March 17, 201412 yr I'm not a huge fan of the BPI cause it really is inconsistent. They need to come up with a BCS system like football. Nobody really had a problem with the polls but had a problem there was no playoff. A combination of polls and computer would be perfect. All you had to do was pick the matchups and regions
March 17, 201412 yr The Kenpom and Sagarin predictor beats the pants off of the RPI, obviously, but I'm sure the argument against them would be that they would encourage breaking it off on the other team as they take margin of victory into consideration (as if the human polls don't.)
March 17, 201412 yr I'm not a huge fan of the BPI cause it really is inconsistent. They need to come up with a BCS system like football. Nobody really had a problem with the polls but had a problem there was no playoff. A combination of polls and computer would be perfect. All you had to do was pick the matchups and regions How is the BPI inconsistent?
March 17, 201412 yr NCAA College Basketball Rankings, Polls - ESPN If anyone thinks UK is a 3 seed they are on something
March 17, 201412 yr OK smarty they have picked over 74% of NCAA tourney games going back through the 07 season. You have still not answered how it is inconsistent.
March 17, 201412 yr I agree that they're too caught up in geography, but then again I remember how people absolutely raked them over the coals in 2003 (the first such scenario I could remember off the top of my head) for sending Kentucky to play Wisconsin and Marquette in Minnesota. People will find things to complain about. That said, yeah, this committee was a joke. There is no explanation for the Midwest bracket that passes the smell (eye?) test. I don't think the East is that much better. Meanwhile the West is an absolute wasteland.
March 17, 201412 yr A quick look at how the RPI matched the seeds. Not really trying to make a point here, just providing something to look at so that people have a comparison. Teams with no emphasis are in the "right" spot. Teams in italics are close to where they were actually seeded compared to where they'd be based on RPI only. Teams in bold are way off. 1) Florida - Seed 1 2) Arizona - Seed 1 3) Kansas - Seed 2 4) Wichita State - Seed 1 5) Villanova - Seed 2 6) Wisconsin - Seed 2 7) Iowa State - Seed 3 8) Virginia - Seed 1 9) Duke - Seed 3 10) Creighton - Seed 3 11) Michigan - Seed 2 12) VCU - Seed 5 13) New Mexico - Seed 3 14) San Diego State - Seed 4 15) UCLA - Seed 4 16) Syracuse - Seed 3 17) Michigan State - Seed 4 18) Cincinnati - Seed 5 19) Kentucky - Seed 8 20) Louisville - Seed 4 21) Gonzaga - Seed 8 22) UConn - Seed 7 23) UMass - Seed 6 24) Ohio State - Seed 6 25) Oklahoma - Seed 5 26) St. Louis - Seed 5 27) North Carolina - Seed 6 28) Oregon - Seed 7 29) Baylor - Seed 6 30) George Washington - Seed 9 31) BYU - Seed 10 32) St. Joseph's - Seed 10
March 17, 201412 yr I think they've gotten way too caught up with geography. The NCAA now pays for all team / band / cheer travel....you would be too.
March 17, 201412 yr Looking at KenPom and Sagarin, each have Kentucky and Louisville about three seeds better than where they were. With Louisville, it seems they really leaned on the RPI. With Kentucky, leaned on their record against tournament teams.
March 17, 201412 yr I assume this was before they went to 64 teams, because a #16 has never beaten a #1. I think the worst seeding of the tourney is UK. I can find no logical way to get them down to a #8. That was with the old 48 team tourney
March 17, 201412 yr If anyone thinks UK is a 3 seed they are on something Its a computer So the computer is on something!
March 17, 201412 yr If anyone thinks UK is a 3 seed they are on something I say the same about anyone who thinks UK is an 8 seed.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.