The Real Top 68

[DC_Area_Panther]

Here is a link to Massey's composite computer rankings--You can look at to see who was really screwed--St. Mary's stands out (rated better than Pitt) Monmouth and St, Bonaventure not in top 68.

Also anyone in the top 68 pushed out by the18 conference champs rated (some very far) worse than #68 shouldn't be pleased..

IMHO, all conference winners ranked lower than 68 should be placed in a play in round. One of the 18 is rated like #284!!

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

 

[R-M-U-h-o-o-p-s-f-a-n]

Here is a link to Massey's composite computer rankings--You can look at to see who was really screwed--St. Mary's stands out (rated better than Pitt) Monmouth and St, Bonaventure not in top 68.

Also anyone in the top 68 pushed out by the18 conference champs rated (some very far) worse than #68 shouldn't be pleased..

IMHO, all conference winners ranked lower than 68 should be placed in a play in round. One of the 18 is rated like #284!!

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

Disagree... (Not a walk in the park winning one's conference tourney)...

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

At some level, since the tournament isn't about picking the top 68 what difference does it make?

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Disagree... (Not a walk in the park winning one's conference tourney)...

Disagree... (Not a walk in the park winning one's conference tourney)...

Disagree... (Not a walk in the park winning one's conference tourney)...

Wouldn't kick anyone out but just don't see the fairness in keeping a top 64 team out because #284 is the best team in a conference that essentially plays D2 level hoops.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

IMHO, all conference winners ranked lower than 68 should be placed in a play in round. One of the 18 is rated like #284!!

You do understand that logistically that would be completely unworkable, right?

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

You do understand that logistically that would be completely unworkable, right?

Not really there are 4 play in games already. You could do 16 more just the same. #64 plays the highest rated team above #64 and #44 (worst 11 seed) plays the worst team above # 64 and so on in between.

 

[R-M-U-h-o-o-p-s-f-a-n]

Not really there are 4 play in games already. You could do 16 more just the same. #64 plays the highest rated team above #64 and #44 (worst 11 seed) plays the worst team above # 64 and so on in between.

So expand the Tournament with more play in games and more teams in?????

No...

 

[Wednesday Morning]

How Tulsa got in ahead of St. Bonnie is beyond me. Oh well. Glad we're in.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Not really there are 4 play in games already. You could do 16 more just the same. #64 plays the highest rated team above #64 and #44 (worst 11 seed) plays the worst team above # 64 and so on in between.

It's already a pain in the rear end for teams to find out tonight that they are playing on Tuesday night in Dayton. Obviously all the games you are proposing can't be held in Dayton, so it would just exacerbate that situation. Then all those teams that win have to get to where they are playing next. So now someone wins a game Tuesday night in Dayton and needs to get to Spokane, Washington for a game a day and a half later. You'd expand on that many times.

And not only that, but because they don't know who all these teams will be or even exactly how many of them there are until Sunday afternoon they won't even know for sure how many games are going to be played or how many venues they will need until two days before they need them.

Whether you recognize it or not, what you propose is a logistical nightmare.

 

[Fredact]

Massey is amalgamating systems that try to rank teams by how strong they are, not on what they've achieved. I'd prefer a method that only rewarded teams for actually winning (appropriately weighted by how good the teams are that you beat), as opposed to just playing well.

Pomeroy, Sagarin, etc, all would rate a team that went 0-18 in conference, but lost every game by 1, ahead of a team that went 12-6 in conference winning all 12 by 1, but losing those 6 by 20 points each. In every sport that I prefer to watch, I'd rather see the winners, not the ones that play well.

 

[storrsroars]

I'd have no interest in seeing the "real top 68" in the tourney at the exclusion of mid-major champs. There are 32 conferences, thus 32 autobids. Let's be generous and say half the remaining field gets in by winning (or simply making) their conference tourney final. That still leaves 20 teams in the field of 68 that didn't win a damn thing. Why do we really want to expand that group of also-rans?

Personally I think Bilas is on the right track with suggesting regular season league winners get secure auto-bids. I like the idea that winners get rewarded. I'm not a fan of P5s gaming the RPI system by earning a higher ranking by scheduling 150-200 RPI creampuffs over 200-300 RPI creampuffs. A creampuff is a creampuff.

At the very least, I'd like to see all conference champs get into the Thurs/Fri games and avoid the play-in. Those teams won something. It should matter. Let the teams that didn't win squat suffer through Dayton.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

The Top Performers are the winners and should get in the tourney. Leave Cinderella home in March let her get her own date!
Go P5 teams!

 

[levance2]

Pomeroy, Sagarin, etc, all would rate a team that went 0-18 in conference, but lost every game by 1, ahead of a team that went 12-6 in conference winning all 12 by 1, but losing those 6 by 20 points each. In every sport that I prefer to watch, I'd rather see the winners, not the ones that play well.

You do realize a team in the ACC that lost every game by 1 would be pretty talented, right?

 

[ameoba defense]

Does anyone really respect the Massey ratings though? Bona was #31 in the RPI. It's tough to know how good some teams are, because they never get to play good teams at home ooc. People always questioned how good Xavier was when they were in the A 10. They haven't lost a single step since they moved to the BE. Of course the BE is now a glorified mid major, but it's still a step up from the A 10.

 

[NCanton Panther]

You do realize a team in the ACC that lost every game by 1 would be pretty talented, right?

you do realize that has nothing to do with the point he's trying to make. He wants to see 'winners', not talented or strong performers. I agree with him, it should be about actual achievement more so than potential.

 

[levance2]

you do realize that has nothing to do with the point he's trying to make. He wants to see 'winners', not talented or strong performers. I agree with him, it should be about actual achievement more so than potential.

Then you should invite every minor D-1 team that won their regular season and has 20+ meaningless wins. St. Mary's won 27 games already. Monmoth also. Valpo, Akron, UAB all won 26 games.

 

[levance2]

I was perusing Pomeroy's ratings today and laughed when I saw that Georgetown (15-18, 7-11) actually has a higher rating than Ohio State (20-13, 11-7).

 

[Harve74]

Here's a novel idea:

If you choose to have a conference tournament, the champion gets the auto bid.

Selections are made by a fixed mathematical formula, something like RPI X SOS. After the Auto qualifiers, the remaining teams to 68 get the bids. Everybody then gets seeded following the S Curve. If you want to keep the lower auto-qualifiers out of the play-in round, seed the 4 lowest AQ teans as 16's, the next as 15's etc, until you get to the 4 lowest at-large teams for the play-in round.

Injuries, suspensions, trends etc. are irrelevant. No subjective favoritism or head-scratching picks. Nobody has a b*tch. It's purely objective math.

The Committee's only remaining function is setting up pods geographically to minimize travel for teams and fans and balance out each region to sell tickets.

No controversy. No arguments. All the amateur bracketologists can get a real job.

Yeah, you can still game the RPI but SOS as a multiplier balances that out. The formula could be made more complex but simplicity is good. Objectivity compared to personal or conference or regional bias is better.

 

[levance2]

RPI is basically what you are talking about, which has a huge component of SOS. It's just that RPI is flawed and doesn't really indicate the best teams.

 

[Harve74]

RPI is basically what you are talking about, which has a huge component of SOS. It's just that RPI is flawed and doesn't really indicate the best teams.

Yeah, but multiplying SOS in specifically AGAIN flattens out the effect of gaming RPI I think. It can be tweaked more. SOS could be squared if that helps minimize the effects of scheculing cupcakes.

I admit I haven't run the math. It may be necessary to put SOS as an inverse to get the effect I'm trying to reach, something which rewards teams which play tough opponents.

I leave those details to the stats geeks. I'm just saying reduce selection to a formula and take the committee and personal biases out of it.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Harve, your system would not accomplish what you want it to. Your system would say that beating UAB, 26-6, is significantly better than beating Duke, 23-10. You are taking what is absurd about the RPI, that the strength of a team and therefore of a schedule is based solely on record, and doubling down on that absurdity.

If you want to remove the human element then make it some sort of amalgamation of Pomeroy and Sagarin and whomever else and condemn the RPI to the statistical scrap heap where it belongs.

 

[levance2]

Harve, your system would not accomplish what you want it to. Your system would say that beating UAB, 26-6, is significantly better than beating Duke, 23-10. You are taking what is absurd about the RPI, that the strength of a team and therefore of a schedule is based solely on record, and doubling down on that absurdity.

Agreed. The reason that it can be "gamed" today is because the Win% of small conference winners is so much better than power conference losers. I think Pomeroy's new classification of "Tier A" games and "Tier B" games is interesting. You have to beat better teams at home to be as "valuable" as beating bad teams on the road.

The other "RPI gaming" is when leagues like the Pac-12 or A10 all have relatively solid RPIs/Win%s, although none must be elite, and the mathematical result is much better than is really warranted. "Doubling down on SOS," as Joe notes, will be even more stark here.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

It's already a pain in the rear end for teams to find out tonight that they are playing on Tuesday night in Dayton. Obviously all the games you are proposing can't be held in Dayton, so it would just exacerbate that situation. Then all those teams that win have to get to where they are playing next. So now someone wins a game Tuesday night in Dayton and needs to get to Spokane, Washington for a game a day and a half later. You'd expand on that many times.

And not only that, but because they don't know who all these teams will be or even exactly how many of them there are until Sunday afternoon they won't even know for sure how many games are going to be played or how many venues they will need until two days before they need them.

Whether you recognize it or not, what you propose is a logistical nightmare.

For all but a couple of the ~18 truly weak auto-bid conferences it wouldn't matter who won the conference tourney since no team in those conference is going to be among the top 64. So, it wouldn't be as bad as you think--just assign the TBD conference champ to a play in a pre-arranged location. Alternatively, create a lower division (between Div 1 and Div 2) and dump all these cupcake leagues into their own tourney.

 

[Harve74]

Harve, your system would not accomplish what you want it to. Your system would say that beating UAB, 26-6, is significantly better than beating Duke, 23-10. You are taking what is absurd about the RPI, that the strength of a team and therefore of a schedule is based solely on record, and doubling down on that absurdity.

If you want to remove the human element then make it some sort of amalgamation of Pomeroy and Sagarin and whomever else and condemn the RPI to the statistical scrap heap where it belongs.

Well, as I said in the revision, SOS, if expressed as a 1-351 ranking, would have to be in the inverse or denominator position, so a WORSE SOS gives a worse ranking. I was originally assuming somebody, somewhere expressed SOS as an absolute number, like raw RPI, rather than a 1-351 order.

Whether I use Duke's .6059 or #19 (both from ESPN's NCAA College Basketball RPI Ranking Daily ranking page), DIVIDING by Duke's #10 SOS gives a higher number than dividing UAB'Ss RPI by their very poor 296 SOS.

I think most people are in agreement that wins over a tougher schedule are worth more than wins over a wesker schedule. I know KenPom makes an adjustment for competition. I assume Sagarin does too.

I don't pretend to be a stats guy but to me, a concrete, transparent formula beats the Hell out of a backroom deal like whatever got Syracuse in. We've lived with RPI for some time. Apparently, somebody in a position of power likes it.

 

[upj87]

Wouldn't kick anyone out but just don't see the fairness in keeping a top 64 team out because #284 is the best team in a conference that essentially plays D2 level hoops.

I don't see the fairness in having a 68 team tournament when only 15 at most teams have a chance at winning it....Top Team #64 has as much chance (0%) as winning the thing as #284 (0%) so what is the point....give the little guys their moment in the sun....more "fair" and just in my opinion.

 

[levance2]

Well, as I said in the revision, SOS, if expressed as a 1-351 ranking, would have to be in the inverse or denominator position, so a WORSE SOS gives a worse ranking. I was originally assuming somebody, somewhere expressed SOS as an absolute number, like raw RPI, rather than a 1-351 order.

Whether I use Duke's .6059 or #19 (both from ESPN's NCAA College Basketball RPI Ranking Daily ranking page), DIVIDING by Duke's #10 SOS gives a higher number than dividing UAB'Ss RPI by their very poor 296 SOS.

It's not a matter of how you apply the fraction, it is a matter of what the fraction represents. In RPI, SOS consists purely of winning percentages. If Pitt played UAB 13 times OOC, we'd have a really strong SOS. There's an element of opponents' opponents' win%, but at that point you are talking about so many teams, I don't think most P5 teams can be all that far apart after 31 games.

With Pomeroy, you could play the #250 team 13 times, win by 40 every time, and have a really awful SOS. In fact, it is often hard to find anything of value by sorting on NCSOS on his site, because the small barnburner teams are so much higher than any P5 team. A real quick look just now, and Florida is the highest this year at #25 (a lot of good it did them!).

 

[Pitt79]

IMHO, all conference winners ranked lower than 68 should be placed in a play in round. One of the 18 is rated like #284!!

LOL, who cares, do you feel sorry for the 10 place team in the ACC or the 9th place team in the Big 10? Who cares, let the small conferences have something to play for. Anybody left out is nobody to really feel sorry for.

