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?

 

Alabama only has 5 wins versus the top 100. Their RPI is terrible compared to other teams that were snubbed. I said for over a month that the only way Bama gets in is if they win the SEC tournament and that is one I was right about.

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

 

Looks better than the current bracket IMO. Maybe you're on to something.

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

 

Excellent point.

After looking at all the complaints about seeding and bubble teams, the one stat that seems to best explain this committee's decisions is top 100 wins. It looks to me like they very heavily weighted the team's record versus the top 100 with no extra weighting for top 50 and/or top 25 wins.

 

For example, why Florida a 2 and UK a 4 ... Florida 16-4 vs top 100 and UK 12-7. Louisville 14-8 vs. top 100 which also puts them behind Florida.

 

How does UAB get in with no top 50 wins? They have 10 top 100 wins for an overall top 100 record of 10-7. Compare that to Colorado's 8-11 and Va. Tech's 8-8 and that seems to give insight into how this committee made decisions. Harvard only had 3 top 100 wins. St. Mary's had 2 top 100 wins. VCU is in because they had 9 top 100 wins.

 

Of course there are always exceptions as Georgia went 5-11 vs top 100. But Alabama only had 4 top 100 wins so that seems to be the killer for them.

 

I think the top 100 record was the big factor used this year that led to some of these odd decisions.

 

Your point makes more sense than anything that I've read on here so far and they are very good. I would have never thought about it from those perspectives, but they make a lot of sense.

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?

 

More glaring than Alabama is UCONN, who finished at .500 in the regular season yet gets a #3 seed in the tournament.

Voice, when a team schedules a team and they don't pan out what do you do? We played St. Peters and lost and they are in. Could you explain how the Vols got in with 14 losses and a at home loss to the Tide? or Georgia who lost twice to us and the last game? I thought the NCAA wanted teams that improved during the season. We had a bunch of early losses Purdue was one. This is my last post on Bama not getting in, I'm got at least 8 dfferent bracket games I'm in so I'm done with us.

Alabama only has 5 wins versus the top 100. Their RPI is terrible compared to other teams that were snubbed. I said for over a month that the only way Bama gets in is if they win the SEC tournament and that is one I was right about.

 

We will never know if you were right or not. Had Alabama beat Kentucky and then lost to Florida, I think they would have made it.

Voice, when a team schedules a team and they don't pan out what do you do? We played St. Peters and lost and they are in. Could you explain how the Vols got in with 14 losses and a at home loss to the Tide? or Georgia who lost twice to us and the last game? I thought the NCAA wanted teams that improved during the season. We had a bunch of early losses Purdue was one. This is my last post on Bama not getting in, I'm got at least 8 dfferent bracket games I'm in so I'm done with us.

 

AL ... I looked up Bama's out of conference schedule expecting nothing but cream puffs. I got a surprise. Bama played several solid teams out of conference. So it wasn't the scheduling as much as it was Bama lost all their solid out of conference games. Their best out of conference opponents (RPI in parenthesis) were Seton Hall (73), Iowa (121), St. Peter's (106), Purdue (9) and Providence (98) and they lost to every one of them. Their best non conference win was Lipscomb (156) and then their next best win was Pepperdine (232). I would bet entering conference play that Alabama was around 200 in the RPI. So the schedule wasn't that bad but Bama's performance against that schedule doomed their season even before conference play began.

Pretty hilarious breakdown of what happen behind the doors of the selection committee on KSR lol.

UK deserved a #3 seed. Florida should not have been higher than a #3. That's my two cents.

 

The selections and seeding this season come off as quite random and all over the board to me.

Interesting read from the CJ's Rick Bozich concerning UK, Texas & Florida's seeding in the tournament.

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110314/COLUMNISTS01/303140134/Rick-Bozich-What-math-whiz-thinks-Kentucky-basketball-is-an-NCAA-Tournament-four-seed-

Voice, what about the old theory about losing early and improving along the way? Again, everyone my gripe is about Georgia/Tennessee. The Vols started 8-1 and finished 9-13. You can't be a basketball person and not see thats not right. In the History of the tourney no team from a major conference has finished 12-4 and not get in. No time.

Voice, what about the old theory about losing early and improving along the way? Again, everyone my gripe is about Georgia/Tennessee. The Vols started 8-1 and finished 9-13. You can't be a basketball person and not see thats not right. In the History of the tourney no team from a major conference has finished 12-4 and not get in. No time.

 

I agree with you on Georgia. Tennessee, not so much. Tennessee has some nice non conference wins so I would have a hard time taking Bama over Tenneessee. Tennessee played the 2nd toughest schedule in the nation. Alabama's SOS was 114. But as an SEC fan, I would rather see Bama in than Georgia.

Voice, what about the old theory about losing early and improving along the way? Again, everyone my gripe is about Georgia/Tennessee. The Vols started 8-1 and finished 9-13. You can't be a basketball person and not see thats not right. In the History of the tourney no team from a major conference has finished 12-4 and not get in. No time.

 

At least UAB made it Larry.

Voice, what about the old theory about losing early and improving along the way? Again, everyone my gripe is about Georgia/Tennessee. The Vols started 8-1 and finished 9-13. You can't be a basketball person and not see thats not right. In the History of the tourney no team from a major conference has finished 12-4 and not get in. No time.

The margin for error for Alabama and all of the SEC West schools was small, and that was no secret coming in to the season. 12-4 in the West was not good enough or they were not dominate enough in their victories. Losing to whomever they lost to in the preseason was not going to cut it. Improving as the season progresses in a terrible division does not carry as much weight as you are implying it should. Not to mention two of the lasting images the committee saw was a blowout loss to Florida and the same from Kentucky. Both are good teams, but not world beaters that should be blowing out a division winner this late in the season.