What did the committee get the most wrong?

Donate To GopherHole
GophersInIowa

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
42,417
Reaction score
23,869
Points
113
Tried to post a poll but it didn't work for some reason. What was their biggest mistake?

- Virginia #1/Michigan St #2
- Syracuse #10
- Tulsa in
- Monmouth snubbed
- Other?
 


B1G should have had a #1. Tulsa was a no way.
 




<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Kentucky being a 4 seed is a joke, especially considering they have A&M as a 3 seed
 

Seems like more questionable decisions in this years bracket than recent years. Looking forward to more info coming.
 

So Monmouth played 17 true road games and another 6 neutral. They played UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, Dayton, USC again, Georgetown, and Rutgers. They went 5-2 against these teams. They played 1 home game in their first 13 games. Monmouth had a SOS of 17 after the nonconference schedule.

Gotta give them credit for this kind of schedule.
 



I wasn't able to catch the selection show. Did the Gophers squeak in somehow?
 






Monmouth is the worst. MSU and UVa should be flipped, but MSU will make the FF anyway.
 




How the hell is a 29-5 MSU team not a 1 seed and Oregon is? Especially after they won the B1G tourney.
 

Two thoughts:

1) I had discussed the committee's gradual move toward more predictive systems that actually take margin of victory into account (eg KenPom or Sagarin) with SS earlier in the year. It was my opinion that he should use one of them more heavily in his analysis. Turns out that the committee almost completely ignored them apparently, with the exception maybe of Wichita State. Almost every complaint about the bracket this year can be understood by comparing KenPom to the RPI.

2) I think the outrage over Monmouth is a little misguided. First of all, just like with the St Bonaventure quote from the A10 commish, the Monmouth example demonstrates the ability to paint a picture in either direction for any team based on which parts of their resume you quote. The A10 AD picked top 70 wins to make his case, but I'm sure he has no idea what the 70 team cutoff would do to other teams' resumes because no one else ever cuts off there. As for Monmouth, the entirety of their case is made by listing a bunch of teams they played and beat, and also by listing their number of road games.

UCLA isn't very good. Neither is Georgetown. Rutgers is abysmal. And while they deserve credit for scheduling a tough non-conf, you go through their entire schedule and find 2 whole wins against teams under tournament consideration. Compare those two wins with losses against Army, Manhattan, and Canisius and the picture gets a lot hazier.

Tulsa had wins against UConn, SMU (who would've been a tourney team), and Temple. Their losses included ORegon St, Cincinnati, UALR, UConn and SMU. They had only one loss to a team with a 150+ KenPom, and that was Oral Roberts at 169.

Bad losses are something that the committee factors in more highly than almost any pundit or fan I've heard talk. Kentucky too low? That loss to Auburn really hurt them, whereas A&M had no such bad losses. Pac 12 overrated? As a conference they had very few bad losses.

As I mentioned, I believe the committe relies too heavily on RPI to determine whether an opponent was "good" or "bad." But when arguing for or against a team, it's important to not just cherry pick parts of the resume.
 

justthefacts said:
Two thoughts:

1) I had discussed the committee's gradual move toward more predictive systems that actually take margin of victory into account (eg KenPom or Sagarin) with SS earlier in the year. It was my opinion that he should use one of them more heavily in his analysis. Turns out that the committee almost completely ignored them apparently, with the exception maybe of Wichita State. Almost every complaint about the bracket this year can be understood by comparing KenPom to the RPI.

2) I think the outrage over Monmouth is a little misguided. First of all, just like with the St Bonaventure quote from the A10 commish, the Monmouth example demonstrates the ability to paint a picture in either direction for any team based on which parts of their resume you quote. The A10 AD picked top 70 wins to make his case, but I'm sure he has no idea what the 70 team cutoff would do to other teams' resumes because no one else ever cuts off there. As for Monmouth, the entirety of their case is made by listing a bunch of teams they played and beat, and also by listing their number of road games.

UCLA isn't very good. Neither is Georgetown. Rutgers is abysmal. And while they deserve credit for scheduling a tough non-conf, you go through their entire schedule and find 2 whole wins against teams under tournament consideration. Compare those two wins with losses against Army, Manhattan, and Canisius and the picture gets a lot hazier.

Tulsa had wins against UConn, SMU (who would've been a tourney team), and Temple. Their losses included ORegon St, Cincinnati, UALR, UConn and SMU. They had only one loss to a team with a 150+ KenPom, and that was Oral Roberts at 169.

Bad losses are something that the committee factors in more highly than almost any pundit or fan I've heard talk. Kentucky too low? That loss to Auburn really hurt them, whereas A&M had no such bad losses. Pac 12 overrated? As a conference they had very few bad losses.

As I mentioned, I believe the committe relies too heavily on RPI to determine whether an opponent was "good" or "bad." But when arguing for or against a team, it's important to not just cherry pick parts of the resume.
Click to expand...

Thanks Facts. An excellent read and analysis. One thing I learned this year, and I should know better, is don't let a terrible game to end the season (Tulsa getting routed by Memphis) soil your opinion of a team. One bad game doesn't eliminate a team even if it came at the most inopportune time.

I had Tulsa solidly in the at-large the mix prior to that game, but I let that single result sway me to pretty much eliminate them from consideration. Huge mistake. As you pointed out, the Golden Hurricane's resume, certainly relative to other bubble teams, wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's being portrayed (cough, cough Joe Lunardi).
 

SelectionSunday said:
Thanks Facts. An excellent read and analysis. One thing I learned this year, and I should know better, is don't let a terrible game to end the season (Tulsa getting routed by Memphis) soil your opinion of a team. One bad game doesn't eliminate a team even if it came at the most inopportune time.

I had Tulsa solidly in the at-large the mix prior to that game, but I let that single result sway me to pretty much eliminate them from consideration. Huge mistake. As you pointed out, the Golden Hurricane's resume, certainly relative to other bubble teams, wasn't anywhere near as bad as it's being portrayed (cough, cough Joe Lunardi).
Click to expand...

To be clear and fair, I'm not saying that Tulsa was an obvious addition to the field. I heard that not one of the brackets on Bracket Matrix (59 in all) included Tulsa. I just don't think it's as ridiculous as it was portrayed yesterday.

I think your point about the final game, or put another way, the conference tournaments, is a really good one. Most fans and pundits are treating those games like they're moving teams all around the bracket and bubble. But in reality each of those games is about 3% of their resume. Unless it's a top 25 win or a 150+ loss, individual games won't move the needle that much.

At the end of the day there are always going to be 4 - 8 teams that have a reasonable case for being in over 2 - 4 teams that actually were. That's unavoidable. But in reality none of those teams is getting past the Sweet 16. And if you want to avoid getting screwed, win more games.
 

Otis said:
How the hell is a 29-5 MSU team not a 1 seed and Oregon is? Especially after they won the B1G tourney.
Click to expand...

This is what I noticed first, along with Indiana, winning the Big Ten outright and getting a 5. What?
Although the last game of the Big ten tourney is played too late and was not considered by the selection committee.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom