Bilas again whining about "basketball people" on the committee

[Fredact]

He keeps saying they need more basketball people on the selection committee, so I'll keep saying he's completely wrong. If they really want to fix it, do it like just about every other sport in the world does it--use a formula! It works well in the NFL, MLB, etc.

 

[Hero of the Oppressed]

he likes to think of himself as the voice of the game. maybe he has replaced Vitale. with each passing year he gets more and more vocal about certain things wrong with the game. I like him a lot as an analyst but get the F off of the soap box about rules and committees.

 

[PantherO]

They need less people on the committee. The committee should figure out where the teams should play.

Other than that....
Take all the conference tournament winners. Then take all the top RPI's or whatever index you want to use until you get to 68. Then seed them according to said index.

There you go.

Same should be done for football too.

However, that would be too simple.

 

[Fredact]

I think part of the problem is that the goal of the committee is not all that clear. Are they trying to get the best teams, or the teams that have done the best? Taking into account player injuries and such, is unique to this tournament. The NFL for example doesn't reseed the playoffs, or keep teams out of the playoffs because they have players injured, nor do they put them in the playoffs because some of their players were injured earlier.

And I know that the NCAA is dealing with more teams than the pro leagues, but the World Cup manages to put on the most watched tournament in the world, and they select their teams by formula. (By "formula", I mean something directly based on winning and losing, not a committee's judgement).

 

[levance2]

I'd actually be fine if they went purely by the eye test and records and dropped the RPI. The RPI is such a poor metric at this point, it causes as many problems as it was intended to remedy.

 

[Franb]

I'd actually be fine if they went purely by the eye test and records and dropped the RPI. The RPI is such a poor metric at this point, it causes as many problems as it was intended to remedy.

The problem with the eye test is that some people are blind, or nearly so. Others have rose colored glasses. Metrics are an attempt to create a more objective outcome. It seems that the problem is a lack of a standard that is used by everyone on the committee, at least a public standard. I don't follow these machinations much, but the NCAA might do well to just put out a formula for how their decisions are made, at least as far as who makes the tournament.

 

[levance2]

Metrics are an attempt to create a more objective outcome. It seems that the problem is a lack of a standard that is used by everyone on the committee, at least a public standard.

That's the point. There are 50 metrics that anyone can claim to use, and they are all different. At that point, none of them really means anything. To some degree, everyone pays attention to the RPI by default. The NCAA will never choose a metric that has actual value.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I'd actually be fine if they went purely by the eye test and records and dropped the RPI. The RPI is such a poor metric at this point, it causes as many problems as it was intended to remedy.

My problem with the RPI is well....Pitt. Pitt loads up with a lot of teams from below major conferences in the 100-150 RPI range. Obviously, most of these are not real threats to beat you. So you get a "W" and an RPI boost. We stay away from the 200+ RPI teams. So you get a good RPI rating without really challenging yourself. Hence, "gaming the system".

It should be ONE of many factors, but I don't think you will do much worse than your record, your conference and overall SOS and the eye test. Sports is trying to quantify everything into a nice John Nash formula that more people than Will Hunting can solve, but sports is also about the human factor.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

My problem with the RPI is well....Pitt. Pitt loads up with a lot of teams from below major conferences in the 100-150 RPI range. Obviously, most of these are not real threats to beat you. So you get a "W" and an RPI boost. We stay away from the 200+ RPI teams. So you get a good RPI rating without really challenging yourself. Hence, "gaming the system".

It should be ONE of many factors, but I don't think you will do much worse than your record, your conference and overall SOS and the eye test. Sports is trying to quantify everything into a nice John Nash formula that more people than Will Hunting can solve, but sports is also about the human factor.

How is that a problem, exactly?
You play decent teams, and not dregs as your "fluff".
That's just smart scheduling.

You bunch of maniacs can't seem to grasp there aren't two different schedules..there is 1.

The reason we're on the bubble this year, isn't because of our OOC..it's because we didn't get more quality wins in conference (if we beat Miami and or UL once)...or don't lose to NCSU, GT, and VT...we're very safely in.

IT IS OUR CONFERENCE PERFORMANCE WHICh IS CAUSING OUR POSITION TO BE IFFY...NOT OUR OOC. It's the 9 losses. Who did you play and who did you beat...that's Pitt's problem.
We lost 6 times to better teams than us in conference.

 

[levance2]

My problem with the RPI is well....Pitt. Pitt loads up with a lot of teams from below major conferences in the 100-150 RPI range. Obviously, most of these are not real threats to beat you. So you get a "W" and an RPI boost. We stay away from the 200+ RPI teams. So you get a good RPI rating without really challenging yourself. Hence, "gaming the system".

Go with Pomeroy's or Sagarin's formula and you're always rated against your expected result against any opponent, whether they are #1 or #300. RPI is flawed because it has no concept of margin of victory, as well as a warped weighting for home/road outcomes. Beating BC on the road by 10 is easier than beating UNC at home by 1.

 

[Franb]

That's the point. There are 50 metrics that anyone can claim to use, and they are all different. At that point, none of them really means anything. To some degree, everyone pays attention to the RPI by default. The NCAA will never choose a metric that has actual value.

My point is not that any 1 metric is best - I don't follow them. The NCAA should be able to come up with a system that is transparent and can rank teams. They manage to do it in football, why not basketball?

 

[levance2]

My point is not that any 1 metric is best - I don't follow them. The NCAA should be able to come up with a system that is transparent and can rank teams. They manage to do it in football, why not basketball?

They manage to do it in football and the metric they use isn't very good.

 

[GomerTV]

He keeps saying they need more basketball people on the selection committee, so I'll keep saying he's completely wrong. If they really want to fix it, do it like just about every other sport in the world does it--use a formula! It works well in the NFL, MLB, etc.

Are you talking about division winners and wildcards when you mention NFL and MLB? Something akin probably makes sense, but with 320+ teams and including every conference...kinda tough

Me- Every regular season champ in every league gets in...you win the conference tourney, you get preferential treatment, but not a guaranteed spot

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Bilas made a great point.
Pick the at large field at the end of the regular season .

Then pick off the bottom seeded teams based on extra at large teams moving into the field .
This week should only be about auto bids , not playing your way in otherwise

That simple

 

[Fredact]

Go with Pomeroy's or Sagarin's formula and you're always rated against your expected result against any opponent, whether they are #1 or #300. RPI is flawed because it has no concept of margin of victory, as well as a warped weighting for home/road outcomes. Beating BC on the road by 10 is easier than beating UNC at home by 1.

Those metrics are trying to calculate the "best" teams. If a team plays only top teams, and loses every game by a point or two, those metrics would show that team as one of the best in the country. Do you really want an 0-30 team in the tournament? As I said, it's a matter of what you want. Most leagues reward results, not "the best team on paper" which is what Sagarin and Pomeroy calculate (that is not a problem with them, that is what they say their goal is). Would you want the NFL to use the power ratings to put teams in the playoffs, or go by their record, and their formula of arbitrary, but known in advance, tiebreakers.

The RPI is not necessarily the right measure, in fact I'd suggest it is a terrible one, but a better one could be developed quite easily. But I'd still pick any defined up front formula over a committee any day. Besides all the other flaws in the current process, anyone that believes that politics, biases and friendships are not a part of the current selection process is hopelessly naive.

Think how much more rationale it would be to see the real daily At-large standings, and knowing the real impact a win or loss has on your team, like you do when looking at the baseball wildcard standings, or the NHL playoff races.

 

[Fredact]

Are you talking about division winners and wildcards when you mention NFL and MLB? Something akin probably makes sense, but with 320+ teams and including every conference...kinda tough

Me- Every regular season champ in every league gets in...you win the conference tourney, you get preferential treatment, but not a guaranteed spot

Nothing I'm advocating here has anything to do with the automatic qualifiers, or how they are selected. I think that's a whole different discussion.

And Bilas's idea to arbitrarily choose certain games to count and not count is too bizarre to consider seriously. But even if that were the case, it's still a different issue.

