Resume vs. Eye Test

[Jim Rome is Flaming]

Very simple question. Which do you think should be given more weight in terms of bids and seeding in the NCAA Tournament? Should a team that looks good but has a lackluster resume get bids over a team that plays sloppy or boring, yet has a superior resume?

Take for example VCU's final four team a couple of years ago. They probably should have been in the NIT based on resume (in my opinion) but the eye test and their exciting style of play got them a bid.

 

[dcZONAfan]

oops i didn't read your post, just saw the poll and voted eye test. in this case, resume is better haha

 

[jonvi]

I think the resume should be the ultimate decision. Though there must be consideration for losses while missing key players.

The eye test is great for preseason rankings and it's great for making bets, but at the end of the year...looking damn good while losing throughout the year doesn't do well for me.

 

[rmilia1]

I think you use the resume to put teams in the tourney and the eye test to seed them. Ie: A team like Louisville has a crap resume and should probably be a 7 or 8 seed based on that alone but anyone who has watched them play knows they are a very good team and probably deserving of a 4 type seed so Id have no issue with giving them a 5 seed or something. On the flip side there are teams with better "resumes" that are nowhere near the seed that resume would earn them like a UMass who would be a 4 or 5 based on resume but is probably more of a 8/9 type team IMO

 

[dcZONAfan]

I think you use the resume to put teams in the tourney and the eye test to seed them. Ie: A team like Louisville has a crap resume and should probably be a 7 or 8 seed based on that alone but anyone who has watched them play knows they are a very good team and probably deserving of a 4 type seed so Id have no issue with giving them a 5 seed or something. On the flip side there are teams with better "resumes" that are nowhere near the seed that resume would earn them like a UMass who would be a 4 or 5 based on resume but is probably more of a 8/9 type team IMO

yup

 

[dcZONAfan]

I think the resume should be the ultimate decision. Though there must be consideration for losses while missing key players.

The eye test is great for preseason rankings and it's great for making bets, but at the end of the year...looking damn good while losing throughout the year doesn't do well for me.

was your avi bet w/ douggie?

that large D makes me want to throw up

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

I'm firmly in the resume camp. Always have been.

 

[Runeman]

weighted resume....which means losses early are weighted less than Feb/Mar losses.

 

[gordontrue]

The eye test is incredibly subjective and HEAVILY weighted towards the 20-40 games that stand out most in the memory of whoever the eyes belong to.

Generally speaking I think we don't give enough credit to computer ratings and give too much credit to ourselves.

A blend of computer ratings with a good collection of human eyes is just right, and I think the committee does pretty good.

 

[kramer1]

I'm not a Saber, Roto guy. Hate that shit. Hate computers. I'm old school. Eye test all the way.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I think you should use a mix to seed. Resume's can be decieving in some ways.

Especially when you get down to the last four "in" and all that, it can't just be about resume, some of those teams have better shots to hang with big boys than others despite the "resume".

If you really press, I'm going eye test over resume.

 

[ericd7633]

Give me the resume all day and every day. Using the eye test, is just an excuse for a team that's had a bad year or didn't live up to the hype.

 

[Red_Alert]

weighted resume....which means losses early are weighted less than Feb/Mar losses.

 

[Skerpokes]

...as RA gives Minny the stink eye

 

[CoolStoryBro]

If you don't use both your an idiot. Obviously either or would be resume unless you got an IPad full of memories of 68 teams playing 10 plus games.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I say use a little of both.

When looking at the last bunch of teams getting in I like the eye test. Which teams look like a team capable of winning some games or making it tough on a better seed. More than likely all these teams will have similar resumes with gaping holes...so eye test is good.

When you are trying to give a team a top 4 seed and possibly close to home region. I like resume. Who has really earned it.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

Resume = how seeding should be done
Eye test = how filling out your bracket should be done

 

[kramer1]

Give me the resume all day and every day. Using the eye test, is just an excuse for a team that's had a bad year or didn't live up to the hype.

That doesn't make any sense. If a team is overhyped that means they're playing badly (UCLA is a good example of that this year). That means they are not passing the eye test.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

That doesn't make any sense. If a team is overhyped that means they're playing badly (UCLA is a good example of that this year). That means they are not passing the eye test.

I think what he's trying to say is that the eye test is purely subjective. You don't have to back it up with anything other than "I just think they look better" So teams that otherwise shouldn't make the tournament sometimes sneak in based on "the eye test"

While the eye test does have some merit, it's often misused as a de facto "because I said so"

 

[Cincyfan78]

I think what he's trying to say is that the eye test is purely subjective. You don't have to back it up with anything other than "I just think they look better" So teams that otherwise shouldn't make the tournament sometimes sneak in based on "the eye test"

While the eye test does have some merit, it's often misused as a de facto "because I said so"

Right, but you can twist the resume as well...

Team A beats Michigan State, but they did so when they had 3 starters out.

Team B beats XYZ, but their player had a careern night, and XYZ had an uncharacteristically bad night because their best player was sick, or was playing with a bum ankle, etc...

It can't be just about who you beat, but also WHEN you play them, which falls in line with the eye test. If you aren't using both to make a decision, then you're not doing your due dilligence.