2017-18 Bracketology

Talk about the men's team, upcoming opponents and news from around college hoop.
ramster
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7933
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1493

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ramster » 1 week ago

rhodysurf wrote:
ramster wrote:
ATPTourFan wrote:https://twitter.com/marchmadness/status/962796769145950209



Excellent job by Andy Katz.

I was not impressed by Bruce Rasmussen. I would not want to be one of the last few teams out with this guy leading the Committee.

Surprising to me was that Rasmussen said that the Committee does not look at Margin of Victory AT ALL. Not at all. This was in response to Andy Katz bringing up the 28 point crushing that Tennessee experienced at Alabama yesterday. Obvious Katz was not aware of this. What Rasmussen says does not make sense anyway because some of the new measures that the Committee now looks starting this year at DO consider margin of victory or loss.

So, according to Rasmussen, URI can play @ Alabama to a 4 point loss and Tennessee can lose @ Alabama by 28 points and there is no consideration for that. The 4th round or 5th round seed could come down to URI and Tennessee and the margin of that common opponent would not matter - what nonsense.

Nice we have Bruce Rasmussen from Creighton as the Head of the Selection Committee and Dan Gavitt (son of the guy who refused to allow URI into the Big East) as Senior Vice President in charge of Men's Basketball and the NCAA tournament

We just need to win, win, win. No favors coming our way.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... s-seedings


Winning and losing matters most. Always will and always should. Margin of victory is impossible to judge without watching every game


Funny that many criticized RPI because it didn't take into account winning margin.
Nobody is saying Winning and Losing matters most - no kidding
So winning by 1 or winning by 40 doesn't matter unless you watch the game?
Not your or Rasmussen or anyone can tell me URI losing by 4 at Alabama is no different than Tennessee losing by 28 at Alabama. And I do not have to watch the game to know that.
But the Selection Committee Head says today to Andy Katz that the Committee does not look at Margin at all. I can tell you that is total BS because Ken Pom, which the NCAA has included among other measures DOES include margins - so he does not even know what he is talking about.
1 x

User avatar
rhodysurf
Jimmy Baron
Posts: 482
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Wakefield
x 312

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby rhodysurf » 1 week ago

ramster wrote:
rhodysurf wrote:
ramster wrote:

Excellent job by Andy Katz.

I was not impressed by Bruce Rasmussen. I would not want to be one of the last few teams out with this guy leading the Committee.

Surprising to me was that Rasmussen said that the Committee does not look at Margin of Victory AT ALL. Not at all. This was in response to Andy Katz bringing up the 28 point crushing that Tennessee experienced at Alabama yesterday. Obvious Katz was not aware of this. What Rasmussen says does not make sense anyway because some of the new measures that the Committee now looks starting this year at DO consider margin of victory or loss.

So, according to Rasmussen, URI can play @ Alabama to a 4 point loss and Tennessee can lose @ Alabama by 28 points and there is no consideration for that. The 4th round or 5th round seed could come down to URI and Tennessee and the margin of that common opponent would not matter - what nonsense.

Nice we have Bruce Rasmussen from Creighton as the Head of the Selection Committee and Dan Gavitt (son of the guy who refused to allow URI into the Big East) as Senior Vice President in charge of Men's Basketball and the NCAA tournament

We just need to win, win, win. No favors coming our way.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... s-seedings


Winning and losing matters most. Always will and always should. Margin of victory is impossible to judge without watching every game


Funny that many criticized RPI because it didn't take into account winning margin.
Nobody is saying Winning and Losing matters most - no kidding
So winning by 1 or winning by 40 doesn't matter unless you watch the game?
Not your or Rasmussen or anyone can tell me URI losing by 4 at Alabama is no different than Tennessee losing by 28 at Alabama. And I do not have to watch the game to know that.
But the Selection Committee Head says today to Andy Katz that the Committee does not look at Margin at all. I can tell you that is total BS because Ken Pom, which the NCAA has included among other measures DOES include margins - so he does not even know what he is talking about.


There’s too much mental gymnastics there. Look at URI beating UMass. They won by 1 point. Looks really bad. Right? However, they were up by 12 with like 2 minutes to go and almost blew the game. Is that the same as uri hitting a last second buzzer beater to beat UMass? Unless you dig deeper you would never know.

At least efficiency margins show some kind of unbiased look at how you won, but it’s still not a good way to compare two completely different games.
0 x

User avatar
ace
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 5588
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1185

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ace » 1 week ago

ace wrote:It’s just facts. Why are you looking for things to be pissed about? If anything, it shows that McNamara is more out of touch with the current standards. Just keep winning, and things will sort themselves out.


Gee, I don't know...how about mentioning the FACT that Oklahoma has lost 6 of 8.

Or the FACT that URI has a better RPI, Kenpom and BPI!


I’ll care enough to argue about such things when it’s all finalized and no longer predictive.

This announcement today was for nothing else but to get people fired up and talking. It worked.
6 x
“... playing for one another. We’re like a brotherhood. Everybody has each other’s back. If somebody’s down, we pick them up. If someone gets beat off the dribble, we step in. If somebody’s hot, we feed them the ball.” - Jeff Dowtin, 1/16/18

User avatar
NYGFan_Section208
Sly Williams
Posts: 3520
Joined: 2 years ago
Location: West K
x 988

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby NYGFan_Section208 » 1 week ago

rhodysurf wrote:
ramster wrote:
ATPTourFan wrote:https://twitter.com/marchmadness/status/962796769145950209



Excellent job by Andy Katz.

