Which of these teams has a better resume?

[3AmigosBigDogBabyBoilersBiggie]

Take a look at the resumes of Purdue, Butler, West Virginia, Florida St., Florida, and Duke.

These 6 teams are all competing for the last two 3 seeds. And the differences in all of their resumes are razor thin. The common thread for Butler, Duke, WV, and FSU is that each of them have a couple marquee wins coupled with a couple really bad losses. While Purdue has lots of good/solid wins, nothing flashy, and zero bad losses.

Purdue is also the only conference winner in this group. They also have the least number of losses at 6.

Florida is a bit different with one big win over a Kentucky but no bad losses and their RPI is ridiculously high.

So, which is more important, getting big time wins or avoiding bad losses.

Who gets the 2 spots and why?
In what order would you rank these 6 for seeding?

 

[SqueakyClean]

The retired committee chair called in to the Sirius XM college morning show a few days ago. He was calling in to debunk the "The selection committee will make seeding in order to create specific matchups good for television" theory (which he says, is certainly not true). During the interview, he mentioned that the committee WILL take conference winners into consideration and give them a bit of a bonus for that. The bad news is, he said they also tend to put more favor on big wins and don't put as much stock into bad losses.

 

[delish1]

I hope they consider florida's rpi is artificially high because of its stadium renovation.

Duke will be a 3 due to big wins and injury considerations so there just one spot imo. Need florida st and WV to falter and purdue to make the final.

I think butler has too many losses as long as it doesn't win the big East tourney and I think purdue can jump florida and it's 1 win in a worse conference.

 

[lbodel]

The retired committee chair called in to the Sirius XM college morning show a few days ago. He was calling in to debunk the "The selection committee will make seeding in order to create specific matchups good for television" theory (which he says, is certainly not true). During the interview, he mentioned that the committee WILL take conference winners into consideration and give them a bit of a bonus for that. The bad news is, he said they also tend to put more favor on big wins and don't put as much stock into bad losses.

Yes, the notion that the selection committee picks match-ups for TV is not true. People think that because there are interesting match-ups - but when you take the top basketball teams in the country and pit them in a tournament, you're bound to. And on top of that, they already have measures to avoid in-conference match-ups early rounds and usually don't go with rematches in early rounds either. So it doesn't leave a ton of wiggle room.

 

[PUQBMan.]

The retired committee chair called in to the Sirius XM college morning show a few days ago. He was calling in to debunk the "The selection committee will make seeding in order to create specific matchups good for television" theory (which he says, is certainly not true). During the interview, he mentioned that the committee WILL take conference winners into consideration and give them a bit of a bonus for that. The bad news is, he said they also tend to put more favor on big wins and don't put as much stock into bad losses.

Yes, the notion that the selection committee picks match-ups for TV is not true. People think that because there are interesting match-ups - but when you take the top basketball teams in the country and pit them in a tournament, you're bound to. And on top of that, they already have measures to avoid in-conference match-ups early rounds and usually don't go with rematches in early rounds either. So it doesn't leave a ton of wiggle room.

Last year's tournament seemed pretty blatant that they set it up based on matchups. Some of the seeding was very questionable, and several coaches across the country pointed it out and mentioned that it was due to potential matchups. Some blatant ones were IU-UK and mich st- UVA (although it didn't pan out). That also tried to set up other rivalry matchups like Texas and AnM that didn't pan out.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Take a look at the resumes of Purdue, Butler, West Virginia, Florida St., Florida, and Duke.

These 6 teams are all competing for the last two 3 seeds. And the differences in all of their resumes are razor thin. The common thread for Butler, Duke, WV, and FSU is that each of them have a couple marquee wins coupled with a couple really bad losses. While Purdue has lots of good/solid wins, nothing flashy, and zero bad losses.

Purdue is also the only conference winner in this group. They also have the least number of losses at 6.

.Florida is a bit different with one big win over a Kentucky but no bad losses and their RPI is ridiculously high.

So, which is more important, getting big time wins or avoiding bad losses.

Who gets the 2 spots and why?
In what order would you rank these 6 for seeding?

UCLA gets at least a 2, based on record, RPI, conference etc. If they can come in and win the PAC 12 tourney, I think they have a great shot at a 1. Their defense is picking up, their assist to TO ratio is off the chart, and they get TJ Leaf back this week.

That being said, I believe if PU can win the Big tourney, coupled with some big upsets along the way, could be as high as a 2 and absolutely a high 3 seed.

I don't see Butler getting a 3 and figure them to be a 4 or 5.

It's all going to be determined by league tournaments, but I see either Zona or UCLA a two, along with 'Ville and Baylor.

