PDA

View Full Version : Seedings, And A Proposal


toetoe
03-12-2006, 07:52 PM
I'm surprised that California are seeded 7th in their quadrant, theoretically meaning they're the 25th, 26th, 27th or 28th best team in the country. That's almost reasonable if we also believe that UCLA are in the top eight. :rolleyes:
The Bruins are seeded 2nd in their group.

I propose a format I heard Jim Valvano describing. Iy comes from the Big West(?) Conference, out west. Applying it to the NCAA tournament, it's like this:

Round 1: Seeds 33 through 64 match up in inverse order, 33 vs. 64, etc. Seeds 1 through 16 have a bye.

Round 2: Sixteen winners from round one play seeds 17 through 32. Seeds 1 through 16 have another bye.

Round 3: Start of last five rounds as usual, only no 1-vs.-16 games that do nothing for anyone.

All money is divided 64 ways.

toetoe
03-12-2006, 09:14 PM
Syracuse look like a bet-against. I presume they'll be favored as 5th seed vs. 12th seed.

BetHorses!
03-12-2006, 11:08 PM
I don't like Cal at all. Thought the 7 seed was right. Cuse is a 1 pt. Fav right now.

toetoe
03-12-2006, 11:18 PM
The Bears did not impress me. They were just a bunch of big guys standing around. They made UCLA look so good! Afflalo is awesome, but the other Bruins are underwhelming. Coach Howland would make a great General Bruckhalter on Hogan's Heroes, except he's a bit too scary. How about a horror movie for him, something along the lines of "The Howlin'?" Oh, they've used that name already?

The good news is that his former team, Pittsburg, may go far.

cj
03-13-2006, 05:30 AM
The year was a scam. Maryland is by no means a very good team, but they would be 10 point favorites against a few of the at large teams. I also think better teams than Maryland were snubbed.

I love the line the Chairman used, that the committee was sending a message that out of conference schedules have to be tougher for the big conference teams.

First, the conference schedule is pretty damn tough for any of the big conferences. Second, the little guys have to play somebody as well. Is it fair to say to schools like Towson St. and Coppin St. that you don't get to play the big schools and make some money anymore, because they have to play Bradley?

Valuist
03-13-2006, 10:13 AM
Missouri State was 21st in the RPI, the highest rated team ever to be snubbed by the committee. The RPI is not perfect; I think it weights too much to the opponents of your opponents. But its a reasonable gauge; Usually the RPI and Sagarin are fairly close. The Missouri Valley was extremely strong this year. Not only should Missouri State have been in, but Creighton was better than some of the at-large teams.

Here's my proposal: let the Las Vegas Sports Consultants seed the teams. Unlike the committee who starts following this stuff 2 weeks ago, they follow it from day 1. Their numbers have to be sharp or they'll take a beating.

CJ- was that a knock on Bradley? Bradley was wrongfully given a 13 seed. Should've been about an 11.

BetHorses!
03-13-2006, 10:28 AM
Oral Roberts is a #16 seed. The game opened at -14 and now up to -15. Did you ever see a #1 favored over #16 so low?

cj
03-13-2006, 10:50 AM
...The Missouri Valley was extremely strong this year. Not only should Missouri State have been in, but Creighton was better than some of the at-large teams...


Really? Could you list some of the "big" out of conference wins these teams had during the season?

Wichita State, I don't see any.

Missouri State, ditto.

Southern Illinois, auto bid, but no big wins out of conference

Creighton, Xavier and George Mason, I guess.

Norhtern Iowa, Iowa, LSU, Bucknell, pretty good, though they did lose 5 of last 7. These guys deserve it though.

Bradley, noone of note.

That is it, these guys collectively didn't beat much save Northern Iowa, and the bottom half of the conference stinks. I guess if you don't play anyone and take turns beating each other, that is good enough when the selection committee is stacked with reps from lower level conferences.

Valuist
03-13-2006, 11:25 AM
First off, its not only about non-conference play. Let's face it, except for a rare game, all non-conference play is done in November and December. I won't detail Northern Iowa, since you admitted they deserve to get in. SIU has three non-conference wins over tourney teams: beat George Mason by 20, beat Xavier (back before XU's two top players were hurt) and beat Murray State. Murray isn't tremendous but at least they aren't a 15 or 16 seed. Missouri State won 8 of their last 10, with one of the losses by 2 pts. Bradley won 7 of their last 8, beating SIU (Sagarin 44) Northern Iowa (Sagarin 32) Wichita State (34) and Creighton (47th). Wichita State lost by one point to Illinois (Sagarin 7) on a neutral court. Yes, the quality of ones losses do count.

