NCAA tournament

[BirdsEyeView]

And there are other reports laughing at how underseeded we are and stuck in the play in game.

The overriding issue beyond your seeding is the value the committee continues to give mid-majors in general. Something needs to change to support mid-majors inclusion.

Syracuse, Tulsa, Michigan, Vandy - all should not be in.

[Redbirdgrad]

And there are other reports laughing at how underseeded we are and stuck in the play in game.

The overriding issue beyond your seeding is the value the committee continues to give mid-majors in general. Something needs to change to support mid-majors inclusion.

Syracuse, Tulsa, Michigan, Vandy - all should not be in.

I agree with this post for the most part. There is a definite P5 bias going on right now with the at-large selections... especially in the last few years.

Careful with lumping Vandy in that group though. Their power numbers (those fought to be used to include Wichita this year despite the RPI and SOS) are actually very decent. BPI is even a spot ahead of Wichita's.

Vandy - 27 Kenpom, 24 BPI.

If we're going to have our pitchforks out, let's at least be accurate in doing so.

[BirdsEyeView]

And there are other reports laughing at how underseeded we are and stuck in the play in game.

The overriding issue beyond your seeding is the value the committee continues to give mid-majors in general. Something needs to change to support mid-majors inclusion.

Syracuse, Tulsa, Michigan, Vandy - all should not be in.

I agree with this post for the most part. There is a definite P5 bias going on right now with the at-large selections... especially in the last few years.

Careful with lumping Vandy in that group though. Their power numbers (those fought to be used to include Wichita this year despite the RPI and SOS) are actually very decent. BPI is even a spot ahead of Wichita's.

Vandy - 27 Kenpom, 24 BPI.

If we're going to have our pitchforks out, let's at least be accurate in doing so.

If you want full disclosure how about RPI of 63 for Vandy. Which metric did they use?

Either way, you are splitting hairs. The general issue is the politics of the P5 teams impacting who gets in.

[sixth ace]

They have to pay for football someway...

[Redbirdgrad]

If you want full disclosure how about RPI of 63 for Vandy. Which metric did they use?

Either way, you are splitting hairs. The general issue is the politics of the P5 teams impacting who gets in.

The general issue of politics of the P5 teams impacting who gets in is 100% agreed on.

It's the selection of teams you used in your example I disagreed with. If we are aiming to use power numbers as more relevant than RPI which is the general consensus, then Vanderbilt has those in its favor. I just dont think they're in the same category as the others you listed, that's all.

[BirdsEyeView]

If you want full disclosure how about RPI of 63 for Vandy. Which metric did they use?

Either way, you are splitting hairs. The general issue is the politics of the P5 teams impacting who gets in.

The general issue of politics of the P5 teams impacting who gets in is 100% agreed on.

It's the selection of teams you used in your example I disagreed with. If we are aiming to use power numbers as more relevant than RPI which is the general consensus, then Vanderbilt has those in its favor. I just dont think they're in the same category as the others you listed, that's all.

General consensus by whom? It seems the selection committee chose KenPom for some, RPI for others, BPI for others, SOS for others, etc. there was no consistency....they chose which metric to use to meet their agenda of putting in P5 teams and removing nearly everyone else.

Fair enough on your point and moving on.

[Redbirdgrad]

General consensus by whom? It seems the selection committee chose KenPom for some, RPI for others, BPI for others, SOS for others, etc. there was no consistency....they chose which metric to use to meet their agenda of putting in P5 teams and removing nearly everyone else.

Fair enough on your point and moving on.

General consensus by everyone who isn't living in 1996. RPI is an old, washed up metric which has so many problems it isn't funny.

Go onto shockernet and ask them what they think of the RPI this year...

[BirdsEyeView]

General consensus by whom? It seems the selection committee chose KenPom for some, RPI for others, BPI for others, SOS for others, etc. there was no consistency....they chose which metric to use to meet their agenda of putting in P5 teams and removing nearly everyone else.

Fair enough on your point and moving on.

General consensus by everyone who isn't living in 1996. RPI is an old, washed up metric which has so many problems it isn't funny.

Go onto shockernet and ask them what they think of the RPI this year...

I get that, but Shockernet users and you are not on the committee.

The committee looked and decided we really want to exclude Monmouth so which of all the stats available can we use to justify excluding them? Ditto for Syracuse, but from the opposite perspective (how to include them). This is the problem. They most likely used RPI for some inclusions, KenPom for others, BPI for others and so on.

Vandy has a crap RPI, so they ignored that and looked at your other stats.

[Redbirdgrad]

I get that, but Shockernet users and you are not on the committee.

The committee looked and decided we really want to exclude Monmouth so which of all the stats available can we use to justify excluding them? Ditto for Syracuse, but from the opposite perspective (how to include them). This is the problem. They most likely used RPI for some inclusions, KenPom for others, BPI for others and so on.

Vandy has a crap RPI, so they ignored that and looked at your other stats.

We agree on principle man, I just don't agree with Vanderbilt being in the list of schools that they had to find a reason to include. They have a pretty strong resume compared to the rest of the bubble.

It's obvious they pick and choose what metrics they want to use for who. I agree Monmouth should have been in over Syracuse, etc. They need a consistent metric that's measurable and known by everyone heading into the season. I agree with 99% of your post. If you wouldn't have named Vanderbilt I would have agreed with 100%. We're not far off here.

[BirdsEyeView]

I get that, but Shockernet users and you are not on the committee.

The committee looked and decided we really want to exclude Monmouth so which of all the stats available can we use to justify excluding them? Ditto for Syracuse, but from the opposite perspective (how to include them). This is the problem. They most likely used RPI for some inclusions, KenPom for others, BPI for others and so on.

Vandy has a crap RPI, so they ignored that and looked at your other stats.

We agree on principle man, I just don't agree with Vanderbilt being in the list of schools that they had to find a reason to include. They have a pretty strong resume compared to the rest of the bubble.

It's obvious they pick and choose what metrics they want to use for who. I agree Monmouth should have been in over Syracuse, etc. They need a consistent metric that's measurable and known by everyone heading into the season. I agree with 99% of your post. If you wouldn't have named Vanderbilt I would have agreed with 100%. We're not far off here.

Works for me.