Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
NCAA HOOPS THREAD! -- K petitions to get Maui Jim Maui Invitational moved to Transylvania (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Good Posting Judge
- Start date
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Why have you mentioned RPI twice? I'm not quoting it nor am I using it as a justification? I'm using common sense. St Mary's beat two teams that are in the tournament. One is Bakersfield. The other is Gonzaga, who is only in the tournament because they beat St Mary's and had to be selected.RPI is known to be a terrible measurement. The various factors that go into these ratings systems are always going to be better than "LULZ, who did they beat" as your only measurement.
You can LULZ or whatever other nonsense you want but St Mary's resume is horrible compared to anyone else on the bubble. Yeah, let's ignore the criteria of who did they beat. That's not important because they racked up wins against terrible teams. Great measurement, guy. When are you giving us your formula bracket or whatever that turd you create is?
Scoresman
Footballguy
I'm not saying to ignore quality wins. It's an important part of the equation obviously. I'm just saying its not the only indicator of success.
Read and comprehend posts before replying. Dont be so angry.
General Malaise
Footballguy
You mean the SEC football handbook?St. Mary's was probably the biggest screwjob by the numbers, but I'm glad they're not in because they game the system in their own way by scheduling a cupcake non-conference schedule and then hanging their NCAA hopes on beating Gonzaga. They beat them 2/3 times this year and still didnt get in.
Those 4 wins were against Top 25 teams, so calling them top 100 is BS, Furthermore, Michigan had 15 games against top 50 teams, St. Bon had five. Michigan had 10 games which were far tougher than St. Bon';s. Any RPI which had St. Bon ahead of Michigan, was severely flawed
General Malaise
Footballguy
If St. Mary's won the WCC and Gonzaga got an "at large" nobody would say 'boo'. Imh(and ignorant)o.
MAC_32
Footballguy
The best road win was Nebraska. Before Friday the best neutral win was Texas when they sucked. This team is mediocre and belongs in the NIT. Not the worst addition to the field somehow though.
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
Sure seems to me that the committee put a lot of stock in record vs. sub-150 (or 200) teams, based on what Castiglione said about excluding Monmouth.
Because one of the only things Tulsa had over St. Bonaventure was a 12-0 record vs. sub-150 teams, whereas Bonnie lost to Duquesne and La Salle.
So they don't care who you beat, just don't lose to anyone bad.
Because one of the only things Tulsa had over St. Bonaventure was a 12-0 record vs. sub-150 teams, whereas Bonnie lost to Duquesne and La Salle.
So they don't care who you beat, just don't lose to anyone bad.
Scoresman
Footballguy
Not ignorant at all. Gonzaga shouldve absolutely got an at large if they were in that situation. I'm sure the usual suspects would've #####ed though.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Basically Michigan gets in over them because they are in the Big Ten. Despite three times as many opportunities against Top 50 wins, they still only won the same number of games.
Craig_MiamiFL
Footballguy
LSU declines NIT bid
Johnny Jones
Johnny JonesI am not saying they are good. It is a waste of time to be in the NCAA, because like every play in team they will get bounced. But they certainly deserved to be in the tourney as a 10th or 11th seed. If St. Bon is the best case against Michigan to not be in the tourney, there really is no case.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
I'm reading and trying to comprehend your St Mary's nonsense. You keep rattling off eye chart stat formulas. Why was St Mary's screwed? What did they do to deserve being left out and who got in that shouldn't have gotten in over them? Don't give me BPI numbers, sagarin numbers, RPI or whatever other cherry picked ranking you come up with. Give me something meaningful.
MAC_32
Footballguy
I watched more Michigan than Bonnie this year, but from what I saw in the 4 games I watched it isn't close. The eye test matches their resume. Michigan isn't good. Bonnie might be.
It is tougher to get up for big games when every other game is a big game against a top 50 team. St. Bon played mostly cupcakes and lost to three of them. Even Michigan's wins against the lower Big 10 teams like Northwestern, Nebraska, and Penn State were more impressive than teams St. Bon played mostly.
Scoresman
Footballguy
sorry, but I will use those measures since they're proven to be the best indicators of tournament success. If you don't believe that I really don't care. Do some googling or something.
