Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

[zooropa]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

that is how strongly they felt about NDSU

The linchpin of your argument is that the committee is, if not infallible, then at least consistent. This is not a supportable position.

And that doesn't even get into the absurdity of discounting RPI and "eating up" an RPI-based metric.

[FargoBison]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

The linchpin of your argument is that the committee is, if not infallible, then at least consistent. This is not a supportable position.

And that doesn't even get into the absurdity of discounting RPI and "eating up" an RPI-based metric.

You have no clue as to what you are talking about as usual, but please continue to make a fool of yourself.

My argument is based on what NDSU did. They played a brutal non-conference slate and preformed well against it, they also dominated a decent mid-major conference. A group of people on the committee agreed and rewarded NDSU for it. The vast majority of the people who are paid or do bracketology as hobby also had views the reflected the committee's actions.

There was nothing inexplicable of NDSU getting a 12, it was the predicted outcome....http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2014.html and it was the outcome that ultimately happened when the committee met.

[goon]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

just for comparision sake, does anyone have or look up the info for the SDSU teams and last years NDSU team that made the tourny? Like SOS and quality wins and RPI and such?

[zooropa]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

My argument is based on what NDSU did. They played a brutal non-conference slate and preformed well against it

Their 2013/14 non-conf slate was remarkably similar to their 2012/13 non-conf slate, and both are remarkably similar to SDSU's 2012/13 non-conf slate, with exactly one exception: In both years, NDSU went to a top 5 team and got hammered. They opened at Indiana in '12, and played Ohio State in '13.

In 2012/13, NDSU's SOS ranking was lower than SDSU's.

In 2013/14, it was much higher in rank---if not outright percentage---but not because NDSU set out to challenge itself in 2013/14, as you insist.

Rather, NDSU's opponents managed to eke out a .5217 winning percentage (combined) in 2013/14, vs. as .4817 winning percentage in 2012/13. This is a collective improvement of roughly one win per team (15-16 vs. 16-15). NDSU demonstrably did *not* set out to challenge itself in 2013/14, they set out to play roughly the same schedule they had historically.

---

Furthermore, arguing that "bracketologists predicted a 12 seed" does not justify the seed, inasmuch as good bracketologists owe their reputation to their ability to guess the committee's thinking, not to second guess it.

Saying "bracketologists thought they would get a 12" means "bracketologists understand the selection process" it does not mean "the selection process uses the best criteria."

[FargoBison]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

just for comparision sake, does anyone have or look up the info for the SDSU teams and last years NDSU team that made the tourny? Like SOS and quality wins and RPI and such?

2013-2014 NDSU
RPI: 33
SOS: 116
Top 100 wins: Delaware, Towson and @Western Michigan
Bad Losses: @UND

2012-2013 SDSU
RPI: 62
SOS: 175
Top 100 wins: @Montana, @New Mexico and NDSU(x2)
Bad Losses: @Hostra, @South Dakota and @CSU Bakersfield

2011-2012 SDSU
RPI: 42
SOS: 179
Top 100 wins: @Washington, ORU and Buffalo
Bad Losses: @South Dakota and @North Dakota

[FargoBison]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

Their 2013/14 non-conf slate was remarkably similar to their 2012/13 non-conf slate, and both are remarkably similar to SDSU's 2012/13 non-conf slate, with exactly one exception: In both years, NDSU went to a top 5 team and got hammered. They opened at Indiana in '12, and played Ohio State in '13.

In 2012/13, NDSU's SOS ranking was lower than SDSU's.

In 2013/14, it was much higher in rank---if not outright percentage---but not because NDSU set out to challenge itself in 2013/14, as you insist.

Rather, NDSU's opponents managed to eke out a .5217 winning percentage (combined) in 2013/14, vs. as .4817 winning percentage in 2012/13. This is a collective improvement of roughly one win per team (15-16 vs. 16-15). NDSU demonstrably did *not* set out to challenge itself in 2013/14, they set out to play roughly the same schedule they had historically.

---

Furthermore, arguing that "bracketologists predicted a 12 seed" does not justify the seed, inasmuch as good bracketologists owe their reputation to their ability to guess the committee's thinking, not to second guess it.

Saying "bracketologists thought they would get a 12" means "bracketologists understand the selection process" it does not mean "the selection process uses the best criteria.

You are out on your little island. It is sad and pathetic.

Hate the committee and process but it is what it is. An unbiased group looked at what NDSU did and gave them that seed, another group of people predicted it would happen.

There is no way anyone on NDSU's staff would agree that those non-conference schedules were similar. No chance.

[zooropa]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

BTW: RPI is pretty much the phrenology of statistics.

Using RPI--or SOS, which constitutes 50% of a team's RPI--to seed teams is about as stupid a metric as one can possibly get.

However, it's simple and has been around for years, which makes it the perfect stat for a committee that is both brain-dead and hidebound.

[zooropa]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

You are out on your little island.

