Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/8/2010 5:09:31 PMIt's hard to say because it depends what other bubble teams do. A win over St. John's isn't a quality win, so it doesn't help much. It's unlikely that I'll have them in after that but it's possible. They need a quality win desperately.
chase wrote at 2/8/2010 3:30:16 PMwill you have louisiville in if they beat st. john on the road?
Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/7/2010 11:55:32 PMThat was last week. Seton Hall is in trouble now at 3-7 in the Big East. They need a lot of help. Louisville is very close but needs one more quality win. A pair of wins this week over St. John's and Syracuse would get them in and keep them there for a while. Even just beating St. John's might get them in, although it probably won't. Wins over DePaul and St. John's and going 2-1 against Notre Dame, UConn and Marquette may be enough to get them in. Adding in one win out of three games against Syracuse (x2) and Georgetown will definitely get them in.
Chase wrote at 2/7/2010 8:05:36 PMlouisville might not have quality wins besides cincinnatti and south florida but it shows 9 teams from big east in and not louisivlle. seton hall is in and seton hall is 12-9 now thats crazy
Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/7/2010 11:44:46 AMNo team has gotten an at-large bid without beating a tournament team, and no team will. Cornell will not get an at-large bid. But if they finish 14-0 in the conference, they will be seeded among the at-large teams. The only way they could be considered for an at-large spot would obviously be if they didn't win the conference. And the only way they wouldn't would win the conference is if they lose a game. And if they lose a game to an Ivy team, it's going to drop them significantly. Understand? If the season ended today, they'd be 6-0. If they finish 14-0 and actually finish the job, that's much different. Plenty of teams have won six games in a row, but how many teams have won 14 in a row and finished undefeated in their conference? There's a huge difference.
JP wrote at 2/7/2010 10:05:26 AMYou still aren't seeing the whole point of my comments. I'm sure you will move them up in seeding if they run the table; I'm just pointing out that doing so will be inconsistent with all the reasons you have given for why you have them seed where they are now. "Total record means nothing" - your words, so running the table shouldn't improve anything "no team has ever gotten an at-large without beating another tournament team" - your words, and nothing that will be different between now and at the end of the year RPI/SOS will only get worse (I know you think that if they win out their rpi will improve, but maybe you should do a refresher on how the rpi is calculated - after their two wins this weekend they have nearly dropped out of the top 50) My only point is that is that if you truly were using the factors you claim, and were doing this "if the season ended today", then they should either be ranked higher now or shouldn't climb up as none of the factors you claim to use improve/ and in fact several deteriorate. Anyway, I've already spent too much time on this; I will leave you to be.
Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/6/2010 11:33:02 PMI'm not necessarily trying to say that the coaches don't know anything. I'm making the point that the polls and the selection committee are two very different animals. For example, UConn was ranked last week as #21. UConn isn't even a tournament team right now or at best a bubble team. But they are the 21st best team in the country? Absolutely not. Maybe the coaches believe so, but their resume is not the 21st best resume in the country. Cornell is ranked 25th this week, but they don't have the 25th best resume right now. Also, BYU is ranked 12th in both polls and New Mexico is only 23rd in the coaches poll. New Mexico definitely has a better resume than BYU, even before today's games, but somehow BYU is ranked 11 spots higher by the coaches. This makes no sense. These are examples of how the polls do not accurately reflect the seeding. Alod, RPI is not the only factor in seeding. It is only one component. If Cornell wins out and finishes 28-3 overall and 14-0 in the conference, trust me that they will be seeded higher than they are now. I know that I will and everyone else will seed them higher. It's about the total resume, and although they wouldn't have any great wins, like you said they wouldn't have any bad losses, and they would have proved they are legit by beating almost every team on their schedule. But one loss will really hurt them against an Ivy League team. They likely won't be able to get an at-large bid because that one loss that would lose them the league would really hurt, but running the table and finishing 27-3 (14-0) with their decent non-conference resume would be impressive enough to give them a better seed than a 12. It's hard to really explain everything, but I'm extremely confident that will happen.
