the big issue is that they don't factor the tournaments which is dangerous, especially this year, because teams may start de-emphasizing the importance of the Conference Tournaments if they are already a lock for March.

The reason Texas A&M did NOT make it or Iowa/Virginia Tech got lower seeds was because they did not count the wins this past week with their resumes. It is pretty clear on this point.

I think RPI is a lot better analysis than the current method even though it isn't perfect either. Computers don't have bias.

Also the reason that I kept bringing up Kentucky is that if you put Tennessee's resume up against Kentucky, it is clearly better. Tennessee also beat Kentucky head-to-head in a 3-game series and finished higher in the overall regular season standings and won the tournament. With the exception of a 6-4 lead in the 1st quarter, Tennessee led Kentucky the entire game Saturday. It is a lot harder to compare Duke vs. Tennessee because they did not play but there is a direct comparison between Kentucky and Tennessee that does not make sense from seeding aspect. Sure if Kentucky had a better record, SOS, etc., I would argue that Kentucky deserved to be ahead of Tennessee but in nearly every category, Kentucky is behind Tennessee (especially if you take the human bias out of it).
 
Volbound1700 said:
You say that but I don't see the B1G doing that well OOC either with the exception of Purdue and maybe Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

The B1G's OOC winning % was 78%
The P12's OOC winning % was 67%.

That's pretty significant.
 
ericd7633 said:
The B1G's OOC winning % was 78%
The P12's OOC winning % was 67%.

That's pretty significant.
Click to expand...

Who did they play?

Winning percentage can be misleading. I doubt the SEC even has a 78% winning percentage but its SOS is threw the roof.
 
Volbound1700 said:
It all makes sense but it is a circular argument because they select who gets in and who does not so basically it is # of wins against teams we select to be in tournament.

I also think the big issue is that they don't factor the tournaments which is dangerous, especially this year, because teams may start de-emphasizing the importance of the Conference Tournaments if they are already a lock for March.

The reason Texas A&M did NOT make it or Iowa/Virginia Tech got lower seeds was because they did not count the wins this past week with their resumes. It is pretty clear on this point.

I think RPI is a lot better analysis than the current method even though it isn't perfect either. Computers don't have bias.

Also the reason that I kept bringing up Kentucky is that if you put Tennessee's resume up against Kentucky, it is clearly better. Tennessee also beat Kentucky head-to-head in a 3-game series and finished higher in the overall regular season standings and won the tournament. With the exception of a 6-4 lead in the 1st quarter, Tennessee led Kentucky the entire game Saturday. It is a lot harder to compare Duke vs. Tennessee because they did not play but there is a direct comparison between Kentucky and Tennessee that does not make sense from seeding aspect. Sure if Kentucky had a better record, SOS, etc., I would argue that Kentucky deserved to be ahead of Tennessee but in nearly every category, Kentucky is behind Tennessee (especially if you take the human bias out of it).
Click to expand...

I would agree there wasn't much emphasis placed on conference tournaments. It's hit or miss with that and has been forever. Teams like Syracuse in 2006 and UConn in 2011 were greatly impacted in seeding for winner the Big East tournament. And to a lesser extent teams like WVU in 2005 and Maryland in 2004 also had a huge bump up the seedings because of how they performed.

I agree with everything about TN. They should have been a #2. I would have taken Duke off the #2 line. But the silver lining is if you make the S16 you don't have to go out West and miss Gonzaga until what would be the title game.
 
ericd7633 said:
I would agree there wasn't much emphasis placed on conference tournaments. It's hit or miss with that and has been forever. Teams like Syracuse in 2006 and UConn in 2011 were greatly impacted in seeding for winner the Big East tournament. And to a lesser extent teams like WVU in 2005 and Maryland in 2004 also had a huge bump up the seedings because of how they performed.

I agree with everything about TN. They should have been a #2. I would have taken Duke off the #2 line. But the silver lining is if you make the S16 you don't have to go out West and miss Gonzaga until what would be the title game.
Click to expand...

Arizona and Villanova will be tough draws for us. Although, I think we kind of want Villanova because that was one of our most embarrassing losses in November and we clearly didn't play well that game.

I was looking at Villanova's resume and they definitely deserve a #2 seed. Duke is questionable and I still think Kentucky is questionable. Everyone is valuing one game (@Kansas) to highly. Kentucky has some great wins but they also have some significant losses.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Who did they play?

Winning percentage can be misleading. I doubt the SEC even has a 78% winning percentage but its SOS is threw the roof.
Click to expand...

Avg OOC SOS: B1G - 152
Avg OOC SOS: P12 - 111

P12 played harder schedules, but the difference isn't that significant to have a winning percentage that worse off.
 
ericd7633 said:
Avg OOC SOS: B1G - 152
Avg OOC SOS: P12 - 111

P12 played harder schedules, but the difference isn't that significant to have a winning percentage that worse off.
Click to expand...

Agree but I am making the same argument with bids. The difference is not high enough between these leagues to justify the B1G having 9 bids and the Pac12 having 3. I do think the B1G should have MORE bids than the Pac12, just not that much more.
 
rmilia1 said:
I think weve got an excellent shot to make the S16 as i dont think Richmond or Providence can hang with us if we play well

After that i like playing KU better than Zona or Zags but i wouldnt expect us to win
Click to expand...

