Selection Sunday Thread

[CatsTopPac]

Its a combination of weak OCC and quality wins, just like I said it was going to be. Also, Indiana is a FIVE seed. They were certainly penalized for a poor OOC. UNC won the ACC regular season and Tournament. that's why they were a 1 seed. And a 78 OOC SoS isn't even that bad. And you can say MSU WAS penalized because they are a 2 seed.

SDSU is home because they had one win over the field. And had a sub 300 loss. Obviously there are outliers, but for the most part teams were penalized for playing bad OOC schedules and not having good wins or a combination of both.

You spewed the last couple of weeks about how the other metrics were going to be more valued this year, which couldn't have been further from the actual truth.

So UNC gets the nod for a 1 seed because they won both conference titles and MSU gets penalized even though they won both of theirs? So now it's a combination of weak OOC and quality wins, bad losses, and conference championships? How did Cuse get in? How did Michigan get in? How did Tulsa get in? How many guns do they have? And there are outliers? Ya don't say.

And how happy are people about the selection this year? Seems like it's a whole lot rougher reception than at least the last couple years. Seems like it's somewhat of a consensus that it was a shittier job this year, yet it was based upon your magical insight.

This year's committee was lazy.

 

[rmilia1]

I heard today that the Big Ten is moving the Finals to Saturday next year when the tourney is in Washington DC. Good idea I think. Give these guys some more rest, especially since the tournament is not central to most schools by having it in DC (which is stupid to host it there but that's another argument).

Plus I think it's a disadvantage to have it Sunday right before the selection show. The NCAA has probably already made their brackets by that point so the seeding is pretty much unaffected by the result of the game (unless a crap team steals the auto bid).

They're actually having the B10 tourney a whole week earlier starting 2 years from now. The finals will be around the same time as the MVC. A lot of B10 teams are talking about scheduling a game AFTER the conference tourney to stay sharp

 

[ericd7633]

So UNC gets the nod for a 1 seed because they won both conference titles and MSU gets penalized even though they won both of theirs? So now it's a combination of weak OOC and quality wins, and conference championships? How did Cuse get in? How did Michigan get in? How did Tulsa get in? How many guns do they have? And there are outliers? Ya don't say.

And how happy are people about the selection this year? Seems like it's a whole lot rougher reception than at least the last couple years. Seems like it's somewhat of a consensus that it was a shittier job this year, based upon your magical insight.

This year's committee was lazy.

Christ man, do you follow college basketball outside of the Pac 12? MSU DID NOT win the Big 10 Regular season title, Indiana did. I'm just saying, it appears pretty obvious they penalized teams for playing a poor schedule and not having any good wins, which is what they've been doing FOREVER. I wouldn't have had Tulsa in the field, but they have 5 wins over teams in the field, and that doesn't include SMU who was a 4/5 seed caliber team. Cuse had 5 top 50 wins, including h2h over Saint Bonaventure, Michigan had 4 top 25 wins(based on seed). I understand why those teams made it. Don't really have an issue with it. I had SDSU, Saint Mary's and Monmouth in based on winning their regular season conference outright, but none of those were considered top 8 conferences. Which is why Temple got in where they did as the outright winner of the AAC(8th best conference)

You spewed how KenPom, BPI and Sagarin were going to factored in and couldn't have been more wrong. This year's committee did what every other committee has done.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Christ man, do you follow college basketball outside of the Pac 12? MSU DID NOT win the Big 10 Regular season title, Indiana did. I'm just saying, it appears pretty obvious they penalized teams for playing a poor schedule and not having any good wins, which is what they've been doing FOREVER. I wouldn't have had Tulsa in the field, but they have 5 wins over teams in the field, and that doesn't include SMU who was a 4/5 seed caliber team. Cuse had 5 top 50 wins, including h2h over Saint Bonaventure, Michigan had 4 top 25 wins(based on seed). I understand why those teams made it. Don't really have an issue with it. I had SDSU, Saint Mary's and Monmouth in based on winning their regular season conference outright, but none of those were considered top 8 conferences. Which is why Temple got in where they did as the outright winner of the AAC(8th best conference)

You spewed how KenPom, BPI and Sagarin were going to factored in and couldn't have been more wrong. This year's committee did what every other committee has done.

