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.
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.
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.
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....
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests