NCAA Seeding

[np9]

The committee emphasized non conference strength of schedule apparently. Creightons non con sos was 189. Playing and beating wsu in the conference championship would have helped them immensely.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the committee would choose to "emphasize" something like non-con SOS? This is esentially the one factor that teams have the least control over. It's one step away from the committee coming out and saying that they decided to emphasize total randomness this year. You can't control how your opponents perform for the rest of the year. Likewise, schedules are often made years in advance, and then players get injured, teams have unexpected slumps, coaches leave, etc. What looked like a well scheduled game often doesn't turn out to be one. Not everyone can play Duke and UNC every year, there just aren't enough games to go around.

On top of all that, the RPI already includes SOS as a component, and it uses math to determine how well teams played against their schedule. Why would they choose to look at only one component of the formula and not simply the RPI numbers?

And why don't the media types ever ask the committee members these questions?

[Snaggletooth]

The committee emphasized non conference strength of schedule apparently. Creightons non con sos was 189. Playing and beating wsu in the conference championship would have helped them immensely.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the committee would choose to "emphasize" something like non-con SOS? This is esentially the one factor that teams have the least control over. It's one step away from the committee coming out and saying that they decided to emphasize total randomness this year. You can't control how your opponents perform for the rest of the year. Likewise, schedules are often made years in advance, and then players get injured, teams have unexpected slumps, coaches leave, etc. What looked like a well scheduled game often doesn't turn out to be one. Not everyone can play Duke and UNC every year, there just aren't enough games to go around.

On top of all that, the RPI already includes SOS as a component, and it uses math to determine how well teams played against their schedule. Why would they choose to look at only one component of the formula and not simply the RPI numbers?

And why don't the media types ever ask the committee members these questions?

If you look at the NCAA S-Curve I think you will find that the NCAA didn't rank teams by their Non-Conf SOS, what it does look like is if there were teams who were essentially had the same body of work - they rewarded those teams who attempted to play a quality non-conference schedule.

I don't buy your excuse either about you can't control your schedule. Teams can control the number of 200-300 RPI teams they play. You can choose to schedule tournaments on neutral floors that give you an opportunity to play quality competition if you win. There are certain teams in the MVC who schedule wins only and their plan is leach off of the rest of the MVC.

[Josh for Jays]

I think one of the reasons that the Jays got moved down to 8 is that 2 of the 7 seeds ended up in Omaha due to giving us two #2 seeds, thereby leaving only 2 #7 seed spots as possibilites for the Jays. Something had to give.

You have to win the games you are dealt, so let's lace 'em up and see what happens!

[BirdmanBB]

The committee emphasized non conference strength of schedule apparently. Creightons non con sos was 189. Playing and beating wsu in the conference championship would have helped them immensely.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the committee would choose to "emphasize" something like non-con SOS? This is esentially the one factor that teams have the least control over. It's one step away from the committee coming out and saying that they decided to emphasize total randomness this year. You can't control how your opponents perform for the rest of the year. Likewise, schedules are often made years in advance, and then players get injured, teams have unexpected slumps, coaches leave, etc. What looked like a well scheduled game often doesn't turn out to be one. Not everyone can play Duke and UNC every year, there just aren't enough games to go around.

On top of all that, the RPI already includes SOS as a component, and it uses math to determine how well teams played against their schedule. Why would they choose to look at only one component of the formula and not simply the RPI numbers?

And why don't the media types ever ask the committee members these questions?

If you look at the NCAA S-Curve I think you will find that the NCAA didn't rank teams by their Non-Conf SOS, what it does look like is if there were teams who were essentially had the same body of work - they rewarded those teams who attempted to play a quality non-conference schedule.

I don't buy your excuse either about you can't control your schedule. Teams can control the number of 200-300 RPI teams they play. You can choose to schedule tournaments on neutral floors that give you an opportunity to play quality competition if you win. There are certain teams in the MVC who schedule wins only and their plan is leach off of the rest of the MVC.

I hate those teams. Of course, the commissioners philosophy is that if you are a team that is projected to finish well in the MVC then you should schedule up and if not, you should schedule accordingly (meaning...jack up the wins). I'm not making excuses, but what would you rather have? I think the door can swing both ways.