PDA

View Full Version : I just don't get it!!



willandi
03-12-2010, 08:05 AM
I don't under stand so much of the talk on radio, and this forum. Gonzaga was ranked 18 in the last AP poll, and will be until after selection Sunday. I can discount the coaches poll, as they should be too busy to effectively watch and rank teams, but the sportswriters aren't.

We lost, but so did 'Cuse, and they still are expected to be a #1 seed. If the conf tourneys don't effect that, then why did we drop?

I know the accepted formula for RPI, but, with as much money as is on the line, why is the NCAA allowed to keep the actual formula a secret. It should be published so that there is accountability.

How is strength os schedule computed? What would happen if the WCC started the season as the #1 thru #8 ranked teams, played a cupcake OCC schedule and then conference? If you don't drop in the rankings unless you lose, we would be a tough conference.

What the heck is the "S" curve, and why is it used in lieu of rankings, SOS, RPI etc?

If losing in the conference championship costs the Zags so much, shouldn't losing before the "ship game be even more costly?

It all seems political, and not nearly transparent enough, considering all the mony involved.

Thanks, and I'll listen to your answer off the air.

Ezag
03-12-2010, 08:19 AM
Because we play in WCC we will always be expected to prove ourselves more and over and over again

BoltZag
03-12-2010, 08:27 AM
Polls are bunk. Gonzaga wasn't and isn't the 18th (or 14th) best team in NCAA Div I men's basketball.

Once and Future Zag
03-12-2010, 09:25 AM
I know the accepted formula for RPI, but, with as much money as is on the line, why is the NCAA allowed to keep the actual formula a secret. It should be published so that there is accountability.

What the heck is the "S" curve, and why is it used in lieu of rankings, SOS, RPI etc?

#1, RPI's commonly misunderstood - see my post (http://guboards.com/showpost.php?p=549108&postcount=10)

#2 S-curve is how they determine the seed/regions of the teams once they've ranked them all 1-65. So, the top 1-seed plays the winner of the play-in game (the lowest #16 seed) and the bottom 1-seed plays the best 16-seed. The best 2-seed plays the lowest 15 seed, and the lowest 2 seed plays the bet 15 seed... and so on all the way through the top 8-seed playing the bottom 9-seed and the bottom 8-seed playing the top 9-seed (in theory the "closest" game.

It's not used in lieu of any of those things - it's a tool for setting the specifics of the seeding once the 65 teams are picked and the overall order of them is determined - and that's accomplished by using all those tools you listed above, as well as KenPom's numbers (which has been confirmed to be looked at), looking at how injuries may have affected the overall record, and the ever-nebulous "eye-test"

It's a complex process, and not one I particularly envy - especially when some of the tournaments are not yet concluded as they are setting the field. Compared to the committee, I tend to value well done statistical analysis over any sort of human subjective factors (polls and "eye test"), but I value those over poorly thought out stats any day

webspinnre
03-12-2010, 10:24 AM
Basically, it works like this:

1-64/65 & 32/33
2-63 & 31/34
3-62 & 30/35
4-61 & 29/36

That's just for the 4 1 seeds and their pods including the 8/9 games. They do the same thing for the entire tourney, with the top 1 seed getting the bottom 2 seed, the top 3 seed, the bottom 4 seed, the top 5 seed, etc in their quarter of the bracket. After they've done all that, they then go through and move teams up or down a spot to avoid regular season rematches (up to a certain point). Then they go through and assign where the pods are located.

skan72
03-12-2010, 10:29 AM
I, personally, would pay a TON of money to be able to sit at headquarters where the decisions go down on Selection Sunday.

Ziggy
03-12-2010, 11:04 AM
Polls are bunk. Gonzaga wasn't and isn't the 18th (or 14th) best team in NCAA Div I men's basketball.

A singular and somewhat isolated opinion on this board, I'm afraid.

zagamatic
03-12-2010, 12:05 PM
If this isn't proof that the "RPI" is a bunch of garbage, I don't know what is. This is a summation of the PAC-10's out of conference wins over teams that are gonna be NCAA Tournament teams this year: Arizona State beat San Diego State by 3 at HOME. And UW beat Texas A&M by 9 at HOME. That's it. And San Diego State is still considered a "bubble team". There are no other quality wins for the PAC-10 as a CONFERENCE!
And yet, Cal is ranked 20th in the RPI. I'm sorry, but that's just a bunch of crap! And, oh yeah, their RECORD is 22-9, 13-5 in a pathetic conference with their best out of conference win being against Iowa State at Cal.

titopoet
03-12-2010, 12:49 PM
Do not forget that the RPI was set up to help the BCS schools. The BCS own the NCAA and they do everything to help BCS schools. They don't go out to hurt the non-BCS schools, but that's what ends up happening. While Gu was a top ten team last year and a top 16 team this year, they will be seeded as a 30th type team. It might help them, though. Being a 6 or 7 seed puts the zags on the opposite from a 1 seed unlike the last year where they faced UNC in the third round.

Just A Zag
03-12-2010, 12:55 PM
A singular and somewhat isolated opinion on this board, I'm afraid.

not completely alone.

Ziggy
03-12-2010, 01:03 PM
not completely alone.

O.K.,two!:D

Zagpower
03-12-2010, 01:05 PM
I agree about Syracuse. They appear to be bullet-proof in the eyes of the talking heads.

Last week, we all agreed on Syracuse as a #1 seed. Since then, they lost by 10 to unranked Louisville and then again to #22 Georgetown and yet they are still being proposed as a #1.

The excuses being thrown around are that they had already beaten Gtown twice during the year and it is so hard to beat a rival three times.

