PDA

View Full Version : Should the Committee favor best teams, or most deserving?



sittingon50
02-22-2017, 12:34 PM
(don't remember seeing this posted)

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18724623/should-committee-favor-best-teams-most-deserving

NotoriousZ
02-22-2017, 01:51 PM
I heard Lunardi say a few days back that the top ACC team will get a one seed just because it's the ACC and they've had one 13 of the last 14 years or something like that. Total crap if that happens, the top Pac12 team should get one, along with Gonzaga of course.

MBAGael
02-22-2017, 01:57 PM
Pomeroy's view:

http://kenpom.com/blog/that-meeting-at-the-ncaa-hq/

MBAGael
02-22-2017, 02:14 PM
Summary, seems like they favor using rpi and/or SoR to determine who makes the tournament. Once the field is picked, use kenpom or bpi to seed the field.

Mr Vulture
02-22-2017, 02:17 PM
I heard Lunardi say a few days back that the top ACC team will get a one seed just because it's the ACC and they've had one 13 of the last 14 years or something like that. Total crap if that happens, the top Pac12 team should get one, along with Gonzaga of course.

I think it depends on which team it is and what they've done. I think that Villanova, Gonzaga, and Kansas are likely all to get #1 seeds when all is said and done. From there, it's likely either UNC or Oregon if they take care of business. I would rate both those teams pretty equal but I would rate the ACC significantly higher than the Pac12 so I would lean UNC in that scenario.

zagdontzig
02-22-2017, 02:31 PM
I think it depends on which team it is and what they've done. I think that Villanova, Gonzaga, and Kansas are likely all to get #1 seeds when all is said and done. From there, it's likely either UNC or Oregon if they take care of business. I would rate both those teams pretty equal but I would rate the ACC significantly higher than the Pac12 so I would lean UNC in that scenario.

It's unfortunate the PAC12 isn't a lock for a 1 seed, even if the top two lose in the conference tournament. It feels like the conference is so strong, they end up cannibalizing their seeding.

gonzagafan62
02-22-2017, 02:33 PM
They should favor best teams.

SMC
Wichita State
Dayton
VCU

Those teams should be no where near bubble they should be safely in.

Clemson
Pittsburgh
Texas Tech
Kansas State

These teams should be nowhere near bubble especially Texas Tech. Sure you can play tough teams, but if you can't beat any, why should you get in on just SOS alone? What makes you think that if they get an 11 seed that they can go in and beat another 11, or even a 6?

bartruff1
02-22-2017, 02:34 PM
I think that as a minimum, they should give the Conference Champions and the Conference Tourney Winners a automatic ....

I personally don't give a krap about having the best 68 teams in....

The fun of March Madness (for me) is seeing the little guys upset the Power Five schools...

Ezag
02-22-2017, 02:39 PM
I think that as a minimum, they should give the Conference Champions and the Conference Tourney Winners a automatic ....

I personally don't give a krap about having the best 68 teams in....

The fun of March Madness (for me) is seeing the little guys upset the Power Five schools...

Agreed if you win your conference title you should be in

maynard g krebs
02-22-2017, 03:07 PM
I think that as a minimum, they should give the Conference Champions and the Conference Tourney Winners a automatic ....

I personally don't give a krap about having the best 68 teams in....

The fun of March Madness (for me) is seeing the little guys upset the Power Five schools...

The problem with that is that it gives incentive for conferences to make sure the regular season winner loses in the conference tourney, if otherwise it is a one bid league. Two bids is a lot more money for the low majors, and many would make sure it worked out that way.

I think an equitable solution would be something like a mandatory maximum of at larges for the power 5/minimum number for the non-power 26. There are 31 autos and 37 at larges; something like a dozen at larges reserved for the non power schools would insure fairness for SMC, Monmouth, Valpo of last year etc.

ZagDad84
02-22-2017, 03:53 PM
I think an equitable solution would be something like a mandatory maximum of at larges for the power 5/minimum number for the non-power 26. There are 31 autos and 37 at larges; something like a dozen at larges reserved for the non power schools would insure fairness for SMC, Monmouth, Valpo of last year etc.

There was some discussion between Lunardi and Greenberg the other day on Sportscenter regarding Lunardi including Big 10 teams like Indiana and several ACC teams that have losing records in conference ( like 5-9) and either right at 0.500 or just above or below 0.500 overall.

If the OOC and Conference seasons are to mean anything to the Power Conferences, them my personal opinion is that if you can't win half your games in conference and half your games overall, you have no business playing in the Tourney. You had all season to make your case and if you can't hit 0.500 your done. After all, if you are mid-pack or below in your own conference, you certainly are not the "best" team.

Cutting off the deadwood, mid-pack power conference teams that should not be in the tourney anyway would open up more spots for mid-majors.

Even Lunardi agreed that teams like Indiana and Clemson should not even be in consideration as bubble teams, but that is not how the committee looks at it.

