Selection Sunday Thread

[ericd7633]

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.

lol. The only reason you questioned me was because it was specifically where I had Arizona. Like I said, if I had them at a 3 you wouldn't have said shit. You may not have an ax to grind, but if they were where you thought they should have been, you wouldn't have said shit to me. And really, if you look at KP, BPI and Sagarin, they weren't really used last year, especially in seeding. I mean I guess you could say UCLA made the field because of those numbers, but they also had an RPI of 48. So while the committee lists those as a criteria(which I never disagreed with by the way), they haven't been applied last year or this year for the most part.

Also, I hope your not confusing that think RPI is a good metric to rate/rank basketball teams, because it's flawed. The committee cares about who you beat, where you beat them, and who you played, the RPI is all a by product of that. It's why a team with an RPI of 60 can be included and a team with an RPI of 36 can be excluded.

 

[CatsTopPac]

lol. The only reason you questioned me was because it was specifically where I had Arizona. Like I said, if I had them at a 3 you wouldn't have said shit. You may not have an ax to grind, but if they were where you thought they should have been, you wouldn't have said shit to me. And really, if you look at KP, BPI and Sagarin, they weren't really used last year, especially in seeding. I mean I guess you could say UCLA made the field because of those numbers, but they also had an RPI of 48. So while the committee lists those as a criteria(which I never disagreed with by the way), they haven't been applied last year or this year for the most part.

Also, I hope your not confusing that think RPI is a good metric to rate/rank basketball teams, because it's flawed. The committee cares about who you beat, where you beat them, and who you played, the RPI is all a by product of that. It's why a team with an RPI of 60 can be included and a team with an RPI of 36 can be excluded.

I knew where AZ was in RPI and where they were in non-RPI. That's it. It was an indicator of your method. If you would have had them at a 3, I would have assumed that you were taking more into consideration than you were. That's why I wouldn't have said shit. It's not because I was offended or mad because you didn't have my team higher. AZ was one of the teams (and the one I knew the best) that was different between RPI and non-RPI based ratings. I could see your method by where you had them. I then looked at Oregon, another team that was different between RPI and non-RPI. It became clear to me that you were using an RPI-based method. But you are specifically insinuating that I'm some angry AZ fan because you didn't have them higher. I don't know how many times I need to say this: where you have AZ on a bracket in February in SportsHoopla means nothing to me. If it did, I probably would have been on your thread earlier, and last year, etc. I opened it up because I wanted to see your method. Naturally, the team I know best is AZ, and by seeing where you had them, I could tell what criteria you used.

And BPI/Sagarin/Kenpom etc. definitely were used more last year. Committee members said so. And it wasn't just UCLA. CSU, and ND vs UNC all had their seeds dictated by more than just RPI-based criteria. There were a few other teams that got in with worse RPI because of other metrics. Many thought after last year that the committee was taking a noticeable turn away from RPI, which is why this year's selection was infuriating.

RPI no longer important, NCAA tournament makes example of CSU

The NCAA tournament committee’s RPI love affair continues, sadly

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/s...at-at-the-selection-committee-table.html?_r=0

 

[ericd7633]

I knew where AZ was in RPI and where they were in non-RPI. That's it. It was an indicator of your method. If you would have had them at a 3, I would have assumed that you were taking more into consideration than you were. That's why I wouldn't have said shit. It's not because I was offended or mad because you didn't have my team higher. AZ was one of the teams (and the one I knew the best) that was different between RPI and non-RPI based ratings. I could see your method by where you had them. I then looked at Oregon, another team that was different between RPI and non-RPI. It became clear to me that you were using an RPI-based method. But you are specifically insinuating that I'm some angry AZ fan because you didn't have them higher. I don't know how many times I need to say this: where you have AZ on a bracket in February in SportsHoopla means nothing to me. If it did, I probably would have been on your thread earlier, and last year, etc. I opened it up because I wanted to see your method. Naturally, the team I know best is AZ, and by seeing where you had them, I could tell what criteria you used.

And BPI/Sagarin/Kenpom etc. definitely were used more last year. Committee members said so. And it wasn't just UCLA. CSU, and ND vs UNC all had their seeds dictated by more than just RPI-based criteria. There were a few other teams that got in with worse RPI because of other metrics. Many thought after last year that the committee was taking a noticeable turn away from RPI, which is why this year's selection was infuriating.

RPI no longer important, NCAA tournament makes example of CSU

The NCAA tournament committee’s RPI love affair continues, sadly

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/s...at-at-the-selection-committee-table.html?_r=0

CSU, like I said before is an AWFUL example. One thing the committee does a job good at, is that they can look past certain RPI teams that take advantage of the system. CSU was a perfect example of that. They had TWO wins against teams that made the field as at-larges. They avoided playing truly awful teams(rpi 250+) so while the SOS will look good there's no heft there. That happens with alot of mid majors, that's why they can get so high in the rpi and not get a bid. That's why teams like Princeton, Akron, Valpo etc. had no shot.

And what about UNC or ND makes you think they were seeded based on other metrics? ND was the worst 3 despite finishing 29-5, winning the ACC Tournament and having 7 wins against the field - OOC SOS certainly punished their seed.

Because it's pretty clear teams like Utah, Iowa State, Baylor, Michigan State, Wichita State, Maryland, Ohio State, Texas where there was a HUGE discrepancy in terms or RPI and BPI/KP/Sagarin they leaned heavily towards the RPI.

Also, like I said before, it's not as if, I just look directly at RPI. But the committee just weighs it more heavily, especially for seeding purposes.

 

[rmilia1]

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.

I WISH the committee used BPI, KENPOM and SAGARIN. Iowa would be about 2 spots better on the seed line lol

 

[ericd7633]

I WISH the committee used BPI, KENPOM and SAGARIN. Iowa would be about 2 spots better on the seed line lol

I think it would make for a better bracket too. They just have shown to not place as much emphasis on those metrics, especially for seeding.