 

[raleighpanther]

I really really think Monmouth could've won a national championship, if only they gotten in. That's why the endless discussions about who the 68th team should be are so important.
[In case you are like Sheldon of the Big Bang, this is sarcasm.]

 

[Harve74]

It's not a matter of how you apply the fraction, it is a matter of what the fraction represents. In RPI, SOS consists purely of winning percentages. If Pitt played UAB 13 times OOC, we'd have a really strong SOS. There's an element of opponents' opponents' win%, but at that point you are talking about so many teams, I don't think most P5 teams can be all that far apart after 31 games.

With Pomeroy, you could play the #250 team 13 times, win by 40 every time, and have a really awful SOS. In fact, it is often hard to find anything of value by sorting on NCSOS on his site, because the small barnburner teams are so much higher than any P5 team. A real quick look just now, and Florida is the highest this year at #25 (a lot of good it did them!).

I'm NOT using OOC SOS, but overall SOS. The number of games which differentiate OOC or NC if you prefer , come down to two or three. There is however a significnt difference between the games played by, to use Joe's examples, Duke and UAB. UAB played 4 top 100 teams, Duke 21.

Really, if you don't differentiate, and heavily, by SOS, you might as well rank only by overall record.

 

[Pitt79]

Look at the NIT Bracket, anybody think that it's such a tragedy that any of these teams are left out? Any of these teams look like they could run the table and win the Big Dance? Personally, I think part of the FUN of the Big Dance is that some 10-18 team can go on a Cinderella run and crash the party, so who cares if a solid, 7th place power 5 team misses out.

Region 1:

1. St. Bonaventure
8. Wagner

4. Creighton
5. Alabama

3. Virginia Tech
6. Princeton

2. BYU
7. UAB

Region 2:

1. Valparaiso
8. Texas Southern

4. FSU
5. Davidson

3. Georgia
6. Belmont

2. St. Mary's
7. New Mexico St.

Region 3:

1. South Carolina
8. High Point

4. Georgia Tech
5. Houston

3. Washington
6. Long Beach St.

2. San Diego St.
7. IPFW

Region 4:

1. Monmouth
8. Bucknell

4. George Washington
5. Hofstra

3. Ohio State
6. Akron

2. Florida
7. North Florida

 

[levance2]

I'm NOT using OOC SOS, but overall SOS.

If you're talking about an entire season rather than OOC, then solving the problem of "gaming" the RPI is almost insignificant. The gaming is done OOC. Obviously nobody "games" the ACC schedule. If you're talking about over-stressing total SOS, then you're pretty much just declaring the field should be only P5 teams.

Yeah, you can still game the RPI but SOS as a multiplier balances that out. The formula could be made more complex but simplicity is good. Objectivity compared to personal or conference or regional bias is better.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Whether I use Duke's .6059 or #19 (both from ESPN's NCAA College Basketball RPI Ranking Daily ranking page), DIVIDING by Duke's #10 SOS gives a higher number than dividing UAB'Ss RPI by their very poor 296 SOS.

Actually whether you use Duke's #10 SOS of UAB's #296 SOS if you are looking at it from a Pitt perspective neither one of those would make a damn bit of difference. Pitt's SOS is determined by the teams that Pitt plays. Pitt didn't play Duke's schedule, so Duke's SOS doesn't matter in the kind of a formula you are talking about. Duke's record is worse than UAB's record, and therefore if you are multiplying (or dividing, or whatever) by a metric that is made up of the winning percentages of the teams that you played then you want the teams that you played to have the highest winning percentage.

Rather than try to play around with an fix the RPI by making it more and more complicated but not actually solve the problems that there are with the RPI it would be much easier to get rid of it all together and start using metrics that are actually designed to determine who the best basketball teams are. The committee should be trying to figure out who the best 36 at large teams are when the conference winners are excluded. Nothing more, nothing less. The RPI doesn't really get them any closer to that goal. There are other metrics that do a better job. Let's use them instead. Or if the NCAA doesn't want to use someone else's system, get some really smart people together and design one of their own. In the end, it won't look anything at all like the RPI.

 

[marinomd]

Here is a link to Massey's composite computer rankings--You can look at to see who was really screwed--St. Mary's stands out (rated better than Pitt) Monmouth and St, Bonaventure not in top 68.