ZagDad

NotoriousZ
02-22-2017, 04:48 PM
I think it depends on which team it is and what they've done. I think that Villanova, Gonzaga, and Kansas are likely all to get #1 seeds when all is said and done. From there, it's likely either UNC or Oregon if they take care of business. I would rate both those teams pretty equal but I would rate the ACC significantly higher than the Pac12 so I would lean UNC in that scenario.

Agree with the Zags and Nova getting a one seed, Kansas maybe (I'm not that impressed). If either Oregon or Arizona win their conference tournament and not screw up to much before then, they should get the one seed over UNC even if they also win their tournament. They look like better teams.

Edit: And if UCLA were to win out from here, one would hope their blue bloodedness would compete with the ACC winner, be it UNC or Duke for the last number one seed.

spike_jr
02-22-2017, 05:41 PM
The problem is that the tournament is more about $$$ and funneling said money back to the P5 than it is about being either the best or most deserving.

zagamatic
02-22-2017, 06:00 PM
Pure and simple, if you can't finish at least 2 games over. 500 in your own league, you don't belong in the tournament

willandi
02-22-2017, 06:37 PM
The problem with that is that it gives incentive for conferences to make sure the regular season winner loses in the conference tourney, if otherwise it is a one bid league. Two bids is a lot more money for the low majors, and many would make sure it worked out that way.

I think an equitable solution would be something like a mandatory maximum of at larges for the power 5/minimum number for the non-power 26. There are 31 autos and 37 at larges; something like a dozen at larges reserved for the non power schools would insure fairness for SMC, Monmouth, Valpo of last year etc.


There was some discussion between Lunardi and Greenberg the other day on Sportscenter regarding Lunardi including Big 10 teams like Indiana and several ACC teams that have losing records in conference ( like 5-9) and either right at 0.500 or just above or below 0.500 overall.

If the OOC and Conference seasons are to mean anything to the Power Conferences, them my personal opinion is that if you can't win half your games in conference and half your games overall, you have no business playing in the Tourney. You had all season to make your case and if you can't hit 0.500 your done. After all, if you are mid-pack or below in your own conference, you certainly are not the "best" team.

Cutting off the deadwood, mid-pack power conference teams that should not be in the tourney anyway would open up more spots for mid-majors.

Even Lunardi agreed that teams like Indiana and Clemson should not even be in consideration as bubble teams, but that is not how the committee looks at it.

ZagDad

I agree with these. If you aren't .500 OCC when you don't have to (and seldom do) play a tough schedule, and then can't win half the games in conference...you should not be in unless you win the conference tournament.

seacatfan
02-22-2017, 07:28 PM
Many of the current 1 bid leagues absolutely do not deserve to have 2 teams in the Tourney, and if they did the Tourney would become terribly watered down. A middling team from a Power 5 school is much preferable to 2 teams from the SWAC or Atlantic Sun or all those other leagues that nobody even knows the names of or what teams are in those conferences.

seacatfan
02-22-2017, 07:30 PM
Pure and simple, if you can't finish at least 2 games over. 500 in your own league, you don't belong in the tournament

I can think of at least 1 recent National Champion that finished .500 in their conference. Pretty hard sell to say they didn't belong when they went out and won the whole dang thing.

seacatfan
02-22-2017, 07:32 PM
If regular season conference winners get auto bids then there shouldn't be conference tourneys. Ivy does it that way. Everybody else chose to give the auto bid to a team that can win 2 or 3 games in a row at the end of the season rather than the team w/ the best record over a 16 or 18 game schedule.

ZagaZags
02-22-2017, 07:38 PM
The committee should only favor Gonzaga, screw the rest.

ZagDad84
02-22-2017, 08:41 PM
Many of the current 1 bid leagues absolutely do not deserve to have 2 teams in the Tourney, and if they did the Tourney would become terribly watered down. A middling team from a Power 5 school is much preferable to 2 teams from the SWAC or Atlantic Sun or all those other leagues that nobody even knows the names of or what teams are in those conferences.

You do not have to give a 1-bid league another bid.

We here at GU know how hard it has been to schedule quality opponents with low RPIs. It becomes even more difficult for teams with less name recognition than GU to schedule teams with (hopefully) low RPIs to help your OOC. The teams from the Power Conferences have no interest in helping mid-majors with their RPI.

There are several leagues where a team wins 23+ games and the conference championship and then loses in the conference tourney and they don't get a sniff at the tourney. A team like this (even if I have never heard of them) has done much more to deserve an at-large bid than an under 0.500 team from a power conference. If the tournament is watered down by the addition of a few 23+ win mid-majors at the expense of some under 0.500 power conference teams then so be it. As my daughter says, "Suck it Up Buttercup".

I personally am tired of the of mid-pack, power conference teams that seem to think that their mere presence in the ACC/SEC/BIG-10/BIG-12/PAC-12/Big East entitles them to a place in the tournament. This is not the National Hockey League where 75% of the teams make the playoffs. You want in, then prove it. Winning at least 50% of your OOC games and Conference games is not setting the bar too high.

