- This topic has 98 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I must say I (and many others) continue to not understand why Lville is a 4 seed, whilst UVA garnered a 1.
Did you post this before or after reading my addition to the main blog entry?
It was before I saw your update, but it still seems skewed. No way there should be that much separation between a UVA and Lville. Lville is darn good, and it has nothing to do with what they did last year. I’m just not seeing Wellman’s rhetoric match-up on this one, and it is a widely shared opinion.
There are alot of people that believe in alien abductions, Bigfoot, and shooters on the Grassy knoll. In other words, the people that are confused aren’t looking at the facts.
Against the RPI Top 50
(#3) Kansas…12-7 (insanely difficult schedule)
(#6) Wiscy…..7-5
(#5) “Nova…..6-3
(#11) Mich…..10-5Which of these #2 seeds would you like to move down for (#19) Louisville @ 5-5?
Again, would you rather have Duke or Michigan’s 2/3 seed, or be #4 and have regional games in your backyard?
Don’t shed a tear for the Ville.
The Selection Committee can either argue opinions or discuss facts. The only thing that I’ve seen used to support Louisville is opinion.
It’s just the spread that has me. UVA beat no one out of conference. Nor did Ville. Both won their conference, and are very good teams. Wellman said it was the non-conference performance, and admitted Lville was considered as a 1. If non conference performance matters so much, as he stated, how in the heck is UVA a 1?
Louisville’s OOC scheduling sucked in comparison to the top seeds (other than Wichita St).
The Selection Committee doesn’t want to reward teams for playing weak OOC schedules.
I don’t see the issue.I say again, “a really good team” would do better than 0.500 against the RPI Top-50. Being considered as one of the top 16 in the country is hardly a screw job.
The bottom half of the AAC was bad and provided alot of easy wins for the top-half. I saw one article where the writer said that the huge drop-off made the AAC teams hard to evaluate.
I’m surprised (but not concerned) with Kentucky as an 8-seed.
RPI………..17
SOS…………3
OOC SOS…95 or 6 seed I would take without a second thought. But 8?
Frankly, UConn only getting a 7 surprised me more.
RPI = 22, so a 6 seed +/- 1
Not enough difference for me to worry aboutI’m convinced the UK seed was part of the “screw Greg Marshall” plan, too.
Oh, and here’s my album dedication to the “bracketologists” at ESPN:
I’m convinced the UK seed was part of the “screw Greg Marshall” plan, too.
LOL. A conspiracy theorist would certainly claim that “irony” is a key ingredient in the seeding and bracketing.
One thing that complicates post-selection seeding discussions are the rules about rematches that force teams to be moved away from where the Selection Committee actually put them. In any event, I would like to move from studying bubble discussions to more in-depth seeding discussions one day. But like chop, I’m not very optimistic about that happening.
Las Vegas’ take on brackets
“The committee is a bunch of frauds. The way they do this thing makes no sense.”
Key difference between selection committee and odds-makers:
The selection committee attempts to seed teams best on what it’s proven in the schedule, not what it thinks it will do in March. The NCAA tournament field is supposed to be reflective, not predictive. And that’s why we can have inconsistencies with teams’ placement in relation to their title/Final Four/game-by-game odds. There’s also the issue of geography, which plays into the top four seeds’ location. In an effort to keep the best teams as close to home/their fan base as possible, you can have situations where one bracket acts as a magnet for disparity because too many good teams happen to be all fairly close to one region.
The Selection Committee can either argue opinions or discuss facts. The only thing that I’ve seen used to support Louisville is opinion.
The NCAA tournament field is supposed to be reflective, not predictive.
^I wish someone could paint these quotes in the studios at Espn. In fairness though, ‘bubble discussion’ gives them something to talk about and generate viewing interest with.
Great piece VA. I was reading it last night and thinking:
How many guys like Lunardi, the guys who project NFL/NBA draft orders, the preseason pollsters, Jeff Saragin, guys who do power-rankings, h-s recruit rankings, etc make a hellofalot of jack off of pure speculation. Probably most of it more subjective than yours VA.
Does anyone ever go back and check how these guys do in actuality?
Does anyone ever go back and check how these guys do in actuality?
Hi GC, long time no see.
I know that they brag on themselves if they have a good year, but I don’t check. In the past, Lunardi has released a bracket the day after the championship game for the next year. So I have a hard time taking him seriously.
Don’t forget that their number one business is to drive eye balls to their respective sites. So while they need to retain some credibility by being mostly accurate, generating a bit of controversy doesn’t hurt their main goal. I would imagine this applies more to ESPN than others, as ESPN has always been more in the business of promoting and ginning up viewership that necessarily being truthful.
Lunardi has been very accurate:
Lunardi correctly predicted all 65 teams to appear in the 2008 NCAA Tournament,[1] while correctly selecting 63 out the 65 teams in the 2009 field by placing both Creighton and St. Mary’s incorrectly in his final bracket on March 15.[2] Lunardi correctly selected 64 of the 65 teams in the 2010 NCAA Tournament, believing that Illinois would receive the final at-large bid, while in reality, Florida did.[3] After making mistakes in both 2011 and 2012, Lunardi correctly predicted all 68 teams for the 2013 tournament. For 2014 March Madness, Lunardi came “close enough” by correctly picking 67 of 68 teams, with SMU as the only defect.
For future reference. Official NCAA Seeding List
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24487953/official-ncaa-1-68-seeding-order1. Florida
2.Arizona
3.Wichita St.
4.Virginia
5.Villanova
6.Michigan
7.Kansas
8.Wisconsin
9.Duke
10. Syracuse
11.Creighton
12. Iowa St.
13. Louisville
14.Michigan St.
15.UCLA
16. San Diego St.
17.Cincinnati
18. Saint Louis
19.VCU
20.Oklahoma
21.North Carolina
22.Ohio St.
23.Massachusetts
24.Baylor
25. Texas
26.UConn
27.Oregon
28.New Mexico
29.Kentucky
30.Gonzaga
31.Memphis
32.Colorado
33.Kansas St.
34.George Washington
35.Oklahoma St.
36.Pittsburgh
37. Stanford
38. Saint Joseph’s
39.BYU
40.Arizona St.
41.Dayton
42.Nebraska
43.Providence
44. Tennessee
45. Iowa
46.Xavier
47.North Carolina St.Some people just can’t let it go…
@DanWolken: NC State has no business being in the NCAA Tournament, but they will probably beat Saint Louis on Thursday.
Some people just can’t let it go…
@DanWolken: NC State has no business being in the NCAA Tournament, but they will probably beat Saint Louis on Thursday.Lol! Nor use logic… wouldn’t beating SL after beating Xavier pretty much prove we belong? Or does this guy have some unique criteria (i.e. pulled from his rectum) on who does have “business’ being in the tournament.
I have no business not being a super hunk………. according to me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
