Jump to content

HTD's favorite topic


rico

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply
22 hours ago, milehiiu said:

What you are saying is true.  I believe they starting do this, last year. 

I did not care for it then.  As I don't today.  Kind of takes away from the thunder of the official announcement day... IMHO. 

Not only that, but by the point in the season where any teams whose remaining outcomes don't stand to dramatically alter their seed line, it could be an unfair advantage in preparation time. Maybe I'm wrong, and that could be coming from my negative view on it.  It just seems like that perspective would lead to some form of common sense conclusion about why not to do it from a fairness standpoint.Some teams could work on their projected opponent if they noticed any respective upcoming opponents were similar enough to who they likely draw. Teams fighting for their lives or having more potential for mobility from one seed line to another couldn't divert their focus the same way as a team more locked into theirs, without paying a higher price.

Example attempt: You get projected to play in the same sub-region as Syracuse and thus have more time to work on zone offense instead of the same window as everyone else. Idk, but it feels like I'm coming from somewhere between my ears, and not my butt cheeks .lol 

This year sees a higher than average uncertainty about the top line teams, so it might not be that but when there are a clear top 3 or 4 teams it could really be parlayed into an unfair edge.

Does that come off as valid cause for concern though?  Just curious what others think about it, and I usually don't post when I'm this tired..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jblaz13 said:

Not only that, but by the point in the season where any teams whose remaining outcomes don't stand to dramatically alter their seed line, it could be an unfair advantage in preparation time. Maybe I'm wrong, and that could be coming from my negative view on it.  It just seems like that perspective would lead to some form of common sense conclusion about why not to do it from a fairness standpoint.Some teams could work on their projected opponent if they noticed any respective upcoming opponents were similar enough to who they likely draw. Teams fighting for their lives or having more potential for mobility from one seed line to another couldn't divert their focus the same way as a team more locked into theirs, without paying a higher price.

Example attempt: You get projected to play in the same sub-region as Syracuse and thus have more time to work on zone offense instead of the same window as everyone else. Idk, but it feels like I'm coming from somewhere between my ears, and not my butt cheeks .lol 

This year sees a higher than average uncertainty about the top line teams, so it might not be that but when there are a clear top 3 or 4 teams it could really be parlayed into an unfair edge.

Does that come off as valid cause for concern though?  Just curious what others think about it, and I usually don't post when I'm this tired..

 

 

They haven't released anything except the true seeds. Not sure how you could extrapolate that into game planning for an opponent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

So let me get this right......  MSU is currently ranked #2 but yet is a 3 seed? While Perdont loses 2 games last week, drops to #6 and is still a 1 seed? How does that happen? I'll guarantee you if it was IU, the Hoosiers would have a lower seed!! Just sayin'

Yeah...that is surely behind.  Mathematically, it makes zero sense for a #6/7 team to be a one seed.  It makes even less sense when you consider their propensity for face-planting in the tournament. 

Maybe the committee heard about our wish for the Smellermakers to be the first #1 seed to be one & done.  Maybe they can seed Gonzaga #16 in the west...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Yeah...that is surely behind.  Mathematically, it makes zero sense for a #6/7 team to be a one seed.  It makes even less sense when you consider their propensity for face-planting in the tournament. 

Maybe the committee heard about our wish for the Smellermakers to be the first #1 seed to be one & done.  Maybe they can seed Gonzaga #16 in the west...

Not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but neither of those things has anything to do with seeding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

Not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but neither of those things has anything to do with seeding. 

Most of it was tongue in cheek.  The fact that a 6/7th ranked team is a one seed was not.  That seems dumb to me.  If there are 5/6 teams thought of as better than Purdue, then Purdue does not deserve a one seed.  I disagree with not weighting the last 10-12 games more heavily in seeding.  Do you want the best teams in the tournament or not?  Why put teams in that have tanked at the end of the season?

"Well, IU has 5 national championships so based on their body of work, we should put them in the tournament even though this year, they are playing like dog crap." Hyperbole? Yes, but this line of thinking is the only reason you'd put a team that lost their last two games on the one-seed line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Most of it was tongue in cheek.  The fact that a 6/7th ranked team is a one seed was not.  That seems dumb to me.  If there are 5/6 teams thought of as better than Purdue, then Purdue does not deserve a one seed.  I disagree with not weighting the last 10-12 games more heavily in seeding.  Do you want the best teams in the tournament or not?  Why put teams in that have tanked at the end of the season?

"Well, IU has 5 national championships so based on their body of work, we should put them in the tournament even though this year, they are playing like dog crap." Hyperbole? Yes, but this line of thinking is the only reason you'd put a team that lost their last two games on the one-seed line.

I think this could make for an interesting discussion of what the committee should do but the extreme example makes it hard to have. Most things when taken to the extreme don't make sense. Curiously, what four teams do you find more deserving of a 1 seed than Purdue and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

I think this could make for an interesting discussion of what the committee should do but the extreme example makes it hard to have. Most things when taken to the extreme don't make sense. Curiously, what four teams do you find more deserving of a 1 seed than Purdue and why?

I think Cincinnati, Auburn and Michigan State all have arguments to be seeded higher than Purdue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ KoB2011

xD   :D   @%&# !!!!   I was SO out  of it!   

Oh my LOL I just woke up and had even thought something was amiss earlier.  That was me on no sleep in over 35 hours.  I'd have loved to be you reading that .You were still pretty nice about pointing this out  Haha!   I'm going to leave my original reply up in case I need a good laugh sometime. 

I just read from the top down and went into - tear the stupid, stupid NCAA idea a new rear end - mode!   

Jokes aside , no prior clue they revealed anything early at all . It doesn't sound so bad now.I still don't like it though.

 

 

Okayyyyyy  KoB .Now it created a weird link to your profile and I can;t delete it .Damn., sorry.not my night either, I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

So let me get this right......  MSU is currently ranked #2 but yet is a 3 seed? While Perdont loses 2 games last week, drops to #6 and is still a 1 seed? How does that happen? I'll guarantee you if it was IU, the Hoosiers would have a lower seed!! Just sayin'

Ummmmm....the polls aren't the selection committee?  Just a stab in the dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FW_Hoosier said:

I don’t see how MSU isnt a one seed over Purdue right now.  They have better wins, better losses, and the head to head win.

Better losses?  Getting blown out at Columbus?  Getting thumped at home by their in-state rival?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FKIM01 said:

I get that. Can't speak for Proud, but I'm puzzled at how opinions are so far apart on these teams between the committee and two groups of pollsters.

Me thinks it has to do with buzz.  Draws attention to selection Sunday.  But what do I know, I am drunk!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

I get that. Can't speak for Proud, but I'm puzzled at how opinions are so far apart on these teams between the committee and two groups of pollsters.

As DJ said, the polls have a recencey bias. They’re looking at who has done what in the past week, relative to where they were the week before and who they beat/lost to that week. The committee basically strips the names away and just looks at the overall resume. Purdue losing two straight is irrelevant to the committee, as far as they are concerned those two losses could have been at any point in the season, it’s the complete body of work. 

I could be wrong but as far as I understand it, the committee even strips the names from the schools and is just looking at pure data when compiling their seeding. Head-to-head doesn’t really matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rico said:

Better losses?  Getting blown out at Columbus?  Getting thumped at home by their in-state rival?  

So they lost to #8 OSU on the road, and Michigan is also ranked... Michigan being their in-state rival has no bearing on anything, so I don’t know why you think that makes a difference.  Purdue lost to OSU at home and lost to unranked WKU.  MSU has better losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...