Seedings, And A Proposal - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valuist

...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

Quote:

Originally Posted by toetoe

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

). 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.

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.

The big boys would definitely go for the bye week but a smaller cut of the pie, no way.