People who are making Final 4 picks are leaning heavily Iowa.

I mean, many more people have picked Iowa than Auburn.

They have a chance but I wouldn't go that far as a netural party.

Bracket experts always favor certain types of teams...
 
rmilia1 said:
I think weve got an excellent shot to make the S16 as i dont think Richmond or Providence can hang with us if we play well

After that i like playing KU better than Zona or Zags but i wouldnt expect us to win
Click to expand...

Actually, never mind, a lot of the SI guys picked Auburn.
 
Volbound1700 said:
I still think Kentucky is questionable.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you're the only one in the world. 3 in KenPom. 5 in NET. 2 in SOS. 7 in writers poll. 6 in coaches poll. Does anything have them outside the top 8?
 
Volbound1700 said:
Agree but I am making the same argument with bids. The difference is not high enough between these leagues to justify the B1G having 9 bids and the Pac12 having 3. I do think the B1G should have MORE bids than the Pac12, just not that much more.
Click to expand...

There really isn't anyone in the P12 that has a case though to be an at large. You said Colorado earlier, but they have only beaten one team that has made the field. You seem to be arguing you need to have good wins to make it, but they don't have any, outside of one. Oregon has some nice wins, but they faded down the stretch and lost 9 P12 games.
 
Volbound1700 said:
@ericd7633 and @rmilia1

Don't get me wrong, I think you both are making great arguments for Michigan but Michigan only had one top tier win (Purdue) and was pretty much got credit for beating other B1G teams.

Take conference comparisons:

1. The SEC was ranked ahead of B1G in most rankings: NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings (updated today)
2. SEC teams went out and got MAJOR wins: Alabama @ Gonzaga, Kentucky @ Kansas, Arizona @ Tennessee, Baylor @ Alabama
3. The SEC won the Big12-SEC Challenge
4. SEC had a lot of depth, one of the deepest leagues this year

Yet the NCAA Selection Committee thought 9 teams from B1G should make it and only 6 from SEC. That means, according to the committee, the B1G was massively better than the SEC (and Big12 but that is another argument). I don't see it.

Pac12 3 teams vs. B1G 9 teams - Even more ridiculous.

I just don't see how the B1G is good enough to deserve 9 bids.
Click to expand...

The number of teams that a conference puts in is just a 'number'.

The SEC is top heavy and has two 2s and a 3. And they should have had three 2s.

In reality, the B1G beat themselves us too much. And they have a lot of teams with garbage seeds that could be one and done.

Honestly, the last thing the SEC wanted was a team like Texas A&M to go on a run.

What you really want as a conference is to kill it OOC, and then have your top teams beat up on all the middle and low teams. Less bids, higher seeds.
 
jontaejones said:
The number of teams that a conference puts in is just a 'number'.

The SEC is top heavy and has two 2s and a 3. And they should have had three 2s.

In reality, the B1G beat themselves us too much. And they have a lot of teams with garbage seeds that could be one and done.

Honestly, the last thing the SEC wanted was a team like Texas A&M to go on a run.

What you really want as a conference is to kill it OOC, and then have your top teams beat up on all the middle and low teams. Less bids, higher seeds.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Relative parity is not optimal
Or...
 
SU Nittany Tide said:
Pretty sure you're the only one in the world. 3 in KenPom. 5 in NET. 2 in SOS. 7 in writers poll. 6 in coaches poll. Does anything have them outside the top 8?
Click to expand...

How does that stack up to Tennessee's resume? Post Tennessee's info against it.
 
jontaejones said:
The number of teams that a conference puts in is just a 'number'.

The SEC is top heavy and has two 2s and a 3. And they should have had three 2s.

In reality, the B1G beat themselves us too much. And they have a lot of teams with garbage seeds that could be one and done.

Honestly, the last thing the SEC wanted was a team like Texas A&M to go on a run.

What you really want as a conference is to kill it OOC, and then have your top teams beat up on all the middle and low teams. Less bids, higher seeds.
Click to expand...

These are great points. Big12 has same pattern as SEC as well.
 
Volbound1700 said:
How does that stack up to Tennessee's resume? Post Tennessee's info against it.
Click to expand...
I've said some of this already but I'll go again.

Kentucky is 4 higher in KenPom.
Kentucky is 2 higher in NET.
Tennessee is 1 higher in SOS.
Tennessee is 2 higher in AP.
Kentucky is 2 higher in coaches poll.

Again, nobody (else) is making the case that Kentucky should be anything but a 2. Plenty of people (including me) think Duke or Villanova should swap spots with Kentucky.
 
SU Nittany Tide said:
I've said some of this already but I'll go again.

Kentucky is 4 higher in KenPom.
Kentucky is 2 higher in NET.
Tennessee is 1 higher in SOS.
Tennessee is 2 higher in AP.
Kentucky is 2 higher in coaches poll.

Again, nobody (else) is making the case that Kentucky should be anything but a 2. Plenty of people (including me) think Duke or Villanova should swap spots with Kentucky.
Click to expand...
Last word should have been Tennessee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top