Again, if you really think that the committee has the same set of factors every year that govern their selections like clockwork, then I'm not going to go back through and prove you wrong. You keep putting up resumes of W/L SOS, and W/L vs RPI. And then when I throw up other teams that clearly don't fall into that, you either completely ignore them, or dismiss them away with outliers, and bring in other factors. You claim that they do the same thing every year, even though what they do in any given year doesn't align with your guns, and top coaches seem to understand that there are more nuances than your limited criteria (and variations from year to year). Posters on this thread have been laying into this selection for many of the same reasons I have, and yet you focus on me because I brought it up 3 weeks ago? Lunardi must be wrong too. He must have no idea how the committee even goes about selecting even though they are so consistent.

How did ND get a 3 seed last year with a 327 OCC? How did they get it over MD or UNC who had better resumes?

How did VCU get a 5 seed with a #1 OCC last year, behind UCLA and SDSU?

How did WVU get a 5 seed last year with a 207 OCC and 2-7 against 1-25 over SMU (7 OCC) and Prov (18 OCC)?

When it serves your argument, you say that the committee did well to put OSU as a 7 seed because of their OCC, and yet that doesn't apply to everyone (VCU, Butler, Prov, etc.). And their shitty conference record doesn't factor in, although it factors in for others when they do well.

 

[ericd7633]

Again, if you really think that the committee has the same set of factors every year that govern their selections like clockwork, then I'm not going to go back through and prove you wrong. You keep putting up resumes of W/L SOS, and W/L vs RPI. And then when I throw up other teams that clearly don't fall into that, you either completely ignore them, or dismiss them away with outliers, and bring in other factors. You claim that they do the same thing every year, even though what they do in any given year doesn't align with your guns, and top coaches seem to understand that there are more nuances than your limited criteria (and variations from year to year). Posters on this thread have been laying into this selection for many of the same reasons I have, and yet you focus on me because I brought it up 3 weeks ago? Lunardi must be wrong too. He must have no idea how the committee even goes about selecting even though they are so consistent.

How did ND get a 3 seed last year with a 327 OCC last year? How did they get it over MD or UNC who had better resumes?

How did VCU get a 5 seed with a #1 OCC last year, behind UCLA and SDSU?

How did WVU get a 5 seed with a 207 OCC and 2-7 against 1-25 over SMU (7 OCC) and Prov (18 OCC)?

When it serves your argument, you say that the committee did well to put OSU as a 7 seed because of their OCC, and yet that doesn't apply to everyone (VCU, Butler, Prov, etc.). And their shitty conference record doesn't factor in, although it factors in for others when they do well.

You were claiming the entire time the Kenpom, BPI and Sagarin were going to be used...they weren't...not even a little bit. I was claiming that they look at OOC SOS, overall SOS, W/L vs. field and consideration and whether or not they won a regular season/tournament title.

ND had 7 wins against teams in the field, won the ACC Tournament.
VCU wasn't a 5 seed last year.
WVU had 7 wins over teams in the field, Providence had 5 wins over teams in the field, SMU had two wins over the field and that was against Texas Southern(15 seed) and Wyoming(12 seed)

And you're bringing up teams that are seeded 9th(butler), 9th(Providence) not like they got favorable seeding for teams that were comfortably in the field. And VCU had an OOC SOS of 64, that probably HELPED them get into the field.

 

[ericd7633]

Again, if you really think that the committee has the same set of factors every year that govern their selections like clockwork, then I'm not going to go back through and prove you wrong. You keep putting up resumes of W/L SOS, and W/L vs RPI. And then when I throw up other teams that clearly don't fall into that, you either completely ignore them, or dismiss them away with outliers, and bring in other factors. You claim that they do the same thing every year, even though what they do in any given year doesn't align with your guns, and top coaches seem to understand that there are more nuances than your limited criteria (and variations from year to year). Posters on this thread have been laying into this selection for many of the same reasons I have, and yet you focus on me because I brought it up 3 weeks ago? Lunardi must be wrong too. He must have no idea how the committee even goes about selecting even though they are so consistent.

How did ND get a 3 seed last year with a 327 OCC? How did they get it over MD or UNC who had better resumes?

How did VCU get a 5 seed with a #1 OCC last year, behind UCLA and SDSU?

How did WVU get a 5 seed last year with a 207 OCC and 2-7 against 1-25 over SMU (7 OCC) and Prov (18 OCC)?

When it serves your argument, you say that the committee did well to put OSU as a 7 seed because of their OCC, and yet that doesn't apply to everyone (VCU, Butler, Prov, etc.). And their shitty conference record doesn't factor in, although it factors in for others when they do well.

To answer your question...Yes, because you were so insufferable about where I had Zona, and I proved to be correct.

 

[ericd7633]

South Regional(Louisville, KY)

1. KANSAS(BIG 12)
16. HOLY CROSS(PATRIOT)/SOUTHERN(SWAC)
- Wells Fargo Arena(Des Moines, IA)
8. Colorado
9. Pittsburgh

4. Indiana
13. STONY BROOK(AM. EAST)
- SVM Arena(Spokane, WA)
5. California
12. SOUTH DAKOTA STATE(SUMMIT)

6. Baylor
11. ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK(SUN BELT)
- Barclays Center(Brooklyn, NY)
3. Miami
14. BUFFALO(MAC)

7. Iowa
10. UCONN(AAC)
- Scottrade Center(St. Louis, MO)
2. Xavier
15. UNC-ASHEVILLE(BIG SOUTH)

East Regional(Philadelphia, PA)

1. NORTH CAROLINA(ACC)
16. HAMPTON(MEAC)
- PNC Arena(Raleigh, NC)
8. Texas Tech
9. Butler

4. Purdue
13. NORTHERN IOWA(MVC)
- Pepsi Center(Denver, CO)
5. SETON HALL(BIG EAST)
12. YALE(IVY)

6. Arizona
11. Temple/Monmouth
- Dunkin Donuts Center(Providence, RI)
3. West Virginia
14. IONA(MAAC)

7. Dayton
10. Cincinnati
- Barclays Center(Brooklyn, NY)
2. Villanova
15. GREEN BAY(HORIZON)

Midwest Regional(Chicago, IL)

1. MICHIGAN STATE(BIG)
16. AUSTIN PEAY(OVC)/FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON(NEC)
- Scottrade Center(St. Louis, MO)
8. Providence
9. USC

4. Duke
13. UNC-WILMINGTON(CAA)
- Dunkin Donuts Center(Providence, RI)
5. Iowa State
12. FRESNO STATE(MTN. WEST)

6. Notre Dame
11. Saint Bonaventure
- Pepsi Center(Denver, CO)
3. Utah
14. HAWAI'I(BIG WEST)

7. Saint Joseph's
10. GONZAGA(WCC)
- Chesapeake Energy Arena(Oklahoma City, OK)
2. Oklahoma
15. WEBER STATE(BIG SKY)

West Regional(Anaheim, CA)

1. Virginia
16. FGCU(A-SUN)
- PNC Arena(Raleigh, NC)
8. VCU(A-10)
9. Oregon State

4. TEXAS A&M(SEC)
13. STEPHEN F. AUSTIN(SOUTHLAND)
- Chesapeake Energy Arena(Oklahoma, OK)
5. Maryland
12. CHATTANOOGA(SOUTHERN)