The bottom teams in the MVC don't have good records because the gap between the top 6 and the rest is significant. But even for "garbage cans" they put up some decent non conference efforts: Indiana State beat Indiana, Drake lost to Boston College (Sagarin 16) by a mere 3 points on a neutral court and by 5 pts at Iowa (Sagarin 14)

Sagarin's ratings are completely computerized and unbiased. Here's how Maryland stacks up to the MVC teams:

25. Missouri State
32. Northern Iowa
34. Wichita State
37. Bradley
41. Maryland
44. Southern Illinois
47. Creighton

cj
03-13-2006, 12:03 PM
If Maryland played in the MWC, they would be 1-2 for sure. I'd say the same about Florida State and Cincy too. Any of the MWC teams would struggle in the ACC. This is just my opinion of course, but that is what I believe. Same for the Big East. We'll never really know.

I don't really care much about computer ratings, they are big time flawed, no matter who makes them. These teams got in for one reason, they all took turns beating each other...big deal.

Wiley
03-13-2006, 12:25 PM
I propose a format I heard Jim Valvano describing. Iy comes from the Big West(?) Conference, out west. Applying it to the NCAA tournament, it's like this:

Round 1: Seeds 33 through 64 match up in inverse order, 33 vs. 64, etc. Seeds 1 through 16 have a bye.

Round 2: Sixteen winners from round one play seeds 17 through 32. Seeds 1 through 16 have another bye.

Round 3: Start of last five rounds as usual, only no 1-vs.-16 games that do nothing for anyone.
All money is divided 64 ways.

A couple of problems I see with this format though it makes a lot of sense for making the regular season more significant by actually rewarding the top teams through byes instead of actually playing a couple of games against low rated teams.

People love the big upsets and that is what makes the early rounds so much fun watching a 3 seed highly touted big conference team losing to a 13 seed nondescript tiny conference underdog, this format eliminates a lot of the really big upsets.
Also I doubt the big conferences would agree to divide the money equally among each school. I could be wrong but don't schools right now get more money the farther along they make it into the tourney?

Valuist
03-13-2006, 12:26 PM
The computer ratings are flawed early on but as the season goes on, the more accurate they are. I like to check Feist's power ratings as well. I think some people just have a problem believing a mid-major conference can be that strong. The A-10 a couple years ago was very strong and the A-10 is weak now. But its not like the old days. You don't have to play in the Big 10 , ACC or Big East to play on TV. I think that's one reason why there's more parity now. Secondly, the real blue chip top recruits that go to the Dukes, Uconns and NC often only stay for a year or two.

IMO the teams that shouldn't be in are Air Force, Utah State, Seton Hall and probably Alabama as well.

toetoe
03-13-2006, 01:06 PM
Wiley,

This way, borderline no-hopers and the just average teams could have a game or two to warm up, making the games more competitive and the trip much more meaningful, and how could the powerhouses complain about rest after a brutal season? Let's face it, 64 teams are at least 32 too many. They could expand to 128 and not a peep would be heard (Yours Truly excepted :rolleyes: ). ESPN would just double the coverage.

As to money, the administrations notwithstanding, this is truly one instance that the kids would play for free, and for a well-paid college athlete, that's saying something. :D

cj
03-13-2006, 01:15 PM
My wife is an SIU alum, so I don't have anything against the MVC. The great thing about college hoops is it will all be played out on the court.

Also, just to be clear, I don't harbor any illusions that teams that I think should have gotten in were going anywhere, because they weren't.

Wiley
03-13-2006, 01:42 PM
Toe,
I don't disagree with your format and to me it makes a lot of sense and would work. I just threw out a couple of reasons why I think the NCAA and certain conferences wouldn't go for it especially if it came down to a monetary difference, and isn't that what the tourney is all about anyway, making money. :D The big boys would definitely go for the bye week but a smaller cut of the pie, no way.

Valuist
03-13-2006, 02:02 PM
CJ-

Was SIU a big party school when she was there? In the mid 80s, it was considered the #1 party school in the country.

I agree none of the borderline teams would be alive after this weekend. I have no allegiances to the MVC but sometimes we'll see a mid-major get very strong for a year or two. Kind of like a fast maiden claimer. People have a hard time believing it.

toetoe
03-13-2006, 02:15 PM
The real question is ... is it close to Fairmount Park, maybe even Indiana Downs? Cahokia Downs, anyone?

toetoe
03-13-2006, 02:17 PM
Wiley,

I know it's a pipe dream. It would be too real and not hyperbolic enough to suit the suits at CBS.

rastajenk
03-13-2006, 02:52 PM
The only thing I would change about the format is to have a play-in game for the sixteenth seed in each of the regionals. That would let three other "bubble" teams in, and reduce the whining by that much.

Valuist
03-13-2006, 02:55 PM
The only thing is that any of the near miss teams would not be 16th seeds. The 15th and 16th seeds are basically always teams who get automatic bids from winning their small conference. The lowest seeded at-large team this season was a 13th seed.

cj
03-13-2006, 03:02 PM
CJ-

Was SIU a big party school when she was there? In the mid 80s, it was considered the #1 party school in the country.



