College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

The home for Big East hoops

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby xusandy » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:44 pm

If Stever's main point is just the statistical one -- that relative to a 14+ team league, and given the current NCAA Men's bball tournament invitation criteria, a strong 10 team league is likely to get either (1) fewer top seeds, but a higher percentage of its teams into the tourney, or (2) proportionately more top seeds, but a lower percentage of its teams into the tourney at all, then, over the long run, I actually think I agree with STEVER -- but I'm not sure if this is simply a statistical probability, or if there's a behavioral component too (it's easier to win a 10 team league than a 14 team league, so more teams are willing to go for it.)

But if his point is that that this seeding thing is somehow bad for us, then I disagree. In fact, I'd rather see us get more teams into the dance, even if that means getting fewer top seeds. Gives me more teams to root for in more games.
xusandy
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:21 am

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby stever20 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:07 pm

xusandy wrote:If Stever's main point is just the statistical one -- that relative to a 14+ team league, and given the current NCAA Men's bball tournament invitation criteria, a strong 10 team league is likely to get either (1) fewer top seeds, but a higher percentage of its teams into the tourney, or (2) proportionately more top seeds, but a lower percentage of its teams into the tourney at all, then, over the long run, I actually think I agree with STEVER -- but I'm not sure if this is simply a statistical probability, or if there's a behavioral component too (it's easier to win a 10 team league than a 14 team league, so more teams are willing to go for it.)

But if his point is that that this seeding thing is somehow bad for us, then I disagree. In fact, I'd rather see us get more teams into the dance, even if that means getting fewer top seeds. Gives me more teams to root for in more games.


My main point is the statistical one, although I would argue that having fewer teams in, but those teams being higher seeded(especially avoiding the dreaded 7-10 lines) is a lot more condusive for NCAA tourney success. While sure, you can catch a flash in the pan(a la Xavier last year)- the odds aren't anywhere near as good for that. Too often when you have a lot of teams in that 7-10 range, you are playing a de facto road game in rd 2. See Providence in 2016 playing in Raleigh vs UNC. The bigger conferences don't have to choose either or. they get the 5-6 teams with at least 11 conference wins, but then they also have like the last 2 years in the ACC with 10 teams finishing at 9-9 or better. So they get both the top seeds and a lot of lottery balls. A great combo.

Now the question I have is will we start to see the invitation criteria start to change back to how it used to be- where you would have teams like what was it 16-14 Georgia that one year making the tourney. I think there is a possibility of that happening. But I think even with that, SOS is going to matter more and more. Teams are goign to have to challenge themselves OOC more than they have.
stever20
 
Posts: 13405
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby GumbyDamnit! » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:44 pm

stever20 wrote:
xusandy wrote:If Stever's main point is just the statistical one -- that relative to a 14+ team league, and given the current NCAA Men's bball tournament invitation criteria, a strong 10 team league is likely to get either (1) fewer top seeds, but a higher percentage of its teams into the tourney, or (2) proportionately more top seeds, but a lower percentage of its teams into the tourney at all, then, over the long run, I actually think I agree with STEVER -- but I'm not sure if this is simply a statistical probability, or if there's a behavioral component too (it's easier to win a 10 team league than a 14 team league, so more teams are willing to go for it.)

But if his point is that that this seeding thing is somehow bad for us, then I disagree. In fact, I'd rather see us get more teams into the dance, even if that means getting fewer top seeds. Gives me more teams to root for in more games.


My main point is the statistical one, although I would argue that having fewer teams in, but those teams being higher seeded(especially avoiding the dreaded 7-10 lines) is a lot more condusive for NCAA tourney success. While sure, you can catch a flash in the pan(a la Xavier last year)- the odds aren't anywhere near as good for that. Too often when you have a lot of teams in that 7-10 range, you are playing a de facto road game in rd 2. See Providence in 2016 playing in Raleigh vs UNC. The bigger conferences don't have to choose either or. they get the 5-6 teams with at least 11 conference wins, but then they also have like the last 2 years in the ACC with 10 teams finishing at 9-9 or better. So they get both the top seeds and a lot of lottery balls. A great combo.

Now the question I have is will we start to see the invitation criteria start to change back to how it used to be- where you would have teams like what was it 16-14 Georgia that one year making the tourney. I think there is a possibility of that happening. But I think even with that, SOS is going to matter more and more. Teams are goign to have to challenge themselves OOC more than they have.