JP wrote at 2/6/2010 11:10:56 PMI understand the components of the RPI...but maybe I'm off on the math. I thought that generally, 50% was your opponents record with 25% your record and the other 25% your opponenets-opponents record. If that is the case I see no way Cornell's RPI doesn't fade through the Ivy schedule (especially given 2 games against a 3-15 Penn plus one more game against 3-15 Dartmouth). Since the whole idea is ranking teams as they are today, I will be very interested in seeing why you rank Cornell higher (as high as an 8 if they win out from you past post). If at the end of the season, their RPI is in the high 40's low 50's, having still not beaten a tournament team will you rank them above at large teams? You stated before that they would not be ranked above at-larges with better profiles, so how is an 8/9/10 even possible? I'll be interested in watching that process and how it compares with you seeding now. With regard to the polls, the only reason I brought it up is that I would be suprised if a team has ever been ranked in the top 25 and seeded below 10. It's not that polls impact seeding, just that I imagine the coaches polls and the seedings have never been as far apart as you project. Just an interesting historical comparison. Also, I can't imagine the AD's and administrators on the committee watch more basketball than the coaches. Sure the coaches don't see most teams play, but do you think the AD's/Administrators do?
Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/2/2010 9:29:26 AMRPI is a combination of a team's record, its opponents' records, and its opponents' opponents' records. Their RPI has a good chance of improving for two reasons: If they win out, their RPI will improve. If their major conference opponents win games, their RPI will get better. And RPI isn't the only factor used for the selection process. It does hurt that they won't be facing any tournament teams, but another win over Harvard helps and any road wins they can get will help as well. If they finish 27-3 or something like that, trust me. Their resume will be improved and they will move up in the seeding. And yes, I am telling you that coaches are not involved in the selection process and do not rank teams based on resumes. Most of these coaches, just like the beat writers, don't see most teams play. Why do you think UConn was ranked last week when they are a bubble team right now? Rankings are totally irrelevant. Being ranked doesn't make a team get a better seed.
JP wrote at 2/2/2010 1:48:33 AMRyan: I guess you need to understand then, I said the coaches poll. You know the one made up by ncaa coaches. I hope you're not suggesting that they have no idea how the selection process works??? I know that the polls are not a factor, I just asked a basic question. What is the most that the coaches opinion of a team differed so greatly from the Administrators and AD's in the selection commitee. I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing you're predicting something fairly unprecendented. Also I'm not talking about where they end up, but where you have them at this point, I completely understand that. I'm sure you will move them up over time, but why would you. It is unlikely any of their measurables will do anything but get worse from here on out playing the ivy schedule; they still likely will not have beaten a team in the tournament (barring suprising runs by St. Johns or Alabama), their RPI will likely drop, SOS will drop, 0 top 50 wins.... So for all the reasons you stated last week, why would you move them up past at-large teams even if they continue winning???
Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/1/2010 6:07:06 PMJP: First of all, you have to understand that Top 25 rankings are not part of the selection process at all. They are never even brought up or discussed, so that is totally irrelevant. The large majority of Top 25 voters have no idea how the selection process works and which teams really have the best resumes. Most voters are just beat writers for certain teams and don't really understand the selection process and they don't base their rankings on that anyway. The Top 25 is irrelevant. And also, please understand that Cornell will get a much better seed in the NCAA tournament if it continues to win. If the Big Red finish 14-0 or 13-1 in the Ivy, which I anticipate they will, they will get a much better seed. I don't want to speculate, but I'm guessing it will be closer to an 8. But my bracket, as well as Lunardi's and other top bracketologists, is not a prediction of what WILL happen. It's a projection of what WOULD happen if the season ended today. With a 4-0 conference record and its resume as it stands, Cornell would be around a 12 seed. That's what would happen today. But what will happen on Selection Sunday? Who knows? If they are 14-0, like I said, their seed will be much better. But I'm not in the business of predicting the outcomes of games. I'm in the business of projecting the bracket as everything stands right now, and that's what this is.
JP wrote at 2/1/2010 4:01:50 PMSo what is the worst seed ever given to a team in the top 25 of the coaches poll?
Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/1/2010 3:07:18 PMThe guidelines that have to be followed that supersede the point below are that the first three teams from a conference must be placed in different regions and that teams that played during the season can't meet in the first round. After that, the next guideline to follow is to try to place teams from the same conference as far apart from each other as possible. Teams from the same conference will never meet in the second round (unless there are more than 8 teams in from the same conference, then it could happen) but they certainly can meet now in the Sweet 16.
Ryan Feldman wrote at 2/1/2010 3:04:25 PMThat is not true at all. That was true up until a couple years ago, but the guidelines were changed by the NCAA to allow teams from the same conference to meet before the regional final if there's no other way to correct things. While it is supposed to be avoided if at all possible, it is allowed to happen and did happen if you look at last year's bracket. Because of other guidelines when certain conferences have 6 or 7 or 8 teams in, there's no other way to avoid it.
88wildcat wrote at 2/1/2010 11:28:11 AMYour St. Louis bracket doesn't work. You can't put both Kansas St. and Missouri on one side of the bracket. Teams from the same conference can not play each other before the regional final (Elite 8). Your scenario would put Kansas St. and Missouri on a path to meet each other in the Sweet 16.
Ryan Feldman wrote at 1/25/2010 5:35:53 PMSorry, but losing doesn't count for much, even if it's by one point. You have to actually win games against quality opponents to be a tournament team. Cornell may not have any bad losses, but they haven't beaten anyone in the tournament right now. Show me an at-large team in the history of the selection committee that has received a bid without having any wins at all against other at-large teams. I'd be interested to see if you found one, but I can tell you now that you won't. Unfortunately, the reality is that Cornell is in the Ivy and they would have to have a ridiculous non-conference resume to get an at-large bid from that conference. Show me one team in history that has ever received an at-large bid from the Ivy League. I'm not here to tell you what I think the bracket should like. I'm here to tell you what the bracket would look like if the season ended today. A 40 RPI, 136 SOS, and zero top 50 wins doesn't equal an at-large bid. If Cornell had beaten Kansas, it would be a different story, but they didn't. Putting up a fight is nice and could be a tie-breaker, but you have to win quality games to get in the tournament. Siena has a better RPI and SOS than Cornell, and is undefeated in a better conference than the Ivy (10-0). Neither team has a strong enough resume to make the tournament without winning their conference, but both resumes are very similar. Siena's better RPI and SOS are evened out by Cornell's non-conference road wins. No bad losses is great, but no quality wins is not good. Break down any at-large team's resume and explain to me how Cornell's resume is stronger. Simply telling me I'm an idiot or something doesn't justify whey Cornell's resume is worthy and why the selection committee would think their resume is worthy.
altosax29b wrote at 1/25/2010 3:00:04 PMHow about NO bad losses, Seton Hall is on a straight path to being a tournament AND a Top 50 team, and losing AT Kansas by 5 leading most of the game? Oh yeah, the wins against Alabama and St. John's were both on the road. Haven't gotten beaten by more than 15 points with Syracuse and Kansas on the schedule. And Siena over Cornell? Really? Get a clue.
Ryan Feldman wrote at 1/25/2010 11:56:43 AMFirst of all, Siena is a 12. Old Dominion and W&M are at-large teams, while Cornell is not, so they get a higher seed. I have Siena and Cornell right next to each other, almost even, with Siena getting the slightest of edges. Cornell has zero wins vs. the top 50. That's why they are not an at-large team. Their best wins all season are over Alabama and St. John's. They have no wins at all against current at-large teams. Why would Cornell be ahead of Old Dominion and W&M, teams that have much better resumes? It's really not even that close. Total record means nothing. It's about who you beat and who you lost to. In SOS, Cornell isn't even close to W&M and ODU. In RPI, they are similar. Cornell has a worse RPI and SOS than those two teams and Siena except for their RPI compared to ODU. Those other ratings you mentioned are absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the selection committee. Sagarin ratings and Pomeroy rankings don't get brought into the room. So I don't know what your argument is here. Please explain to me how Cornell would be an at-large team over those other teams. "A quick look" as you mentioned is not how bracketology is done. It's a long, detailed process to break down which teams have better resumes and Cornell's resume doesn't compare with those other teams, therefore they are not an at-large team.
JP wrote at 1/24/2010 9:16:41 PMIt's unfortunate that you obviously don't spend much time with the higher seeds. Having Cornell as a 13 with ODU, W&M and Sienna at 11's is just silly. A quick look SOS, total record, RPI, Pomeroy rankings, Sagarin rankings, road/neutral wins; pretty much any metric/anlysis (not too mention actually seeing these teams play) makes those seeds unsuportable. Would be nice to find a nice comparison/competitor to Lunardi's bracket, but this is just one of the more obvious ways yours falls well short. Too bad.
Ryan Feldman wrote at 1/18/2010 8:12:26 PMFor automatic bids, it's not a prediction. It's just whoever is in first place in the conference. I put Akron in during the day yesterday before seeing the score of that game. Don't read much into the automatic bids, as any team with parentheses next to its name just means that whichever team won the conference tournament would be placed there.
Bulls Fan wrote at 1/18/2010 1:49:54 PMHow could you have Akron in over Buffalo? Buffalo just beat them by double digits yesterday.
Take your shot during the College Basketball Betting season and score with SBG Global. Sports Betting and NBA Basketball odds are a slam dunk with up to 295% in total bonuses at the SBG sportsbook!