Reality is, it is not about what should be done. It is as mentioned above all about the dollars and the non-Power Conference schools tend to get the short end of the stick.

ZagDad

Hoopaholic
02-22-2017, 08:57 PM
You do not have to give a 1-bid league another bid.

We here at GU know how hard it has been to schedule quality opponents with low RPIs. It becomes even more difficult for teams with less name recognition than GU to schedule teams with (hopefully) low RPIs to help your OOC. The teams from the Power Conferences have no interest in helping mid-majors with their RPI.

There are several leagues where a team wins 23+ games and the conference championship and then loses in the conference tourney and they don't get a sniff at the tourney. A team like this (even if I have never heard of them) has done much more to deserve an at-large bid than an under 0.500 team from a power conference. If the tournament is watered down by the addition of a few 23+ win mid-majors at the expense of some under 0.500 power conference teams then so be it. As my daughter says, "Suck it Up Buttercup".

I personally am tired of the of mid-pack, power conference teams that seem to think that their mere presence in the ACC/SEC/BIG-10/BIG-12/PAC-12/Big East entitles them to a place in the tournament. This is not the National Hockey League where 75% of the teams make the playoffs. You want in, then prove it. Winning at least 50% of your OOC games and Conference games is not setting the bar too high.

Reality is, it is not about what should be done. It is as mentioned above all about the dollars and the non-Power Conference schools tend to get the short end of the stick.

ZagDad

Perfectly stated from my perspective

seacatfan
02-22-2017, 09:28 PM
I took previous comments as a blanket statement that all regular season conference winners get an auto bid, and if a different team happened to win the conference tourney they would also get a bid. I can tell you in many years that would in fact lead to 2 bids for many of the 1 bid leagues. I'm fine w/ a case by case basis that gives more of a break to mid or low major conference teams. Some recent teams from Valpo, Murray St. and Monmouth in particular jump out to me as getting a fairly raw deal in being left out of the field.

JPtheBeasta
02-23-2017, 05:05 AM
This thread speaks to the conundrum of sports: Do we award players for winning or for trying hard. I would lean towards the winners. Teams, no matter how good we thing they might be, shouldn't get in if they don't have a winning record. Winning makes you deserving and gets your foot in the door. If you are above .500 you passed the prerequisite classes and are ready for 300 level stuff- then I would talk about resume as an at-large bid.

UConn deserved an ice cream party in 2011, and that's about it. Yet they won it all. Good for them but I wouldn't have let them in.

Shanachie
02-23-2017, 06:45 AM
Pomeroy's view:

http://kenpom.com/blog/that-meeting-at-the-ncaa-hq/

I think kenpom's comments are right on and very interesting coming from someone who's metrics measure who is "best".




Much of the discussion in the room revolved around the criteria for selecting the field and your somewhat humble correspondent believes it’s best for the sport if a results-based approach is used to selecting the field. This is not because teams that win are best equipped to win in the tournament. That scoring margin predicts conference tournament winners better than conference winning percentage tells you all you need to know about the predictive power of winning. (It is small relative to scoring margin.)

But conference tournaments aren’t seeded based on scoring margin and nobody has ever proposed that. To my knowledge, there is no tournament in any sport that seeds on something other than record. Maryland can win all of the one-point games it wants and the Big Ten is not going to take away its regular-season title if it has the best record.2 Likewise, Texas A&M’s controversial victory over Georgia on Saturday counts just as much as Kentucky’s 42-point win over A&M earlier in the season.3

The reason this is so is that the outcome of the game has to matter.
.....
Any use of the eye test goes beyond the results of the team and veers into the idea of selecting the “best” teams.

The same goes for trying to account for personnel changes. The SEC is not going to discount South Carolina’s loss to Kentucky because PJ Dozier wasn’t in the lineup. Just as Adam Silver is not going to cut the Clippers a break for being without Blake Griffin and Chris Paul for a few weeks. And if you believe that more recent games should count more than earlier games, or that only “basketball people” should be involved in the process, then you are also on the side of picking the best teams.



Lots more at the link. Well worth reading.

Selection and seeding should be about what you have accomplished, not about how good the committee thinks you are. The metrics that try to sort out what teams have accomplished the most (i.e., who you beat, by how much, etc.) are the ones that should be used in this process.

bballbeachbum
02-23-2017, 07:49 AM
Perfectly stated from my perspective

mine too. great post ZagDad84

titopoet
02-23-2017, 08:11 AM
mine too. great post ZagDad84

Yup. The selection committee favors the Power 5 and look to find excuses to maximize their presence in March. Good mid Majors like UT Arlington who go on the road and play a tough schedule are thrown under the bus for teams like Syracuse that seldom leave home in the OOC and then get a couple of great HOME victories over their fellow Power Conference teams (which good teams like UTA never get a chance, Duke playing them at their place... not going to happen). It is stacked for Power Conferences and the committee looks for justification to include as many Power Conference teams as possible and the mid majors suffer.