This is a silly, nonsensical debate that has no basis in actual fact. As per usual Stever likes to formulate an argument that puts the BE in a bad light and then he searches for data to support his argument. He moves the goalposts and tries to mask his bias but his data doesn't hold up. He talks about "the bigger conferences" then just presents info on the ACC, which is the unquestioned top conference in college hoops. Case in point: for all the flaws of the BE round robin as is being presented, let's look at how it has affected bids vs another "top conference" the B1G10 the past 2 years.

1).Bids
BE 12 bids / 20 teams = 60% of league
B1G 14 bids / 30 teams = 47%

2). Top 4 Seeds
BE = 4 or 20% of league overall & 33% of all BE bids
B1G = 2 or 7% of league & 14% of all B1G bids

3). "Dreaded 7-10 line" (as Stever puts it)
BE = 4 or 20% of league & 33% of all conf bids
B1G = 6 or 20% of league & 43% of all conf bids

So the B1G has had less top 4 seeds, more seeds in the dreaded 7-10 range and less bids overall. But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument Stever.

I think what it often comes down to is that the bigger conferences have 14, 15 teams and we have 10. So, yes there is an opportunity for more teams to get in and get seeded higher. But when you normalize the data for the conference size the data doesn't hold up. And the ACC is simply loaded so comparing the BE to them is ridiculous.

That is all. Good try though.

Cue: "here's the thing" in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....
Go Nova!
User avatar
GumbyDamnit!
 
Posts: 3149
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby stever20 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:55 pm

statistically there is only a minimal difference at all between a 4 and 5 seed. and what do you know, the Big Ten has had 4 5 seeds to 0 for the Big East.

Also, I would argue that the Big East has been higher in the RPI in both of the years that you're comparing. So some of your data is just because the Big East was stronger those 2 years. 2016 the BE had a good .012 edge on the Big Ten. 2017 it was only .0027. So you would expect the bids to be better just based on that. The fact that the Big Ten had 6/14 bids being top 5 seeds compared to BE having 4/12 bids being top 5 seeds is a huge difference.

B10 has 14 teams, not 15. So your percentages are off.......

P12 has had in the 2 years 11 of their 24 teams make the tourney. but of those 11, 6 top 4 seeds(5 being top 3), and 3 in the dreaded lines. So as a percentage of all bids- -top 4- BE 33% P12 55% dreaded lines BE 33% P12 27%. Before you ask- 2016 the P12 was stronger by .0076 and in 2017 the BE was stronger by .0165.

Your numbers made me look at it... here's the P6 percentages of teams with top 5 seeds to the number of overall bids for the conference....
ACC 10/16 63%
B12 8/13 62%
P12 6/11 55%
SEC 4/8 50%
B10 6/14 43%
BE 4/12 33%

So Big East has had by far the fewest top 5 seeds as a percentage of total bids of the 6 power conferences. It's extremely difficult to get both a lot of teams in the tournament and having your top teams get top seeds with 10 teams. Big 12 really an aberration- 2016 when they got 7 teams in teams 8-10 only won 10 games(the number head to head minimum is 6 wins). And their conference by far was #1 in RPI. Unless the Big East can start winning an extra 6-7 games OOC, it's going to be hard for the Big East to get both 7 and get the higher seeds.
stever20
 
Posts: 13405
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby milksteak » Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:42 am

stever20 wrote:statistically there is only a minimal difference at all between a 4 and 5 seed. and what do you know, the Big Ten has had 4 5 seeds to 0 for the Big East.

Also, I would argue that the Big East has been higher in the RPI in both of the years that you're comparing. So some of your data is just because the Big East was stronger those 2 years. 2016 the BE had a good .012 edge on the Big Ten. 2017 it was only .0027. So you would expect the bids to be better just based on that. The fact that the Big Ten had 6/14 bids being top 5 seeds compared to BE having 4/12 bids being top 5 seeds is a huge difference.

B10 has 14 teams, not 15. So your percentages are off.......

P12 has had in the 2 years 11 of their 24 teams make the tourney. but of those 11, 6 top 4 seeds(5 being top 3), and 3 in the dreaded lines. So as a percentage of all bids- -top 4- BE 33% P12 55% dreaded lines BE 33% P12 27%. Before you ask- 2016 the P12 was stronger by .0076 and in 2017 the BE was stronger by .0165.

Your numbers made me look at it... here's the P6 percentages of teams with top 5 seeds to the number of overall bids for the conference....
ACC 10/16 63%
B12 8/13 62%
P12 6/11 55%
SEC 4/8 50%
B10 6/14 43%
BE 4/12 33%

So Big East has had by far the fewest top 5 seeds as a percentage of total bids of the 6 power conferences. It's extremely difficult to get both a lot of teams in the tournament and having your top teams get top seeds with 10 teams. Big 12 really an aberration- 2016 when they got 7 teams in teams 8-10 only won 10 games(the number head to head minimum is 6 wins). And their conference by far was #1 in RPI. Unless the Big East can start winning an extra 6-7 games OOC, it's going to be hard for the Big East to get both 7 and get the higher seeds.


"I am a penned-up, leashed dog right now, and I can't wait to get started for Butler University."
- Barry Collier, August 1, 2006
User avatar
milksteak
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:32 am

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby Savannah Jay » Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:11 am

Leave it to Stever...
Savannah Jay
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:47 am

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby GumbyDamnit! » Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:32 pm

Stever do you even look at what you write? You started by telling us that the round robin hurts the BE. But in your last post you show that the B12 has had tremendous success with both # of bids and # of top bids. Doesn’t that completely punch a hole in your entire argument about the round robin? We’ll all wait for you to movet he goalposts yet again. Then for good measure you also try to sell that the SEC has done better with March bids than the BE even though the BE has had the same # of Top 5 bids and has had 4 more bids overall—all with 4 less teams. Really dude?

Leave it to Stever....
Go Nova!
User avatar
GumbyDamnit!
 
Posts: 3149
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby stever20 » Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:31 pm

GumbyDamnit! wrote:Stever do you even look at what you write? You started by telling us that the round robin hurts the BE. But in your last post you show that the B12 has had tremendous success with both # of bids and # of top bids. Doesn’t that completely punch a hole in your entire argument about the round robin? We’ll all wait for you to movet he goalposts yet again. Then for good measure you also try to sell that the SEC has done better with March bids than the BE even though the BE has had the same # of Top 5 bids and has had 4 more bids overall—all with 4 less teams. Really dude?

Leave it to Stever....


With a round robin, you either have to have an absurd amount of success OOC- or it's really the either/or situation. Big 12 in the last 4 years has been the #1 or 2 conference in all 4 years in RPI. In the 2 years they were #1, they were the #1 conference by .5843-.5762 and .5791-.5683. In the 2 years they were the #2 conference, they were #2 by .5802 to .5779 and .5758 to .5753.

When you have a round robin, you have a much lower margin for error. If your conference is merely good in OOC play, you really aren't going to have a chance to get both the # of teams in the tourney and be able to get those teams high seeds.

2016 to me shows the thing....
Big East was #4 in RPI. They got 5 teams in. 2 were top 5 and 2 were the dreaded lines. Also had a 6 seed
Big Ten was #5 in RPI. They got 7 teams in. 4 were top 5, and 2 were the dreaded lines. Also had a 11 seed

So even though Big East had the better season, the Big Ten had the same percentage of teams, and had the better seedings by percentages.

Also, I would argue in the first 4 years, there's been only like 1 team who was close to being the 1st team left out of tournament. Big East has gotten almost every break in trying to get the maximum # of teams in the tourney. Eventually those breaks balance out. Last year could EASILY have been a 5 bid league if the injuries don't happen at Creighton or Xavier. Marquette and Providence almost surely don't make it in that case. Providence was the 4th team in and Marquette was the 7th team(note Xavier was behind them so realistically would have been 6th team in). Marquette went 4-0 vs depleted Creighton and Xavier. PC went 2-0 vs them. If both are just .500 vs them, they don't make the tourney.
stever20
 
Posts: 13405
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby paulxu » Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:55 pm

When ifs and buts are candy and nuts...every day is Christmas!
...he went up late, and I was already up there.
User avatar
paulxu
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:08 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby GumbyDamnit! » Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:59 pm

Again Stever your conclusions have nothing to do with the data you present. So do you think that maybe, just maybe, the bottom teams in the B1G in 2016 might have contributed to the conference RPI? Go ahead and check...we can wait.

Heere’s what you’ll find. Both Rutgers and Minnesota were 250+ in the RPI. That’s called poison and they undoubtedly affected conf RPI. So why are you trying to peddle a conclusion that has zero to do with the data? Again, the round robin has zero effect. Each team stands on their own when the season is over. Wins vs top teams both in and OOC, combined with limiting bad losses means a higher bid. It’s really that simple. Creighton was 10-8 in the BE last year and was a 6 seed. PC was 10-8 and was an 11. So in your opinion the RR hurt both? I don’t see it.
Go Nova!
User avatar
GumbyDamnit!
 
Posts: 3149
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Big East basketball message board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests