Jump to content

The non-IU National Tournament thread…


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BGleas said:

That is not how they do seeding. 

Yeah, I know, they rank the teams, blah, blah, blah.

So, if I told you team A was 13-10 versus the top 2 Quads. team B was 12-13 against the top 2 quads, and team C was 13-11 against the op 2 Quads, who gets the higher seed?  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

@Proud2BAHoosier

Why is this confusing?  Is 0-8 acceptable when the SEC sends 3 or 4 of their 8, the Ivy sends their only rep, and either Conference USA or the Northeast Conference sends a rep from the pod where the Big Ten champ was seeded #1?

 

5fouls.... Not disagreeing with you. Actually I agree with your post.

It is embarrassing how the B1G gets a lot of teams in the tourney every year, then folds like a house of cards....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 5fouls said:

Yeah, I know, they rank the teams, blah, blah, blah.

So, if I told you team A was 13-10 versus the top 2 Quads. team B was 12-13 against the top 2 quads, and team C was 13-11 against the op 2 Quads, who gets the higher seed?  

I dont know, there are other metrics that would be looked at. Do any of those teams have Quad 3 or 4 losses? What are their non-con strengths of schedule, etc.

But they absolutely do not lower a teams seed because other teams from that school's conference did poorly in the tournament the year before and even a handful of previous seasons. 

It's not a consideration at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

5fouls.... Not disagreeing with you. Actually I agree with your post.

It is embarrassing how the B1G gets a lot of teams in the tourney every year, then folds like a house of cards....

Did the big ten really fold. If you go by seeds the only team that lost that wasn't expected was Purdue. Every other team lost the where there seed said they would lose. If we lose tonight then it would be two.

Edited by IU Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

Did the big ten really fold. If you go by seeds the only team that lost that wasn't expected was Purdue. Every other team lost the where .thetevaeed said they would lose. If we lose tonight then it would be two.

I don't go by seeding, I go by the number of teams that got in and how many are left....

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

Did the big ten really fold. If you go by seeds the only team that lost that wasn't expected was Purdue. Every other team lost the where .thetevaeed said they would lose. If we lose tonight then it would be two.

And PSU upset the 2nd place SEC team handily and gave the 2nd place Big 12 team all they could handle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

I don't go by seeding, I go by the number of teams that got in and how many are left....

I am just saying the big ten where the teams were seeded pretty much lost where they were expected to lose.  So to me it isn't an indication of a league folding but losing to higher seeds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I dont know, there are other metrics that would be looked at. Do any of those teams have Quad 3 or 4 losses? What are their non-con strengths of schedule, etc.

But they absolutely do not lower a teams seed because other teams from that school's conference did poorly in the tournament the year before and even a handful of previous seasons. 

It's not a consideration at all. 

Not Big Ten or Big 12, but I found these two teams side by side in the NET.  Explain the seeding of these two teams on anything other than conference reputation.

For reference, the last 4 columns are Quads, the 2nd column is Road record, and the 3rd column is neutral site record.  Based on all visible 'metrics' they claim to use in seeding, Memphis is the equal of Xavier.  Would Xavier still be playing if they were a 9?  Would Memphis have been more successful as a 3?

These types of seeding discrepancies are 99.99% the result of conference reputation.

So, yeah, I have no desire for IU to be the Memphis in a Big Ten with an AAC reputation.  

image.png.08c0441fa81e2586f85804126db0d4ec.png

Edited by 5fouls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Did the big ten really fold. If you go by seeds the only team that lost that wasn't expected was Purdue. Every other team lost the where there seed said they would lose. If we lose tonight then it would be two.

Oh my gracious Scott.  Read all my posts about seeding disccrepancies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Not Big Ten or Big 12, but I found these two teams side by side in the NET.  Explain the seeding of these two teams on anything other than conference reputation.

For reference, the last 4 columns are Quads, the 2nd column is Road record, and the 3rd column is neutral site record.  Based on all visible 'metrics' they claim to use in seeding, Memphis is the equal of Xavier.  Would Xavier still be playing if they were a 9?  Would Memphis have been more successful as a 3?

These types of seeding discrepancies are 99.99% the result of conference reputation.

So, yeah, I have no desire for IU to be the Memphis in a Big Ten with an AAC reputation.  

image.png.08c0441fa81e2586f85804126db0d4ec.png

They are not the result of conference affiliation, except for how the teams you play make up your team sheet. The committee doesn't even really look at the NET, they look at your team sheet and what details are on the sheet. 

Conference affiliation is not part of that on the surface level. They aren't looking at two teams and say, "well, team A's conference did really well in the tournament last year and Team B's didn't, so let's give Team A a 5 seed and Team B a 9 seed" 

It just doesn't work that way. These are essentially blind sheets in terms of the conference affiliation until they get to the point of ensuring conference teams aren't matched up in the first two rounds. 

At the end of the day, the Big Ten's performance this year will have absolutely nothing to do with where IU is seeded next year, assuming we make it. 

Edit: As was mentioned by our Illini friend, Xavier had 9 Quad 1 wins vs Memphis with 4. That's a massive difference. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Not Big Ten or Big 12, but I found these two teams side by side in the NET.  Explain the seeding of these two teams on anything other than conference reputation.

For reference, the last 4 columns are Quads, the 2nd column is Road record, and the 3rd column is neutral site record.  Based on all visible 'metrics' they claim to use in seeding, Memphis is the equal of Xavier.  Would Xavier still be playing if they were a 9?  Would Memphis have been more successful as a 3?

These types of seeding discrepancies are 99.99% the result of conference reputation.

So, yeah, I have no desire for IU to be the Memphis in a Big Ten with an AAC reputation.  

image.png.08c0441fa81e2586f85804126db0d4ec.png

9 Q1 wins vs 4 is a huge difference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...