Last week, GU was a 4 or 5 seed. Since then we lost one game to our rival, the same rival we beat twice during the season, and yet we fall 3-4 seeding spots because of that one game?

That's what makes no sense to me.

voiceinthewilderness
03-12-2010, 01:32 PM
The selection committee alone will select GU's seed, as they will everyone elses. SOS, RPI, Quality wins, how you are playing at the end of the year, and even the eye test come into play. Ranking in the polls does not matter at all. Lunardi and all the other bracketologists might as well be throwing darts at a wall on this stuff. That said, GU 7-8, St Mary's a 9-10. You heard it here first. Based in large part to the result of the WCC Championship game, which was the only time members of the committee who live in the center of the country and the east coast were able to see SM in prime time. They clearly passed the eye test. I wouldn't be completely shocked to see GU with an 8, SM with a 9, actually. I too would like to be in the room when they pick the field, seedings regions and pods. That has got to be wild.

sanders
03-12-2010, 01:59 PM
If this isn't proof that the "RPI" is a bunch of garbage, I don't know what is. This is a summation of the PAC-10's out of conference wins over teams that are gonna be NCAA Tournament teams this year: Arizona State beat San Diego State by 3 at HOME. And UW beat Texas A&M by 9 at HOME. That's it. And San Diego State is still considered a "bubble team". There are no other quality wins for the PAC-10 as a CONFERENCE!
And yet, Cal is ranked 20th in the RPI. I'm sorry, but that's just a bunch of crap! And, oh yeah, their RECORD is 22-9, 13-5 in a pathetic conference with their best out of conference win being against Iowa State at Cal.

Cal is ranked 16th by Sagarin (predictor). Is Sagarain crap too?
Cal is ranked 14th by Ken Pomeroy. Is he crap too?

And instead of just looking at marquee wins, why not also look at losses? Has Cal lost to a team as bad as USF or LMU?

Re Pac-10 wins over teams that are going to be in the NCAA tournament, you are missing a few. Murray State, Montana, Tennessee, and St. Mary's are going to be in the tournament, and Pacific, Louisiana Tech, UNLV, and/or New Mexico State may join them.

bigblahla
03-12-2010, 02:21 PM
Cal is ranked 16th by Sagarin (predictor) Has Cal lost to a team as bad as USF or LMU?

Don't know about the Dons but LMU would eat Cal up and enjoy doing it. You're a Newbie so I'll leave it at that.

Go!! Zags!!!

FieldHouseFishHouse
03-12-2010, 03:03 PM
Last week, GU was a 4 or 5 seed. Since then we lost one game to our rival, the same rival we beat twice during the season, and yet we fall 3-4 seeding spots because of that one game?

That's what makes no sense to me.

I don't think we will fall 3-4 seeds. We were projected as a 5 before the SMC game, now we are at a 7. My guess is we get a 6 (1 spot drop, MAYBE 2). And SMC is probably a worse loss than either GU or UL.

FieldHouseFishHouse
03-12-2010, 03:06 PM
The selection committee alone will select GU's seed, as they will everyone elses. SOS, RPI, Quality wins, how you are playing at the end of the year, and even the eye test come into play. Ranking in the polls does not matter at all. Lunardi and all the other bracketologists might as well be throwing darts at a wall on this stuff. That said, GU 7-8, St Mary's a 9-10. You heard it here first. Based in large part to the result of the WCC Championship game, which was the only time members of the committee who live in the center of the country and the east coast were able to see SM in prime time. They clearly passed the eye test. I wouldn't be completely shocked to see GU with an 8, SM with a 9, actually. I too would like to be in the room when they pick the field, seedings regions and pods. That has got to be wild.


You can't hold the rope from both ends. If SMC is now in the 9-10 range, the SMC loss should not be considered that bad (and 2 Ws look pretty good). Why would GU's seed drop 2-3 lines just by losing to a team solidly in the at-large field like St. Marys?

willandi
03-12-2010, 05:51 PM
Thanks for all the responses!! Not sure I understand any better tho. What it seems to amount to is how the committee decides. That was why I asked the hypothetical (and absurd) question about what if ALL the WCC teams occupied the top 8 positions of the 1st preseason poll, and played a cupcake OOC schedule.
It seems this is what "Cuse and many of the other schools do, and they get rewarded for it. If you don't lose you won't drop in the polls. I know that the polls are pretty meaningless, but if the only WCC losses in the season were to each other, and we started high, we would be like the Big East, and any losses are excused because they are such a power conference. That is why there needs to be more transparency in the committee process, what tools are used to decide the order of 1-65.

Anyway, thanks for all the responses, I just got home from work and was anxious to see if any of my questions were answered. The answers danced around the subject nicely, but I guess the answer is the committee decides, and that is that.

Zagpower
03-13-2010, 04:53 AM
I don't think we will fall 3-4 seeds. We were projected as a 5 before the SMC game, now we are at a 7. My guess is we get a 6 (1 spot drop, MAYBE 2). And SMC is probably a worse loss than either GU or UL.

I hope your'e right on the seeding but I'm not sure which is a worse loss.



Cuse is supposed to be a #1. They lost to the 5th and 6th place teams in their own league. Cuse was ranked 20 teams ahead of Georgetown and probably 30 or more ahead of UL. Plus they may have lost their starting center.

I don't know where SMC is ranked, but I doubt it is more than 20 places behind us. That's why I believe their recent losses are just as bad, if not worse than ours.



I still think we are being disproportionately punished if we drop more than 1 seed based on the reasoning given for not dropping Cuse.


In the end, it doesn't matter. It's going to be about matchups. I can't see much skill differences between the 3 seeds and the 10 seeds this year. Talk about wide open.