Tell that to Butler. I'm not saying they had a horribly weak schedule. They beat Montana, St. John's, Texas and Pepperdine twice, but they lost to Illinois, Marquette and Pepperdine once. But I'm just saying maybe people jumped the gun on this Gonzaga is the real deal crap, and perhaps the selection committee is smarter than people were making them out to be.
I don't agree with this. How does being upset in the first round lead to the conclusion that they were seeded poorly? Honestly, I don't think it does very much, except by pointing out WHY they were b****ing in the first place. The reason for the complaints was that they would now have to play a better team which is more likely to pull an upset. That's exactly what happened. I don't think the fact that they lost a single game demonstrates anything. If Kansas lost to Holy Cross, does anyone think Kansas should have been seeded lower? I hope not, because the seeding is based on what they did in the regular season, where Kansas (and Gonzaga) dominated and earned that seed. They play in a relatively weaker conference, as Pepperdine helped prove yesterday, their RPI was not too enormously high (in the 20's) and much of their pub is solely because they have made the Sweet 16 the prior two years. Based on RPI alone, they should have been a 6 seed. But every other team in the tournament was rewarded for winning their conference regular season and/or tournament, closing the season strong, national rankings, etc. (For example, look at Oregon, RPI in the *30s* getting a 2-seed) With Gonzaga, they ignored all these factors which should have pushed them higher (won their conf reg season & tourney, finished 14-0, ranked #6, etc). Sure, they played in the WCC, but they also beat those teams by 25 pts per game. It's not their fault that they had to play them, and they dominated them as well as any team possibly can -- but winning margin isn't considered in the RPIs. Destroying those teams hurt their RPI. As ESPN pointed out, you'll have a higher RPI for losing to Kansas by 50 than beating some crappy team by 50, and that's just ridiculous. Other power ranking systems put them closer to #10 or #11 in the nation, and that seems like a better seeding for them.
this whole argumnt is pretty weak. Gonzaga lost in the first round, but so did a lot of teams that had a higher seeding than the zags, I guess the selection committie screwed up there too. That game was like a home game for WYO they were playing on a MWC court, they had the fans behind them, Also they were a better team than an 11. they really took it to Arizona. Gonzaga just played a bad game. After winning almost 20 straight I can understand that. bottom line Gonzaga deserved a higher seeding, but so do a lot of other team from smaller confrences. Look at what Tulsa is doing. look at what Gonzaga did the last few years. these "cinderella stories" are really amazin because they are playing the toughest teams and winning
Uhhh... Gonzaga certainly has it nice. They can't lose: If they win, they prove that the bracket makers were wrong. If they lose, they means they have a gripe at the NCAA. Must be nice, eh? Here's my question: There's a lot of these mid-majors b****ing about how nobody will schedule them. Here's a thought: schedule each other! That's exactly what happens to the major conferences. And, yes, it would help each other's RPI, since RPI is 50% opponent's record and only 25% opponent's opponent's record. But no... instead of playing Butler, Gonzaga would rather play totally crappy teams. Go cry elsewhere.
FWIW, 14 of the sweet 16 teams are from t he big conferences. Kent St. beat an overrated OSU team, and Bama (who, even Dickie V couldn't argue that they didn't belong) was caught flat-footed. What mid-major tema was robbed? Butler? Ball State? I doubt either of them could do as much damage as Mizzou or UCLA in the tourney. Dickie V should shut up.
