Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 04:44:29 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Sports / Fantasy Sports  |  Topic: 2013/14 NCAA Basketball 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Go Down Print
Author Topic: 2013/14 NCAA Basketball  (Read 43410 times)
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #140 on: April 11, 2014, 10:33:08 AM

Plus... who really gives a shit what the seeding is? Other than butthurt gamblers who don't follow the game closely enough to know if Dayton is any good but bet on games anyway.

It's not like we'll see ever see Dayton again after another 2 or 3 years.    why so serious?

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 15024

I am the harbinger of your doom!


Reply #141 on: April 11, 2014, 10:34:17 AM

Probably depends how long Archie Miller stays.  Once a big program lures him away, they'll likely slip.

-Rasix
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #142 on: April 11, 2014, 11:19:13 AM

Paelos is a accountant that doesn't believe in stats.  Or logic.

Oh please. You know I believe in stats. The debate shows up on which stats are more important than other stats.

As for the seedings, you can pull almost any article from the sports sites and they talk about how poorly this was handled, and how seedings aren't indicators anymore. Nebu is right, they don't know how to evaluate the talent, and they have no idea how to seed because of it.

That means that there isn't a regressing win probability across the seeds when they get them wrong. If anything it's more of a tossup. Here's a recent AP piece that talks about it, and the impact freshman are having that is making the tournament seeding basically pointless.


CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 15024

I am the harbinger of your doom!


Reply #143 on: April 11, 2014, 11:27:34 AM

You don't seed based on talent. 

-Rasix
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #144 on: April 11, 2014, 11:29:32 AM

That's the point though. Seeding based on "record" or "RPI" isn't going to be a good indicator of a bunch of young kids who are playing poorly in October and learn how to play as a unit by March. Not in this new world of one and done NCAA basketball.

They should be seeding on talent. The early wins and losses before January are basically pointless in the case of a tournament like this.

EDIT: In fact there should be weightings that give more credence to later wins than earlier wins.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #145 on: April 11, 2014, 11:32:23 AM

I thought the point of the higher seed was to reward regular season performance... to give it added value.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 15024

I am the harbinger of your doom!


Reply #146 on: April 11, 2014, 11:32:42 AM

How do you factor in moxie and gumption?  How much of a higher seed should get you get for some good ole fashion elbow grease or unquenchable desire for victory?  Should the heart of a champion get you out of that dreaded five seed?

As has been said: you reward based on performance. Seeding is not a handicapping service.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 11:34:13 AM by Rasix »

-Rasix
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #147 on: April 11, 2014, 11:33:34 AM

You forgot "Eye of the Tiger" and being a "Diaper Dandy".

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #148 on: April 11, 2014, 11:53:58 AM

I thought the point of the higher seed was to reward regular season performance... to give it added value.

If the game wasn't currently rigged by allowing these new transfer and one-and-done rules, I'd agree.

College basketball wants to reward the regular season, but we all know that 95% of their viewing audience gives absolutely no fucks about the regular season. They tune in during tournament time, and they want the seeds to reflect how good the teams are.

Here's the thing, I'm not saying Witchita goes undefeated and doesn't deserve a #1 seed. I'm saying the committee has long-standing biases that no longer apply with younger teams, and they are using the wrong data to subjectively decide between teams that are within 3-4 wins of each other. You can't simply seed college basketball by straight wins and losses, but the committee is way overvaluing certain wins, and ignoring certain losses. That's what leads a team like Louisville to have a 4 seed with 5 losses, while Kansas and Duke got higher seeds with 2-3 more losses a piece. Because they played the "harder" schedule. Yet, when we look back at the results, did the committee completely overvalue those schedules? I think yes, and that's what causing the issues.

If the difference is a team playing better ball at the end of the year with more developed talents and a better February and March record, I think that should count for something in the seeds if the teams are only separated by a handful of wins.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Hoax
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8110

l33t kiddie


Reply #149 on: April 11, 2014, 12:26:01 PM

 Ohhhhh, I see.