6. Texas
11. Saint Mary's/San Diego State
- Wells Fargo Arena(Des Moines, IA)
3. Kentucky
14. MTSU(C. USA)

7. Wisconsin
10. Wichita State
- SVM Arena(Spokane, WA)
2. OREGON(PAC 12)
15. CSU-BAKERSFIELD(WAC)

Last 4 "BYES" - Pittsburgh, Saint Bonaventure, Cincinnati, Wichita State
Last 4 IN: Temple, San Diego State, Saint Mary's, Monmouth
First 4 OUT: Syracuse, Michigan, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Next 4 OUT: Valparaiso, Akron, Georgia, Florida

* Contingency - If Memphis wins the AAC Tournament, they are in the field as a 15 seed. As a by product of that; Monmouth would be OUT, and Wichita State would be slotted into the play-in games in Dayton against Saint Mary's.

Having looked at all the teams, I'm fairly confident about Temple getting selected. The committee has NEVER left out the outright winner of a top 8 conference(AAC is 8th). That line of thinking is why I think San Diego and Saint Mary's will get selected. Even though the Mountain West and WCC are ranked 12th and 14th respectively.

Correctly predicted 35 seeds, and 61 within 1 line either way. Correctly picked 64/68. Which would have had me better than Lunardi, based on the Bracket Matrix scoring method. Can I be on ESPN? lol

Totally whiffed on Tulsa, but so did everybody else.

 

[CatsTopPac]

You were claiming the entire time the Kenpom, BPI and Sagarin were going to be used...they weren't...not even a little bit. I was claiming that they look at OOC SOS, overall SOS, W/L vs. field and consideration and whether or not they won a regular season/tournament title.

I was claiming that because it was widely agreed upon last year that they played a greater factor than they did this season, and because the committee officially stated that they are part of the criteria.

ND had 7 wins against teams in the field, won the ACC Tournament.

UNC had 7 wins against the field last year too, with a significantly better OOC. So tourney results were much more of a factor than OOC? Odd.

UNC

OOC: 5
Wins against the field: 7
ACC tourney runner up

ND

OOC: 327
Wins against the Field 7
ACC tourney champion

 

[CatsTopPac]

To answer your question...Yes, because you were so insufferable about where I had Zona, and I proved to be correct.

It wasn't about AZ, as I have stated a dozen times. It was about you limiting your criteria, which the lazy committee also did.

 

[jeffro151]

At least Oregon won their conference and their conference tournament, Virginia won neither

Also, I'd like to add that we only finished 1 game behind UNC, the regular season champs, with UVa winning the only matchup during the regular season. UVa then went on to play UNC in the ACCCG. It's not like UVa was no where to be found during the regular season or during the tourney.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Correctly predicted 35 seeds, and 61 within 1 line either way. Correctly picked 64/68. Which would have had me better than Lunardi, based on the Bracket Matrix scoring method. Can I be on ESPN? lol

Totally whiffed on Tulsa, but so did everybody else.

Did better than last year. Thought you wouldn't be so far off last year if they were doing the same thing every year.

 

[ericd7633]

I was claiming that because it was widely agreed upon last year that they played a greater factor than they did this season, and because the committee officially stated that they are part of the criteria.



UNC had 7 wins against the field last year too, with a significantly better OOC. So tourney results were much more of a factor than OOC? Odd.

UNC

OOC: 5
Wins against the field: 7
ACC tourney runner up

ND

OOC: 327
Wins against the Field 7
ACC tourney champion

UNC also had 11 total losses so they were REWARDED for that type of schedule. And ND was 29-5. When was the last time a 5 loss ACC team was a 3 seed? ND was 12th on the S Curve, UNC was 13th.

 

[ericd7633]

Did better than last year. Thought you wouldn't be so far off last year if they were doing the same thing every year.

Thought they would put more emphasis on outright conference champions of high mid major leagues. That's why I got three wrong this year. Don't even remember what I did last year. Glad I wasn't using KP, BPI, or Sagarin. My seeds would have been way off.

 

[ericd7633]

It wasn't about AZ, as I have stated a dozen times. It was about you limiting your criteria, which the lazy committee also did.

You say lazy, I say they were a standard committee.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Thought they would put more emphasis on outright conference champions of high mid major leagues. That's why I got three wrong this year. Don't even remember what I did last year. Glad I wasn't using KP, BPI, or Sagarin. My seeds would have been way off.

You say lazy, I say they were a standard committee.

Looks like you have it all figured out. Someone might want to let the committee know that although they have put out over a dozen different criteria to select teams, you have it all figured out. Shit, they must be trying to throw all of us CBB underlings off their scent, when in fact, they only consider OCC, RPI, SOS, W/L vs the field, and conference tourney results. But you are too smart for that.

Eric, all of us on the hoop are so lucky to have you. Hell, you might put Kenpom, Massey, Sagarin, BPI, and Lunardi all out of a job.

 

[dcZONAfan]

I would like to disassociate myself from this fellow Arizona fan. That is all.

 

[gordontrue]

Best tourney coaches seeking first final four...

 

[CatsTopPac]

I would like to disassociate myself from this fellow Arizona fan. That is all.

I disassociated myself from you long ago.

 

[ericd7633]

Looks like you have it all figured out. Someone might want to let the committee know that although they have put out over a dozen different criteria to select teams, you have it all figured out. Shit, they must be trying to throw all of us CBB underlings off their scent, when in fact, they only consider OCC, RPI, SOS, W/L vs the field, and conference tourney results. But you are too smart for that.

Eric, all of us on the hoop are so lucky to have you. Hell, you might put Kenpom, Massey, Sagarin, BPI, and Lunardi all out of a job.

No need to get mad. This all started because I didn't rank Arizona where you thought I should a couple weeks back. If I had them as an undeserving 3 seed you wouldn't have said shit to me. I said let's wait and see where the seeds fall, they fell in favor how I thought they would. If I had the time, I'd love to put together a bracket based on the BPI, KP and Sagarin, just to show you how far off that is from the real bracket.

 

[CatsTopPac]

No need to get mad. This all started because I didn't rank Arizona where you thought I should a couple weeks back. If I had them as an undeserving 3 seed you wouldn't have said shit to me. I said let's wait and see where the seeds fall, they fell in favor how I thought they would. If I had the time, I'd love to put together a bracket based on the BPI, KP and Sagarin, just to show you how far off that is from the real bracket.

Not mad, I'm just confused as to you still thinking because this all started with some sort of ax to grind. I'm not going to keep repeating this; if you refuse to see it, I don't know what else to say. I simply noticed that AZ was lower than I thought (based my knowledge of where AZ was in non-RPI and RPI based criteria). That's the only reason I even noticed it. I simply asked you what your criteria was in picking your teams. Just because I noticed AZ doesn't mean that this has anything to do with where you specifically had them. You mentioned that a lot of your criteria was mostly based on the same factors as RPI, and RPI itself. All I did was say that the committee officially states that there is more to consider. I mentioned other criteria, and what it shows that your criteria doesn't. This didn't continue because I kept trying to defend AZ. As I've stated many times, all it had to do with was telling you that there is more to consider than what you were using. And you refused to let it go. All you had to say was that you were sticking to your criteria, and that would have been that. I kept telling you over and over that you could do whatever you want. But you kept arguing that the only valuable tools were RPI, SOS, and W/L vs the field (their resume). So, I showed you where everyone pointed out that those were limiting, that the committee even said so, and that it's widely known that RPI is becoming less of a dominant factor. That is all true, regardless of what happened yesterday. Somehow, you still think this has something to do with AZ, despite the fact that I couldn't give a fuck where you had them or even that you are doing brackets before SS. The only way that AZ is even a part of this is because by seeing where you had them versus where I knew the other criteria put them, I wondered if because yours was so different, if you were using an RPI-based method. That's it. AZ was simply an indicator to me of the method you were using. And yet you are always trying to bring this back to me being a mad AZ fan, no matter how clear I try to make it, that it was only an indicator that I noticed your method was RPI based. So all I did was mention that if you are trying to make it as accurate as possible, then you would consider the things that the committee specifically stated as their criteria. You kept replying to comments by me on different threads to try and get me to discuss it with you again after I said I was done. Same thing you did on this thread. You just kept coming back to it.

I'm not mad, I just don't know what else to say at this point for you to shut the fuck up about it. What do you want me to say? I'm not going to say that your criteria is the primary criteria for the committee. It was this year for a lot of the bracket. I think it's because the committee was lazy. They got the team sheets and went with it. I don't know if they didn't see a lot of basketball this season, or if because there was so much parity that they wanted to default to something, or what. Honestly, I really don't care. I really, really, really don't care. Everyone in the basketball world was surprised by a lot of the seeding yesterday, and specifically critiqued it as being too RPI-centric. People are saying that this was the worst bracket in years. You can say whatever you want, but the people who do this for a living are saying that this year's selection is based too much on RPI, and not enough on the other criteria. Why would the committee list all of that if they are only going on the limited criteria that you are? Why would so many analysts, commentators, coaches, etc. comment on how inaccurate RPI, SOS, and W/L vs the field is as the main criteria? I've showed you where they've said it for years. I've showed you where committee members have said it. If you want to use it, do whatever you want. But you specifically stated that you are trying to replicate what the committee feels as the most important, and so I pointed you to the committee's official criteria page, and nothing more. You had the chance to tell me that you considered it, and still decided to go with your own criteria, but instead, you kept trying to tell me that I was wrong, even though so many people in the basketball world (and on the committee) said that there is far more than just RPI and RPI based methods like what you are using. So you can make this about me as an AZ fan, but it's really not, and I have no idea why I need to keep mentioning it at this point.

RPI wasn't used as much last year. Many people are saying this. I'm not just making all of this up because I'm a bitter AZ fan that was unhappy because of where you had them on one of your brackets, so now I'm launching an all out attack on you. You are keeping this going. You keep posting shit to get me to get into it again with you. If you want to maintain your criteria, do whatever the fuck you want. If you think that this year solidified for you that you are correct, then go for it. I've been telling you that for weeks. But you keep coming at me, so what else do you want to hear?

Yes your bracket was accurate this year. Yes it is RPI based. And yes there are a lot of basketball people who think this is the worst selection in years because of it, because it is so RPI based, and therefore not accurate as calculating the value of the teams for seeding. You can do whatever the fuck you want with it. I can only assume, that after me having said all of this over and over, that you want me to shower you with how great you are and how awesome your system is. Honestly, whatever the fuck you need to hear so that you will get it out of your head that this is about AZ, and realize that I don't give a fuck about any of this enough to continue discussing it with you, then just pretend that I said that, and shut the fuck up about it.

If you want to believe that your method is either the most accurate at deciding actual value of a team, or if you want to make the argument that despite what the committee puts out that your method is what should be considered, then fine. Great. Go for it. But this continued because you kept arguing that the committee, the analysts, coaches, commentators, etc. all put forth additional criteria that is officially recognized to be more accurate, and used by the committee, is not as useful as your method. And frankly, that's bullshit. I showed you over and over that it's bullshit. And you refuse to accept it. That's what has kept this going. Not me, not AZ. This is not my opinion. I am simply showing you what the committee lists as their criteria, and how RPI as a base is viewed as, by the basketball world. You not wanting to see that, and think that I'm just some AZ fan with a vendetta against a single bracket in February, on SportsHoopla, is what's keeping this going.

Whenever you are ready to move the fuck on, you just assume that you have whatever closure you need from me to do so, and move the fuck on.