Also anyone in the top 68 pushed out by the18 conference champs rated (some very far) worse than #68 shouldn't be pleased..

IMHO, all conference winners ranked lower than 68 should be placed in a play in round. One of the 18 is rated like #284!!

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

It's not a perfect system but a better one than college football has. At least you have a shot to win the big prize if you win your conference.

 

[Harve74]

Actually whether you use Duke's #10 SOS of UAB's #296 SOS if you are looking at it from a Pitt perspective neither one of those would make a damn bit of difference. Pitt's SOS is determined by the teams that Pitt plays. Pitt didn't play Duke's schedule, so Duke's SOS doesn't matter in the kind of a formula you are talking about. Duke's record is worse than UAB's record, and therefore if you are multiplying (or dividing, or whatever) by a metric that is made up of the winning percentages of the teams that you played then you want the teams that you played to have the highest winning percentage.

Rather than try to play around with an fix the RPI by making it more and more complicated but not actually solve the problems that there are with the RPI it would be much easier to get rid of it all together and start using metrics that are actually designed to determine who the best basketball teams are. The committee should be trying to figure out who the best 36 at large teams are when the conference winners are excluded. Nothing more, nothing less. The RPI doesn't really get them any closer to that goal. There are other metrics that do a better job. Let's use them instead. Or if the NCAA doesn't want to use someone else's system, get some really smart people together and design one of their own. In the end, it won't look anything at all like the RPI.

Whether we particularly like it or not, the RPI has been around long enough that a lot of people are familiar with it and it has a sort of legitimacy. It's not a perfect system or necessarily even a good system. But it is an established system. Using it as a base makes some sense compared to starting over from scratch.

It's all academic anyway. With a pure mathmatical system the political process, lobbying and all, disappears and backroom deals can't be made.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Using it as a base makes some sense compared to starting over from scratch.

No, it doesn't. When offered a choice between a well establish, bad system and a newer, obviously better way starting over is the only thing that makes sense.

I'll just offer this one other tidbit. The guy who originally came up with the RPI for the NCAA says (and has said for a while now) that it is an outdated system that shouldn't be used any more. When even the inventor disavows his "invention" it makes no sense for others to cling to it as if it has some sort of magical power.

 

[Fredact]

You do realize a team in the ACC that lost every game by 1 would be pretty talented, right?

Yep they would be. That's my point. And I think they should sit home. It should be about winning, not "who's best on paper", just like every other post season.

 

[Pitt79]

You do realize a team in the ACC that lost every game by 1 would be pretty talented, right?

I guess BC then should get in ahead of some small conference champ, based on the subjective view that they are the "better team" of the two?

Who cares about "best teams", it's a 68 team tourney, let some small time nobodies have a day in the sun-that's what's fun, I love when some Cinderella busts the bracket, so what if the 9th place team in the ACC is left out, they weren't going o run the table anyways.

 

[levance2]

I guess BC then should get in ahead of some small conference champ, based on the subjective view that they are the "better team" of the two?

Who cares about "best teams", it's a 68 team tourney, let some small time nobodies have a day in the sun-that's what's fun, I love when some Cinderella busts the bracket, so what if the 9th place team in the ACC is left out, they weren't going o run the table anyways.

Did BC lose every game by only 1 point? No, because they are bad. BC is only very slightly better than two 16-seeds this year, which says a lot about how absolutely awful BC is (#258 BC, #263 FDU, #268 Holy Cross).

Is Florida probably better than some teams in the field? Yes.

 

[Pitt79]

Is Florida probably better than some teams in the field? Yes.

Florida is a 19-14, 8th place, SEC team! Does it really matter to you that much that they should get in over the winner of a small conference tournament? Not me, letting in some of these lesser teams is what makes the NCAAs great, you know every once in a while some of those teams pull an upset, but I suppose that's one of the things you don't like to see either.

 

[levance2]

Florida is a 19-14, 8th place, SEC team! Does it really matter to you that much that they should get in over the winner of a small conference tournament? Not me, letting in some of these lesser teams is what makes the NCAAs great, you know every once in a while some of those teams pull an upset, but I suppose that's one of the things you don't like to see either.

I never said I had any problem with the field. Stop fighting windmills, man.

I just said that if a hypothetical P5 team existed that managed to lose every game by only 1 point, that team would be pretty talented. Pitt lost to UNC twice by about 20. If Pitt had lost both of those games by only 1, I imagine that team would be better than what we have today.