did an excellent job seeding the teams this year for the NCCA Tournament. Six of the top eight seeds remain alive...with half of the elite 8 coming from the ACC (the entire right side of the bracket being ACC teams) and that conference is also assured of half of the Final 4 field. That would be ironic in a year of parity (or so many fans thought)...if the left side of the bracket turns out to be an all Big 12 affair in the Final 4. It would be hard to argue then...against those two conferences as being the top two this year in college basketball.
Selection Committee...
- Thread starter seminolesboilers
- Start date
so the Big wins teh Big ACC challenge based upon the teams position the year before in the respective conference and have done so since 2008. Then when seeded the comparison between the Big and ACC based upon a couple of months ago results doesn't follow. Lot of potential reasons for this...all interesting.
Seedings also have a lot to do with the path. That's why most years you have multiple 1 seeds in the FF. We could still end up with a 6, 11, 2 & 2 in the FF. if MSU were a 1 seed, I'm guessing they would still be playing. IU the same if they were a 2 or a 3.
ultimately, seedings are human interaction along with any bias or desires for the NCAA to generate money. What role "seedings" have in the result are varied, but make no mistake seedings are injected with human bias...just like the referees in rule interpretation. It is what it is...a tourney where hand selected teams play hand selected opponents and the winners of that contest play each other in a hand selected bracket. ...and yet, more often than not, those same teams play a day earlier or even a few hours and the results could be very different.
Setting conferences aside, the biggest factor is match up. How teams individually match up with others. For example, some teams could give Team "A" problems.....but those teams were done away with in earlier rounds by other teams that Team "A" could beat. Match ups and who plays who and when are big factors.
Absolutely and THAT brings in desires. Not advocating anything, but the reality is that the only truly way that is fair from a statistical sense (not emotional) is for all D1 teams to play and they are drawn out with witnesses around that randomly determine who plays who and where. Anything short of that allows human bias and desires...to help create the path of desires for whatever is the reason for those desires. Match-ups can definitely be aligned with a desire...
Now, I don't think that is done to make one team lose, but there is an interest for certain teams to be in certain areas ...progression of different teams. Fans need to be in the stands and people not going need to tune in...
The ACC dominance is being overblown by the media. Yes, you still have to win the games, but seeding of their top teams put them at a distinct advantage. The only 2 ACC teams that have overachieved with respect to seed are ND and Syracuse. And due to early round upsets, both have made it this far without facing a opponent seeded higher than 7. One ACC team underperformed (Pitt) and the other 4 have held chalk.
By comparison, 3 B1G teams overperformed with respect to seed (Wisconsin, IU, and Maryland), 2 teams underperformed (MSU and Purdue), and the other 2 held chalk (Iowa, Michigan).
ACC:
2/7 overperformed
4/7 performed as seeded
1/7 underperformed
B1G:
3/7 overperformed
2/7 performed as seeded
2/7 underperformed
By comparison, 3 B1G teams overperformed with respect to seed (Wisconsin, IU, and Maryland), 2 teams underperformed (MSU and Purdue), and the other 2 held chalk (Iowa, Michigan).
ACC:
2/7 overperformed
4/7 performed as seeded
1/7 underperformed
B1G:
3/7 overperformed
2/7 performed as seeded
2/7 underperformed
I respectfully disagree. Admittedly, a few of the Big "ten" teams were under seeded, but at the top of the conferences the Big XII and ACC were better. Get ready for the ACC love fest, however with a guaranteed spot in the championship game. Should be some really good games today. I like Oklahoma and Kansas, but either or both of Villanova and Oregon can advance.
100% agree, and always have. I'm not so naive to believe that this never used to happen.......but like everything, manipulation and abuse has taken it to new heights IMO. I used to love this game and the Tourney when I was a kid, but sadly there may be a day where I will barely watch. I won't even mention my disgust with how the North Carolinas of the world are handled throughout. It's a shame, and honesty when the Big Ten season ends.......for the most part, so does my interest. Put all the teams in a hat and start picking, I say..............
Until last night, no ACC team in the tournament had beaten a seed higher than a 7 seed. They beat 2 4 seeds last night. Even the B1G has beat higher seeds
With all the upsets many of those teams had very easy paths. Syracuse doesn't even belong in the tournament.
Last edited:
ACC has ha a team win 6 of the last 14 championships... I wouldn't say that about them. They are consistently competing for championships while the big ten hasn't won in 16 years now(including this year)...
