quinnster10 Show full post »
dawgstyle
db11 wrote:
The other thing to think about is how little the NCAA committee pays attention to Conference Tourney results outside of who wins the auto bid.


Because for many teams its lose lose situation. Michigan and Wisconsin were all but guaranteed a 2 seed, with a chance of a 1 seed. The difference between a #1 in the East and #2 in the Midwest wasn't anything big. Meanwhile MSU had everything to gain while playing their hearts out in that tournament.


But to say they don't pay attention at all is unfair. They stated they had 4 different brackets prepared pending the outcome of the Big Ten and ACC finals.
@2GuysFromWI

Harbaugh will have Urban Meyer retired from OSU by 2020.
Quote 0 0
wisportsfan
safetysqueezepleezzee11 wrote:

by the way SOS is based in mathematics but work your way back and see what that math is
based on - just keep working back and back and back
All these things like RPI,SOS, etc eventually are based on opinion when you go back to the start
Call it theory or some other fancy name, but it all comes down to human opinion


Did you know that the seeding process is entirely based upon a committee of people who together form an opinion of who the best teams are, assign seeds, and put together a bracket. All these numbers they use are statistics that come from mathematical formulas created by professionals, that are then used by fans (and the committee) to find out who they think the best team is.
If you don't want any opinion used in seeding, then here are your top seeds by winning% (the only opinionless stat I know)
1. Wichita State (34-0), Florida (32-2), Stephen F Austin (31-2), Arizona (30-4)
2. San Diego State (29-4), Villanova (28-4), Harvard (26-4), Louisville (29-5)
3. North Carolina central (28-5), Syracuse (27-5), Virginia (28-6), Gonzaga (28-6)
4. New Mexico (27-6), Cincinnati (27-6), Toledo (27-6), Saint Louis (26-6)
BTW the Badgers would be a 5, MSU a 7, and Michigan an 8
Quote 0 0
mickjagger
Overall, I believe the selection committee did one of its better jobs in recent years. The Midwest Brackett is a bit top-heavy ... and SMU probably should be in (one could make a good case for UW-Green Bay, also) and the seeding of a few teams raises some eyebrows, but that will always be the case.

I'm in agreement with Iowa being assigned play a play-in game vs Tennesseee .... If Iowa had missed the cut altogether, I would 've had no complaint. The Hawkeyes are lucky to be in at all, IMO, the way they finished the last quarter of the season! []

Wisconsin couldn't have gotten a better deal. They got the #2 seed which is what they deserved. They got Milwaukee for the 1st two rounds, and they were placed in, arguably, the weakest brackett. The path laid before them is ideal. If they play the way they are capable of playing and the breaks on the court go their way, they could be in for a very nice run (that sounds cliche', doesn't it).

I, for one, am optimistic.

Full NCAA Brackett:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/brackets/viewable_men


ON WISCONSIN !
Wisconsin Sports Network Hall of Fame Inductee, 2012
Quote 0 0
kenny78
I'm having a hard time understanding the logic of Wisconsin getting a 2 and Michigan State a 4 when they had the same conference record, MSU had one more loss overall, UW had a better RPI and SOS but MSU won the conference tournament handily. I don't think Iowa deserved to be in the field at all.
Quote 0 0
bhsblackhawks
safetysqueezepleezzee11 wrote:
for you to throw Cal-Poly in the discussion shows how little you are really thinking
Michigan, MichiganState and Wisconsin have been basically equals this season, both in Big 10 play
and in polling, etc.
Comparing equals, not comparing teams that aren't like Cal-Poly

Classic comment - "done with you - you don't know what you are talking about"
take your ball and go home!

by the way SOS is based in mathematics but work your way back and see what that math is
based on - just keep working back and back and back
All these things like RPI,SOS, etc eventually are based on opinion when you go back to the start
Call it theory or some other fancy name, but it all comes down to human opinion

No. There isn't any opinion used in RPI! It's all win percentages. It has absolutely nothing to do with rankings/standing/opinion. It does not take into account the rankings of the teams you have beaten. It only takes into account their winning percentages and the winning percentages of their opponents. It is not even remotely opinion-based.

