Updated Bracketology 2.23.16

[Texas Jefe]

Main reason for Oregon's seed:

RPI: 4
SOS: 1
Non Conf. SOS: 14
Vs. Top 25: 4-1
Vs. Top 50: 9-3

damn Oregon's numbers are sick

 

[CatsTopPac]

I hear ya. I know that those are the measures they list when discussing seeding, but SOS, non-con SOS are both within RPI. Records against top 25/50 are legit, but it's really that and SOS that is killing AZ.

I think the eye-test is important. AZ lost all 5 of their games by a total of 18 points, and like I said, they are playing their best ball of the season. And, as much as the committee looks at (or says they don't weight heavily) RPI, there is also a reason that the variety of those other metrics (Sagarin, Pomroy, BPI, polls) all show them in the top 10. But like you said, that might be a little undervaluing on behalf of the committee.

Oregon has a good squad, but they are not a #2 seed.

 

[rmilia1]

Every fan is going to pick out the metrics that rank their team higher. That's not new. AZ has the best shot of making a FF amongst P12 teams but they're at best a 4 seed right now and probably a 5 or 6. The great part about CBB is teams are rewarded by what they've actually done not some stupid fucking eye test. That lame ass shit can stay in CFB. CBB is the best sport in the world because it doesn't give a shit about anything other than who you beat, who you lost to, where the games were etc.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Every fan is going to pick out the metrics that rank their team higher. That's not new. AZ has the best shot of making a FF amongst P12 teams but they're at best a 4 seed right now and probably a 5 or 6. The great part about CBB is teams are rewarded by what they've actually done not some stupid fucking eye test. That lame ass shit can stay in CFB. CBB is the best sport in the world because it doesn't give a shit about anything other than who you beat, who you lost to, where the games were etc.

How could AZ have the best chance in the P12 of making the FF when they are a 5-6 seed and Oregon is a #2 seed and Utah is a #3 seed? Oregon looks like a slam dunk as the best team in the P12 to make it to the FF based on RPI. Answer that one for me.

My point is not that I'm looking for whatever metric helps my team. I'm saying that when there is only one metric (RPI, which is 75% SOS) that show that they should be a low seed, and various others that show they should be higher, then maybe there is something to question. How can AZ be top ten in BPI, Sagarin, Kenpom, and both polls, and be a 5-6 seed? Because seeding is based mostly on SOS.

AZ has had their starting SF (Trier) out for 5 weeks, their starting C (Zeus) out for 5 weeks, and their starting PG (Allen) got sick and lost 17 pounds. Their only loss with everyone in the lineup was @UCLA, on a last second 3, and it was Zeus's first game back. Where does that show in RPI? That's right, it doesn't. You either have to go to another metric like BPI (that calculates that), or have watched the games to know that. Now everyone is back healthy and developing the cohesion that is often missing from three starters being out since December. It shows because they are playing their best basketball of the season. If you choose not to see that, that's fine, but don't tell me that AZ is only as good as their fucking RPI shows. If 5 of the teams that AZ played in the non-con go from sub 250 to barely in the top 100, AZ's SOS gets cut in half. Does that really make them twice as good? RPI is one indicator, and is mostly SOS.

 

[rmilia1]

How could AZ have the best chance in the P12 of making the FF when they are a 5-6 seed and Oregon is a #2 seed and Utah is a #3 seed? Oregon looks like a slam dunk as the best team in the P12 to make it to the FF based on RPI. Answer that one for me.

My point is not that I'm looking for whatever metric helps my team. I'm saying that when there is only one metric (RPI, which is 75% SOS) that show that they should be a low seed, and various others that show they should be higher, then maybe there is something to question. How can AZ be top ten in BPI, Sagarin, Kenpom, and both polls, and be a 5-6 seed? Because seeding is based mostly on SOS.