Are you suggesting a tournament draw...like the IHSAA has...where human bias would be eliminated in matchups ...and luck winning the tournament becomes an even more of a factor? Actually...I like that idea creating even more excitement on selection Sunday. Then...the committee's job would be solely to select the 64 teams to be included in the random ping- pong type draw? I would eliminate the first 4 games...attendance was way down this year for those games in Dayton.
In Indiana it is called "pairings" I...we always assumed a draw, but I've never been in the room and some of the byes and "pairings" years ago seemed very unlikely due to chance. All, I'm saying is that when a criteria is determined "after the fact"...biasing from whatever, concerning whatever, is at play...that is all. We have human beings with wants (and human justifications for those wants even if totally innocent) at play. The only totally fair way for all in the tourney is as I stated...any other method where human judgement can be a factor is open to one bias or another...
What would be the purpose of the regular season? Just to make sure you are in the 64? Are you just going to have a committee pick the 64 teams and then put them in a hat? Or do you include all 351?
Seems like a pretty weird idea but to each his own.
"Awakening", what does that mean? Either you are suggesting this is a better format or not. Explain exactly what you would suggest the tournament look like.
Nobody is suggesting that the tournament seedings are perfect, but come on, you really don't think "all" 350 schools should be part of the tournament do you?? As stated the seeding aren't perfect but they do have correlation to what a team did during the season. For example, would you be happy if UNC was "paired" with Purdue in the first round? That makes no sense at all. The seedings are pretty accurate. You didn't hear anyone suggesting that any school was seeded more or less than a couple spots from where they were. Of course there are biases and we know that KY and IU were set up to meet in the 2nd round for example. But that is far better than having a random drawing of 350 schools. Yes, money is a motivator for the tourney (so what) it provides a very entertaining 3 weeks of college basketball. What you seem to want is some Utopia where every team gets to feel good and go home with a ribbon for participating.
My son attends Eastern IL University. I have gone to several of their games this year while visiting him. There is no way they belong in the tournament. There are 200+ schools just like them. Can you imagine how un-watchable some of those games would be if you paired all 350? Last question: Where would you hold these games especially in the first 3 or 4 rounds? Would that be random also?
If I'm not understanding your suggestion correctly please say so. I'm just trying to understand exactly what you would like to see and the logistics of that plan. I liken it to people saying fire CMP but then they don't have a plan for the replacement.
Nobody is suggesting that the tournament seedings are perfect, but come on, you really don't think "all" 350 schools should be part of the tournament do you?? As stated the seeding aren't perfect but they do have correlation to what a team did during the season. For example, would you be happy if UNC was "paired" with Purdue in the first round? That makes no sense at all. The seedings are pretty accurate. You didn't hear anyone suggesting that any school was seeded more or less than a couple spots from where they were. Of course there are biases and we know that KY and IU were set up to meet in the 2nd round for example. But that is far better than having a random drawing of 350 schools. Yes, money is a motivator for the tourney (so what) it provides a very entertaining 3 weeks of college basketball. What you seem to want is some Utopia where every team gets to feel good and go home with a ribbon for participating.
My son attends Eastern IL University. I have gone to several of their games this year while visiting him. There is no way they belong in the tournament. There are 200+ schools just like them. Can you imagine how un-watchable some of those games would be if you paired all 350? Last question: Where would you hold these games especially in the first 3 or 4 rounds? Would that be random also?
If I'm not understanding your suggestion correctly please say so. I'm just trying to understand exactly what you would like to see and the logistics of that plan. I liken it to people saying fire CMP but then they don't have a plan for the replacement.
First, I can correlate the pregnancy rate in Bloomington, IN. to the hamburgers eaten in New York. Correlations are mathematical computations, not necessarily causal relationships. Second, I would have no problem playing UNC the first game as the other routes would be randomized as well. I watch Purdue play in the preseason and some of those games are tough. I imagine other fans do the same thing in watching their favorite team. You said that there is bias and money is a factor and so you agree with me, you just don't wish to eliminate it...AND THAT is okay. Not being afraid of playing UNC the first game seems the opposite of Utopia. I've had board members say I was too tough on kids, expected too much and so you have the wrong person with "participation" trophies. I used to have kids come early to run stairs so they were tired when we started as I believe in mental toughness and wanted concentration when fatigued
No participation for me...I grew up long before it was fashionable.Putting all the teams in was something Knight suggested years ago. I just thought I would remove biasing, the money and reduce the power of the NCAA on the whole. Logistics wouldn't be a problem, but none of this is going to happen and I know that. The hype is well grained...