The only time she ever stepped foot there was graduation day, with me, LOL. She isn't allowed to party!

rastajenk
03-13-2006, 03:36 PM
The only thing is that any of the near miss teams would not be 16th seeds. The 15th and 16th seeds are basically always teams who get automatic bids from winning their small conference. The lowest seeded at-large team this season was a 13th seed.
I didn't mean to imply that bubble teams would be the play-in teams. By packaging the Winthrop Hamptons with the Southwest Amhersts, it would free up some space further up the seedings for the last few at-large bids.

Valuist
03-13-2006, 05:09 PM
ok. That makes sense.

cj
03-13-2006, 05:32 PM
The little schools probably wouldn't mind either, then more of them get two games, which they never get now.

BetHorses!
03-13-2006, 07:39 PM
Here's my proposal: let the Las Vegas Sports Consultants seed the teams. Unlike the committee who starts following this stuff 2 weeks ago, they follow it from day 1. Their numbers have to be sharp or they'll take a beating.




I agree but it will never happen

BetHorses!
03-13-2006, 11:28 PM
IMO the teams that shouldn't be in are Air Force, Utah State, Seton Hall and probably Alabama as well.


I think the public feels the teams are Air Force, Utah State and George Mason. The last few years its been very profitable betting on the teams the public feels should not be there-- only in the 1st Round

:ThmbUp:


And I agree with Seton Hall

Valuist
03-14-2006, 10:13 AM
BH-

Let's look at the selection committee. There's about 10 individuals on the selection committee and they all have conference affiliations.

AD from Utah (Mtn West). Air Force from the Mtn West seemed to be one of the more puzzling selections. Why would you take them over Missouri St, Cincinnati, Fla State or Maryland? Apparently this AD had some pull.

Commissioner of the WAC. Utah State was another puzzling selection. But it helps to have friends and the WAC commissioner saw his wish granted.

AD from George Mason. Arguably Hofstra was better than they were and beat them twice during the season. Also GMU's best player is hurt and will not play in the opening round. But again, agenda accomplished.

Valuist
03-14-2006, 11:29 AM
OK, I stumbled on some evidence (clear cut mind you :) comparing Maryland and Bradley. Handicapping an NIT game for tonight, I stumbled upon a common opponent for both teams. And the games were only played 11 days apart.

Bradley beat Delaware State 68-46
Maryland beat Delaware State 68-54

There you go. 100%, without a doubt clear cut evidence! :lol:

BetHorses!
03-14-2006, 01:51 PM
OK, I stumbled on some evidence (clear cut mind you :) comparing Maryland and Bradley. Handicapping an NIT game for tonight, I stumbled upon a common opponent for both teams. And the games were only played 11 days apart.

Bradley beat Delaware State 68-46
Maryland beat Delaware State 68-54

There you go. 100%, without a doubt clear cut evidence! :lol:


In the Delaware St. Game tonight I went against the move on the total. I bet Under 128.5

rastajenk
03-14-2006, 01:55 PM
Around these parts the conspiracy theory being floated is that Cincinnati's own administration (president + AD) lobbied the committee to leave UC out, so that there wouldn't be any extra pressure to keep interim Coach K on as permanent coach, that they so badly want to cut all ties with the Huggins Era that they were willing to pay that kind of under-the-table price. It wouldn't do to possibly win a game or two to add to public sentiment that Kennedy should be retained. At first glance that seems preposterous, but if they have a commitment to winning in the future, they sure have an odd way of showing it. The current AD used to work with the committee chairman at Virginia, so there could have been some kind of favor granted, even though it goes against the conventional definition of favoritism. There has been no kind of official expression of "We're disappointed but proud of the team's effort this year," or any kind of show of gratitude. It's weird. Whatever happens in the NIT will be totally irrelevant.

It's also too bad that the local situation has completely overshadowed Xavier's run through its tournament to go Dancin', but that's the way it is. It will be interesting to see how deep they have to reach into the coaching pool to find a knucklehead willing to come into a situation like this.

Valuist
03-14-2006, 03:00 PM
Rasta-

Any rumors as to where Huggins is headed? Temple maybe? I don't think he's on Indiana's list. Looks like Alford's job to lose there.

rastajenk
03-14-2006, 03:33 PM
No, the only thing I've heard was South Florida a couple weeks ago, but that rumor only buzzed for about a day and a half; nothing more on it or anything else since then.

Valuist
03-14-2006, 05:44 PM
This I couldn't resist. Professional gambler Alan Boston on Billy Packer and the MVC:

http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?t=2&theArt=73023

toetoe
03-14-2006, 06:02 PM
Good link, Valuist. Parimutuelly valuable, hmm? :jump:

BetHorses!
03-14-2006, 11:37 PM
In the Delaware St. Game tonight I went against the move on the total. I bet Under 128.5


Winner :)