PDA

View Full Version : Would the tourney be better if...



willandi
03-14-2010, 11:36 AM
The seeds were assigned strictly by a ranking formula? I am not a big stat guy, but am offended that so many teams lost in their conference tourneys, and it barely affected the seeding for them. A computer system that had all the data input through the last game would ensure, to some extent, that everything was accounted for. It would take away the eye test and the committee decisions/influence, and maybe make for a more honest job of seeding.

If Kentucky loses today, there will be at least 2 teams seeded #1 that lost in the conference tourneys ( including Syracuse). It doesn't seem right that the committee arbitrarily assigns teams, based on the eye test, disregarding the LAST game, excepting for the Zags and some of the Mid-Majors. It isn't consistent.

Would a computerized system be better, or not?

BroncoZAG615
03-14-2010, 11:43 AM
The seeds were assigned strictly by a ranking formula? I am not a big stat guy, but am offended that so many teams lost in their conference tourneys, and it barely affected the seeding for them. A computer system that had all the data input through the last game would ensure, to some extent, that everything was accounted for. It would take away the eye test and the committee decisions/influence, and maybe make for a more honest job of seeding.

If Kentucky loses today, there will be at least 2 teams seeded #1 that lost in the conference tourneys ( including Syracuse). It doesn't seem right that the committee arbitrarily assigns teams, based on the eye test, disregarding the LAST game, excepting for the Zags and some of the Mid-Majors. It isn't consistent.

Would a computerized system be better, or not?

Not at all.

The tournament is about the body of work, not the last game. Syracuse and Kentucky have incredible resumes and it is obvious they are a tier higher than everyone else with teams like Kansas and, at times, Duke/West Va/etc. Those teams could all relax in the conference tournament because they had great regular seasons

Gonzaga dug their own grave in conference play with two terrible in season losses and just underwhelming performances abound. Their quality wins are decent but they had work to do in the conference tournament and didn't do it. The facts are that we play in a weak conference, our wins look better on paper than they do in real life, and that we haven't looked too good recently. All these are huge factors in how the committee seeds teams.

Gonzaga deserves the seven seed and I think it is a great place for them. The good news is that I think we know this team is really capable of a lot. They could be one and done or they could be an Elite Eight team based on how things shake out.

It's fair, no conspiracies here.

willandi
03-14-2010, 11:56 AM
I agree with what you are saying, in theory, but on the stage of the biggest game of the season, to date, if you come up short, there should be a penalty. I am also thinking of teams like Richmond, beating Xavier, and Xavier went up in the seeding, at least on the bleacher report. The A 10 isn' that much stronger than the WCC. All the teams that lost in the conference tourney should have to face some repercussions. If they don't then the conference tourneys are more than a joke, they are a sham...a shill for money, and shouldn't be considered at all. It shouldn't go both ways, that small conferences have to prove themselves in their tournaments, but the big schools are given a pass. The rules should have to apply equally.

I have become more concerned about this situation this year then ever before, and if it bothers people then I apologize. I think there must be more transparency in the selection/seeding process. There are too many millions of dollars at stake, too many decisions by potential recruits to make the playing field even more tilted.

I know the Zags made their bed this year, and dropped from the last 5 seed to the 1st 7 seed (in most of the sites I have gone to), but have been leapfrogged by teams that have lost, while they have been stuck in concrete. The wins and losses of teams around the zags should have created some fluidity, and hasn't, in my honest opinion.

2011Zag
03-14-2010, 12:09 PM
The seeds were assigned strictly by a ranking formula? I am not a big stat guy, but am offended that so many teams lost in their conference tourneys, and it barely affected the seeding for them. A computer system that had all the data input through the last game would ensure, to some extent, that everything was accounted for. It would take away the eye test and the committee decisions/influence, and maybe make for a more honest job of seeding.

If Kentucky loses today, there will be at least 2 teams seeded #1 that lost in the conference tourneys ( including Syracuse). It doesn't seem right that the committee arbitrarily assigns teams, based on the eye test, disregarding the LAST game, excepting for the Zags and some of the Mid-Majors. It isn't consistent.

Would a computerized system be better, or not?

See the BCS.

webspinnre
03-14-2010, 12:12 PM
Negative. Formulas are only useful when you have humans to interpret them and understand the strengths and weaknesses of them.

willandi
03-14-2010, 12:17 PM
I am obviously in the minority here, so what do YOU think could/should be done to make the committee more accountable, to make 'meaningless' games have meaning?

I agree the BCS sucks, but a big part of that also is the human involvement. The teams are ranked, but it is the humans that decide which teams are worthy and assign the others to a lower game. It isn't just the computers there.

NorthoftheBorder
03-14-2010, 12:27 PM
Why does the tournament committee need to be made more "accountable"?

They do an outstanding job. If you look over the years you will find very few "upsets" and most years there are at least three #1 seeds in the Final Four.

I guess it depends on whether you want the tournament seeded as accurately as possible or whether you consider tournament seeding to be based on "rewarding" teams who won their conference tournaments.

BroncoZAG615
03-14-2010, 12:46 PM
Why does the tournament committee need to be made more "accountable"?

They do an outstanding job. If you look over the years you will find very few "upsets" and most years there are at least three #1 seeds in the Final Four.

I guess it depends on whether you want the tournament seeded as accurately as possible or whether you consider tournament seeding to be based on "rewarding" teams who won their conference tournaments.

+1

I don't get the issue here. Some teams have the luxury to lose games in the conference tournament. Some don't. When you play in a weak conference like the WCC, you don't have that luxury no matter what.

If you roll through the Big East, SEC, ACC etc...you do. That just makes sense as those are vastly superior conferences.

willandi
03-14-2010, 12:47 PM
Again, I apologize. You are right. The Zags have never been shafted by the committee, we have always gotten exactly the seeding we have deserved...as has every body else.

Fine. Please, no more whining about facing Wyoming, being ranked top five and getting a bad seed, facing Davidson near their campus. Everything is perfect and there is obviously no room for improvement. (tongue in cheek)

At least this is what I gather from all the responses so far. Do you really believe that? I, for one, am always seeking ways to improve everything that I do, to simplify, economize and produce a better product more cheaply. I assume the same of others.

At least the NCAA championship will be decided head to head, on the court. At least the Zags are playing.

deathchina
03-14-2010, 01:05 PM
I think the committee has done a good job seeding Gonzaga, if anything we have been seeded too high, at least based on tourney performance....

In the last 8 years we've beaten a higher seed in the NCAA tournament one time (and that was the 8/9 game with Cincinnati), and in the same span have lost to a lower seeded team 4 times. We haven't pulled any tournament upsets since the 2000-2001 season. We've gotten some tough draws, (obviously Wyoming and facing Davidson in North Carolina) but those are games we all feel we "should" have won anyways.

willandi
03-14-2010, 01:22 PM
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa