Selection Sunday Thread

[bugatti]

From the looks of things, this was all set up before Sunday and the win over the gators didn't happen.

Though we are led to believe the Duke game meant something? I really think a lot of it has to do with the premise that the selection committee can move teams up or down 1 spot based upon pairings, conference affiliations, pod system, etc. That in itself is a joke. I can only assume Florida was a 3 seed but they had to be moved up to a 2. And remember, if you are going to move Florida from the 2 line, somebody has to move up. I guess that team would be UConn? A #9 seed in their own conference but had a great weekend? Purdue, BYU, and Syracuse are the other 3 seeds. #4 seeds are UK, Wisconsin, Texas, and UL.

 

Let us be honest here, with the exception of tOSU and Kansas, every other seed and team is up for debate.

[Randy Parker]

I think Cal nailed it when he said the cmte. had decided on Saturday--UK a #4 & Florida a #2. The only movement that could take place would be flipping UK & Florida and the cmte. didn't feel "comfortable" with UK as a #2. And they shouldn't have been a #2.

 

I'm still trying to see Florida's resume being greater than that of UK's. I was under the impression--and maybe I'm wrong--that the cmte. looked at the last 10 games & how you're playing heading into the tournament. If that is the case, Florida has lost just twice & both were to UK. Even in the overall resume, Florida has three horrible losses & all of them at home to UCF, Jacksonville & South Carolina. All of UK's losses came on the road or on a neutral site.

 

I'm with Charles Barkley on looking at head-to-head when deciding between two comparable teams. UK is clearly a better team than Florida when the two teams play.

 

All told, I believe the cmte. has performed very poorly for two consecutive years. How on earth, for two years straight, does the #1 overall seed get the most difficult bracket?

[Clyde]

I think Cal nailed it when he said the cmte. had decided on Saturday--UK a #4 & Florida a #2. The only movement that could take place would be flipping UK & Florida and the cmte. didn't feel "comfortable" with UK as a #2. And they shouldn't have been a #2.

 

I'm still trying to see Florida's resume being greater than that of UK's. I was under the impression--and maybe I'm wrong--that the cmte. looked at the last 10 games & how you're playing heading into the tournament. If that is the case, Florida has lost just twice & both were to UK. Even in the overall resume, Florida has three horrible losses & all of them at home to UCF, Jacksonville & South Carolina. All of UK's losses came on the road or on a neutral site.

 

I'm with Charles Barkley on looking at head-to-head when deciding between two comparable teams. UK is clearly a better team than Florida when the two teams play.

 

All told, I believe the cmte. has performed very poorly for two consecutive years. How on earth, for two years straight, does the #1 overall seed get the most difficult bracket?

 

I read yesterday that the "last 10" is not an official factor anymore.

[Randy Parker]

I read yesterday that the "last 10" is not an official factor anymore.

 

I know it used to be, but it may not factor in anymore. I just thought it interesting that during those last 10, Florida had lost two games--both to UK--by an average of 12 points.

 

I'm not happy about UK as a #4, but it can be justified. Florida as a #2, however, can in no way, shape or form be justified.

[Voice of Reason]

I read yesterday that the "last 10" is not an official factor anymore.

 

That is correct. The committee thought it was unfair due to widely different levels of competition in conferences.

[bugatti]

I read yesterday that the "last 10" is not an official factor anymore.

It is not, but by default looking at the last 10-12 happens. If not UNC would be about 3 seeds lower.

[SSC]

The last 10 isn't a factor any more from what I've been reading. I would like to know though the 2, 3 and 4 seeds that have beaten the teams UK has outside of their home arena. UK has 2 neutral court wins against 2 different 2 seeds and a 7 seed. And wins on the road against a 4 and 9 seed. That's 5 pretty good wins away from their gym. UConn is really strong in that category too. Who did Purdue, Florida, BYU and Syracuse beat away from home? SD-St while pretty good only beat BYU when they weren't full strength and UNLV. UK lost some very close games on the road but they beat Louisville and Tennessee on the road and had a very good neutral court resume.

[SSC]

It is not, but by default looking at the last 10-12 happens. If not UNC would be about 3 seeds lower.

 

Exactly and UNC built their resume against teams the NCAA didn't think were tournamnet worthy.

[oldrambler]

So....clearly tournament commitie didn't dissapoint, they imo scewed up more this time with more teams (which expanding the tourney was stupid anyway).

 

Colorado, VT and Bama out was robbery, no way any of those should be out when teams like VCU,UAB and a couple of others made the tournament.