 

[Dandelion1972]

Just a heads-up, the selection committee will be hacked by the Russians!

 

[SqueakyClean]

Last year's tournament seemed pretty blatant that they set it up based on matchups. Some of the seeding was very questionable, and several coaches across the country pointed it out and mentioned that it was due to potential matchups. Some blatant ones were IU-UK and mich st- UVA (although it didn't pan out). That also tried to set up other rivalry matchups like Texas and AnM that didn't pan out.

The argument they presented on that show (and I tend to believe it) is that, if you "look" for storylines, you'll find them. Quite frankly, if you take the time to completely fill out a bracket, as in seriously try to put together a complete bracket, that follows the rules of trying to protect locations for the top seeds and keeps conference teams from playing each other until as late as possible, there's a lot less wiggle room than you would think to purposely try to place teams in a particular match-up. In two of the three examples you cited (IU / UK & UT / aTm), those teams were in the same geographic footprint, so the committee would have been forced to try to put them together by following the rules of trying to keep teams from traveling as much as possible.

Could it happen? Sure. I'm willing to bet that there has been a time or two, maybe even once per year where the committee has been presented with two possible seeding scenarios that follow the rules and they see a match-up that would generate more hype and they therefore choose that option accordingly. That's different than what you are proposing and I don't think they are actively trying to do it with some sort of conspiracy agenda.

 

[PUQBMan.]

Last year's tournament seemed pretty blatant that they set it up based on matchups. Some of the seeding was very questionable, and several coaches across the country pointed it out and mentioned that it was due to potential matchups. Some blatant ones were IU-UK and mich st- UVA (although it didn't pan out). That also tried to set up other rivalry matchups like Texas and AnM that didn't pan out.

The argument they presented on that show (and I tend to believe it) is that, if you "look" for storylines, you'll find them. Quite frankly, if you take the time to completely fill out a bracket, as in seriously try to put together a complete bracket, that follows the rules of trying to protect locations for the top seeds and keeps conference teams from playing each other until as late as possible, there's a lot less wiggle room than you would think to purposely try to place teams in a particular match-up. In two of the three examples you cited (IU / UK & UT / aTm), those teams were in the same geographic footprint, so the committee would have been forced to try to put them together by following the rules of trying to keep teams from traveling as much as possible.

Could it happen? Sure. I'm willing to bet that there has been a time or two, maybe even once per year where the committee has been presented with two possible seeding scenarios that follow the rules and they see a match-up that would generate more hype and they therefore choose that option accordingly. That's different than what you are proposing and I don't think they are actively trying to do it with some sort of conspiracy agenda.

That's a fair argument, but I do think there was more stink created last year over the crazy seeding than any other years that I can remember. Iu was grossly underseeded as a 5. If they were a 4 or 3, that UK matchup would not have happened. Same if M$U had gotten the 1 seed they deserved, they wouldn't have a potential matchup with UVA. It probably is just conspiracy talk, but last year seemed to generate a lot more of that talk, even amongst the college coaches.

 

[samcboiler]

Take a look at the resumes of Purdue, Butler, West Virginia, Florida St., Florida, and Duke.

These 6 teams are all competing for the last two 3 seeds. And the differences in all of their resumes are razor thin. The common thread for Butler, Duke, WV, and FSU is that each of them have a couple marquee wins coupled with a couple really bad losses. While Purdue has lots of good/solid wins, nothing flashy, and zero bad losses.

Purdue is also the only conference winner in this group. They also have the least number of losses at 6.

Florida is a bit different with one big win over a Kentucky but no bad losses and their RPI is ridiculously high.

So, which is more important, getting big time wins or avoiding bad losses.

Who gets the 2 spots and why?
In what order would you rank these 6 for seeding?

Florida

Butler

Duke

Purdue

Florida State

West Virginia

 

[Boiler Buck]

Seeding matters.....history based on my calculations, shows that since 1979 here are the % chance of making the FF for various seeds we are contending for:

3 -- 10.5%
4 -- 9.2%
5 -- 4.6%

FYI
2 -- 21.7%
1 -- 40.1%

So as you can see path for a 3 or 4 about the same 1.3% difference.....but if you dip to a 5 seed path becomes harder and only half of those make the FF as compared to the 4 seeds. Big jump in chances for 1 or 2 seeds obviously.

Of course in the tourney to come, each team controls there own destiny....but the above is a historical look at seeding vs making a FF.

 

[lbodel]

Last year's tournament seemed pretty blatant that they set it up based on matchups. Some of the seeding was very questionable, and several coaches across the country pointed it out and mentioned that it was due to potential matchups. Some blatant ones were IU-UK and mich st- UVA (although it didn't pan out). That also tried to set up other rivalry matchups like Texas and AnM that didn't pan out.