I was not impressed by Bruce Rasmussen. I would not want to be one of the last few teams out with this guy leading the Committee.

Surprising to me was that Rasmussen said that the Committee does not look at Margin of Victory AT ALL. Not at all. This was in response to Andy Katz bringing up the 28 point crushing that Tennessee experienced at Alabama yesterday. Obvious Katz was not aware of this. What Rasmussen says does not make sense anyway because some of the new measures that the Committee now looks starting this year at DO consider margin of victory or loss.

So, according to Rasmussen, URI can play @ Alabama to a 4 point loss and Tennessee can lose @ Alabama by 28 points and there is no consideration for that. The 4th round or 5th round seed could come down to URI and Tennessee and the margin of that common opponent would not matter - what nonsense.

Nice we have Bruce Rasmussen from Creighton as the Head of the Selection Committee and Dan Gavitt (son of the guy who refused to allow URI into the Big East) as Senior Vice President in charge of Men's Basketball and the NCAA tournament

We just need to win, win, win. No favors coming our way.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... s-seedings


Winning and losing matters most. Always will and always should. Margin of victory is impossible to judge without watching every game


Exactly, and...given that Rhody needed a buzzer beater to win at home vs Duquesne, and a FT lane violation on the last play of the game to beat UMass...not sure the 'margin' card is our best?
0 x

ramster
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7933
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1493

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ramster » 1 week ago

Rhody74 wrote:To repeat, we’re a 4 seed at best.


ATPTourFan wrote:No way two seed. No way.


twisted3829 wrote:not even close to a 2, if we had beat nevada and virginia maybe


I can show you posts from just 2 or 3 weeks ago where posters said no way would we be better than a 5 Seed and that was winning out and winning the A10 Tournament. Before the A10 Season posters said the A10 was so horrible and the RPI so bad that we would not be able to move up in RPI during the A10 season and I can show you posters who said a 5 seed was highest possible and also the highest we could go in AP Rankings was 15 because of the weakness of the A10. All of these statements have proven to be incorrect.

The grid for AP Poll shows the steady improvement in Ranking since the Alabama loss. We have moved up every week since the Alabama loss by: 7,1,1,6,3,3,2,4. My guess is we move up 3 or 4 slots tomorrow as well to 15 or 14, but the point is, we continue to move up, in spite of, the "weakness of the A10".
As for RPI we have consistently remained the same as we have continued to play. As long as we win, we maintain. I have not seen URI dropping in RPI based on who we played.
RPI Forecast says this:
26-3 = 5.3 RPI = which should be a 2-Seed
25-4 = 7.0 RPI = which should be a 2-Seed
24-5 = 9.7 RPI = which should be a 3-Seed

Nobody would have said we would be a 4-Seed at this point - even if we won out, but we are right on the verge of it.

So to me, looking at the data, if we win out the season our RPI is 5.3.
We also have 3 more AP Ranking Polls after tomorrow (when we will be 15 or better)
My guess is if we win out that 3 weeks from now we will be much higher than our current 15. Could be 8,7,6 depending on what others do.

On top of all this, there is the A10 Conference Tournament.
If we win that and our record is 29-3 we will be very high up the Seed List when the Bracket is announced on March 11 and we are celebrating in Washington DC.

We are already, arguably a 4-seed. Already agreed that we are the 17th team and should be in ahead of Oklahoma.

If the weak A10 was going to hurt us like many said it would, the RPI and the AP Rankings have not shown that to be the case to date.

GO RHODY!!!!


Top 25 AP Feb 12.png
0 x

User avatar
twisted3829
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3169
Joined: 5 years ago
x 302

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby twisted3829 » 1 week ago

there is still no way we'll be a 2 seed, i don't even think we get to a 3 seed winning out including all the A10 tourney. It isn't an issue of wins, its the lack of quantity of quality wins. Winning out through the A10 tourney puts us with probably 2 more Quadrant 1 wins (@ SBU and assuming a neutral vs SBU in DC), 1 more Q2 win (@ Davidson), and a slew of Q3 and Q4 wins.

That only puts us as 3 Q1 wins (4 if PC sneaks back into top 30) and 6 Q2 wins (5 if PC sneaks up to Q1)
Right now the last 2 seed Cincy has 4 Q1 wins and 8 Q2 wins, there average for all metrics is 7.67 while URIs is currently around 20.67.

I'm not being anti-URI, i'm just being real and looking at the teams in front of us
6 x
NOT IN OUR HOUSE

Billyboy78
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 8959
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1432

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Billyboy78 » 1 week ago

I liked the old way of ranking and seeding. The voters actually had to watch the teams play instead of looking at a bunch of numbers.
0 x

User avatar
TruePoint
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9434
Joined: 5 years ago
x 2917

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby TruePoint » 1 week ago

ramster wrote:Funny that many criticized RPI because it didn't take into account winning margin.
Nobody is saying Winning and Losing matters most - no kidding
So winning by 1 or winning by 40 doesn't matter unless you watch the game?
Not your or Rasmussen or anyone can tell me URI losing by 4 at Alabama is no different than Tennessee losing by 28 at Alabama. And I do not have to watch the game to know that.
But the Selection Committee Head says today to Andy Katz that the Committee does not look at Margin at all. I can tell you that is total BS because Ken Pom, which the NCAA has included among other measures DOES include margins - so he does not even know what he is talking about.