You can think whatever you want about RPI, but how you think it works is not how it actually works. It's numbers, pure and simple. Winning percentages. That's it. No weight is put on any of the wins based on what ranking teams are.

And dawg isn't the one that's saying that sometimes you should rank based on what they've done lately and other times based on what they did all year long. Dawg wants them ranked (and says they are, which is true) based on what they've done all year long. You're the one that's trying to use some weird, inconsistent combination of what-have-you-done-lately and year-long success.
Quote 0 0
satinwood
Outside of won-loss record, I think that a straight RPI is probably the most unbiased metric out there. Some RPIs use 25-50-25, others 1/3-1/3-1/3...that is the only amount of "opinion" instilled in the calculation. Otherwise it is just wins and losses.

I also like the Colley rankings as they are based solely on wins and losses and who you play. Very little (if any) opinion in putting those together--just calculations.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/

Metrics like ESPN's fabricated BPI are full of opinion. I am humored by how ESPN pushes those on us.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7561413/bpi-college-basketball-power-index-explained
Quote 0 0
alandoamazing
satinwood wrote:
Outside of won-loss record, I think that a straight RPI is probably the most unbiased metric out there. Some RPIs use 25-50-25, others 1/3-1/3-1/3...that is the only amount of "opinion" instilled in the calculation. Otherwise it is just wins and losses.

I also like the Colley rankings as they are based solely on wins and losses and who you play. Very little (if any) opinion in putting those together--just calculations.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/

Metrics like ESPN's fabricated BPI are full of opinion. I am humored by how ESPN pushes those on us.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7561413/bpi-college-basketball-power-index-explained


BPI is actually really good.
A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
dawgstyle
alandoamazing wrote:
satinwood wrote:
Outside of won-loss record, I think that a straight RPI is probably the most unbiased metric out there. Some RPIs use 25-50-25, others 1/3-1/3-1/3...that is the only amount of "opinion" instilled in the calculation. Otherwise it is just wins and losses.

I also like the Colley rankings as they are based solely on wins and losses and who you play. Very little (if any) opinion in putting those together--just calculations.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/

Metrics like ESPN's fabricated BPI are full of opinion. I am humored by how ESPN pushes those on us.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7561413/bpi-college-basketball-power-index-explained



BPI is actually really good.

Based on what? ESPN refuses to release how its calculated.
@2GuysFromWI

Harbaugh will have Urban Meyer retired from OSU by 2020.
Quote 0 0
wisportsfan
alandoamazing wrote:
satinwood wrote:
Outside of won-loss record, I think that a straight RPI is probably the most unbiased metric out there. Some RPIs use 25-50-25, others 1/3-1/3-1/3...that is the only amount of "opinion" instilled in the calculation. Otherwise it is just wins and losses.

I also like the Colley rankings as they are based solely on wins and losses and who you play. Very little (if any) opinion in putting those together--just calculations.

http://www.colleyrankings.com/

Metrics like ESPN's fabricated BPI are full of opinion. I am humored by how ESPN pushes those on us.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7561413/bpi-college-basketball-power-index-explained



BPI is actually really good.

Not a very big sample size, but the last two champions (since BPI was created) entered the tournament ranked number one in BPI.
Quote 0 0
mickjagger
kenny78 wrote:
mick jagger wrote:
I'm in agreement with Iowa being assigned play a play-in game vs Tennesseee .... If Iowa had missed the cut altogether, I would 've had no complaint. The Hawkeyes are lucky to be in at all, IMO, they way they finished the last quarter of the season! []

I don't think Iowa deserved to be in the field at all.

Nice showing Iowa! Somewhere in early February, the Hawkeyes completely lost their game. Should've been in the NIT!
Wisconsin Sports Network Hall of Fame Inductee, 2012
Quote 0 0