Uhhh... Gonzaga certainly has it nice. They can't lose: If they win, they prove that the bracket makers were wrong. If they lose, they means they have a gripe at the NCAA. Not really. I don't think them winning or losing has any relevence to the b****ing or the seeding justice / injustice. Just as Cinci wasn't overrated just because they lost one game to UCLA, one loss by Gonzaga doesn't prove anything. The b****ing is based on the regular-season only. Otherwise, we'd be b****ing about Kent State being unfairly seeded or what-not. And, yes, it would help each other's RPI, since RPI is 50% opponent's record and only 25% opponent's opponent's record. But no... instead of playing Butler, Gonzaga would rather play totally crappy teams. First off, Gonzaga did play some decent non-conf teams. 3 ranked teams (#2 Illinois, #24 Texas, #16 Fresno State). They also played St. Johns, Montana and Marquette (later ranked). Through geographic rivalries, they played 2 Pac-10 teams which, unfortunately, sucked this year (Wash & Wash St). Then they played some regional games which are probably necessary just for survival of small schools (E. Oregon, E. Washington, Portland St) and a couple of other cup-cakes. Overall, they played 12 really crappy teams (under 200-RPI), and 9 of them were within conference. Ultimately, though, it's not worth it to play good mid-majors. There's too much to lose there. If Gonzaga played Butler, one of them has to lose, and while it will help them in the RPI, it will hurt them in prestige. If Gonzaga is as good as, say, Stanford, Butler winning OR losing to Stanford has a bigger benefit than Butler winning or losing to Gonzaga. (for the same reason that Stanford doesn't want to play them) So that's a losing proposition for Gonzaga. Playing a good/great mid-major team has lesser benefits than playing a mediocre Big-6 conference team. First off, you have a better chance of beating them, and second, it benefits you more. Sure, they could voluntarily take on an excessively difficult schedule for minimal results, but why bother? Two or three games isn't going to impact their RPI positively much, but one or two losses will have a massive impact on their at-large appeal. Instead, the RPI should somehow consider that they slaughtered the bad teams they were forced to play. Year after year, the top mid-major teams (true Mid-Majors, not the wacky small conferences... the WCC excluded, I'm talking about the MAC-type teams) prove competitive with the big conferences. Think about how well they could do if they were given higher seeds instead of always having to play 3/4/5 seeds in the opening rounds. EDIT: For example, let's say Gonzaga scheduled Kent State vs. Alabama this year (Kent St just slaughtered Alabama). Playing Alabama would have helped their RPI more and would have been an easier opponent. A win over Alabama would look much more prestigious than a win over Kent St. A loss to Alabama would have looked not-as-bad as a loss to Kent St. A loss to a top-8 Alabama team might have cost them one spot in the national rankings. A loss to an unranked Kent State team might have cost them 4-5 spots. All in all, the benefits are crappy for playing a better Kent State team and the negatives are much worse.
FWIW, 14 of the sweet 16 teams are from t he big conferences. Kent St. beat an overrated OSU team, and Bama (who, even Dickie V couldn't argue that they didn't belong) was caught flat-footed. But that's because they were forced to play 2-3-4 seeds in the first round. How well would those teams have done if they played a 10 or 11 or 12 seed in the first round? How many more of them would have survived? Only one mid-major (Gonzaga) was even given a seed that would be expected to win a first-round game, so they always play above their seeding by winning 4-6 first-round games (Tulsa, Wyoming, Creighton, Kent. St, SIU, UNCW this year). Plus, look how many others were competitive against 1-4 seeds and put them against 6-8 seeds, and I bet they would win their share of games.
Major: But in college basketball, being in the Top 25 poll is much less important than doing damage in the tournament. And you get into the tournament through a good profile, the most important part of which, is RPI. Incidentally, I don't know if it would still be on the web anymore... but Joe Lunardi did an excellent article last year before the tournament considering mid-majors. Basically looked at their performance per seed. Contrary to popular belief, mid-majors actually did worse at the same seeds as major conference teams. For example, major conference teams seeded #12 would have outperformed mid-majors in the same positions. If mid-majors are getting screwed... why aren't they performing as well as majors in similar positions? Mizzou is an excellent example of this yeare. Kent St. gets all the press... but Mizzou actually looked better in its victories. As for Gonzaga... if I'm not allowed to say that losing to a #11 seed means they were overrated... then you're definitely not allowed to say that it's a result of them being unfairly treated. Making this claim puts you in a win-win situation, and that's not fair .
UT, UCLA, and Mizzou were forced to play 2-3-4 seeds as well. Does it matter if they did it in the 1st or second round? The remaining conference powerhouses performed much better than those 3 schools in the regular season.