UK a 4 seed with Florida a 2! How does anyone see that? UK beat UF twice in the last two weeks. Those seedings had to be done before the SEC finals. I understand that they don't have all that much time before the pairings come out but they could leave some spots that are interchangeable depending on the outcome of certain conference tourney games. I personally wasn't as upset about UK getting a 4 seed as I was UF getting the 2 after UK beat them......again. I was thinking before the pairings came out that UK and UF might be 3 seeds or both be 4 seeds. I don't think that ether was a 2 seed.

After hearing that interview with the tourney commitie chairman it lowers my faith in the commitie even more.......When ask about acouple of a couple of the teams that were questionable he immediately tried to cut of the conversation and tried to make the ones questioning him sound out of line. A simple question was ask, no need to answer like that, he pulled off a typical spin with his answer to move on. That guy could work in the White House. :lol:

Edited March 14, 2011 by oldrambler

[Voice of Reason]

I will reiterate my main point in post #256. IMO the record versus the top 100 was the biggest factor in selection this year. That factor answers 95% of the questions people have about this year's field.

 

Here is a link where you can see how teams fared against the top 100. You will need to add up the record versus top 25 + top 50 + top 100 to get their total record versus the top 100. Any team you have a question about, compare their top 100 records and you will most likely see why the committee did what they did.

 

http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/overall-power-ranking-by-team

[bugatti]

Exactly and UNC built their resume against teams the NCAA didn't think were tournamnet worthy.

And I am not opposed to weighing victories later in the year a little more heavily than at the start of it. Naturally you would assume a team gets better as the season progresses, so you would want to evaluate them as such. Nova benefited the most by neglecting year end performance.

[bugatti]

I know people keep saying "UK got the last #4 seed", but does the committee really rank seeds beyond the #1 slots? It has been proven they do not, imo. Last year KU and UK were the top two #1 seeds but put with the top #2 seeds (tOSU and WVU).

[mobaar]

Just for fun. I used Ken Pomeroy and Jeff Sagarin to pick and seed the field. Just a straight average of the two rankings. Take the auto qualifiers, fill in at large teams based on KenPom/Sagarin rating and pure S-curve from there. Here's what I got:

 

East (#1 overall)

1 - OSU vs 16 - (UT San Antonio vs. Alabama St.)

8 - Missouri vs 9 - Clemson

5 - Florida vs 12 - Butler

4 - Utah St. vs 13 - Oakland

6 - Georgetown vs 11 - Richmond

3 - Kentucky vs 14 - Indiana St.

7 - Belmont vs 10 - Texas A&M

2 - Notre Dame vs 15 - St. Peter's

 

West (#4 overall)

1 - Pitt vs 16 - UNC Asheville

8 - St John's vs 9 - Temple

5 - Washington vs 12 - (New Mexico vs Colorado)

4 - Louisville vs 13 - Bucknell

6 - UNLV vs 11 - (Florida St. vs St. Mary's)

3 - Syracuse vs 14 - Woffard

7 - George Mason vs 10 - Xavier

2 - San Diego St. vs 15 - UC Santa Barbara

 

Southeast (#2 overall):

1 - Duke vs 16 - (Hampton vs Arkansas - Little Rock)

8 - Marquette vs 9 - Gonzaga

5 - WVU vs 12 - UCLA

4 - UConn vs 13 - Memphis

6 - Arizona vs 11 - Penn St.

3 - BYU vs 14 - Long Island

7 - Villanova vs 10 - Michigan St.

2 - Purdue vs 15 - Northern Colorado

 

Southwest (#3 overall):

1 - Kansas vs 16 - Boston U

8 - Vandy vs 9 - VT

5 - UC vs 12 - ODU

4 - UNC vs 13 - Princeton

6 - Illinois vs 11 - Maryland

3 - Wisconsin vs 14 - Morehead St.

7 - Kansas St. vs 10 - Michigan

2 - Texas vs 15 - Akron

[Voice of Reason]

I know people keep saying "UK got the last #4 seed", but does the committee really rank seeds beyond the #1 slots? It has been proven they do not, imo. Last year KU and UK were the top two #1 seeds but put with the top #2 seeds (tOSU and WVU).

 

They used to say they used an "S" curve to slot the seeds but I am with you - I think that is not being done as much now, just like the last 10 is no longer being used. What I think should happen is the selection committee should make public their 16 factors they used and the priority. I think that would help the public, the media and most importantly the schools and teams as they make out schedules and try to earn their way to the tournament.

[16thBBall Fan]

The mistake is thinking that the committee is measuring UK vs UF. They didn't. Had the two tied for first in the SEC then head-to-head is fine. UF won the regular season and should be rated higher.

 

If that is what the committee use to put Florida at a #2 seed then why is Alabama not in the field then if they use that logic they even had a winning record against the stronger eastern side of the conference?