If not for those three losses to sub 100 teams, they would have been in. Even if they cut that down to 1 or even 2 losses to lowly teams, St. Bon might have been in. But three bad losses rightfully sank them. You have to be near perfect when you have an overall weak schedule.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Michigan got in because they were in the Big Ten. Schools from those 6 power conferences will always have the SOS argument no matter how good, bad, or mediocre they are. There's nothing anyone can do about it either. Would Michigan play St Bonaventure in a home and home? Doubtful. What about Monmouth? No chance.
I'm not picking on Michigan. We can substitute Vandy, Syracuse, or even Pittsburgh and it's the same.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Best indicators of tournament success? So you're ignoring the entire regular season and believe teams should be picked by a formula that predicts tournament success? Holy crap
St Mary's resume is horrible man. Try to use your brain and look at it for 2 minutes.
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
Gary ParrishVerified accountEvery eligible Power 5 school with a top-54 RPI made the NCAA Tournament. But eight non-Power 5 schools with top-54 RPIs did not.
The reason the power conference packs teams in the tourney is because they almost always perform. Year in and year out conferences like the Big10 out perform their seating. It is not easy to have a winning record in those power conferences and it shows come tourney time because those are the teams best prepared.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scoresman
Footballguy
Those rankings are based on the entire regular season. What else would they be based on?Best indicators of tournament success? So you're ignoring the entire regular season and believe teams should be picked by a formula that predicts tournament success? Holy crap
St Mary's resume is horrible man. Try to use your brain and look at it for 2 minutes.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
The top teams in the power conferences always perform. The mediocre double digit loss power conferences don't always perform though. Michigan and Vandy shouldn't get in because Michigan St and Kentucky perform in the tournament.
And it's not that hard to have a winning record with the huge conferences. Michigan got seven wins against really bad teams (NW, Minn, PSU, Rutgers, and Illinois). They went 3-8 against everyone else in the conference. The smaller conferences playing full round robin twice is where it's difficult to win more than you lose (See Big 12).
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Let's make this easy. What has St Mary's done on the court to prove they belong in the tournament? What teams were selected that St Mary's should they have been selected over?
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
Syracuse had six wins against teams ranked 236 or lower in the RPI. And is there an at-large team in the field that has a worse loss than the Orange falling to St. John's (RPI 245)?
Scoresman
Footballguy
I know I said I don't care, and I really don't, but start here.
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ratings_glossary
I did not watch a lot of at Mary's games but I know St Mary's was one of the better scoring teams in the nation for a while which I'm sure plays into their ranking.
Again, I'm actually glad they're not in for other reasons, and I agree they basically played nobody so if the committee ignored the rankings in their case, fine by me.
Shoot, I may have to go all the way back to last year to disprove that. Michigan State last year was a 12 game loser with a 7th seed. Oh yeah, they just made it to the final four and lost to the national champions Duke.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Great you found one. How many double digit losers lost in the first round though? My comment stands: Good power conf. teams perform because they are good. Mediocre ones don't (some do but so do teams like Mason, VCU, Butler, Gonzaga, or Davidson) perform.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Christ you haven't watched them play. You have no idea who they have even played. You don't care that they've beaten nobody. But you're convinced they got screwed because of a computer formula. Good times. Enjoy the tournament man.
Scoresman
Footballguy
Wow you really are bad at comprehending posts. Holy cow. I'm done.
Christ you haven't watched them play. You have no idea who they have even played. You don't care that they've beaten nobody. But you're convinced they got screwed because of a computer formula. Good times. Enjoy the tournament man.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
The Big 10 conference and other power conferences almost always outpeform their seeding at every level. The computer rankings have helped stop some of the injustices in the past, but this was not one of them. St. Bon really needed to do a bit more and not lose to three cupcakes. They would have made it because their few wins against the big boys did demonstrate some potential. They just needed to dominate those weaker teams and they didn.t,
MAC_32
Footballguy
Call me crazy, but I think if a team has a good record vs. good teams that says a lot more than a couple bad losses.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
So Michigan got in because St Bonaventure has worse losses? The goal posts move here as much as the committee does. The bottom line is the mediocre power conference teams always have the advantage because of the built in SOS of their conference. I'm sure CBS has a say because they want Michigan on TV too. It really has nothing to do with the schtick about playing tough OOC games and beating people away from home and all that other nonsense the committee uses in certain years. The mid majors and low majors have almost no shot.