But in college basketball, being in the Top 25 poll is much less important than doing damage in the tournament. And you get into the tournament through a good profile, the most important part of which, is RPI. Maybe so -- but for most teams, ranking does count for something and does affect seeding. My big beef with Gonzaga was that the committee considers rankings, conf championships, how a team closes, etc for every other team, but it didn't seem to do so for Gonzaga. Oregon being #34 or whatever in the RPIs and getting a 2 seed shows that they consider tons of other stuff in the mix. If it was accepted that seeding was done primarily on RPI, then I'd have no problem with it. I'd think it should be changed, but I'd understand Gonzaga's seeding. However, for most teams, they aren't seeded by their RPI. Even the committee has said in the past it primarily looks at RPI for determining if a team should be in or out, but that's about it -- not for seeding. Contrary to popular belief, mid-majors actually did worse at the same seeds as major conference teams. For example, major conference teams seeded #12 would have outperformed mid-majors in the same positions. If mid-majors are getting screwed... why aren't they performing as well as majors in similar positions? But did this analysis include just mid-majors or mid-majors and minor conferences who call themselves mid-majors? There's a huge difference between true mid-majors (like the MAC) and minor conferences (like whatever Siena won). Mizzou is an excellent example of this yeare. Kent St. gets all the press... but Mizzou actually looked better in its victories. Sure, but Mizzou is a bit of a fluke because they are top-10 team talent. At one point, they were #2 in the nation. They just didn't play up to their potential all season long. The majority of seed 6-16 at-large teams would get stomped by Kent St, in my opinion. As for Gonzaga... if I'm not allowed to say that losing to a #11 seed means they were overrated... then you're definitely not allowed to say that it's a result of them being unfairly treated. Making this claim puts you in a win-win situation, and that's not fair But I'm making my claim based on the regular season, and I *like* being in a win-win situation. Seriously, though, I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that the one game overrides what they've done throughout the season, and I think their performance merited something higher than a 6-seed. Kent State, on the other hand, wasn't under-seeded, I don't think. They are a great team, but they didn't prove it in the regular season. Given their conference, Gonzaga did play a reasonable number of good teams, including 2 Sweet-16 teams. Now, in general, I think Kent State-type teams should be seeded higher, but I think that should be a change in how they do things. I think Gonzaga was seeded too-low using the current factors that they do claim to consider. UT, UCLA, and Mizzou were forced to play 2-3-4 seeds as well. Does it matter if they did it in the 1st or second round? I think it definitely matters, because of how we're looking at it. We're saying that most mid-majors get knocked out in the first or second rounds, while the conference powerhouses get further. Mid-Majors have to play 2 high seeds to get to the Sweet 16, while big conference top teams only have to play one, so the seeding is very relevent. Any time you have a tougher schedule, you're less likely to get as far, even if you're the better team. Meanwhile, a team like Southern Ill had to play a #6 and a #3. Of the 14 big conference S-16s, 6 of them haven't even played a 6-seed or better (3 1-seeds and 3 2-seeds). Of the other 10 teams that played the more difficult schedules, 2 were mid-major teams. That's a pretty good showing, and it seems to happen every year. Even given that their road is much tougher, 2 out of 16 s-16 teams are from small-conferences. 1 or 2 out of 34 at-large bids were given to small-conferences. If I was the committee, I would put more good mid-major teams in (like Butler). We already know that the 5th or 6th best team in the SEC is not the best team in the country. However, we don't know how good Butler is, and over the course of the season, I think they earned their chance. I think Butler has a better shot at the S-16 than teams like Wisconsin or St. Johns or Ole Miss or Boston College.
