Sure, but that's also true of other teams at the top. If Purdue beats Michigan St and Ohio St, then the Big Ten really only has one "marquee" team. If Auburn beats Kentucky, then the SEC only has one "marquee" team despite being really a solid conference.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bracketology
- Thread starter jacobkdoyle
- Start date
Help Support BearcatTalk:
Why label them as a certain group if there are tiers within that group? That doesn't make sense to me. The committee is going to look at Group 1 wins and then analyze how "Group 1-y" they really are?
Of course they will. Column 1 can include a win away against #75 or #1. The committee should and will treat them differently as they are fine tuning seed lines.
Sure, but that's also true of other teams at the top. If Purdue beats Michigan St and Ohio St, then the Big Ten really only has one "marquee" team. If Auburn beats Kentucky, then the SEC only has one "marquee" team despite being really a solid conference.
true true...but WSU is the ONLY team we have to do this with. We need WSU to stay as high in the ranking as we can...while still beating them...lol! We don't need them losing any more games outside of UC right now.
Last edited:
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
Of course they will. Column 1 can include a win away against #75 or #1. The committee should and will treat them differently as they are fine tuning seed lines.
Well then what's the point of making the groups at all? And why set the parameters that way if there are such big differences within a group? I don't get that. A Group 1 win should be a Group 1 win should be a Group 1 win. If it isn't looked at that way, then they shouldn't have set it up like that.
Well then what's the point of making the groups at all? And why set the parameters that way if there are such big differences within a group? I don't get that. A Group 1 win should be a Group 1 win should be a Group 1 win. If it isn't looked at that way, then they shouldn't have set it up like that.
It's a starting point for a seed line. There are lots of other variables when they get to fine tuning. We should look very good in certain variables. Like...the committee likes to see road and neutral success. We will only have 1 chance at a column 1 win at home...provided a team like SMU doesn't sneak in which I doubt. Our wins will be away from home...that is a very good thing.
We also haven't played a single game in our true home arena which I would hope the committee will be aware of. It's not a true home game and also not a true neutral game.
RPI groups are simply designed to initially sort teams. Sorting hundreds of teams would be next to impossible for a human if you didn't have a small number of criteria to compare. But when splitting hairs between a few teams, then it's easier to compare more details. Still, the number of Group 1 wins is really important even if they're all at the bottom of Group 1, because it puts you on the right side of the first process used to sort teams.Well then what's the point of making the groups at all? And why set the parameters that way if there are such big differences within a group? I don't get that. A Group 1 win should be a Group 1 win should be a Group 1 win. If it isn't looked at that way, then they shouldn't have set it up like that.
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
It's a starting point for a seed line. There are lots of other variables when they get to fine tuning. We should look very good in certain variables. Like...the committee likes to see road and neutral success. We will only have 1 chance at a column 1 win at home...provided a team like SMU doesn't sneak in which I doubt. Our wins will be away from home...that is a very good thing.
We also haven't played a single game in our true home arena which I would hope the committee will be aware of. It's not a true home game and also not a true neutral game.
But they just did it this year. So if it's already known that a Group 1 win can be dismissed for being low-end in that group, them why not adjust the Groups? It's not a good sign if this new thing is already looked at like "Yeah but" when they're the ones who created it to begin with. If a Group 1 win needs to be that special then why not do Top 10 at home, Top 25 neutral, Top 40 on the road? They didn't do it so they can't come back after the fact and take credit away from you bc "yeah your wins are in this group that we set up but are they reeeeallllly in this group?".
cincrulz11
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,329
Well then what's the point of making the groups at all? And why set the parameters that way if there are such big differences within a group? I don't get that. A Group 1 win should be a Group 1 win should be a Group 1 win. If it isn't looked at that way, then they shouldn't have set it up like that.
yeah i dont really like it. its another way for them to choose to use certain criteria for specific teams. for a blue blood school they might only want to look at group 1 record. for a non power 5 then they might start to break down where in group 1 the actual teams are.
when they first came out with the groupings my first thought was "oh a win at duke is the same as a win at UCF now"? obviously that would be silly.
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
RPI groups are simply designed to initially sort teams. Sorting hundreds of teams would be next to impossible for a human if you didn't have a small number of criteria to compare. But when splitting hairs between a few teams, then it's easier to compare more details. Still, the number of Group 1 wins is really important even if they're all at the bottom of Group 1, because it puts you on the right side of the first process used to sort teams.
Getting mixed messages.
I agree with you. I think they should be very important. It is the top group after all.
But they just did it this year. So if it's already known that a Group 1 win can be dismissed for being low-end in that group, them why not adjust the Groups? It's not a good sign if this new thing is already looked at like "Yeah but" when they're the ones who created it to begin with. If a Group 1 win needs to be that special then why not do Top 10 at home, Top 25 neutral, Top 40 on the road? They didn't do it so they can't come back after the fact and take credit away from you bc "yeah your wins are in this group that we set up but are they reeeeallllly in this group?".