AZ has had their starting SF (Trier) out for 5 weeks, their starting C (Zeus) out for 5 weeks, and their starting PG (Allen) got sick and lost 17 pounds. Their only loss with everyone in the lineup was @UCLA, on a last second 3, and it was Zeus's first game back. Where does that show in RPI? That's right, it doesn't. You either have to go to another metric like BPI (that calculates that), or have watched the games to know that. Now everyone is back healthy and developing the cohesion that is often missing from three starters being out since December. It shows because they are playing their best basketball of the season. If you choose not to see that, that's fine, but don't tell me that AZ is only as good as their fucking RPI shows. If 5 of the teams that AZ played in the non-con go from sub 250 to barely in the top 100, AZ's SOS gets cut in half. Does that really make them twice as good? RPI is one indicator, and is mostly SOS.

Because Arizona has the better team, they just don't have the better results. I personally have Arizona as having the 6th best chance of making a FF but in CBB we seed teams based on what they've done.

 

[CatsTopPac]

Because Arizona has the better team, they just don't have the better results. I personally have Arizona as having the 6th best chance of making a FF but in CBB we seed teams based on what they've done.

What tells you that AZ is the better team? AZ lost to Oregon at home, and doesn't have near the RPI.

 

[ericd7633]

I hear ya. I know that those are the measures they list when discussing seeding, but SOS, non-con SOS are both within RPI. Records against top 25/50 are legit, but it's really that and SOS that is killing AZ.

I think the eye-test is important. AZ lost all 5 of their games by a total of 18 points, and like I said, they are playing their best ball of the season. And, as much as the committee looks at (or says they don't weight heavily) RPI, there is also a reason that the variety of those other metrics (Sagarin, Pomroy, BPI, polls) all show them in the top 10. But like you said, that might be a little undervaluing on behalf of the committee.

Oregon has a good squad, but they are not a #2 seed.

You may not think Oregon is a top 8 team, but they undeniably have a top 8 resume.

 

[CatsTopPac]

You may not think Oregon is a top 8 team, but they undeniably have a top 8 resume.

They have a top 8 RPI resume, which is mostly based on SOS. They are #23 in Sagarin, #23 in BPI, and #17 in Kenpom.

 

[rmilia1]

What tells you that AZ is the better team? AZ lost to Oregon at home, and doesn't have near the RPI.

I've watched both teams a lot and AZ at full strength is just better. It's ok to use eye test when debating who you think has the better chance of winning in the tourney. It's just not used to seed teams. That's why an OOC game in November is just as important as a league game in March. The whole season is counted and important.

 

[rmilia1]

I'm not aware of Kenpom, BPI or Sagarin being used at all by the committee as part of their criteria. At least I've never heard it discussed.

 

[ericd7633]

They have a top 8 RPI resume, which is mostly based on SOS. They are #23 in Sagarin, #23 in BPI, and #17 in Kenpom.

Those metrics don't measure resume. They measure quality of the team. And even those aren't end all be all as it is. Kenpom has Wichita at 10.

RPI is your resume. Oregon undeniably has a top 8 resume. Also, they have 7 more top 50 wins than AZ does. That is why they are seeded where they are and why AZ is seeded where they are.

 

[CatsTopPac]

I've watched both teams a lot and AZ at full strength is just better. It's ok to use eye test when debating who you think has the better chance of winning in the tourney. It's just not used to seed teams. That's why an OOC game in November is just as important as a league game in March. The whole season is counted and important.

I'm not aware of Kenpom, BPI or Sagarin being used at all by the committee as part of their criteria. At least I've never heard it discussed.

The committee has said over and over that RPI is not the only thing they look at. The BPI was developed to reflect the committee's considerations, which include major injuries, margins of victory, etc. It's insane to think that the committee goes by RPI and nothing else. You really don't think that the committee looks at injuries and margins of victories (especially for losses)? Sagarin, Pomeroy, and BPI are all part of it.

"The RPI rating is often considered a factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field. However, the NCAA selection committee in 2015 said the RPI is no longer relevant only utilized for grouping the teams into groups such as top 50 and top 100 teams to value the wins and losses and not as a factor for selection.[3] Additionally, the committee officially considers other computer rankings such as ESPN's BPI, Sagarin and Pomeroy Ratings which use additional factors considered by the committee such as injured players in the case of the BPI. Additionally, committee members consider how teams do on the road and at neutral courts, strength of conference and schedule, non-conference strength of schedule, record against other selected tournament teams, and other extenuating factors. Finally, the "eye test" is often quoted by pundits as something the committee uses, however ncaa.org's sparse description of the selection process doesn't officially mention the "eye test".[4] For instance, in 2016 Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione, the NCAA selection committee's chair, said that the stark contrast in Syracuse's performance in 2015-2016 with Jim Boeheim present versus absent was considered the same as missing a key player during the slump.[5]"

