"We count the early games (November/December) just the same as we count the late games (February/March)"
That statement was just made right now unambiguously by the Committee Chair in an ESPN Interview.
That's insane.
What you do by the time it's February/March should count much more than what you did in November/December.
There is no recognition of improvement? There is no acknowledgement of failure to improve?
What's the point then?
I don't agree with that at all, especially for trying predict performance to seed a tournament.
March Michigan would wipe the floor with December Michigan. They are not the same team at all.
That's an arbitrary self-inflicted rule that they can and should change.
They will make any statement to justify what they have done latest.
Most other years, it's "when a team gets hot going into the tournament, it deserves a better seed."
They had stated before the selection that they were throwing out the last 10-15 games metric this year. It was known going in .
I rest my case.
I mean that they stated this at the beginning of the season before any games had been played at all. Before they knew who would fade down the stretch and vice versa.
March 12th, 2018 at 10:19 AM ^
That happened a couple of years ago. But you're correct.
Then again, since you and I both know that, clearly we're both on the committee.
Well, don't.
Yep. Also, the CFP selection committee.
So if a bubble team crushes 4 top-10 teams at the beginning of the year and then struggles, they should be out in favor of a team that's hot late in the year but doesn't have any big wins?
I don't like it but, at the same time, I prefer that they take the whole season into consideration when it comes to football. The bottom line is that the subjective criteria for getting into playoffs, whether NCAA basketball or football, is annoying.
because as a fanbase we collectively don't really pay attention to basketball until football season is over..so a lot of those games in late November/December just go right past us and don't feature much in our collective memory of the season (it's probably the same at most schools where football traditionally is king).
But the reality is that the task at hand is to have the team ready at tip-off of the first game. The first months of the year aren't a warm-up for the 2nd half of the conference schedule and the conference tourney.
I'm fine with it. I don't want them seeding based on who they think is going to win; I want them seeding based on who had the best season. A game is a game; that seems like a fundamental rule of sports.
I still hate RPI because it's a garbage rating system, and today there are any number of public statisticians who could design better ones. And their silly boxes actually meant something this year, which made it all the more galling when a blowout win on the road against a Kenpom Top 25 team resulted in a "Q2" win because Penn State finished 77th in RPI not 75th.
College athletics are corrupt, at least the major sports. A lot of people get rich off these sports. We just have to make do with what we are given.
March 12th, 2018 at 10:20 AM ^
Isn't the fact that we wanted to benefit from what amounted to a home game the only reason that any of us give a damn about this topic in this particular year? Back in December and January, we were hoping to just make the tournament; we weren't nearly as concerned about where we would be seeded, or where we'd play.
Now that the season is over, and we are all pleasantly surprised that we exceeded expectations in the last two months, we want to get the same consideration as teams who had their act together (more or less) all along. Had we taken care of business against Northwestern, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
seems like the entire resume should matter. it's a season championship, not a "who is the best at this moment" championship.
i think that people mix up two seoarate conversations here...i don't have any trouble saying that oklahoma was one of the 68 best teams in the country for the entirety of the season AND that they weren't playing like one of those 68 teams over the past month or so. both things can be true.
in my opinion, their case is no different from five other teams at the edge; having them in instead of some other mediocre power 5 team like nebraska or penn state doesn't make a difference in the overall quality of the tournament (although i personally would put them in just to get trae young in there).
st.mary's, though...they got fuuuuuuucked.
March 12th, 2018 at 10:58 AM ^
Oklahoma went 8-11 in the Big XII, beat one tournament team out of conference (Wichita State), and went 2-4 against the top of the league (Kansas, Tech, WVU).
Texas went 9-11 in the BIg XII, swept Oklahoma, beat 2 tournament teams out of conference (Butler and Alabama), and went 2-5 against the top of the league.
Baylor went 8-11 in the Big XII, went 1-1 against Oklahoma, beat 1 tournament team out of conference (Creighton), and went 2-5 against the top of the league.
Oklahoma State went 9-11 in the BIg XII, went 2-1 against Oklahoma, beat 1 tournament team out of conference (Florida State) and went 4-3 against the top of the league.
The problem with Oklahoma in the tournament isn't how they started or how they finished but the fact that their entire body of work (in comparison to their conference foes) rests almost entirely on beating Wichita State. Oklahoma State is objectively better than Oklahoma and they are sitting at home.
March 12th, 2018 at 11:53 AM ^
how would you treat a team that has injuries to one or more significant players? Let's say a team like Oklahoma dropped signicantly because Trae Young was hurt and he would not be coming back for the tourney but their record was exactly the same as now? Would you treat that differently. If so, why? If you would then would you not be basing it on their (reduced) chances as opposed to their season long perfomance?
What if he were playing but with an injury that reduced his effectiveness?
March 12th, 2018 at 12:50 PM ^
The purpose of the committee is not to find the best 68 teams and correctly seed them in the tournament. The purpose of the committee is to put on a compelling, highly rated TV show under the guise of picking the 68 best teams. Its how amateurism works.
I disagree with the committee. Count them all, yes, but weight the later games more, so as to give teams some wiggle room for early-season struggles. Young teams that grow as the year goes on are punished too often by December struggles.
Weight them this way:
Games from the last 30 days as 100.
Games from the 30 days before that as 95.
Games from the 30 days before that as 90.
Games from the 30+ days before that as 85.
Small-conference teams can apply for a waiver before the season to count the December games as 100 if they want (making their breakdown 100, 85, 90, 95).