Who criticized RPI because it doesn't factor in winning margin? The advanced metrics are good for some things, but their biggest flaw is that they give you too much credit for blowing teams out versus just winning the game. I like RPI better and wish they'd just use RPI - kenpom has some value, for sure, but it should account for blowouts by not counting possessions that happen in games with a margin greater than, say, 15 points. Just my opinion, but the games take on a different character at that point and you get punished if you rest starters or don't try to rub people's noses in it.

As far as using one common opponent to compare two teams, it may seem like a good idea but I don't think you'd agree of other examples using the same logic. For instance, if you're willing to say URI should be ahead of Tennessee because URI "only" lost by 4 and Tennessee was blown out, don't you have to say UCF and UNLV are better than URI because they won at Alabama and Nevada, respectively? I agree with you that URI is better than Tennessee, but I would not include their margins of defeat at Alabama as part of my evidence. They both lost - that ones a wash.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011

rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10618
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1293

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby rambone 78 » 1 week ago

Agree with those who think we won't be a 2 or 3.....just don't have enough Q1 wins....and as we're seeing, the committee is putting a heavy emphasis on that, right or wrong.

Happens when you play in a conference that right now has very few opportunities for those type of wins.

One loss will cost us at least a seed line, 2 losses will cost us 2.....we don't have as much margin for error.
0 x

User avatar
Rhodymob05
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2533
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: Providence, Rhode Island
x 617

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Rhodymob05 » 1 week ago

Yea at some point the committee (if they haven't already) will notice that "oh yeah a heavy emphasis of Q1 wins on non-P5 teams is kind of BS"
0 x
RHODE ISLAND’S TEAM

User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Sly Williams
Posts: 4353
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1366

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby RhowdyRam02 » 1 week ago

Da_Process_Survivor wrote:With friends like these....kinda sad that K Mac is playing the snub card more than or own beat writer



So why am I supposed to be mad at Koch again? You know there's a difference between saying what the thought process is and agreeing with that thought process, right?
2 x
“We’re going to get better in the future. Coach Hurley’s history speaks for itself. I came here because I wanted to be part of his program, to help get things rolling, to help build a program," E.C. Matthews

User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Sly Williams
Posts: 4353
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1366

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby RhowdyRam02 » 1 week ago

TruePoint wrote:It is possible nobody has ever wanted to play someone else as badly as I want to play Oklahoma in the NCAA tournament.


I want the dirt burglars so fucking bad now. I wanted them before because we can beat them. Now I want to rub people's noses in it
1 x
“We’re going to get better in the future. Coach Hurley’s history speaks for itself. I came here because I wanted to be part of his program, to help get things rolling, to help build a program," E.C. Matthews

ramster
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7933
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1493

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ramster » 1 week ago

TruePoint wrote:
ramster wrote:Funny that many criticized RPI because it didn't take into account winning margin.
Nobody is saying Winning and Losing matters most - no kidding
So winning by 1 or winning by 40 doesn't matter unless you watch the game?
Not your or Rasmussen or anyone can tell me URI losing by 4 at Alabama is no different than Tennessee losing by 28 at Alabama. And I do not have to watch the game to know that.
But the Selection Committee Head says today to Andy Katz that the Committee does not look at Margin at all. I can tell you that is total BS because Ken Pom, which the NCAA has included among other measures DOES include margins - so he does not even know what he is talking about.


Who criticized RPI because it doesn't factor in winning margin? The advanced metrics are good for some things, but their biggest flaw is that they give you too much credit for blowing teams out versus just winning the game. I like RPI better and wish they'd just use RPI - kenpom has some value, for sure, but it should account for blowouts by not counting possessions that happen in games with a margin greater than, say, 15 points. Just my opinion, but the games take on a different character at that point and you get punished if you rest starters or don't try to rub people's noses in it.

As far as using one common opponent to compare two teams, it may seem like a good idea but I don't think you'd agree of other examples using the same logic. For instance, if you're willing to say URI should be ahead of Tennessee because URI "only" lost by 4 and Tennessee was blown out, don't you have to say UCF and UNLV are better than URI because they won at Alabama and Nevada, respectively? I agree with you that URI is better than Tennessee, but I would not include their margins of defeat at Alabama as part of my evidence. They both lost - that ones a wash.


Using URI versus Tennessee playing the same opponent, Alabama, at Alabama's Home Court is only 1 example. But it is totally irrelevant since the Head of the Committee says Margin means nothing - they don't even look at it.

Nobody can tell me 100% ignoring the margin of victory makes sense. But I'm supposed to believe this Quadrant Story this Committee is now selling?
Sorry it did not pass muster for me in how the Top 16 worked as presented today. And predicting the Top 16 is really not that difficult. But thankfully a lot of people are asking questions. If URI lost by 1 and Tennessee lost by 50 it means absolutely nothing. Got it.
2 x

RIFan
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1367
Joined: 5 years ago
x 237

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby RIFan » 1 week ago

Are we saying that they use RPI to decide who is in what quadrant? It's accurate enough to tell the committee how good your opponents are, but not how good you are? Or are they saying its only accurate +/- 25 spots...thus good only for a quadrant ranking?

I have not paid much attention to this, as I assume this is not final and is just for show, but could some idiot voters use this to justify not voting us higher than 17 this week?
0 x

ramster
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7933
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1493

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ramster » 1 week ago

No, I do not believe the AP or ESPN Voters are voting the teams based on what the NCAA Committee thinks and does. They are voting based on how they have always voted.

To gain a better understanding of what this Committee is doing this article will help:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... prise-you/
1 x

RIFan
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1367
Joined: 5 years ago
x 237

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby RIFan » 1 week ago

Thanks for that link
0 x

User avatar
adam914
Tyson Wheeler
Posts: 6102
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: San Diego, CA
x 1532

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby adam914 » 1 week ago

ramster wrote:Using URI versus Tennessee playing the same opponent, Alabama, at Alabama's Home Court is only 1 example. But it is totally irrelevant since the Head of the Committee says Margin means nothing - they don't even look at it.

Nobody can tell me 100% ignoring the margin of victory makes sense. But I'm supposed to believe this Quadrant Story this Committee is now selling?
Sorry it did not pass muster for me in how the Top 16 worked as presented today. And predicting the Top 16 is really not that difficult. But thankfully a lot of people are asking questions. If URI lost by 1 and Tennessee lost by 50 it means absolutely nothing. Got it.


Ramster, what happened to "they can look at anything they want". You have been beating the drum for weeks now that even though the committee says they dont look at top 25 wins and its not listed on the team sheets or ever talked about that it is still very important because they can look at whatever they want. But now you believe them that they don't look at margin of victory? Why is Top 25 wins the one secret metric that you are convinced they look at even though they never mention it?
3 x
"This is who we are now. Seniors will graduate and the next guys are going to step up." - Dan Hurley - March 12, 2017

User avatar
TruePoint
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9434
Joined: 5 years ago
x 2917

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby TruePoint » 1 week ago

RhowdyRam02 wrote:
Da_Process_Survivor wrote:With friends like these....kinda sad that K Mac is playing the snub card more than or own beat writer



So why am I supposed to be mad at Koch again? You know there's a difference between saying what the thought process is and agreeing with that thought process, right?


I actually think the quadrant thing is a good thing - or at least better than what they looked at before. They have to look at something to try to make comparisons of teams, most of whom don’t play one another.

The issue I have is that they seem to be counting number of wins in a given quadrant, which I brought up earlier in this thread, rather than your winning percentage in a given quadrant. When you do this, you’re really just rewarding teams for being in a good league. It gives credence to the argument that the whole thing is a sham to benefit power conferences. For instance, Bill cites Oklahoma’s quadrant 1 wins. Yes, they have a bunch but they have played a ton. And even their winning percentage at 6-5 is better than URI’s 1-3, but they’ve had 3 chances at home, which they’ve won. Road and neutral they’re 2-5, which is not appreciably better than URI. Zooming out and looking at quads 1 & 2 together, Oklahoma is 8-8 versus URI’s 6-3. Does Oklahoma get more credit for their 8 wins than URI gets for its 6, even though it took them almost twice as many games to get them and they have almost three times as many losses? It certainly sounds like it reading the explanation of the committees first shot at the 16 top seeds that have been floating around today. I think that is clearly the wrong way to look at it.
2 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011

ramster
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7933
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1493

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ramster » 1 week ago

adam914 wrote:
ramster wrote:Using URI versus Tennessee playing the same opponent, Alabama, at Alabama's Home Court is only 1 example. But it is totally irrelevant since the Head of the Committee says Margin means nothing - they don't even look at it.

Nobody can tell me 100% ignoring the margin of victory makes sense. But I'm supposed to believe this Quadrant Story this Committee is now selling?
Sorry it did not pass muster for me in how the Top 16 worked as presented today. And predicting the Top 16 is really not that difficult. But thankfully a lot of people are asking questions. If URI lost by 1 and Tennessee lost by 50 it means absolutely nothing. Got it.


Ramster, what happened to "they can look at anything they want". You have been beating the drum for weeks now that even though the committee says they dont look at top 25 wins and its not listed on the team sheets or ever talked about that it is still very important because they can look at whatever they want. But now you believe them that they don't look at margin of victory? Why is Top 25 wins the one secret metric that you are convinced they look at even though they never mention it?


Adam,
You are right,
But having heard Bruce Rasmussen talk today to Andy Katz and saying that Margin of Victory or Loss is not looked at whatsoever I have lost faith in the process big time. And also with the issues with todays Top 16 selection and seeding.

I'm with Jay Bilas with what he says about the Quadrant System today.................

and even more of the notion that URI needs to win as many games as possible, hopefully win out, rise as high in RPI and AP Poll as possible so that they lessen the chances of getter screwed. I trust the "committee" mush less after hearing Rasmussen today.

No Gonzaga, No St Mary's, No URI in Top 16. Supposedly this Quadrant System would be good for Mid Majors but the Wolf is still Guarding the Hen House.


