Everything is still in front of us

[muguru]

Dude, I tried to follow your train of thought, I really did, but I got completely lost trying to decipher your last paragraph. 

The ACC is a better conference than the Big East so of course there are going to be more opportunities for Q1A games, the teams still have to win them though.  We had an opportunity for a Q1A win literally yesterday, and we didn't rise to the occasion.

If you get rid of the Q1A/Q1B split then our win @Butler would be seen the same way as Duke's win @Virginia, they'd both be Q1.  Personally I think Duke's win @Virginia is better than our win @Butler so it makes sense that they would get a bigger resume boost than us.  Big enough to make up for a home loss to Syracuse even.  Mich blowout win @Nova (who just beat us BTW) more than makes up for a loss @PennSt.  MSU win @Mich more than makes up for a loss to I4 (who beat us by 23 BTW). 

While not benefiting us a ton this year, I fully believe that the Q1A/Q1B split was beneficial in more accurately determining the quality of teams resumes.

But see my friend..this is why the committee cannot just use #'s for everything..and why I want the committee to always be made up of basketball people..former coaches and players..why? Because they can look past the #'s and use the eye test. Sure..the #'s might say a loss to school x isn't that bad with their shiny 60 NET ranking..however a basketball person can look at it more objectively and say "I know their computer numbers are decent..but this is a 12-15 basketball team and they aren't very good..that's a bad loss".

I mean you wanna know how flawed the NET is(and granted we don't know exactly how they use it or how important it is) but Oklahoma State went from 98..UP to 89 after LOSING last night..in OT to Texas Tech..explain that!

[Its DJOver]

But see my friend..this is why the committee cannot just use #'s for everything..and why I want the committee to always be made up of basketball people..former coaches and players..why? Because they can look past the #'s and use the eye test. Sure..the #'s might say a loss to school x isn't that bad with their shiny 60 NET ranking..however a basketball person can look at it more objectively and say "I know their computer numbers are decent..but this is a 12-15 basketball team and they aren't very good..that's a bad loss".

I mean you wanna know how flawed the NET is(and granted we don't know exactly how they use it or how important it is) but Oklahoma State went from 98..UP to 89 after LOSING last night..in OT to Texas Tech..explain that!

Except, once again, not everyone's eye test is the same.  Did your eye test tell you that Nova had lost three straight, or did it tell you that they hadn't lost at home in 3 months?  I realize that you don't like computers but they have been right far more consistently than your eye test, which is different than my eye test, which is different than the eye test of a former ACC player, which is different than the eye test of a former ACC coach,  which is different than the eye test of a former Big East coach.  Do you see how your one stop solution to everything may not be perfect?

[muguru]

Except, once again, not everyone's eye test is the same.  Did your eye test tell you that Nova had lost three straight, or did it tell you that they hadn't lost at home in 3 months?  I realize that you don't like computers but they have been right far more consistently than your eye test, which is different than my eye test, which is different than the eye test of a former ACC player, which is different than the eye test of a former ACC coach,  which is different than the eye test of a former Big East coach.  Do you see how your one stop solution to everything may not be perfect?

I like computers...I'm on them constantly, I just think with regards to the NCAA tournament, you sometimes HAVE to look beyond the numbers at things..Numbers can say whatever you want them to say...you have to really look at WHY the #'s may say what they say...there are always anomalies and flaws. They have to ask themselves...for instance "Okay, the numbers say Penn State is the 48th best team in Pomeroy(this is just an example), and 60th in NET, which are both pretty good..But..in actuality, they are a 12-15 basketball team...so why are the #'s saying this about them"??

You want ONE way...one way that it would be right all the time?? Let me do it..I will put teams in the field, seed them, and follow all rules and procedures. 

But seriously though...I have often thought that,(and this is where I actually WANT computers to do it) because of the makeup of the committee and the human element, that if they could somehow come up with a program, that can "calculate" the necessary criteria(whatever it is...ie 20 wins, above .500 in conference etc) to let the computers pick and seed the teams. Everyone would know ahead of time...okay this is what you HAVE to have to be an NCAA tournament team..Then it's all above board, everyone knows what they need to do ahead of time etc.

For instance, you "run" the program, it spits out the teams in order of the most deserving teams(that meet ALL criteria), and they are seeded as such...So say, if it spits out MU as the #8 team, they are the last two seed etc. This way you take the potentially biased human element out of it. It's not the computers I have an issue with, it's the people interpreting the #'s, and How they are interpreting them, that I have questions about. You have to know why the #'s are telling you what they are..that's the bottom line.

Bryce Harper hit like .243 last year...the #'s say that's what he was last year..a .243 hitter. But are we to believe that as gospel, or do we need to dig deeper and figure out why it was that way??

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So you don't like the current numbers systems....and say people need to look beyond the numbers....but you want to develop a different numbers system....and not allow people to look beyond those numbers and just do whatever the numbers say?

[Its DJOver]

I agree with TAMU, I'm completely befuddled by your solution.  You don't trust the NET but you want a computer program to do what the NET does just better, and you don't trust the committee but you want people that can look past the numbers.  This is yet another reason why it certainly looks like you're complaining just for the sake of it.

I do look forward to your bracket though.  Since your eye test is better than the committee's evaluation, I expect that you'll release your bracket before they release theirs so we can ensure that you didn't just copy their bracket, and switch up a few teams a la Jesse Newel's AP ballot.

[muguru]

I agree with TAMU, I'm completely befuddled by your solution.  You don't trust the NET but you want a computer program to do what the NET does just better, and you don't trust the committee but you want people that can look past the numbers.  This is yet another reason why it certainly looks like you're complaining just for the sake of it.



I do look forward to your bracket though.  Since your eye test is better than the committee's evaluation, I expect that you'll release your bracket before they release theirs so we can ensure that you didn't just copy their bracket, and switch up a few teams a la Jesse Newel's AP ballot.

No..my problem is..you seemingly have ZERO issues every year with the committee..Think everything is legit, fair etc. They select the right teams, seed them correctly and place them correctly..that the #'s we see are completely accurate and tell us exactly what we should know about these teams. Got it.

Nice world you live in DJ..I think you're the one arguing just to argue..

[Its DJOver]

No..my problem is..you seemingly have ZERO issues every year with the committee..Think everything is legit, fair etc. They select the right teams, seed them correctly and place them correctly..that the #'s we see are completely accurate and tell us exactly what we should know about these teams. Got it.

Nice world you live in DJ..I think you're the one arguing just to argue..

No. As I said earlier the committee absolutely does not always get everything right, largely due to the fact that it would be impossible to do so.  It doesn't matter if the committee used RPI, NET, KenPom, or your patented eye test, there are some problems that just do not have a perfect solution.  That is what it seems like you do not get.

Based on your eye test S-curve, which 3 "protected seeds" other than Gonzaga would be going to San Jose/SLC?  Keep in mind that you have to follow all the rules and place teams as close to home as possible.  Kinda hard when literally 15 of the current top 16 bracketmatrix seeds are east of the Rockies.

I don't have a problem with the committee sending someone west because I understand that someone has to go west.  Not all 68 teams can play in Des Moines.

[UWW2MU]

Guru, what is strange to me is that you're the one that kept saying "just win and just worry about MU, nothing else matters." 

I think the points you are making here prove that no program lives in a bubble.

I'll turn your point of view around and say that, the committee and NET are not perfect, but if MU (or any school) takes care of business, they won't have to worry about being on the bubble or what their seed is.  Just win and it'll all take care of itself April 8th.

[muguru]

Guru, what is strange to me is that you're the one that kept saying "just win and just worry about MU, nothing else matters." 

I think the points you are making here prove that no program lives in a bubble.

I'll turn your point of view around and say that, the committee and NET are not perfect, but if MU (or any school) takes care of business, they won't have to worry about being on the bubble or what their seed is.  Just win and it'll all take care of itself April 8th.

Oh I know, and believe me, I hope we NEVER see the day again where MU is on the bubble, or NIT(not in tournament). It's nice to know that before the season even starts, barring something disastrous, you are going to be safely in the field and are essentially playing the year for seeding. I want that to continue for a very long time.

[muguru]

No. As I said earlier the committee absolutely does not always get everything right, largely due to the fact that it would be impossible to do so.  It doesn't matter if the committee used RPI, NET, KenPom, or your patented eye test, there are some problems that just do not have a perfect solution.  That is what it seems like you do not get.

Based on your eye test S-curve, which 3 "protected seeds" other than Gonzaga would be going to San Jose/SLC?  Keep in mind that you have to follow all the rules and place teams as close to home as possible.  Kinda hard when literally 15 of the current top 16 bracketmatrix seeds are east of the Rockies.


You pull out google maps, get the distance from said city to San Jose/SLC and Boom, there's your solution.(Houston would be one). I know everyone can't play close to home, I get that, I have always gotten that, but..if you can't put an MU in Des Moines for example, then can we TRY to at least get everyone within 12 hours(car ride) of home?? That seems reasonable to do.

I don't have a problem with the committee sending someone west because I understand that someone has to go west.  Not all 68 teams can play in Des Moines.

[Its DJOver]

The four closest projected protected seeds to the west coast are Gonzaga, Texas Tech, Houston, and Kansas.  If you put them in San Jose/SLC and then follow the rules exactly, none of the teams in their pods could be the winner of the Big Sky, Big West, Mountain West, PAC 12, Southland, SWAC, Summit, or WAC, because all of those teams would be geographically closer than Tech, Houston and Kansas. 

You would then be sending the three teams closest to Tulsa out west (causing all three of those teams to think that the committee screwed them over), leaving Tulsa with LSU and Purdue, and then they couldn't be in a pod with anyone closer to Tulsa than them (575 miles from Baton Rouge to Tulsa, and 650 miles from West Lafayette to Tulsa).  That would then severely limit the potential teams that could be in pods with them, since we're following the rules 100% to the letter. 

All of that is just strictly taking into account geography, you also have to consider that 1 seeds get priority over 2, who get priority over 3s etc.  Then throw in that you can't match up with anyone from your Conference before (I believe) the S16.  Then throw in that you can't have a rematch with anyone before (I believe) the S16. 

The rules are meant more as guidelines.  MU shouldn't have been able to play Syracuse in the round of 32 in 2011 but because of the number of teams the conference got, and the way the seeding broke, we did.  Where's you outcry of the committee not following the rules then, surely our S16 should be vacated.  MU shouldn't have been able to play Butler in the round of 32 in 2013 but because of the way seeding broke we did.  Where's your outcry of the committee not following the rules then, surely our E8 should be vacated.  I would much rather have had the 3 with a rematch of Butler, than dropping down to a 4 so that all the rules could appropriately be applied.  Sometimes you draw the short stick, it happens, you have to deal with it.  Sometimes you get a lucky draw, it happens, embrace it when it does. 

MU could still very well end up in Des Moines, and I will be happy if that is the case, but if we do not get to play there, I will not be criticizing the committee because as a "protected seed" we didn't end up in the closest location.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Give me the 3 seed out west with Houston as the 2 and Gonzaga as the 1 erry gotdamn day!

[MUMountin]

I will say, one problem with the way the top 16 seeds go is that in terms of geography, you may be better of being #17 on the seed list instead of #15 in an unbalanced year like this.

Because the West Coast is so weak this year, with two locations in the western two time zones but only two teams capable of a top 16 finish in those time zones, seeds #15 and 16 will be shipped more than 1000 miles out west.  Once those top 16 seeds are spread evenly among the 8 locations, though, then there is a random chance that seeds 17 on down could be placed somewhere much closer to home--at least somewhere in the eastern half of the US. 

Of course, you are then a 5-seed against a theoretically better 12-seed, which also matters some.  And, there is a chance that since you are no longer "protected" you could play a team that is even closer to home than you are (e.g., Marquette could play a Temple in Hartford).  But, as seed 15 or 16 you are basically destined to get stuck in UT and CA while team 17 and 18 could end up much closer to home. 

[Its DJOver]

I will say, one problem with the way the top 16 seeds go is that in terms of geography, you may be better of being #17 on the seed list instead of #15 in an unbalanced year like this.

Because the West Coast is so weak this year, with two locations in the western two time zones but only two teams capable of a top 16 finish in those time zones, seeds #15 and 16 will be shipped more than 1000 miles out west.  Once those top 16 seeds are spread evenly among the 8 locations, though, then there is a random chance that seeds 17 on down could be placed somewhere much closer to home--at least somewhere in the eastern half of the US. 

Of course, you are then a 5-seed against a theoretically better 12-seed, which also matters some.  And, there is a chance that since you are no longer "protected" you could play a team that is even closer to home than you are (e.g., Marquette could play a Temple in Hartford).  But, as seed 15 or 16 you are basically destined to get stuck in UT and CA while team 17 and 18 could end up much closer to home.

This guy gets it.  There are zero permutations of a perfectly balanced field, that favors the higher seed in every aspect, and there has never been a perfectly balanced field.  Expecting one or getting upset when it doesn't happen is just looking for something to complain about.

[MU82]

Give me the 3 seed out west with Houston as the 2 and Gonzaga as the 1 erry gotdamn day!

Yep, I would gladly -- GLADLY! -- trade playing in Des Moines in the first two rounds for the opportunity at this scenario. (Not that they are mutually exclusive, but I'm just sayin'.)

As for the committee members, they DO use the eye test, which is why teams aren't seeded only because of what the computers say. I mean, in their first reveal of this season, they placed MU several rungs higher than where both the NET and the great KenPom said we should be.

There is no perfect system, and there certainly is nothing we here can control in regards to the one that currently exists.

Let's beat CU, SH and GT, win some games in the BET (preferably 3!) ... and then let's see if we have anything to be upset about.

Life is too much fun to get upset in advance about hypothetical situations.

[MUfanatic45]

Give me the 3 seed out west with Houston as the 2 and Gonzaga as the 1 erry gotdamn day!

I'd love to get Houston.

But Gonzaga is really, really good. I'd rather take a crack at a few of the other potential 1 seeds.

[muguru]

The four closest projected protected seeds to the west coast are Gonzaga, Texas Tech, Houston, and Kansas.  If you put them in San Jose/SLC and then follow the rules exactly, none of the teams in their pods could be the winner of the Big Sky, Big West, Mountain West, PAC 12, Southland, SWAC, Summit, or WAC, because all of those teams would be geographically closer than Tech, Houston and Kansas. 

You would then be sending the three teams closest to Tulsa out west (causing all three of those teams to think that the committee screwed them over), leaving Tulsa with LSU and Purdue, and then they couldn't be in a pod with anyone closer to Tulsa than them (575 miles from Baton Rouge to Tulsa, and 650 miles from West Lafayette to Tulsa).  That would then severely limit the potential teams that could be in pods with them, since we're following the rules 100% to the letter. 

All of that is just strictly taking into account geography, you also have to consider that 1 seeds get priority over 2, who get priority over 3s etc.  Then throw in that you can't match up with anyone from your Conference before (I believe) the S16.  Then throw in that you can't have a rematch with anyone before (I believe) the S16. 

The rules are meant more as guidelines.  MU shouldn't have been able to play Syracuse in the round of 32 in 2011 but because of the number of teams the conference got, and the way the seeding broke, we did.  Where's you outcry of the committee not following the rules then, surely our S16 should be vacated.  MU shouldn't have been able to play Butler in the round of 32 in 2013 but because of the way seeding broke we did.  Where's your outcry of the committee not following the rules then, surely our E8 should be vacated. I would much rather have had the 3 with a rematch of Butler, than dropping down to a 4 so that all the rules could appropriately be applied.  Sometimes you draw the short stick, it happens, you have to deal with it. Sometimes you get a lucky draw, it happens, embrace it when it does. 

MU could still very well end up in Des Moines, and I will be happy if that is the case, but if we do not get to play there, I will not be criticizing the committee because as a "protected seed" we didn't end up in the closest location.

Maybe change some of the guidelines then, so it's perfectly clear to everyone and people understand, it may not always go this way or that way.

I don't really much care about rematches in conferences, I know it's not supposed to happen, but it's unavoidable sometimes. I care about MU and MU only, I always want the best draw, best seed, best location possible so they have the best chance as advancing as deep as possible. If other schools get screwed because of it, so be it. As far as the bolded above, Sure I'd have much rather had the #3 seed and played Butler, but, you know how you avoid that?? Bump MU up to the #2, problem solved.

In the end, I went the best draw possible for MU, because I want them advancing as deep as possible. But admittedly, I will be upset if on SS they get a #4 seed, instead of a #3 seed, because being a #4 is MUCH worse. And, I'd almost bet anything someone on the #3 line(like Houston), will have NO business being on that line...one loss or not. And I will be pissed(and I feel rightly so). They have what?? 2 quad 1 wins?? Especially when it seems to this point, from what most have deduced is Quad 1 wins matter... a lot. Okay, so if that's the case does that then suddenly not apply to Houston?? Further, VERY few teams have dropped(Oklahoma last year not withstanding), from where they were on the "reveal" show. Typically it's been a "what you see is what you get". But...it wouldn't surprise me if MU was one of the VERY few schools that has dropped from where they were on that show. That too will piss me off, because I'd want to hear the rationale as to why. When the committee doesn't answer specific questions, THAT'S when it leads to conspiracy theories etc. Just be transparent, that's all.

[Its DJOver]

Maybe change some of the guidelines then, so it's perfectly clear to everyone and people understand, it may not always go this way or that way.

The only one that does not appear to understand this is you.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I'd love to get Houston.

But Gonzaga is really, really good. I'd rather take a crack at a few of the other potential 1 seeds.

Any of the probable 1 seeds we'd be a fairly large underdog, but Gonzaga doesn't force a ton of turnovers on defense (our achilles heel) and their strength of schedule is by far the weakest. We'd be by far the best team they'd faced (aside from probably 2 days prior) in calendar year 2019. That's the poison I pick.

[fjm]

Maybe change some of the guidelines then, so it's perfectly clear to everyone and people understand, it may not always go this way or that way.

I don't really much care about rematches in conferences, I know it's not supposed to happen, but it's unavoidable sometimes. I care about MU and MU only, I always want the best draw, best seed, best location possible so they have the best chance as advancing as deep as possible. If other schools get screwed because of it, so be it. As far as the bolded above, Sure I'd have much rather had the #3 seed and played Butler, but, you know how you avoid that?? Bump MU up to the #2, problem solved.

In the end, I went the best draw possible for MU, because I want them advancing as deep as possible. But admittedly, I will be upset if on SS they get a #4 seed, instead of a #3 seed, because being a #4 is MUCH worse. And, I'd almost bet anything someone on the #3 line(like Houston), will have NO business being on that line...one loss or not. And I will be pissed(and I feel rightly so). They have what?? 2 quad 1 wins?? Especially when it seems to this point, from what most have deduced is Quad 1 wins matter... a lot. Okay, so if that's the case does that then suddenly not apply to Houston?? Further, VERY few teams have dropped(Oklahoma last year not withstanding), from where they were on the "reveal" show. Typically it's been a "what you see is what you get". But...it wouldn't surprise me if MU was one of the VERY few schools that has dropped from where they were on that show. That too will piss me off, because I'd want to hear the rationale as to why. When the committee doesn't answer specific questions, THAT'S when it leads to conspiracy theories etc. Just be transparent, that's all.

Dude. Chill. We get it. You love MU. So do we, but wearing the tin foil so much that MU because of one loss will now drop so far... you gotta take a deep breath man.

Teams directly below MU have dropped 2+ games since the reveal.

Other teams like Texas tech have won a ton. We will be fine.