If *anything*, dissatisfaction with the committee's methods and criteria puts me squarely in the majority.

Also, thank you for resorting to characterizations. Nothing says, "I got nothing else" quite like an ad hominem response.

[filbert]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

You are out on your little island. It is sad and pathetic.

Hate the committee and process but it is what it is. An unbiased group looked at what NDSU did and gave them that seed, another group of people predicted it would happen.

There is no way anyone on NDSU's staff would agree that those non-conference schedules were similar. No chance.

Objection. Assertion of facts not in evidence.

And, on this board, the rule is "address posts, not posters."

[zooropa]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

An unbiased group looked at what NDSU did

So the committee's unbiased now? Who--apart from the committee itself--would support that claim?

I would also note that one can apply bad criteria in an entirely unbiased fashion. The lack of bias in application does not validate the criteria in use.

If I write a computer program that picks winners and losers of basketball games based on random numbers, my program is completely unbiased. It is also using incredibly bad criteria to make its decisions.

There is no way anyone on NDSU's staff would agree that those non-conference schedules were similar

They were similar when scheduled, but you are correct: the second year's schedule was marginally tougher--according to the all-important SOS metric.

If the coaching staff doesn't think that the collective one game difference between opponents in 2012 and 2013 is accurately reflective of the true difference in schedule, well, that's not important to the NCAA selection committee.

[zooropa]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

I would also note that the reliability of these upsets is, if anything, an indication that the committee's selection criteria is--in a word--flawed.

This is the 31st 64 team tournament.

There have been 496 14/13/12/11 seed games.

In those 496 games, the lower seed has won 133 times, or 27% of the time.

Across the breadth of the tournament's history, 11-14 seeds have a better than a one in four shot at winning.

----

If you look at the past ten years, the numbers are even more staggering.

Ten years = 160 14/13/12/11 games. Of those 160 games, 49 were won by the lower seed. The lower seed has won 31% of the time. If you were a lower seed in the last ten years, you had about a one in three shot at winning.

Of course, if more mid-major teams were seeded properly, it would get rid of much of the excitement and therefore appeal and therefore revenue generated by the tournament.

It is manifestly not in the interests of the NCAA to change what is clearly working for their bottom line.

But that does not--in any way, shape or form, justify the criteria they use or their means of using it.

[FargoBison]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

The committee is made up of people with differing biases but as a whole I don't think they are biased. Maybe some of info that they use is bad but they don't use just anyone metric. The NCAA tournament committee is really a bit unpredictable, some years they will favor one metric and other years a different metric. Some years they talk about the "eye test" and regardless of which metric they favor some group always feels slighted. That is just the way it is and they way it will always be, there is no perfect method for taking 350+ teams...figuring out which teams should be in the field where they should be seeded. Then you have a bunch of other rules that deal with geography and other factors that come into play. It is an impossible task to do perfectly and honestly I think for the most part the committee does a good job.

I am only going to argue about this SOS thing one more time. NDSU had the 10th toughest non-conference SOS in the country in 2013-2014. In 2012-2013 NDSU had the 94th toughest non-conference SOS and SDSU the 48th. That is a rather large difference, especially when a group of people sits down and evaluates teams against each other. The committee as a whole likes to see teams that challenge themselves, having a top 10 non-conference SOS is a huge feather in your cap when you had a good record against it.

That SOS doesn't even take into account that NDSU beat Notre Dame when it had its star point guard. Without him they didn't have the firepower to compete in the ACC, as a result they lost a lot of close games.

[FargoBison]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

Lower seeded teams winning 27% of the time doesn't strike me as odd at all. In just one basketball game on a neutral court a lot of variability can happen. If those lower seeded teams beat higher seeded teams in a five or seven game playoff series, then I would have more questions. But the beauty of the NCAA tournament is that it is just one game.

[zooropa]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

honestly I think for the most part the committee does a good job.

Unfortunately upset statistics do not agree with you. If anything, they suggest that the committee has always done a bad job with seeding, and that instead of getting better, they are getting worse.

However, the worse they do at seeding, the more "exciting" the tournament gets. When the committee does a bad job, more upsets happen.

And the only price they have to pay is the legitimate grumbling of a negligible collection of small school fan bases.

I am only going to argue about this SOS thing one more time. NDSU had the 10th toughest non-conference SOS in the country in 2013-2014. In 2012-2013 NDSU had the 94th toughest non-conference SOS and SDSU the 48th.

The ranking of SOS is irrelevant to my three points which are:

1 - That NDSU did not set out to have a significantly harder schedule in '13/14.

2 - That SOS is, by any conceivable analysis, a deeply flawed metric

3 - That the committee's reliance on a deeply flawed metric is, prima facie, deeply flawed.

[witness]

Re: Men's NCAA 2015 Tournament Summit league journey (NDSU Bison)

Gonzaga will have a ton of trouble winning their next game anyways