Ok, we may not have a signature win (yet, I'm looking at you Xavier), but many of the teams on the bubble with a top 25 win or two also have several bad losses. LBState is our worst loss and they are still top 100 RPI. I would love to hear how the committee will evaluate this information -- i.e., is a top win more valuable to a team's resume than a brutal loss, or do they cancel each other out? Is lack of a bad loss, on par with a good win etc.
While good for discussions on the message boards, it's frustrating when you have someone like Lunardi with:
- Monmouth seeded higher than SHU despite their three losses to sub-200 teams. MU beat an overrated USC team and Notre Dame. And 19 of their 27 games are vs sub 150 teams! SHU has only 9 games vs sub 150 and they won them all.
- Valpo seeded higher and they have one top 50 win (Oregon State) and three sub 150 losses. Plus Valpo has rpi of 69!
- Gonzaga as an 8 seed, despite 59 RPI and 2-6 record vs top 100. (SHU is 7-7 vs top 100). But I guess the name Gonzaga is good for a few extra points.
Of course, all the teams on the bubble have baggage (or else, they wouldn't be on the bubble).
I don't understand why NCAA committee can't promote more transparency in the process. Perhaps they could provide the estimate weighting given to certain elements of the resume (how much is RPI used, Kenpom, other metrics). There should be plenty of available tools to help reduce the subjectivity / shenanigans (eye-test) from the committee members. Or have the meeting minutes available after the process so that each member is fully accountable for their rationale in selecting and seeding the teams.
While good for discussions on the message boards, it's frustrating when you have someone like Lunardi with:
- Monmouth seeded higher than SHU despite their three losses to sub-200 teams. MU beat an overrated USC team and Notre Dame. And 19 of their 27 games are vs sub 150 teams! SHU has only 9 games vs sub 150 and they won them all.
- Valpo seeded higher and they have one top 50 win (Oregon State) and three sub 150 losses. Plus Valpo has rpi of 69!
- Gonzaga as an 8 seed, despite 59 RPI and 2-6 record vs top 100. (SHU is 7-7 vs top 100). But I guess the name Gonzaga is good for a few extra points.
Of course, all the teams on the bubble have baggage (or else, they wouldn't be on the bubble).
I don't understand why NCAA committee can't promote more transparency in the process. Perhaps they could provide the estimate weighting given to certain elements of the resume (how much is RPI used, Kenpom, other metrics). There should be plenty of available tools to help reduce the subjectivity / shenanigans (eye-test) from the committee members. Or have the meeting minutes available after the process so that each member is fully accountable for their rationale in selecting and seeding the teams.
