KenPom

[tolbob]

6 hours ago, Dr Z said:

When is the last time/decade a MAC team got an 8th seed????

 I am not sure it is ever happened, but winning out and winning the Mac tournament with a 28-4 record might do it unless the committee goes by the pomeroy rating.

[akronzips71]

If we win out I think that makes us 29-4. Takes at least two wins in Cleveland plus the 5 remaining.

 

[skip-zip]

7 minutes ago, akronzips71 said:

If we win out I think that makes us 29-4. Takes at least two wins in Cleveland plus the 5 remaining.

 

 

We'll play 3 games in Cleveland if we get to the title game.  

[akronzips71]

15 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

We'll play 3 games in Cleveland if we get to the title game.  

 

That would make it 30-4

[skip-zip]

3 minutes ago, akronzips71 said:

 

That would make it 30-4

 

Bingo    

 

And if that were to happen, I'd be  if we didn't get a single-digit seed.  

[akronzips71]

1 minute ago, skip-zip said:

 

Bingo    

 

And if that were to happen, I'd be  if we didn't get a single-digit seed.  

Lets not count our chickens etc.

2 more wins to the #1 seed and Mac champs. Lets get there first.

[akronzips71]

RPI is 36. We should be in a good position.

[skip-zip]

1 minute ago, akronzips71 said:

Lets not count our chickens

 

Ok.  How about this..

I won't count any wins that haven't happened yet, if you won't count any losses that haven't happened yet 

[Z.I.P.]

Believe it was 1997.  EMU vs #9 Duke.  Hurons won, pretty sure.

Edit:  Response to Dr Z, Last time a MAC team was a #8 seed.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Z.I.P.

[Blue & Gold]

3 minutes ago, Z.I.P. said:

Believe it was 1997.  EMU vs #9 Duke.  Hurons won, pretty sure.

Earl Boykins & Derek Dials.  They were tough.

[Dr Z]

8 hours ago, Z.I.P. said:

Believe it was 1997.  EMU vs #9 Duke.  Hurons won, pretty sure. Response to Dr Z, Last time a MAC team was a #8 seed.

EMU was a #9 seed, and beat #8 Duke, 75 to 60. Great team, but not the answer. Hint, go back another decade. 

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, Dr Z said:

EMU was a #9 seed, and beat #8 Duke, 75 to 60. Great team, but not the answer. Hint, go back another decade. 

 

Toledo had a #5 in 1979

Toledo had a #9 in 1980.

Miami had a #8 in 1984.

Ball State had a #9 in 1989.

EMU had a #9 in 1996.

Kent had a #9 in 2008

 

Those are the only single-digit ones I can see.  Others have been close, but not single-digits.  

 

If anyone wants to go back and browse a bit, I think you'll find a pattern that PLENTY of mid-major programs used to get single-digit seeds.  Hmm.  Is it wrong for me to assume that $$$ has steadily pushed us mid-majors further and further down the totem pole?  And it's clearly reflected in the bids and seeds?

Edited February 16, 2017 by skip-zip

[kreed5120]

Money in the sense P5 (P6 basketball) conferences have strategically expanded to take the best mid-majors. Also, large TV deals and rapidly raising ticket prices have made it so it doesn't make financial sense for the big schools to forfeit home games and tv rights for a game to play at small schools. With the influx of cash, P6 schools can rapidly outspend for coaching, facilities, travel, recruiting, etc. Improved technology has made recruiting easier for all. You don't see as many Wally Z, Andrew Boguts, or Earl Boykins slip through the cracks and end up at MAC schools.

 

What I don't buy is people claiming the selection committee looks at endowment sizes and alumni base to determine seeds and which teams are in or out. 

[skip-zip]

Kreed, I think both points are true.  And my ?? about whether money mattered was sarcasm.  

 

Yes, the "big schools" have more money for recruiting, coaching, travel, etc., etc., etc., that's helped them gain more power.

 

And yes, the committees do clearly know which programs will draw the larger crowds.  Teams near the .500 mark in "power conferences" are getting bids over 25+ win mid-majors.  That's a crime.  And it's only gotten worse.   Ask the 26 win Akron Zips how they feel about getting completely shut out of the 2007 tournaments.  And ask the 2016 Akron Zips how they feel about playing a road game at OSWho when they had an RPI that was about 40 points higher.  

Edited February 16, 2017 by skip-zip

[Captain Kangaroo]

19 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

 You don't see as many Wally Z, Andrew Boguts, or Earl Boykins slip through the cracks and end up at MAC schools.

Who knew Andrew  Bogut played in the MAC?

[kreed5120]

35 minutes ago, Captain Kangaroo said:

Who knew Andrew  Bogut played in the MAC?

I meant Chris Kaman 

 

I should quit posting before my morning coffee.

[kreed5120]

41 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

Kreed, I think both points are true.  And my ?? about whether money mattered was sarcasm.  

 

Yes, the "big schools" have more money for recruiting, coaching, travel, etc., etc., etc., that's helped them gain more power.

 

And yes, the committees do clearly know which programs will draw the larger crowds.  Teams near the .500 mark in "power conferences" are getting bids over 25+ win mid-majors.  That's a crime.  And it's only gotten worse.   Ask the 26 win Akron Zips how they feel about getting completely shut out of the 2007 tournaments.  And ask the 2016 Akron Zips how they feel about playing a road game at OSWho when they had an RPI that was about 40 points higher.  

RPI doesn't have the same pull it once did as conferences (MVC) learned how to game the system. What's gained a lot of steam is the who did you beat and where did you beat them mantra. In conferences like the ACC teams have 12, possible more, opportunities to pick up quality wins in conference play alone. Mid-majors don't have those opportunities as even the best mid-majors only have 2-3 quality teams.

 

The deck is certainly stacked against mid-majors, but I don't think the selection committee has attendance figures and endowment funds in front of them when making decisions.

[skip-zip]

20 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

RPI doesn't have the same pull it once did as conferences (MVC) learned how to game the system. What's gained a lot of steam is the who did you beat and where did you beat them mantra. In conferences like the ACC teams have 12, possible more, opportunities to pick up quality wins in conference play alone. Mid-majors don't have those opportunities as even the best mid-majors only have 2-3 quality teams.

 

The deck is certainly stacked against mid-majors, but I don't think the selection committee has attendance figures and endowment funds in front of them when making decisions.

 

I get it.  You've repeated this before.  You think it's really all truly about figuring out which team is better, even as you claim that you think there's an emphasis on different metrics today......metrics that would clearly favor the "bigger" schools.  

 

I would never contend that they have attendance figures sitting in front of them.  Nor do they need them.  The people harboring their own subjectivity and objectives is enough.  

[kreed5120]

15 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

I get it.  You've repeated this before.  You think it's really all truly about figuring out which team is better, even as you claim that you think there's an emphasis on different metrics today......metrics that would clearly favor the "bigger" schools.  

 

I would never contend that they have attendance figures sitting in front of them.  Nor do they need them.  The people harboring their own subjectivity and objectives is enough.  

I know that a lot of people hate sabermetrics, but honestly the current selection process favors the large schools (you feel it is intentionally, I feel it's just a byproduct of all the other changes). RPI is garbage and it is why it has a lost of its credibility yet that's the 1st thing mid-major fans like yourself turn to for justification. We need better metrics that carry more weight. I hate Kenpom as it doesn't value who wins or loses. I do like the idea behind ESPN BPI (strength of record) rankings. It could probably use some tweaking to improve, but the concept is great.

Edited February 16, 2017 by kreed5120

[skip-zip]

15 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

I know that a lot of people hate sabermetrics, but honestly the current selection process favors the large schools (you feel it is intentionally, I feel it's just a byproduct of all the other changes). RPI is garbage and it is why it has a lost of its credibility yet that's the 1st thing mid-major fans like yourself turn to for justification. We need better metrics that carry more weight. I hate Kenpom as it doesn't value who wins or loses. I do like the idea behind ESPN BPI (strength of record) rankings. It could probably use some tweaking to improve, but the concept is great.

 

We can argue about metrics forever, and how accurate they are, and how you think they use each of them. But unfortunately something else has become a far more reliable indicator.  Follow the $$$$

[ZachTheZip]

Something to keep in mind is that theRPI was specifically chosen by the NCAA because it did not factor in margin of victory. They wanted a metric that did not encourage running up the score on weaker opponents.

[kreed5120]

53 minutes ago, skip-zip said:

 

We can argue about metrics forever, and how accurate they are, and how you think they use each of them. But unfortunately something else has become a far more reliable indicator.  Follow the $$$$

I'd buy your money metric more if it wasn't for the fact that the 10 person selection committee consists of guys from Ohio (Bobcats), Northeastern, UNC-Asheville, New Mexico, Creighton and BYU. Financially Ohio's AD would benefit from Akron getting an at-large or a higher seed as Ohio would get a stake in the credits. I get you have your mind made up so there is no point in arguing.

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

I get you have your mind made up so there is no point in arguing.

 

Yes. And I could say that same.  You obviously want to believe that selections, seedings, and home sites are all a fair and objective process.

 

Good luck to the Ohio guy if he were to attempt to steer the selection committee to put Akron in for more MAC money when the others each have their own similar objectives, and more importantly, the money-making objectives of the NCAA at the forefront.   

[LZIp]

Probably a good read for all of you who enjoy talking RPI, KenPom, BCS, FPI, whatever.

Made it about half way through. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ncaa-is-modernizing-the-way-it-picks-march-madness-teams/?ex_cid=story-twitter

[Hilltopper]

21 minutes ago, LZIp said:

Probably a good read for all of you who enjoy talking RPI, KenPom, BCS, FPI, whatever.

Made it about half way through. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ncaa-is-modernizing-the-way-it-picks-march-madness-teams/?ex_cid=story-twitter

Here is a great reader comment from that article.

 

"The NCAA needs to decide what the purpose of their tournament should be. Is it:
1) To reward schools for having a good season.
2) To include all the teams who might be the best in the nation.
3) To provide the maximum amount of entertainment.

Number 3 is the easiest. People love upsets and good stories. To do this, the committee should just choose the top 2 teams in each league and split them into different brackets, maximizing the number of upsets and surprise teams.

Otherwise, the rules are simple.:
1) No conference should have more than 4 teams selected. Yes, I understand that the ACC is a better conference than the Southern Conference. But if you finished less than fourth in your own conference, you are 1) not the best team in the nation and 2) didn't have a good season. 
2) I would like to see regional balance restored. The tournament just isn't as interesting when the closest team to your house is 1000 miles away. There should be 16 teams from the East, 16 teams from the South, 16 teams from the Midwest, and 16 teams from the West. And spread out through those regions. What is the best team in the Northwest? Who has bragging rights in New England?
3) With only a maximum 4 teams from a conference, it is easy to put them is seperate brackets. RPI is as good a way of seeding them as any other.
4) RPI should be changed to not include in conference games. Any thing can and does happen in rivalry games. Some schools seem to have issues scheduling good non-conference opponents. Take the conference games out of RPI and see how tough those schedules get. Conference games still mean a lot since they determine who goes to the NCAAs."

 

Point #4 is the best. By not considering conference games in the RPI formula it would force teams to schedule better non-conference games.