I also said a method that was outlined before the first game was played whether it was the weighting of various metrics would be okay, but today we have them as the general guidance so they can still have their biases. The Big Ten Tourney seeding determinations are done before the season starts and there could be ways of determining all 351 seedings if you didn't like randomization. So you could seed if desired and remove the biases, but there are many that like the biases and it will be that way I'm sure...unless the NCAA benefits in some manner to put 351 teams in. Bottom line you admit to biases whether money or other reasons and are fine with it. That is okay, I have no desire to convince anyone that biasing may not be the best approach...just the awakening that it is there when someone swallows all the hype...and that someone is not aimed at you or anyone in specific.
"Awakening" again, where is that coming from? You reference Bob Knight as a supporter of this idea, is that really the best person to use?First, I can correlate the pregnancy rate in Bloomington, IN. to the hamburgers eaten in New York. Correlations are mathematical computations, not necessarily causal relationships. Second, I would have no problem playing UNC the first game as the other routes would be randomized as well. I watch Purdue play in the preseason and some of those games are tough. I imagine other fans do the same thing in watching their favorite team. You said that there is bias and money is a factor and so you agree with me, you just don't wish to eliminate it...AND THAT is okay. Not being afraid of playing UNC the first game seems the opposite of Utopia. I've had board members say I was too tough on kids, expected too much and so you have the wrong person with "participation" trophies. I used to have kids come early to run stairs so they were tired when we started as I believe in mental toughness and wanted concentration when fatigued
Putting all the teams in was something Knight suggested years ago. I just thought I would remove biasing, the money and reduce the power of the NCAA on the whole. Logistics wouldn't be a problem, but none of this is going to happen and I know that. The hype is well grained...
I also said a method that was outlined before the first game was played whether it was the weighting of various metrics would be okay, but today we have them as the general guidance so they can still have their biases. The Big Ten Tourney seeding determinations are done before the season starts and there could be ways of determining all 351 seedings if you didn't like randomization. So you could seed if desired and remove the biases, but there are many that like the biases and it will be that way I'm sure...unless the NCAA benefits in some manner to put 351 teams in. Bottom line you admit to biases whether money or other reasons and are fine with it. That is okay, I have no desire to convince anyone that biasing may not be the best approach...just the awakening that it is there when someone swallows all the hype...and that someone is not aimed at you or anyone in specific.
I'll simplify this so maybe you can answer specific questions:
1. You say the "logistics wouldn't be a problem". Explain exactly how you are going to play this 351 team tournament. PU draws UCLA in the 1st game. Where is the game played? PU wins and the next game is against Syracuse. Does PU have to go to Syracuse? You couldn't have regional sites because that would be allowing biases. You couldn't play on one teams home court because that would definitely be biased. You would have to have all games on neutral courts equal distance from each school. See how this gets anything but simple?
2. You suggest there could be some formula to "seed" all 351 teams. Explain exactly how that would work?
Again, your argument is very much like the fire CMP stuff that is all over this site. You have a problem with the current "system" but you offer no specific solution. It's also a little condescending to use terms like "swallowing the hype" like somehow if someone enjoys the current tournament format they are gullible or less"enlightened" than you. If you were/are some sort of an educator you should know better.
Sounds like what all the pundits said about the 'cuse.....yet here they are in the FF.
first, I have no desire to spend the time necessary to lay out a game plan that will never happen. I know that. It wouldn't have to be the same distance as you are in a paradigm of your own choosing, Have the neutral sites chosen in advance where the winner of 1 &2 play along with 3 &4 or switch them if you desire. Wont' be very hard to eliminate that issue...especially after the first round. There always is biasing in sites...I'm not concerned with how many fans go as much as the deliberate routes chosen. None of this is rocket science. If you like seeds, then pick the criteria and the weighting before the season plays and use it, not alter after the fact. If you want RPI, coaches poll, AP poll, SOS...whatever....THAT is fine. run the numbers and seed according to the math for the weightings chosen. Use some polynomial for your calculation. Perhaps use the mathematical average of the last few years to finely hone the polynomial calculation?
It won't happen because many want the human interjection of desires. I happen to think that bob Knight has his strengths and although I may wish some of his antics were different, that doesn't mean he has no value.
I'm not politically correct. I'm not a fan of cultural Marxism. It is not important if you agree of disagree with me as it is not important for me to agree or disagree with your views on the tourney. I do not need my ego stroked. I am fine with some, many, or all disagreeing with me. I'm perfectly fine with you thinking it can't be done and/or thinking it is a stupid idea. I'm sure you are in the majority and I would expect that. you're good and I'm good...we just have a different desire...
You could have stopped after your first sentence. It said everything that you needed to say.
Similar threads