Honestly, both St Bonaventure and Michigan are mediocre teams. And honestly they should be playing each other instead of Tulsa.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
How can every power conference almost always outperform their seeding level? When one team over performs, by default another under performs. Most of the time, both of those will involve power conference teams so it's a zero sum game. Then you add in the 4-13/5-12 upsets and the power conferences as a whole probably under perform.
You referenced Michigan State last year over performing as a 7. Well UVA underperformed as a 2. Zero sum for the power conferences.
You have to weight the full season. Michigan's lone lost to a non touney team was at OSU. Michigan was 16-0 against sub 100 teams. Michigan did not have one game which showed they did not belong in the tourney. Losing to teams solidly in the touney and one road lose to a bubble team. St. Bon had three really bad loses. And Michigan had more good wins.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
Michigan doesn't bother me nearly as much as Tulsa or Syracuse. Mainly because Syracuse's loss to St. John's was far worse than anything St. Bonaventure did.
Castiglione also dogged Bonaventure because its nonconference SOS was "outside the top 150." Technically true, it was 151. You got 'em, Joe.
Meanwhile, you had: Indiana 209, Providence 224, Arizona 268. No moving the goal posts there. And Providence's loss to DePaul is arguably as bad as Bonaventure losing to La Salle.
Yes, obviously there were other factors that led to those teams getting in comfortably. Not it really hurts your argument when NCSOS is the first thing you cite for not including a team and there are others in the field whose numbers were much, much worse. But those teams don't play in the A-10 either.
Castiglione also dogged Bonaventure because its nonconference SOS was "outside the top 150." Technically true, it was 151. You got 'em, Joe.
Meanwhile, you had: Indiana 209, Providence 224, Arizona 268. No moving the goal posts there. And Providence's loss to DePaul is arguably as bad as Bonaventure losing to La Salle.
Yes, obviously there were other factors that led to those teams getting in comfortably. Not it really hurts your argument when NCSOS is the first thing you cite for not including a team and there are others in the field whose numbers were much, much worse. But those teams don't play in the A-10 either.
MAC_32
Footballguy
This team did a great job beating teams not good enough for the tourney and consistently losing to teams in it. That's NIT. It's NCAA because of more opportunities for good wins and less opportunities for bad losses. It's stupid, but - $.
Michigan was 4-11 against tourney teams and 18-1 against non-tourney teams. Being one of the lowest teams to make the tourney seems about right. And those 11 loses were all seeds 7 or better.
Dickie Dunn
Footballguy
Losing to a lot of tournament teams does not mean you are a tournament team.
If you play every team in the top 10 and lose all 10, what are the odds that you actually are No. 11, as opposed to something closer to No. 100?
Jayrod
Footballguy
I've watched slightly more than zero games this year (most of them this weekend) and I'm leaning heavily on the Kenpom's of the world.
A couple of things that are standing out to me:
-Wichita State, Vanderbilt & Arizona are all horribly under-seeded and yet only one of them will make it out of the first round
-The East is top heavy with the best 1-5 seeds.
-The South is very deep with what graded out to 10 of the top 25 teams in the field
-The West is the weakest in just about every way I've looked at it. Will be tough to pick games in this one.
A couple of things that are standing out to me:
-Wichita State, Vanderbilt & Arizona are all horribly under-seeded and yet only one of them will make it out of the first round
-The East is top heavy with the best 1-5 seeds.
-The South is very deep with what graded out to 10 of the top 25 teams in the field
-The West is the weakest in just about every way I've looked at it. Will be tough to pick games in this one.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Vanderbilt is very talented, but are usually a difficult watch. I'm surprised kenpom has them so high because there is nothing consistent nor efficient about this team. They have the talent to matchup with anyone though.
Wichita's seeding is ridiculous, but they don't play in a power conference so I guess they should just be happy to have gotten an invite.
flapgreen
Footballguy
Binky The Doormat
Footballguy
Arkansas did a few years ago when they had when Stan Heath was busy ruining the program.
