Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

221 - 240 of 1405 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,874 Posts
Now that enough time has gone by I will say that I think Bona not getting in was not as big a snub as you guys are making it out to be. To start with their OOC schedule was horrible. They lost both quality games they played: at home against Hofstra and at Cuse where the got smoked. They lost to a mediocre Siena team, that losses to CAA and MAAC teams for those counting at home. In conference they lost to Duquesne and Lasalle which matters because they had no good OOC wins, none. Even with this spotty record all they had to do was beat a Davidson team that was less than impressive in Brooklyn and they did not get the job done. Do I think they could have gotten in over Tulsa sure but the outrage was overblown.
OK, they weren't "smoked" by Syracuse. The game was tied halfway through the 2nd half. They inexplicably fouled 3 times under a minute to play giving SU a 15pt margin in what was an 8-10 point game.

Siena was on the road. RPI 100. Any of the metrics tell you the RPI swings about 20 places home vs. road, so the 100 RPI team is like an 80 when you play on their turf. It was actually comparable to the loss to Hofstra at home. Yes, both games need to be won.

And don't be so sure beating Davidson would have gotten them into the field. They may have needed a win over VCU as well. The committee created a moving target for teams like SBU, and they were dead set on lining it up in such a manner to exclude them.

Doug Gottlieb had a great commentary on his radio show about, for example, SU getting in with the worst RPI ever for an at large. He said all the peope that point to.. well they beat Duke, well their losses were to good teams, they beat A&M, Wisconsin, etc.. and Doug said yes but the RPI already factors all that in, and you still had an RPI of 72! RPI inherently factors in road wins, factors in SOS, and gives you more credit for playing tough teams.

So basically the committee said RPI, the tools that factors all this in, doesn't matter anymore. And that's BS. Advance metrics, margin of victory apparently do, and our own JP had a nice post about why margin of victory and efficiency numbers mean shit (or are at least misinterpreted). Why doesn't the committee just come out and say, "we value P5 teams more." Despite the fact that the very metric that interprets wins/losses/home/road in the most vanilla flavor put SBU at #30 .

Do I think SBU was the #30 team in the nation on selection Sunday? Not really. But they put their cards on the table, against a stacked deck, and that's where their index fell. Facts don't lie. Historically, the most arithmetical snub in the history of the 64(-68) team tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,462 Posts
Lol any metric that weights running up scores is not one I'm going to lean on. Kenpom is influenced, highly, by the P5's own horrible ooc scheduling. 12 home games against cupcakes they destroy and kenpom makes them look like basketball savants and a trip to the Bahamas to play other P5 teams. Kiss my ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Lol any metric that weights running up scores is not one I'm going to lean on. Kenpom is influenced, highly, by the P5's own horrible ooc scheduling. 12 home games against cupcakes they destroy and kenpom makes them look like basketball savants and a trip to the Bahamas to play other P5 teams. Kiss my ass.

How about Sagarin? The only ranking system Bonnies were ahead of Vandy Michigan Tulsa Syracuse was RPI. Add that to losses at home against Hofstra at Siena (not top 100 in any other system) and to Duquesne/Lasalle you have a team squarely on the bubble where you can make an argument either way. Losing to Davidson was the final straw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
And don't be so sure beating Davidson would have gotten them into the field. They may have needed a win over VCU as well. The committee created a moving target for teams like SBU, and they were dead set on lining it up in such a manner to exclude them.
I agree, I'm not so sure beating Davidson would have gotten Bona in. Not that they didn't deserve it; they did regardless of the Davidson game. But I think the winner of the potential Bona/VCU game was in and the loser was out.

So basically the committee said RPI, the tools that factors all this in, doesn't matter anymore. And that's BS. Advance metrics, margin of victory apparently do, and our own JP had a nice post about why margin of victory and efficiency numbers mean shit (or are at least misinterpreted). Why doesn't the committee just come out and say, "we value P5 teams more." Despite the fact that the very metric that interprets wins/losses/home/road in the most vanilla flavor put SBU at #30 .
RPI matters, advance metrics matter, margin of victory matters...until it doesn't. RPI matters when it helps the committee's arguments for a team they want in, but it doesn't when it helps a team they don't want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,497 Posts
I wasn't comparing apples and oranges. Somehow it's a true fact that the A10 got 6 bids.
With the 14 teams it should be ideal with JP's approach to set it up so that 6 teams is the norm, not the exception.

All of a sudden you're hypothesizing dropping teams to achieve that? That seems bass ackwards given all the discussion about adding teams. If those teams on the bottom of a league have any value in JP's equations, it's to absorb losses for the good of the teams on the top. Why would you drop them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,874 Posts
How about Sagarin? The only ranking system Bonnies were ahead of Vandy Michigan Tulsa Syracuse was RPI. Add that to losses at home against Hofstra at Siena (not top 100 in any other system) and to Duquesne/Lasalle you have a team squarely on the bubble where you can make an argument either way.
A simple solution to all this is publish your algorithm. And I know they won't do that for proprietary reasons, but until they do, you have to take those rankings with a grain of salt. Maybe a big grain of salt, but RPI is at least published. You know what they are calculating.

Jay Bilas was half right when he said, post the top 68 prior to conference tourney weekend, and slot teams out as the autos are won. The half he missed was not only post teh top 68, but post the metric that got you there.

I think one point we're missing here is that there are 68 teams in the field. 68! Of which about 20 are auto-bids that wouldn't even be considered. So we're really trying to index about 48 teams. You can't tell me we need to be that picky about teams #48 and #49 . College BB is all over the map with scheduling and balance. The NCAA should create a new committee, and issue a directive, create a formula, publish it, and have the damn computer spit out the teams in a list, and go with it. We don't need 9 people selectively interpreting whether you are #48 or #49 . At that point who cares, let the computer decide, spit out the schools, and make a roll call. Let the committee do the dirty (err.. important) work for seeding since the computer won't have the geographical and conference concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,915 Posts
I wasn't comparing apples and oranges. Somehow it's a true fact that the A10 got 6 bids.
With the 14 teams it should be ideal with JP's approach to set it up so that 6 teams is the norm, not the exception.

All of a sudden you're hypothesizing dropping teams to achieve that? That seems bass ackwards given all the discussion about adding teams. If those teams on the bottom of a league have any value in JP's equations, it's to absorb losses for the good of the teams on the top. Why would you drop them?
I honestly can't believe I'm still having this discussion with after everything that has been posted on this already. :jr:

Again, for the FOURTH time, you don't just add teams for the sake of adding teams and then pray you get 7 teams in. It's not magic.

Paul, if the A10 dropped it's 2 worst teams over the last decade....the A10 would STILL have enough teams to beat on. What don't you get about that? Bottom line is, the A10 has too many bottom feeders....you have a hard time compartmentalizing the argument. The A10 problem is the opposite of the BE to an extent. The NBE got started off on a great footing with their 10 team league. There wasn't a historically weak team in those 10 teams....that is the problem with the BE as far as maximizing bids.

If you want to talk about the strategy the A10 and the BE need to move forward with to maximize bids, it's the same strategy, but the leagues are starting at completely different starting points to get to that same strategy.

Did you miss the part where I said drop a couple of teams and add 2 better teams??? So I'm not advocating the A10 to scale back it's total number of teams.

The cherry picking of posts that goes on here is astounding. Did you read the article is very appropriate. I'm done discussing this lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
I am in on that idea. Part of me wants to get rid of automatic Qualifiers but I love championship week. Get the 64 best teams bracket them up and have at it. In that case the Bonnies and maybe even GW get in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
That's not the case with the BE, you guys already started on great footing when you formed. You're comparing leagues that are apples to oranges Paul and you know it.
So are you saying comparing the Big East to the A10 is apples and oranges?


I would say your constant comparing of the Big East to the ACC or B10 is really apples and oranges as the BE does not want to be the ACC or B10. I would think the A10 and its member schools probably want to be more like the Big East - so it's probably a more consistent comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Who is Rich93?

St Bona NOT getting an invite was a huge snub.

And Syracuse and Tulsa getting invites was pathetic.

I think most college basketball fans generally agree with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,711 Posts
A simple solution to all this is publish your algorithm. And I know they won't do that for proprietary reasons, but until they do, you have to take those rankings with a grain of salt. Maybe a big grain of salt, but RPI is at least published. You know what they are calculating.

Jay Bilas was half right when he said, post the top 68 prior to conference tourney weekend, and slot teams out as the autos are won. The half he missed was not only post teh top 68, but post the metric that got you there.

I think one point we're missing here is that there are 68 teams in the field. 68! Of which about 20 are auto-bids that wouldn't even be considered. So we're really trying to index about 48 teams. You can't tell me we need to be that picky about teams #48 and #49 . College BB is all over the map with scheduling and balance. The NCAA should create a new committee, and issue a directive, create a formula, publish it, and have the damn computer spit out the teams in a list, and go with it. We don't need 9 people selectively interpreting whether you are #48 or #49 . At that point who cares, let the computer decide, spit out the schools, and make a roll call. Let the committee do the dirty (err.. important) work for seeding since the computer won't have the geographical and conference concerns.

you're close but an AI computer can easily do the seeding and locations as well in less than blink of the eye with these tiny fields of data. IBM's Watson is analyzing and interpreting far more complicated fields of data than this. It's almost beyond comprehension a tournament featuring some of the great universities in the world use 9 people to do this selection/seeding process. The graduates of these fine universities have created the technology of our time but the NCAA in their infinite wisdom hands the job over to 9 appointed individuals. It truly boggles my mind!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,915 Posts
I am simply comparing how both conferences can maximize bids (and the paths to do that are different) Not comparing the conferences as they stand now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
Who is Rich93?

St Bona NOT getting an invite was a huge snub.

And Syracuse and Tulsa getting invites was pathetic.

I think most college basketball fans generally agree with that.
Who are you? You speak for most fans?

This is the reason I waited to post this opinion. This board would have literally broken out the pitch forks and torches if I posted it right afterwards. I was not surprised they did not get in even though they were worthy of consideration for the reasons I posted above. Sorry to intrude on the circle jerk, have a good summer see everyone in the fall.

Ps saying a current final four team was a pathetic choice is not a good look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,915 Posts
Who are you? You speak for most fans?

This is the reason I waited to post this opinion. This board would have literally broken out the pitch forks and torches if I posted it right afterwards. I was not surprised they did not get in even though they were worthy of consideration for the reasons I posted above. Sorry to intrude on the circle jerk, have a good summer see everyone in the fall.

Ps saying a current final four team was a pathetic choice is not a good look.

This is where you show you know nothing about the college basketball season and post season play. Which doesn't surprise me, you're a Fordham fan. The post season doesn't exist.

If you reverse that statement, then Michigan State should have been in the NIT right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
This is where you show you know nothing about the college basketball season and post season play. Which doesn't surprise me, you're a Fordham fan. The post season doesn't exist.
Reading comprehension: I said not a good look, i.e. optics for a guy representing most college basketball fans. Subtle point that not surprising a guy who roots for a program that protects felons and has no moral compass can't understand. Who is next year's disciplinary problem? Should we start a pool? Larceny, sexual assault your guys are raising the bar what's next?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,497 Posts
Paul, if the A10 dropped it's 2 worst teams over the last decade....the A10 would STILL have enough teams to beat on. What don't you get about that? Bottom line is, the A10 has too many bottom feeders....you have a hard time compartmentalizing the argument.
What I don't get is that if you have enough teams, why aren't you getting more bids? It should be easy if JP's math is right.

I think the problem is that the teams on the bottom this year got too many conference wins. Same problem as BE a couple of years ago?

In his post above about adding 2 teams he wanted, to get 7 bids:
De Paul to be 4-14
SLU to be 2-16
St John's to be 1-17.

This year the A10 had at the bottom:
Mason 5-13
St Louis 5-13
La Salle 4-14

Maybe they needed to be worse in conference to maximize A10 bids?

I'm probably all wrong about that, but I'm trying to follow the logic. As to this year, the A10 had 6 teams with 20+wins and 10-8 in conference or better and 3 bids (should have been 4).
The BE had 5 teams with 20+win and 10-8 in conference or better, and 5 bids.

The Big12 with 10 teams had 6 with 20+wins and 10-8 in conference, and 7 bids. The 7th was Texas Tech who got in with 19 wins and 9-9 in conference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,874 Posts
OK, cut out the dick-measuring. Rich93's post brought up valid points. We did have a shitty OOC. We should have been 10-1 with a loss to SU. But the calculations don't lie and there's a really valid counter-argument. The problem is you have people doing a job that should be done by a computer. They developed the damn RPI to do this job. The selections are slowly swaying further and further from the RPI because of human factors.. read: money, back-scratching, power plays, bias.

The computer took into account two wins over SJU, a team that was a couple minutes away from S16, took into account that SBU took care of business in conference (except LSU - but as Gottlieb said talking about Monmouth - even Steph Curry misses a FT once in a while). It spits out new numbers in less than a second every time a game result is input. It spit out #30 . It doesn't care about top 50 wins, 200+ losses, because it factored all of that in. And one thing it for damn sure didn't do is check which conference the school was in (it was actually already factored in as well).

Don't have a committee do the job that a computer should do. When literally millions of dollars are at stake, the kind of money that can really help schools like SBU, (and others in the A10), we need an impartial and objective method by which to put the last few schools into the tournament. Of course they'll eventually tweak (err: fuck up) the computer algorithm too but at least we'll know why we are getting fucked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Reading comprehension: I said not a good look, i.e. optics for a guy representing most college basketball fans. Subtle point that not surprising a guy who roots for a program that protects felons and has no moral compass can't understand. Who is next year's disciplinary problem? Should we start a pool? Larceny, sexual assault your guys are raising the bar what's next?
Speaking of reading comprehension. What does your opinion of St.Bonaventure getting snubbed have to do with reshuffling conferences?
 
221 - 240 of 1405 Posts
Top