Major, Conference Championships only matter if there are atleast four schools in the NCAA tournament or if you need the auto. I don't see how beating up on weak schools prove they are strong team. Beating Pepperdine in their tournament means they're better than Pepperdine not that Zaga deserves a top 5 seed. Gonzaga Beat no one over a #6 seed if I remember correctly. Gonzaga was if I remember correctly 5-3 against 6 seeds and lower. This proves they are slightly better than the teams they are better than. Besides Texas, are any of the other wins left? Oregon won the PAC-10 regular season by two games and beat Zona twice. Oregon may not have proved they were a #2 seed by RPI, but they proved they were better than Zona in my mind. I think Zona is a great team and a solid number three seed. The RPI looks at all the games a team plays when the only ones that really matter are the games against good teams (Top 80 or so)and the losses to bad teams. When I look at Zaga, I see a 8-3 team that hasn't been measured. I (if I was on the selction committee) might on a generous day given Zaga a fifth seed, but I believe they're in the position of the strongest 6th seed. Gonzaga's biggest wins came very early (first 5-6 games). The last ten games don't matter for Zaga because they're against weak teams....Pepperdine is weak when talking about a school that wants a top 5 seed or better.
Oregon was more the anomaly than Gonzaga. I will completely agree with you that Oregon was a mistake. Besides, Oregon, no team was more than 2 ranks from their RPI (I believe). Irrelevant. Why? Because you almost never, ever see "major conference teams" in the #13+ seeds, which is where the tiny conferences always are. Therefore, you don't have any data for comparison. Yeah, but see above. Major conference teams *still* overachieve their seeds in comparison to mid-majors. Mizzou was simply an example. Gonzaga didn't beat any high seeds. Gonzaga had proven they deserved to be in the tournament, since they'd beat some tournament teams. But since they hadn't beaten any top 4 seed teams... how the hell could you put them there? HA HA HA. No chance. You know, I'd wager BC would beat Butler 8/10 times on a neutral court. So would St. Johns. Haven't seen enough of the other two teams to comment. If nothing else, look at the frickin' talent differential. BC underachieved, but there's not more than 2 players on Butler who could walk-on our team. *ANY* of our players could have gone to Butler, had they so desired... and been stars.
Incidentally, Shanna... Butler just lost to Syracuse in the NIT. Those evil major conference schools, stealing all the spots from poor deserving little Buttler... that can't beat a team that's sucked since frickin' JANUARY! ahhahahahahaha
Oregon was more the anomaly than Gonzaga. I will completely agree with you that Oregon was a mistake. Besides, Oregon, no team was more than 2 ranks from their RPI (I believe). Only if you ignore Xavier, Hawaii, Cal, Kent St, Pepperdine, and Utah. Then of course when you get to the bottom of the piles, you have all sorts of things like Wyoming (#11 seed, 63 RPI) seeded better than UNCW (#13 seed, 57 RPI) or 14-14 Montana (177 RPI) getting a #15 seed over 18-14 Holy Cross (162 RPI) or 149 RPI Boston U.. Ultimately, RPI isn't nearly the primary factor in seedings you make it out to be. Besides, 2 spots is the difference we're talking about between a 4 seed vs. a 6 seed, so that is significant in itself. For reference, only 2 or 3 teams were seeded more than 2 spots from their AP ranking as well. Gonzaga was one of them. Yeah, but see above. Major conference teams *still* overachieve their seeds in comparison to mid-majors. Mizzou was simply an example. In the first round, there were 7 upsets this year. UNC-W, Creighton, Tulsa, Kent St., Southern Ill, Mizzou, & Wyoming. I only see one major-conference team there that pulled an upset and that was the fluke seed. (Wyoming also shouldn't count since both teams there were smaller conferences) Of the 12 total 10-12 seeds, smaller conferences went 5-3 (including Wyoming). Major conferences went 1-3 (Utah, Mich St, BC all losing). Gonzaga didn't beat any high seeds. And they went 28-3 and didn't lose to any non-tourney teams (which every other tourney team did, I believe). Keep in mind that other power-rankings formulas that actually take into account important things like winning margin also place them around #10 in the nation. Gonzaga had proven they deserved to be in the tournament, since they'd beat some tournament teams. But since they hadn't beaten any top 4 seed teams... how the hell could you put them there? Kansas & Cinci didn't beat any #1 seeds, but I had no problem putting them at #1. In fact, Cinci didn't beat anyone above a #5 seed. Seeding is based on overall performance, not just the best teams they beat. No chance. You know, I'd wager BC would beat Butler 8/10 times on a neutral court. So would St. Johns. Haven't seen enough of the other two teams to comment. If nothing else, look at the frickin' talent differential. BC underachieved, but there's not more than 2 players on Butler who could walk-on our team. *ANY* of our players could have gone to Butler, had they so desired... and been stars. Maybe so. I'm sure Alabama said the same about Kent St, etc. Mid-majors tend to play some of the best team basketball in the country, and that overcomes quite a bit of talent issues. Butler just lost to Syracuse in the NIT. On the road at Syracuse by 1 point in overtime... Of Butler's 6 losses this year, 5 were by a combined 10 points. They also went 3-0 against major-conference teams (Washington, Indiana, Purdue).
Honestly, I love your argument, it's very convincing, but how is Wyoming over Gonzaga not an upset? Everyone I know picked the Zags to make the sweet 16 or the elite 8. Did they underachieve?
Honestly, I love your argument, it's very convincing, but how is Wyoming over Gonzaga not an upset? Everyone I know picked the Zags to make the sweet 16 or the elite 8. Did they underachieve? Oh -- they're an upset. I just meant that it was the only real mid-major vs. mid-major game (I think), so a mid-major had to win no matter what. I guess it should still count as an upset, but since they beat another mid-major, it didn't really fit the whole mid-major beating major conference argument. Sorry for the confusion -- Wyoming was definitely an upset!
ok, I think we're about at an impasse. If I understand it correctly, these are the positions: haven: 1. Major conference teams have more talent, since players actually want to go there. Hence, if we don't have enough head-to-head data, we should generally side with the major conferences. 2. Historicall, at least prior to last year's tournament, major conferences had fared better at the exact same seeds than mid-majors. Hence, we know that mid-majors are actually overseeded, not underrated. Major: 1. Mid-majors play better team basketball, and their players generally stay the full four years, giving them more experience and leadership (yeah, you didn't mention that part, but I assume it's part of your argument). 2. Mid-majors don't have a fair shot - they don't get to play the big boys on their home court, so it's impossible to judge them. Ok, here's my question: Would it be fair to say that we could both potentially agree with EVERYTHING that the other person said... and that this is really the issue: That you believe that since we *know* schools like BC, Wisconsin, etc... aren't "the best" since they've had their "shot" in conference play, and come up empty... that even if they're very likely slightly better than the smaller school teams... that the smaller school teams should still be elected so we can "see" once and for all how good they really are? Oh, and secondarily... how would you feel about revoking the automatic bids for the really, really crappy conferences and giving more bids to mid-majors that way?
A mid major tournament? Why don't the good mid major teams get together and form a tournament to show which ones are for real? Mid Major's to me can play very good basketball, but its tough to see where to rank them. You could add in a few teams like Mizzou and Texas to show which ones can compete with the bigger conferences. Zaga played in one of the early tournaments and showed they deserved atleast a number six seed.
I think Gonzaga got hosed a couple of seeds. 6 was too low, but they certainly should not have gotten a 2 seed. A low 3 or high 4 would have been about right. The comittee was smoking something when seeding Oregon. It was like the comittee threw out their nonconference schedule and Pac 10 turney performance in their seeding. Yes they were 2-0 against Arizona (the road win had a depleted Arizona club), but compare their records against the top 4 teams of the Pac 10 including (and based on) the turney. Arizona went 3-0 versus Cal and 2-1 versus USC, Oregon was 1-1 versus Cal and 2-1 versus USC. Aside from winning the conference turney on a neutral court, Arizona also beat Maryland, Illinios and Florida on neutral courts, Oregon didn't have a single comparable nonconference win. Arizona's RPI was like 6 and Oregon's was like 30. It was like the only things the focused on were those two wins--very odd because they usually try to weigh many factors in seeding with the #1 factor being RPI. Also, I think it has been shown that 7-11 seeds from the majors do perform better than non majors. There usually are the UCLA and Misszu's of this year that cause havok. And whoever said the Mountain West, SEC or Big East is a major these days?
