I just don't see any way that a 7-loss team is a top 9-12 seed at this point. They are on the same seed line as MSU, that is absurd. No other 3-seed has more than 4 losses.
Predicting the Committee's top 16 released today
- Thread starter boilerzz
- Start date
I don’t really disagree. I just don’t see teams below them that scream better resume. Again, think we could argue it but the fact it is a discussion and not clear doesn’t make it unreasonable. UNC has had a really tough schedule and has some really good wins. Obviously some bad losses though.
The committee has always loved the RPI and the RPI SOS. KU is rated higher there and has the 2nd toughest schedule. That’s the only reason why they would have Kansas as the #6 overall seed. But I agree, Tech should be seeded higher than Kansas right now.
I don’t think such a thing really even exists tbh because it is so regional. Colllege football is the one sport where there is a clear number one, though some still would argue it.
This. Which is sad because the RPI is so pathetic.
And even dumber, the RPI is largely based on the RPI’s version of SOS. So for them to look at RPI and RPI’s SOS, they are basically double dipping on the same metric.
I wish we could get teams to sign us in non-conf. It probably will be even more difficult now.
That said we are 6th in REM SOS. So hopefully if we win they will reward us.
This year the committee will see BPI/SOS, KPI, Sagarin, and Kenpom next to RPI stats during the selection process.
One of the underrated parts of moving to the big 12 is wvu taking their baseball program seriously. Feel like geography is the main factor when coming up with college playoffs
Hold your horses....I didn't say best rivalry in all sports. Certainly in college basketball though.
I’m betting they pretty much just go by the RPI, until they prove otherwise. Until next year it’s still the official metric.
Doesn't really matter what is official though, doesn't mean that is what they have to use. “The common metrics most of us use are KenPom, Sagarin, L.R.M.C., B.P.I., K.P.I.,” that is what was said by the 2016 committee chairman.
Ohio State not getting much respect. We're getting dinged for starting the season slow with a coaching change 3 months before the season started and having 8 scholarship players. It's okay, I doubt many teams want to play us. This is all found money for us Buckeye fans
3 Ohio teams (and the Buckeyes are the weakest).
3 Big Ten teams ("")
But it has been 18 years since a Big Ten team won it all, so here is a pinch of salt.
It still is astounding that the Buckeyes are playing so well. Holtmann looks like a genius because this team came out of nowhere.
Last edited:
I would agree. If KU is a 2 and UNC is a 3, OSU should be at least a 3. No terrible losses and although the Big 10 is very top-heavy and not good overall, they have knocked off MSU and @Purdue. What probably is the biggest knock is no solid non-conference wins.
Yeah the slow start kills then. Like I said, they're a completely different team now since they've got a solid rotation set and gained some chemistry. Tourney time will tell all so I'm not worried
Wisconsin did lose the final in 2015.
Michigan did lose the final in 2013.
Michigan St. did lose the final in 2009.
Ohio St. did lose the final in 2007.
Illinois did lose the final in 2005.
Indiana did lose the final in 2002.
(Don't forget the first team to lose an NCAA basketball championship final? Ohio State, 1939.)
And finally Mich St. wins the 2000 tournament.
The Big Ten is 1-6 in their last seven finals. Does not endear enthusiasm.
But maybe this year.
Last edited:
I believe that this bracket was made up before yesterday. There’s no way some of this is justifiable.
With original idea, wins are worth number of games won by defeated opponents and
losses are worth minus the number of games lost by opponents defeated by.
Here I improvised with info I found on another site since I don't keep track of figuring it out during the season. So this more of an approximation of my original idea. It tends to give non power teams more credit than they get from committees. Typically matches about 63 of 68 teams with disputes involving double digit seeds. All for fun.
And yet the rankings that determine the number of quadrant wins/losses are only based on RPI.
No doubt. This time I believe the mid major to send them home will be Missouri. Book it.
That's what I'm thinking. Guessing most OSU fans figured this was an NIT season or at best a low seed in the NCAAs
After starting the season 5-3 I admit, I essentially gave up. Thought there was no way the team could turn it around. Since that point we're 17-2 with one of those losses from a nearly half court bank shot buzzer beater. It's truly remarkable what Holtmann and this team has done. This is the most fun Buckeye team I've watched since the Oden/Conley team.
Pretty sure Fluoxetine was overseeing the Committee picks.
South looks freakishly difficult. I mean, not only UVA and MSU, but Cincinnati is playing like a #1 seed as well.... Midwest Region looks laughable. I think they have the weakest #1, the weakest #2, the weakest #3, and definitely the weakest #4.
South looks freakishly difficult. I mean, not only UVA and MSU, but Cincinnati is playing like a #1 seed as well.... Midwest Region looks laughable. I think they have the weakest #1, the weakest #2, the weakest #3, and definitely the weakest #4.
Porter is hoping to return, so that's a very real possibility.
That third top 5 team (ND) lost at full strength to IU when they were dog shit, and to Ball St at home.
Also, if you're including Notre Dame as a top 5 team, why wouldn't you include Arizona, which would give Purdue 2 games against top 5 teams?
The entire schedule matters and MSU had an uncharacteristically weak non-conference. Regardless a 3 seed for them is laughably stupid.
To be fair, we lost to Notre Dame at full health. 2 of there top 3 players got hurt
I agree you deserved better than a 3 but after having listened to the committee chairman talk to Andy Katz, it is readily apparent that they are focusing less on losses than they are on quality wins (RPI quadrant 1 and 2) and results away from home. He kept quoting those numbers when talking about teams.
MSU is thin on quadrant 1 wins (only 3-2) and has just 8 quadrant 1 + 2 wins (Kansas for example has 14). Also, MSU's best road win to date is at Maryland (their only RPI 100 road win).
Again, I'm not saying I agree with the committee. I'm just trying to illustrate what I believe to be their mindset. I'm a big RPI hater but it appears they are still relying on it but at least have tweaked the groupings to adjust for road/neutral results.
What sucks for Sparty is the B1G is so bad that you are going to have to beat Purdue and OSU in the BTT to improve those metrics at all.
Similar threads