You can find a storyline in any NCAA Tournament bracket. When you have a bunch of good teams in a tournament, you're going to run into them.

For example, in 2015, Duke and Michigan State met. Was that for TV ratings....or was it just a #2 and #3 seed meeting in the Sweet 16?

 

[TheCainer]

Last year's tournament seemed pretty blatant that they set it up based on matchups. Some of the seeding was very questionable, and several coaches across the country pointed it out and mentioned that it was due to potential matchups. Some blatant ones were IU-UK and mich st- UVA (although it didn't pan out). That also tried to set up other rivalry matchups like Texas and AnM that didn't pan out.

Didn't they also have all of the teams from Indiana in the same regional a couple of years ago? I'm too lazy to look it up but that's kind of how I remember it. Us, IU, ND, Butler, and maybe even Valparaiso.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

UCLA gets at least a 2, based on record, RPI, conference etc. If they can come in and win the PAC 12 tourney, I think they have a great shot at a 1. Their defense is picking up, their assist to TO ratio is off the chart, and they get TJ Leaf back this week.

That being said, I believe if PU can win the Big tourney, coupled with some big upsets along the way, could be as high as a 2 and absolutely a high 3 seed.

I don't see Butler getting a 3 and figure them to be a 4 or 5.

It's all going to be determined by league tournaments, but I see either Zona or UCLA a two, along with 'Ville and Baylor.

Butler is still shown as a 3 in nearly every bracket I've seen today. I think if they win 1 - and definitely 2 - they still get a 3. If they lose first round they drop to a 4. I don't see any scenario where they end up a 5.

 

[delish1]

Butler is still shown as a 3 in nearly every bracket I've seen today. I think if they win 1 - and definitely 2 - they still get a 3. If they lose first round they drop to a 4. I don't see any scenario where they end up a 5.

Even though I don't agree I think you are right. watching butler doesn't seem like a top 12 team, but those 2 wins against nova carry a ton of weight.

Nova us a good match for teams that struggle with the top tier athleticism. I think purdue would win a 2nd matchup

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Even though I don't agree I think you are right. watching butler doesn't seem like a top 12 team, but those 2 wins against nova carry a ton of weight.

Nova us a good match for teams that struggle with the top tier athleticism. I think purdue would win a 2nd matchup

Yeah. Remember they were a 4 by the committee and look what they've done since then. They haven't hurt themselves and most guys think they've helped their resume since the committee reveal.

 

[GregJM24]

Yeah. Remember they were a 4 by the committee and look what they've done since then. They haven't hurt themselves and most guys think they've helped their resume since the committee reveal.

Losing at home to Seton Hall didn't "hurt themselves?"

 

[*4purdue*]

The retired committee chair called in to the Sirius XM college morning show a few days ago. He was calling in to debunk the "The selection committee will make seeding in order to create specific matchups good for television" theory (which he says, is certainly not true). During the interview, he mentioned that the committee WILL take conference winners into consideration and give them a bit of a bonus for that. The bad news is, he said they also tend to put more favor on big wins and don't put as much stock into bad losses.

Sounds kind of like when when a pro athlete says "it wasn't about the money"

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Losing at home to Seton Hall didn't "hurt themselves?"

Guess SH is on the rise.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Losing at home to Seton Hall didn't "hurt themselves?"

Sure. They went from a high 3 to either a low 3 or high 4. You do realize you can drop and not actually lower your seed, right?

 

[BoilerBulldog]

Guess SH is on the rise.

Butler was locked into 2nd place. SH was playing to get into the tourney. Butler should've won but SH definitely wanted it more.

It makes Purdue's victory at NU that much more impressive IMO and it certainly closed the gap between the two schools but BU is still ahead of the Boilers.

 

[BoilerJS]

The retired committee chair called in to the Sirius XM college morning show a few days ago. He was calling in to debunk the "The selection committee will make seeding in order to create specific matchups good for television" theory (which he says, is certainly not true). During the interview, he mentioned that the committee WILL take conference winners into consideration and give them a bit of a bonus for that. The bad news is, he said they also tend to put more favor on big wins and don't put as much stock into bad losses.

Well with that logic IU will get a favorable seed.

 

[TheGunner]

Losing at home to Seton Hall didn't "hurt themselves?"

In case you missed it....Seton Hall = Duke, UNC, UK, Louisville, Xavier (oops, scratch that, they now suck as a 4 seed)..... well you get where I am going with this.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Florida

Butler

Duke

Purdue


Watch out for Fla. State. Playing really well.