0 x

User avatar
TruePoint
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9434
Joined: 5 years ago
x 2917

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby TruePoint » 1 week ago

ramster I don’t get where you’re going here. You seem obsessed with this margin of victory thing and you’re sharing tweets of people criticizing RPI...aside from the specific Tennessee/Alabama example that you raised, your line of argument here is really bad for URI. The advanced metrics that people like Bilas are angling for here incorporate (by implication) margin of victory rather than a straight W/L analysis, and those metrics are really down on URI compared to RPI. RPI is Rhody’s best argument, so not sure why we are trying to make the case against it.

BTW, I honestly think RPI is a lot better than people like Bilas think it is. The benefit of RPI is its simplicity: who/where did you play and did you win? It isn’t worried about style pints. I’m not worried about style points (read: margin of victory), either. The other metrics are valuable, also, but as I mentioned before I think they would be better if they didn’t count possessions once games get to a certain margin, because past that point the way the game is played is not indicative of teams’ quality as much as their approach. Really the best thing for the committee to do is take some mix of RPI and advanced metrics, which they are at least saying it is doing.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011

ramster
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7933
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1493

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ramster » 1 week ago

Bilas hit the nail on the head as I watched Rasmussen on the Andy Katz 20 minute interview. Rasmussen kept going to the Quadrants, over and over again to explain why such and such a team was picked where they were. I thought just as Bilas said, the Quadrant System is built for less discerning minds. Reminded me of how they try to sell Timeshares on the back of a napkin.
The Committee will do what they want just as in the past. I was not impressed by Rasmussen in the least.
1 x

josephski
Art Stephenson
Posts: 918
Joined: 3 years ago
x 317

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby josephski » 1 week ago

TruePoint wrote:
BTW, I honestly think RPI is a lot better than people like Bilas think it is. The benefit of RPI is its simplicity: who/where did you play and did you win? It isn’t worried about style pints. I’m not worried about style points (read: margin of victory), either. The other metrics are valuable, also, but as I mentioned before I think they would be better if they didn’t count possessions once games get to a certain margin, because past that point the way the game is played is not indicative of teams’ quality as much as their approach. Really the best thing for the committee to do is take some mix of RPI and advanced metrics, which they are at least saying it is doing.


You’re missing the whole strength of schedule aspect of RPI which is why people think it’s a joke. It rewards teams too much for playing a difficult schedule even if they lose. If we lost to Bonnie’s, PC and Seton Hall our RPI would be 26 with our only top 100 win being to Charleston (75), that should not be possible. I agree with your last sentence though, the committee should use a mix of metrics because none of them are perfect.

Also for what it’s worth I would think most here would prefer advanced metrics like kenpom because he doesn’t put so much weight on strength of schedule. Although if we keep up our tough OOC scheduling I guess it doesn’t matter.
1 x

reef
Sly Williams
Posts: 3923
Joined: 5 years ago
x 701

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby reef » 1 week ago

I am glad URI didn't crack these top 4 seeds as of now . I think it's good motivation that can be used

Plenty of hoop left if we win out and teams above us continue to lose we can get as high as a 3 more probable a 4

Things that hurt us are that our best win is vs Hall and they are struggling of late not even in top 25
1 x

NJRhodyFan
Jeff Kent
Posts: 180
Joined: 5 years ago
x 45

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby NJRhodyFan » 1 week ago

I came across this article which specifically mentions URI as a team that may potentially get screwed from a seeding perspective as a result of the new quadrant system.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/12/heres-the ... -seedings/
0 x

User avatar
Rhody74
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2891
Joined: 5 years ago
x 694

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Rhody74 » 1 week ago

Let us enjoy the fact that we are arguing over whether we should be a four or a five seed. Who would’ve guessed that at the beginning of the season????
3 x
“What comes next is going to be big, and it’s going to be beautiful.”

rambone 78
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10618
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1293

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby rambone 78 » 1 week ago

It's fine as long as it's between a 4 or 5, or 5 or 6......let's not lose any games so we don't possibly get screwed as in between a 7 or 8 seed....

because you just know that will happen if we give the committee any ammo to do so.....
0 x

User avatar
Rhode_Island_Red
Art Stephenson
Posts: 857
Joined: 5 years ago
x 326

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Rhode_Island_Red » 1 week ago

I can understand why the committee and obvious nepotism hire Gavitt would say they don't look at scoring margin -- that would incent teams to run up the score.
0 x

User avatar
TruePoint
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9434
Joined: 5 years ago
x 2917

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby TruePoint » 1 week ago

ramster wrote:Bilas hit the nail on the head as I watched Rasmussen on the Andy Katz 20 minute interview. Rasmussen kept going to the Quadrants, over and over again to explain why such and such a team was picked where they were. I thought just as Bilas said, the Quadrant System is built for less discerning minds. Reminded me of how they try to sell Timeshares on the back of a napkin.
The Committee will do what they want just as in the past. I was not impressed by Rasmussen in the least.


Ok, but I don't think you understand his argument or it's implications. You're just agreeing with him because he is criticizing the same person/process, but his argument is actually the opposite of yours.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011

ramster
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7933
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1493

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ramster » 1 week ago

TruePoint wrote:
ramster wrote:Bilas hit the nail on the head as I watched Rasmussen on the Andy Katz 20 minute interview. Rasmussen kept going to the Quadrants, over and over again to explain why such and such a team was picked where they were. I thought just as Bilas said, the Quadrant System is built for less discerning minds. Reminded me of how they try to sell Timeshares on the back of a napkin.
The Committee will do what they want just as in the past. I was not impressed by Rasmussen in the least.


Ok, but I don't think you understand his argument or it's implications. You're just agreeing with him because he is criticizing the same person/process, but his argument is actually the opposite of yours.



Here is what I think. Most people think that the Committee is going to make better decisions since they are incorporating more Metrics than just RPI. This they believe will make the selection of teams for NCAA and Seeding better and more accurate. That's the story and the sales pitch.

I am have been leery of this Quadrant System and after yesterday hearing Rasmussen with Andy Katz and reading reactions of some my fears are heightened. I believe that Mid Majors are going to be hurt by this. Teams like Rhode Island, Gonzaga, St Mary's and Nevada are not going to be helped by this system over the old. Not sure if you watched Katz and Rasmussen but it was a very interesting 20 minutes. Rasmussen repeatedly talked about Quadrant 1 wins - but rarely mentioned Quadrant 1 losses - keep that thought.



The Part of Jay Bilas Tweet that I am most referring to is this "The Committee’s quadrant system is just more shaky data to organize information for less discerning minds." "Less discerning minds" is the key phrase. Rasmussen wants to talk about Quadrant 1 Wins, Quadrant 2 Wins. He wants to control the discussion to this. Not much else. Did not want to talk at all about Tennessee losing by 28 at Alabama when Katz brought that up - "We don't look at margin of victory at all" was Rasmussen's comment. Nice to know.

As for Metrics used here they are as an example from the 2017-18 Team Sheet:
Rankings in Results Based Metrics (RPI: 35 KPI: 34, SOR: 33, Average of Results Based Metrics: 34
Rankings in Predictive Metrics: BPI: 32, POM: 178, SAG: 31: Average of Predictive Metrics: 80.33
Average of Results Based and Predictive Metrics: 57.17
https://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default ... guide1.pdf

So bottom line more is used than just RPI now. So the 2nd part of Bilas' tweet about only using RPI is confusing - not sure why he is saying that. But the 1st part of his tweet is what I believe - building this Quadrant 1 thing to channel discussion and avoid the potential pitfalls that basketball journalists, knowledgeable fans and the general public might want to question.

This article that NJRhodyFan posted sums up pretty well my fears. If you have not already, I encourage you to view the 20 minute Katz-Rasmussen Interview and also to read this article. Maybe the Quadrant System is better but I feel more like it's the tool of a Snake Oil, TimeShare or Used Car Salesman.

I just do not trust the NCAA Selection Committee when it comes to looking out for the Mid Majors and yesterday's Katz-Rasmussen interview did nothing but heighten my distrust for Rasmussen and the Committee. Below article says it better than I can.

NJRhodyFan wrote:I came across this article which specifically mentions URI as a team that may potentially get screwed from a seeding perspective as a result of the new quadrant system.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/12/heres-the ... -seedings/
1 x

User avatar
Da_Process_Survivor
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1054
Joined: 3 years ago
x 1035

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Da_Process_Survivor » 1 week ago

Parrish has a new podcast where he goes after some of the committee's picks. We are held up as the team that got shafted and should've been in the 16. They also take the committee to task for changing their standards team by team. (top 16 talk is the 1st topic)

1 x
---
The ghosts have been exorcized! Praise be to Hurley
---

User avatar
Seawrightspostgame
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3149
Joined: 5 years ago
x 598

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Seawrightspostgame » 1 week ago

Nice to be shafted for the top-16 and not the traditionally KB shafted 68 invitees to the dance.

Style points is an ugly metric. That would need multiple measurements. How many did you beat them by? Where? How good are they?

Making it high in the poles is fun but this isn't as agonizing as when we watch the bubble and hope to be invited.
2 x

User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Sly Williams
Posts: 4353
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1366

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby RhowdyRam02 » 1 week ago

Today's newest bracket:

https://bracketville.wordpress.com/bracketology/

We're a 5 seed in Boise taking on Middle Tennessee

Virginia is a 1 seed
Alabama is a 7 seed
Seton Hall is an 8 seed
Nevada is a 9 seed
Providence is a 10 seed and is the 4th to last bye
Charleston is a 14
Florida Gulf Coast is a 15
UNC-Asheville is a 16

St. Bonaventure is 3rd out
1 x
“We’re going to get better in the future. Coach Hurley’s history speaks for itself. I came here because I wanted to be part of his program, to help get things rolling, to help build a program," E.C. Matthews

User avatar
TruePoint
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9434
Joined: 5 years ago
x 2917

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby TruePoint » 1 week ago

ramster - it sounds like you would agree with my point, which is that if all they are going to do is reward teams for the number of wins they have in a given quadrant without taking into account their losses, that isn't fair and does not make sense. I gave the example of Oklahoma yesterday - Oklahoma is 8-8 against Q1 and Q2, URI is 6-3. If the committee compares Oklahoma and URI by looking at 8 to 6, that makes no sense is unfair to URI because it has had far fewer chances.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011

ramster
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 7933
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1493

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ramster » 1 week ago

TP
Bingo. Just listen to Rasmussen. All he wants to talk about is Quadrant wins. His face even distorts and he looks away from the camera when any tough question is posed by Katz.
This Quadrant system is a wolf in sheeps clothing and Rasmussen and Dan Gavitt have a closet full of sheep clothes

Oklahoma RPI is 21 for a reason. As is URI’s RPI in single digits is there for a reason. But it’s about Quadrant wins now, that is clear. Oklahoma should not be a 4 seed
1 x

User avatar
steviep123
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1234
Joined: 5 years ago
x 357

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby steviep123 » 1 week ago

Of note is SBU is in the first four out. I don't think we were at this point a year ago. It looks like SBU does have a chance to play itself into an at large. I do think if SBU wins out (other than vs. URI) and then again loses to URI in the A10 championship, it might just be enough to squeeze them into an at large (though probably a first four game). That's where we would have been if we lost to VCU in the A10 Championship last March.
0 x
Bleed Keaney Blue!

neil
ARD
Posts: 706
Joined: 5 years ago
x 226

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby neil » 1 week ago

Three Tennessee teams and us in the same bracket?
0 x

User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Sly Williams
Posts: 4353
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1366

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby RhowdyRam02 » 1 week ago

steviep123 wrote:Of note is SBU is in the first four out. I don't think we were at this point a year ago. It looks like SBU does have a chance to play itself into an at large. I do think if SBU wins out (other than vs. URI) and then again loses to URI in the A10 championship, it might just be enough to squeeze them into an at large (though probably a first four game). That's where we would have been if we lost to VCU in the A10 Championship last March.


I think we were and then the Fordham loss happened
1 x
“We’re going to get better in the future. Coach Hurley’s history speaks for itself. I came here because I wanted to be part of his program, to help get things rolling, to help build a program," E.C. Matthews

User avatar
TruePoint
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9434
Joined: 5 years ago
x 2917

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby TruePoint » 1 week ago

ramster wrote:TP
Bingo. Just listen to Rasmussen. All he wants to talk about is Quadrant wins. His face even distorts and he looks away from the camera when any tough question is posed by Katz.
This Quadrant system is a wolf in sheeps clothing and Rasmussen and Dan Gavitt have a closet full of sheep clothes

Oklahoma RPI is 21 for a reason. As is URI’s RPI in single digits is there for a reason. But it’s about Quadrant wins now, that is clear. Oklahoma should not be a 4 seed


Yes, we are in agreement. Your last point is why I don't get why you are citing Bilas, though. Bilas's whole thing is that he doesn't want the RPI used at all - he thinks it is straight garbage. There are a couple parts of my argument about how the committee is seeding:

1. If you are going to compare teams it makes sense to have a system that standardizes resumes into a common format.

2. There is no perfect way to do this - RPI gives you too much credit for losing to good teams, kenpom and BPI don't even care whether you win or lose, only whether you blow a team out or not; strength of record is the opposite and doesn't account for whether you beat a team handily or squeaked by; eye test is tough because it is subjective and every committee member cannot see all 351 teams, plus the lack of enough common opponents makes comparisons that much more difficult.

3. The quadrant system is a good way to break out teams in a way that makes quick, simple, standardized comparisons possible. It cannot be the ONLY criteria the committee looks at, but it makes sense to include it.

4. In order to do the quadrant system, you have to have some initial way of ranking the teams so you can break them out by quadrant.

5. RPI, as imperfect as it is, is as good of a tool to give you your initial state of play for a quadrant system as any. (This is where I have my primary disagreement with Bilas).

6. Using RPI as a basis for a quadrant analysis is only a good idea if the committee is also taking all the other methods for evaluating teams into account - it should not be the only metric. No metric should be the only metric. The committee should be trying to take a holistic view of the teams who would be in the field. ("Body of work.")

7. To whatever extent the quadrant system is used, it should look at how well teams did relative to one another in the chances they had. It should not just count up total wins and ignore losses - that is rewarding opportunities, not success. There has to be some common sense here, which can be hard to deduce to a black and white rule: if one team is 1-0 against Q1 teams and another is 7-4, you cannot favor the first team solely based on winning percentage. However, if one team is 5-2 and another team is 7-11, you cannot award a team for having more wins and ignore that those wins were due to increased opportunities.
1 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011

giovanni
Tom Garrick
Posts: 1228
Joined: 5 years ago
x 393

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby giovanni » 1 week ago




7. Dominance still isn’t respected. Oh, when the committee gets handed dominance at a ridiculous level – like 32-1 Gonzaga last year or 34-0 Wichita State in 2014 – they don’t have much choice. But run through a relatively high-end league like the A-10, which ranks 10th of the 31 Division I conferences, and apparently that doesn’t impress the members.

Perhaps if Rhody does finish the job and is 29-3 on Selection Sunday that will change, but the committee is supposed to look at this like it is Selection Sunday. A perfect A-10 record is a heck of a thing.
1 x

User avatar
wpbrown8267
Jeff Kent
Posts: 186
Joined: 10 months ago
x 121

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby wpbrown8267 » 1 week ago

giovanni wrote:https://twitter.com/tsnmike/status/963074353360355328


7. Dominance still isn’t respected. Oh, when the committee gets handed dominance at a ridiculous level – like 32-1 Gonzaga last year or 34-0 Wichita State in 2014 – they don’t have much choice. But run through a relatively high-end league like the A-10, which ranks 10th of the 31 Division I conferences, and apparently that doesn’t impress the members.