 

[Gary77]

I'd actually be fine if they went purely by the eye test and records and dropped the RPI. The RPI is such a poor metric at this point, it causes as many problems as it was intended to remedy.

DukieV Not Pleased!

 

[PHATWOOD]

Bilas made a great point.
Pick the at large field at the end of the regular season .

Then pick off the bottom seeded teams based on extra at large teams moving into the field .
This week should only be about auto bids , not playing your way in otherwise

That simple

I'd love to see this, I heard him say it today. It wouldn't hurt the current model that much - you still have the ability to do a selection show, etc.

It would be interesting to see the impact on conference tournaments.

 

[Fredact]

I'd love to see this, I heard him say it today. It wouldn't hurt the current model that much - you still have the ability to do a selection show, etc.

It would be interesting to see the impact on conference tournaments.

It would help the ratings of the small conferences versus the big conferences.

I don't understand the purpose of it, except to be different. If schools in small conferences want to get a better shot to the dance, move to a better conference. It's not like conferences are locked in stone. See Butler, Tulane, BYU, Creighton, as schools that moved up to better conferences, and now have a better chance to get in.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

It would help the ratings of the small conferences versus the big conferences.

I don't understand the purpose of it, except to be different. If schools in small conferences want to get a better shot to the dance, move to a better conference. It's not like conferences are locked in stone. See Butler, Tulane, BYU, Creighton, as schools that moved up to better conferences, and now have a better chance to get in.

The point is a mid major only gets hurt in their tournament .
If they are good enough to be in the field, they should be.

A team like Michigan should only get in with an autobid. If they weren't in last week, they shouldn't be in with a run in the conference tournament outside of making the autobid .

Makes perfect sense to me.
If Pitt is the second lowest ranked team in the field , and two teams not in the at large steal an autobid by winning their tournament ... We we out.

 

[Fredact]

The point is a mid major only gets hurt in their tournament .
.

But that argument can be extended to their conference schedule. Once Gonzaga finishes its OOC schedule it's RPI begins to slide. Sure, Mid majors would like to only count the OOC, or if not that just the OOC and half their Conference schedule. But so what. It's not like the tournaments are not part of the season (especially in the ACC with the longest tourney history of them all).

 

[UPitt '89]

My problem with the RPI is well....Pitt. Pitt loads up with a lot of teams from below major conferences in the 100-150 RPI range. Obviously, most of these are not real threats to beat you. So you get a "W" and an RPI boost. We stay away from the 200+ RPI teams. So you get a good RPI rating without really challenging yourself. Hence, "gaming the system".

It should be ONE of many factors, but I don't think you will do much worse than your record, your conference and overall SOS and the eye test. Sports is trying to quantify everything into a nice John Nash formula that more people than Will Hunting can solve, but sports is also about the human factor.

This is patently false this year.

Pitt only played two teams between 100 and 150 RPI this year in the OOC. They played five teams that were 200+.

Everything you said in your post is false.

You're buying the narrative that douchebags like Lunardi are selling.

Jamie did *NOT* game the RPI system this year at all.... I wish he would've done what you suggest, because Pitt's RPI would be in the 30s if he did.


Here's Pitt's OOC schedule by RPI:

Top 50:
Purdue

50 to 100:
Davidson

100 to 150:
Kent State
Morehead State

150 to 200:
Duquesne
W. Carolina

200+:
Detroit
E. Washington
Cornell
C. Arkansas
Maryland E-S

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

But that argument can be extended to their conference schedule. Once Gonzaga finishes its OOC schedule it's RPI begins to slide. Sure, Mid majors would like to only count the OOC, or if not that just the OOC and half their Conference schedule. But so what. It's not like the tournaments are not part of the season (especially in the ACC with the longest tourney history of them all).

That's why it cuts both ways.
If gonzaga wasn't good enough to be in last week... They were out.
They won their autobid so they knock the lowest ranked autobid out.

 

[Fredact]

If the conference tourney's don't impact seeding, then a team like Kentucky would be best served by folding up, and letting some other team from their conference get an auto bid, and increase their overall revenue.

 

[TempleBAPittMPA]

Wait a minute. Jay BIAS said what again?