 

[ericd7633]

The committee has said over and over that RPI is not the only thing they look at. The BPI was developed to reflect the committee's considerations, which include major injuries, margins of victory, etc. It's insane to think that the committee goes by RPI and nothing else. You really don't think that the committee looks at injuries and margins of victories (especially for losses)? Sagarin, Pomeroy, and BPI are all part of it.

"The RPI rating is often considered a factor in selecting and seeding the final few teams in the tournament field. However, the NCAA selection committee in 2015 said the RPI is no longer relevant only utilized for grouping the teams into groups such as top 50 and top 100 teams to value the wins and losses and not as a factor for selection.[3] Additionally, the committee officially considers other computer rankings such as ESPN's BPI, Sagarin and Pomeroy Ratings which use additional factors considered by the committee such as injured players in the case of the BPI. Additionally, committee members consider how teams do on the road and at neutral courts, strength of conference and schedule, non-conference strength of schedule, record against other selected tournament teams, and other extenuating factors. Finally, the "eye test" is often quoted by pundits as something the committee uses, however ncaa.org's sparse description of the selection process doesn't officially mention the "eye test".[4] For instance, in 2016 Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione, the NCAA selection committee's chair, said that the stark contrast in Syracuse's performance in 2015-2016 with Jim Boeheim present versus absent was considered the same as missing a key player during the slump.[5]"

Okay, so take away AZ's RPI ranking and this is their resume:

Vs. Top 50 teams: 2-4
Vs. Projected tournament teams(in my bracket, some have Oregon State out): 2-4
Non Conf. SOS: 279

It's pretty common knowledge these teams sheets are what is heavily looked at for teams:

 

[jontaejones]

Oregon is overrated in my eyes. They have a high RPI based on the PAC 12's RPI which in my mind is inflated. Utah, with 7 losses, is not the 9th best team in the country.

 

[ericd7633]

Oregon is overrated in my eyes. They have a high RPI based on the PAC 12's RPI which in my mind is inflated. Utah, with 7 losses, is not the 9th best team in the country.

The conference finished .500 against the other P6 conferences(BE included) and only had 8 100+ losses in OOC action. They truly only have one awful team in Washington State, that can't be said for other conferences.

Also I had Utah as the last 3 seed for 12th overall. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. They've beaten Duke, Texas Tech, San Diego State(leader of the MWC), Temple(leader of the AAC), IPFW(leader of the Summit). At some point you have to reward schedule. 8 of their 12 OOC games were against top 70 RPI teams and they went 6-2 in them.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

BPI sucks ass.

Use your favorite jersey color as an argument before you use that BS

 

[jontaejones]

The conference finished .500 against the other P6 conferences(BE included) and only had 8 100+ losses in OOC action. They truly only have one awful team in Washington State, that can't be said for other conferences.

Also I had Utah as the last 3 seed for 12th overall. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. They've beaten Duke, Texas Tech, San Diego State(leader of the MWC), Temple(leader of the AAC), IPFW(leader of the Summit). At some point you have to reward schedule. 8 of their 12 OOC games were against top 70 RPI teams and they went 6-2 in them.

Oregon is a bit of a weird team in that they won their tough road games but lost the rest of them.

To me, that speaks more to down years from Utah and AZ than the talent of Oregon. If they can earn a sweep in Los Angeles, then they are a solid 2. I don't think they will.

 

[dcZONAfan]

BPI sucks ass.

Use your favorite jersey color as an argument before you use that BS

THIS

 

[jontaejones]

Believe it or not, I actually think the polls are pretty accurate this year in terms of setting the S-curve.

Blasphemy, I know. But look at it...

1 seeds
NOVA
Kansas
UVA
OK

2
X
MSU
UNC
Iowa

3
Ariz
Maryland
Miami
Oregon

4
WVU
Duke
UK
ISU

 

[tducey]

Thanks for sharing this, going to be interesting to see how it all plays out come March.