Perhaps if Rhody does finish the job and is 29-3 on Selection Sunday that will change, but the committee is supposed to look at this like it is Selection Sunday. A perfect A-10 record is a heck of a thing.


Also #3 - 3. The committee had no idea which team to put in the final spot. Oklahoma’s appearance as the last of the No. 4 seeds was stunning. The Sooners’ strength is they own six Quadrant 1 victories. But they’ll need to stop their slump to stay this high.

One team that many might have used to replaced them – 20-3 Rhode Island – only has one. The Rams are dominating the Atlantic-10 Conference; they are 12-0 with six to play. Finishing that off would help a little with the Q 1 problem; winning at St. Bonaventure would represent a second such win. Rhody might have to win both the A-10 regular season and tournament to get the seed they probably deserve.
0 x

User avatar
Bigsnoop
Marc Upshaw
Posts: 85
Joined: 4 years ago
x 138

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Bigsnoop » 1 week ago

I never understood the fascination with quadrant 1 wins, or previously with top 50 or top 100 RPI wins. In the case of Providence, they have either 5 or 6 quadrant one wins, depending on which RPI ranking is correct (one has Butler 30 and another has them 31, which would make it a quadrant 2 win).
URI has a quadrant 1 neutral site loss to Virginia, which is the number one RPI team in the country. If you just look at quadrants, that would fall into the same category as a loss at Northeastern, which is ridiculous.
When Mike Tranghese was the head of the NCAA selection committee, he said they would look at who you beat, who beat you, and where the game was played. It seems to make much more sense just to list a team's wins and losses from best tio worst, with the location. When you have a large range in the categories, it dilutes the distinctions among teams.
2 x

User avatar
ATPTourFan
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9929
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: Wakefield, RI
x 1514
Contact:

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ATPTourFan » 1 week ago

This is a few days late, published Friday MORNING before the Davidson game, but Bubble Watch is always a great read:

0 x

User avatar
RF1
Sly Williams
Posts: 4517
Joined: 5 years ago
x 1078

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby RF1 » 1 week ago

This is a a good read:

What is the Bracketology Ceiling for Rhode Island?
https://herosports.com/collge-basketbal ... ology-cncn
0 x

User avatar
ATPTourFan
Ernie Calverley
Posts: 9929
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: Wakefield, RI
x 1514
Contact:

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby ATPTourFan » 1 week ago

New College Hoop Podcast - The Fieldhouse with Sam Veccine and Seth Davis

0 x

reef
Sly Williams
Posts: 3923
Joined: 5 years ago
x 701

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby reef » 1 week ago

I agree with that article if we win out and go 29-3 then a 3 seed is the ceiling and most likely a 4 seed. If we get a 5 seed at 29-3 I would have to see that's a disappointment
0 x

User avatar
NYGFan_Section208
Sly Williams
Posts: 3520
Joined: 2 years ago
Location: West K
x 988

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby NYGFan_Section208 » 1 week ago

Disappointments have been canceled for the season.....
5 x

Ramulous
Carlton Owens
Posts: 2227
Joined: 5 years ago
x 359

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Ramulous » 1 week ago

Us older fans know that the glamour conferences get every benefit of the doubt to squeeze their lower level teams into the tournament.....and high RPI gets thrown out the window for mid majors as just a fluke....Quadrant 1 is the new tool to screw mid majors since most schools have tried to schedule to increase RPI metrics.....

We've been so bad the two previous decades that our younger fans haven't experienced getting screwed politically .....
1 x
F*ck Alacki, DarthFriar, DirtyBeanFriar94, xCoachK, and Boxworth!

eli#10
Art Stephenson
Posts: 854
Joined: 5 years ago
x 153

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby eli#10 » 1 week ago

There is only a slight difference between a 4 seed and a 5 seed. The 4 plays a 13 seed while the 5 plays a 12 seed. If the 4 and 5 seeds both win they play each other. Typically I would say there is only a little difference between a 12 and 13 seed. Having said that I would definitely prefer playing Vermont over Middle Tennessee.
0 x

User avatar
Justns11
Kenny Green
Posts: 235
Joined: 5 years ago
Location: NH
x 65

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby Justns11 » 1 week ago

eli#10 wrote:There is only a slight difference between a 4 seed and a 5 seed. The 4 plays a 13 seed while the 5 plays a 12 seed. If the 4 and 5 seeds both win they play each other. Typically I would say there is only a little difference between a 12 and 13 seed.


I believe that #4 gets preferential seeding, meaning seeded closer to their home court. #5 does not. That’s the biggest difference in my mind.
1 x

UCH21377
ARD
Posts: 747
Joined: 5 years ago
x 227

Re: 2017-18 Bracketology

Postby UCH21377 » 1 week ago

I think I'd rather be a 6 seed than a 5. 12 seeds beat 5's every year. And Middle Tennessee is just the sort of team that scares me to death. Good, and underated.
0 x


Return to “NCAAs or Bust!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Da_Process_Survivor, ramster, RhodyRam86, rhodysurf, sf2010, SGreenwell, Shaolin Swat, thatRamBand, urirx and 56 guests