Paelos is a accountant that doesn't believe in stats.  Or logic.



 rolleyes

A nation consists of its laws. A nation does not consist of its situation at a given time. If an individual's morals are situational, then that individual is without morals. If a nation's laws are situational, that nation has no laws, and soon isn't a nation.
-William Gibson
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #150 on: April 11, 2014, 12:38:42 PM

Meh yall are just still mad Wisconsin didn't win so you can't rub it in my face for shitting on the Big Ten.  why so serious?

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #151 on: April 11, 2014, 01:54:40 PM

Nah, the thing I don't get is why you act like winning a single-elimination tournament is deeply meaningful in any sense other than one of about 20 teams who could realistically win it all getting hot and lucky.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2014, 01:56:27 PM by Ingmar »

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #152 on: April 11, 2014, 02:56:57 PM

Nah, the thing I don't get is why you act like winning a single-elimination tournament is deeply meaningful in any sense other than one of about 20 teams who could realistically win it all getting hot and lucky.

I meant Rasix and the resident Big 10 lovers, not really you.

It's meaningful in that we've seen a lot of the same teams win them, lucky or otherwise. Call it what you will, but I'm intrigued by the dominance of certain programs when the field is this large. Of the 6 teams that have won in the last 10 years, those teams have a combined 29 NCAA tournament victories in the history of the tournament. And that's leaving out UCLA who has 11 of their own. The majority of these wins belong to a handful of schools, with well over 300+ potentially competing.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4297


Reply #153 on: April 11, 2014, 02:58:50 PM

Nah, the thing I don't get is why you act like winning a single-elimination tournament is deeply meaningful in any sense other than one of about 20 teams who could realistically win it all getting hot and lucky.

I meant Rasix and the resident Big 10 lovers, not really you.

It's meaningful in that we've seen a lot of the same teams win them, lucky or otherwise. Call it what you will, but I'm intrigued by the dominance of certain programs when the field is this large. Of the 6 teams that have won in the last 10 years, those teams have a combined 29 NCAA tournament victories in the history of the tournament. And that's leaving out UCLA who has 11 of their own. The majority of these wins belong to a handful of schools, with well over 300+ potentially competing.

Its because over a large number of games, random events converge to the mean. It is therefore expected that the dominant programs (which can continue to be dominant due to winning) will win the majority of the championships.

Oh please. You know I believe in stats.

Seeding has error therefore its worthless


Just letting you know that you're saying two diametrically opposed things
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #154 on: April 11, 2014, 03:07:07 PM

I'm intrigued by why they are dominant, not just that they are dominant. Is it recruiting the youngest talent over and over, is it teams of battle-tested seniors with non-NBA skills, or is it finding the best coaching? Several teams are trying different things in the one-and-done era, and other teams are watching to draw conclusions about how they should operate their programs based on tournament successes.

A lot of the best programs have completely different styles as well. Winning today in this era would be completely different than winning in the say the 70s.


CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Tannhauser
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4436


Reply #155 on: April 16, 2014, 02:43:11 AM

I didn't want to start a new thread so allow me to wallow in grief here.  Martin leaves Tennessee for Cal.  That's very disappointing, after Pearl, Kiffin and the incompetent Dooley, Martin brought both integrity and a Sweet 16 appearance to the Vols.  And he's taking his 7' Arizona star HS player with him.  The guy twitter-committed to UT and then twitter-bailed on us a few hours later. 

Best of luck Coach Martin at Cal.  Heartbreak
Paelos
Contributor
Posts: 27075

Error 404: Title not found.


Reply #156 on: April 16, 2014, 05:16:02 AM

Your pain is Ingmar's gain it seems.

CPA, CFO, Sports Fan, Game when I have the time
Ingmar
Terracotta Army
Posts: 19280

Auto Assault Affectionado


Reply #157 on: April 16, 2014, 10:59:03 AM

Hopefully. The shoes he has to fill are pretty big and our best overall player and best big man are both graduating. Supposedly he's bringing some 7'1" recruit with him but I have no idea if the guy is any good. Cal fans are usually at least semi-patient with new coaches, but this guy is replacing a retiring good coach rather than a bad fired one so they might be more impatient than usual.

The Transcendent One: AH... THE ROGUE CONSTRUCT.
Nordom: Sense of closure: imminent.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Sports / Fantasy Sports  |  Topic: 2013/14 NCAA Basketball  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC