it is impossible to come up with specific criteria to accurately rank that complete mess of teams between 30-60. everyone has some points in their favor and some points against them

I agree with you but you have to at least openly rank what you use as a committee.

Neutral/Road wins
RPI
Top 50 wins

Etc


Its impossible to pin down what they even weighed when making this bracket. Wasnt top 50 wins, Syracuse had 6. Wasnt RPI, Illinois State was 33rd.

weighing X doesnt mean that every team in has better X than the teams that arent

we know what they use. a combination of all those things. apparently USC's slightly worse RPI than illinois st (but much better than syracuse) and overall tougher schedule than illinois st was the sweet spot.

Thats true and I understand alot of factors go into this but what factors are those and how important is each factor? Thats what I want to know.

the end of the bubble usually goes something like

Did committee chair used to work there? (this explains tulsa)

who makes us the most $?

and on the evaluation side it goes

"did the team i want to make it get in?"

nope

"clearly they arent weighing the right things"

out of curiousity, how much more money do you think "they" (the ncaa? the committee people? cbs?) will make because usc is playing instead of syracuse

USC has to be bigger than lol syracuse

Trumpwrong.gif

Cuse basketball is insanely bigger than USC basketball and it isn't particularly close. USC has too much competition for their interest. In Syracuse, there is jack **** other than CBB really. Cuse is regularly 1st or 2nd in attendance (giant dome they play in helps) and typically top 5 in overall attendance across all their games at over 21k, USC get's 4k in a much bigger city which isn't even in the top 100 for D1 basketball. There a few teams in the top 50 from last years attendance that didn't make the tourney this year; most notably, Cuse, NCState, TN, Texas etc.

http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/defau...ance_final.pdf

I dont care who got in, just want to know whats important for next year. I want to know what Made Wisconsin an 8, MSU a 9, and Minnesota a 5 just out of curiosity. Id imagine coaches want to know for more important reasons.

Minnesota for some reason got huge rewards for winning big @ Purdue and @ MD and 9 of 10 to finish the regular season. Wisconsin finish 2-5 to end the season (5/5 last 10). I agree they should be much clearly with the rationale for their decision but the issue is you could game the system if know knew the exact conditions for their selections.

The thing that confuses me is

Wisconsin fi ished 2nd regular season in B1G, runner up in BTT, beat Minnesota - 8 seed

Minnesota finished 4th regular season B1G, lost a round before Wisconsin in the semis, lost their starting sg for the year in the BTT, lost to wisconsin, 5 seed

So what slid Minnesota up that far past Wisconsin?

It's obviously not the only thing, but RPI for one. With Mark Hollis in charge, that shouldn't be any surprise. Minnesota 20, Wisconsin 36. Minnesota gets a bump for beating Arkansas and Vandy, lost close to FSU. I guess they get credit for better B1G wins despite losing twice to Wisconsin?

Also finished the season much stronger than Bucky.

Absolutely not saying it's right, but those are possible reasons.

Wisconsin was slotted as a 7 until they lost to Michigan in the final.

I think I read somewhere they're getting rid of RPI next year

ya Minnys seed was all RPI, should have been a 7 seed (fwiw I agree my terps should have also been a 7 seed)

Ok so now you see my point

Wisconsin had everything on Minnesota except RPI, yet Minnesota got 3 seed lines higher.

Illinois State was 5 spots higher at 33 in RPI to Vandy(38), and got left out despite Vandy 9 seed.

This is the point Im making - there is no consistency, they just keep moving the goalposts and have no transparency so they can be as biased as they want and do whatever they want.

In what world does it ever make sense to seed SCAR 7 and Wisconsin an 8?

as a minnesota fan im just upset with our seed because it needlessly gets my hopes up when we have about %0.1 chance to make it to the final let alone win.

seeding seems to be half how much money can the NCAA make and half how can they make it while seeming somewhat honest about the process.

just subscribed to kenpom for the first time. why are some players bolded and others not in the Players Stats on the team pages.

quick look at a few teams, looks like it is the 5 guys who play the most.

thx matt24, yeah top 5 in total minutes played it seems.

its like people dont understand ooc sos is a thing the committee always looks at closely and punishes if its sub 275

the minnesota/wisconsin seeding is pretty terrible mainly because minnesota is way too high but it is not true that wisconsin has "everything".

for example, minnesota has two good OOC wins against tournament teams (vandy + arkansas) while wisconsin has just one from my quick schedule glance

minnesota finished the season 8-2 while wisconsin was 4-6

you will never be satisfied with any explanation. you are like the people who see a team ranked below someone that they beat in a top 25 poll and then decries "HEAD TO HEAD OBVIOUSLY DOESNT MATTER" when really it is an impossible to fulfill criteria every time.

this is supposed to matter zero, they changed this a couple-few years ago

can someone explain the Duke vs. unc seeding?

unc lost to non-tourney teams in Indiana and GT. Duke lost to non-tourney teams in NCST and Syracuse.

unc had a 3 point loss to Kentucky. Duke had a 2 point loss to Kansas (without Tatum).

unc had 10 wins over tourney teams. Duke had 13 wins over tourney teams.

unc is 27-7 and has been healthy most of the year and was 2-2 in their last 4 games and 7-3 in their last 10 games. Duke is 27-8 and has had injuries and suspensions throughout the year, but is fully healthy now and was 4-0 in their last 4 games and 7-3 in their last 10 games.

Duke and unc have played 3 times this season and Duke has won twice and unc has won only once.

Why does unc deserve a 1 seed and Duke deserve to be in the bracket with the #1 overall seed?

maybe not specifically, but "how good is a team right now" seems like something you consider and wisconsin has not been good