Remember how bad it was last year? It was straight up top 50 home or away and then top 100 home or away. They have adjusted it a little which is good but it's not what I would like to see. I would rather them go straight up metrics like Kenpom which considers margin of victory as well as SOS.
Whoa! Who said that? Slow down there. Waterhead and I are simply saying that the committee will analyze specific metrics for individual games (including RPI, kenpom, location, injuries, etc.) to fine tune or split hairs between a few teams. The RPI Groups are still the main bulk sorting tool. No one is dismissing anything....it's already known that a Group 1 win can be dismissed for being low-end in that group...
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
yeah i dont really like it. its another way for them to choose to use certain criteria for specific teams. for a blue blood school they might only want to look at group 1 record. for a non power 5 then they might start to break down where in group 1 the actual teams are.
when they first came out with the groupings my first thought was "oh a win at duke is the same as a win at UCF now"? obviously that would be silly.
Pretty much. At the end of the day they'll do whatever they want.
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
Whoa! Who said that? Slow down there. Waterhead and I are simply saying that the committee will analyze specific metrics for individual games (including RPI, kenpom, location, injuries, etc.) to fine tune or split hairs between a few teams. The RPI Groups are still the main bulk sorting tool. No one is dismissing anything.
Dismissed was the wrong word there. My bad.
cincrulz11
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,329
Pretty much. At the end of the day they'll do whatever they want.
truly im just a cynic and i think the committee has been horrible in their seedings the past couple years. and i dont mean with us. so i just assume they'll find a way not edge out the non power 6.
yeah i dont really like it. its another way for them to choose to use certain criteria for specific teams. for a blue blood school they might only want to look at group 1 record. for a non power 5 then they might start to break down where in group 1 the actual teams are.
when they first came out with the groupings my first thought was "oh a win at duke is the same as a win at UCF now"? obviously that would be silly.
yes...it still gives them a TON of leeway to decide who to seed (less than last year though). The good thing is...if they choose a single variable to favor power conferences it cannot universally apply to ALL Power conference team resumes.
That's obviously one of the drawbacks, but the system was more designed to answer questions like "is a home win against Maryland better than a win at SMU?" Previously, the answer required seeing that Maryland is top 50 and SMU is not, and then trying to mentally account for the fact that SMU was played on the road to come up with an idea of which is better. A human can't go through that process thousands of times and remember the conclusions when sorting. The new Group system tells you from the very beginning that winning at SMU is better than beating Maryland at home. It should leave less room for human value judgments."oh a win at duke is the same as a win at UCF now"?
cincrulz11
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,329
That's obviously one of the drawbacks, but the system was more designed to answer questions like "is a home win against Maryland better than a win at SMU?" Previously, the answer required seeing that Maryland is top 50 and SMU is not, and then trying to mentally account for the fact that SMU was played on the road to come up with an idea of which is better. A human can't go through that process thousands of times and remember the conclusions when sorting. The new Group system tells you from the very beginning that winning at SMU is better than beating Maryland at home. It should leave less room for human value judgments.
right, there is no perfect way to do it. this way benefits us more than the old way because we can sneak some teams up into the top 75 that couldn't get top 25 or top 50 before.
WAITE HOYT 2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 8,404
It will either be a lot tougher for them to do that or very difficult for them to not be second guessed this season. As I pointed out there isn't a dominant team that has surfaced in the PAC 12 yet. Kentucky may not be the best team in the SEC. UNC and Louisville are not above Virginia. The big has TOSU and Purdue. Villanova will be a one seed. The other 3 are up for grabs.truly im just a cynic and i think the committee has been horrible in their seedings the past couple years. and i dont mean with us. so i just assume they'll find a way not edge out the non power 6.
I just want to add that at although the quality of these wins is different, at least they are both good wins. Under the old system, a win at Duke was the same as a home win against Maryland! I agree that no system is perfect, but the new groups are lightyears better than just top 50 in my opinion."oh a win at duke is the same as a win at UCF now"?
cincrulz11
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 4,329
It will either be a lot tougher for them to do that or very difficult for them to not be second guessed this season. As I pointed out there isn't a dominant team that has surfaced in the PAC 12 yet. Kentucky may not be the best team in the SEC. UNC and Louisville are not above Virginia. The big has TOSU and Purdue. Villanova will be a one seed. The other 3 are up for grabs.
its the middle of the pack and the back end of the at large bids i think they do a bad job with. the big 10 and BE seeds last year were crazy (tell me how wisconsin got an 8 while maryland got a 6. or how seton hall and providence even got in.)