|
|
Post by royalcrown on Mar 22, 2018 6:47:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay51 on Mar 22, 2018 10:31:14 GMT -5
What I think this tournament has shown is how pathetic the NCAA is at seeding teams. They have tried and tried to come up with some "new" way to seed teams and every single one of them has major flaws. Please feel free to enlighten me as to how UNC was a legitimate 2 seed..... I would venture to say this is the first time a 10 loss team was ever a 2. As far as I'm concerned there are no easy paths to the final four, ever! (unless you're dUKe)
The parity in college basketball keeps getting closer and closer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruppster on Mar 22, 2018 11:39:50 GMT -5
KState is here because they played well and won. Regardless of whether UK is more talented or not, if we try to coast thru we'll get whacked too. Cal's right, you focus and play the teams straight up regardless of seedings otherwise you'll end up like AZ and Virginia.
We WERE (arguably) in the toughest bracket...again. The top seeds fell. Oh well, play or get beat. And we need to play regardless of seedings because these teams think they can win. On paper we should beat KState pretty handily but they don't play games on paper.
Agreed, I'll apologize to no one. Every year brackets open up because of upsets. The haters will just have to deal with it. I look forward to the time when the power 5 break from the NCAA and we can end NCAA's bungling of this tournament and everything else they touch.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcatknh on Mar 22, 2018 13:20:22 GMT -5
What I think this tournament has shown is how pathetic the NCAA is at seeding teams. They have tried and tried to come up with some "new" way to seed teams and every single one of them has major flaws. Please feel free to enlighten me as to how UNC was a legitimate 2 seed..... I would venture to say this is the first time a 10 loss team was ever a 2. As far as I'm concerned there are no easy paths to the final four, ever! (unless you're dUKe) The parity in college basketball keeps getting closer and closer. I'm not gonna defend North Carolina or the selection committee ... or say that their logic was sound .... but I can tell you why UNC got a #2 seed. For starters, Carolina played the toughest schedule in the nation .... by a pretty significant amount. And then, it seemed like this year, the 'buzzword' criteria for the selection committee was their new quadrant system. Where quadrant 1 wins were valued above everything else. Carolina also ended up the season with significantly more quadrant 1 wins than anyone else in the nation. If I remember correctly, they had almost twice as many quadrant 1 wins as even the #2 team. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycat65 on Mar 22, 2018 16:27:29 GMT -5
Didn't Carolina lose at home to Wofford? That surely didn't help their quadrant, lol
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay51 on Mar 23, 2018 10:21:38 GMT -5
What I think this tournament has shown is how pathetic the NCAA is at seeding teams. They have tried and tried to come up with some "new" way to seed teams and every single one of them has major flaws. Please feel free to enlighten me as to how UNC was a legitimate 2 seed..... I would venture to say this is the first time a 10 loss team was ever a 2. As far as I'm concerned there are no easy paths to the final four, ever! (unless you're dUKe) The parity in college basketball keeps getting closer and closer. I'm not gonna defend North Carolina or the selection committee ... or say that their logic was sound .... but I can tell you why UNC got a #2 seed. For starters, Carolina played the toughest schedule in the nation .... by a pretty significant amount. And then, it seemed like this year, the 'buzzword' criteria for the selection committee was their new quadrant system. Where quadrant 1 wins were valued above everything else. Carolina also ended up the season with significantly more quadrant 1 wins than anyone else in the nation. If I remember correctly, they had almost twice as many quadrant 1 wins as even the #2 team. For starters, RPI is one of the poorest predicters of future success that is out there. Yet, the NCAA uses that as a primary indicator. Even their "quadrant" system is based on RPI. RPI gives a major advantage to the major conferences. That's why they get so many teams in March Madness. While UNC had 14 quadrant 1 wins they also had 8 quadrant 1 losses that didn't count against them. You "misremember" your facts, there were at least 3 teams with 12 quadrant 1 wins. All I'm trying to get across is that with all the money the NCAA spends on this crap they should have a much more reliable system by now. |
|
|
|
Post by wildcatknh on Mar 25, 2018 11:50:29 GMT -5
I'm not gonna defend North Carolina or the selection committee ... or say that their logic was sound .... but I can tell you why UNC got a #2 seed. For starters, Carolina played the toughest schedule in the nation .... by a pretty significant amount. And then, it seemed like this year, the 'buzzword' criteria for the selection committee was their new quadrant system. Where quadrant 1 wins were valued above everything else. Carolina also ended up the season with significantly more quadrant 1 wins than anyone else in the nation. If I remember correctly, they had almost twice as many quadrant 1 wins as even the #2 team. For starters, RPI is one of the poorest predicters of future success that is out there. Yet, the NCAA uses that as a primary indicator. Even their "quadrant" system is based on RPI. RPI gives a major advantage to the major conferences. That's why they get so many teams in March Madness. While UNC had 14 quadrant 1 wins they also had 8 quadrant 1 losses that didn't count against them. You "misremember" your facts, there were at least 3 teams with 12 quadrant 1 wins. All I'm trying to get across is that with all the money the NCAA spends on this crap they should have a much more reliable system by now. I probably should have clarified my earlier post for a couple of reasons. (1) There are multiple sources of those RPI team sheets and they have different rankings ... so we may have been looking at different rankings and quadrants. And (2) the numbers I was referring to were at the end of the regular season and if you look at the sheets today, teams who have made long conference and NCAA runs have now added up to 4 or 5 more quadrant 1 wins. So we likely are not talking about the same data. |
|
|
|
Post by bluejay51 on Mar 25, 2018 13:09:31 GMT -5
For starters, RPI is one of the poorest predicters of future success that is out there. Yet, the NCAA uses that as a primary indicator. Even their "quadrant" system is based on RPI. RPI gives a major advantage to the major conferences. That's why they get so many teams in March Madness. While UNC had 14 quadrant 1 wins they also had 8 quadrant 1 losses that didn't count against them. You "misremember" your facts, there were at least 3 teams with 12 quadrant 1 wins. All I'm trying to get across is that with all the money the NCAA spends on this crap they should have a much more reliable system by now. I probably should have clarified my earlier post for a couple of reasons. (1) There are multiple sources of those RPI team sheets and they have different rankings ... so we may have been looking at different rankings and quadrants. And (2) the numbers I was referring to were at the end of the regular season and if you look at the sheets today, teams who have made long conference and NCAA runs have now added up to 4 or 5 more quadrant 1 wins. So we likely are not talking about the same data. The team sheets I was looking at were the sheets the committee had on Selection Sunday. Those were the ones they made their seeding selections from. Look at Texas a&m, they were a 7 seed and justified according to the team sheet. Their RPI was 29 and most other metrics were about the same. How many of those factored in all the missing players early in the league play when they lost 5 of 8? They lost 8 times to teams with lower RPIs and half of those were at home. With today's computing ability the NCAA should be able to come up with a much better system to take a whole lot more information into their selections. Would we have been the same team if Jared had played the whole year? No system is ever going to pick a 16 over a 1 but their are far too many upsets in the tourney than there should be and it is getting worse every year. |
|
|
|
Post by jakuka on Mar 25, 2018 14:56:02 GMT -5
The analytics are a moving target with new criteria every year. Yet somehow the results never look much different from one year to next. Certain conferences are always given preference over others and certain team always have their seed line padded or get a favorable draw while certain other teams usually get the shaft. Another example: the "storyline" factor always seems to play a role in making the brackets and assigning locations. Made-for-TV to increase viewership and ratings in order to draw more attention to the first and second weekends which in turn pad$ the NCAA'$ wallet. The problem is that doing so usually happens at the cost of one or both teams receiving a less accurate seed line or unfavorable location. And what about the random odd quirks such as why are Duke and UNC are forbidden from any path that would ever have them meet before the title game? Until the chairs of the committee want to admit that a certain level of bias exists in favor of increased ratings over a more accurately seeded bracket then I don't care to hear whatever criteria BS they want to claim.....  |
|
