***Official 2021 NCAA Tournament Thread***

[jctisu]

Seeding is a reward for your accomplishments, not a ranking of your ability. They were given the seeds their resumes earned and have played well in their match ups. This year, seeding mattered very little.

What a stupid statement. Their resumes looked bad and others looked good because of artificially concocted number and metrics based on almost no non-conference data and bias. Because if you want to just go by the data and metrics then Loyola was criminally underseeded. It is what it is, but numbers sometimes paint a picture or sometimes others paint the numbers to form what picture they want.

The facts are the PAC-12 doesn’t have to do anything from here on out and they will still lay claim to the best tournament by a conference for the year with how they did in the first weekend. The Big 12 had a shot to do the same after our great first round but everyone fell in the Rd of 32 whereas the PAC-12 had three teams win against higher seeds and the other (UCLA) embarrassed the team that beat the Big 12 Tournament champion in the first round.

 

[Tornado man]

Seeding is a reward for your accomplishments, not a ranking of your ability. They were given the seeds their resumes earned and have played well in their match ups. This year, seeding mattered very little.

No it's not. Seedings are rankings, and done for one purpose only: to set up the better teams to meet as late as possible in the tournament. To prevent them from playing each other too early. That's why you have a committee - to rank the teams. As in every year.

 

[randomfan44]

I’m not buying this one. If they are elite coaches, they know better how to use the time they had with their teams.

So it's just a complete coincidence? Got it.

 

[randomfan44]

What a stupid statement. Their resumes looked bad and others looked good because of artificially concocted number and metrics based on almost no non-conference data and bias. Because if you want to just go by the data and metrics then Loyola was criminally underseeded. It is what it is, but numbers sometimes paint a picture or sometimes others paint the numbers to form what picture they want.

The facts are the PAC-12 doesn’t have to do anything from here on out and they will still lay claim to the best tournament by a conference for the year with how they did in the first weekend. The Big 12 had a shot to do the same after our great first round but everyone fell in the Rd of 32 whereas the PAC-12 had three teams win against higher seeds and the other (UCLA) embarrassed the team that beat the Big 12 Tournament champion in the first round.

You can pick and choose metrics to justify seeding any team in virtually any spot. At some point you have to reward teams for what they have actually done to date.

Using the results to rate in hindsight how well the committee did in seeding in fundamentally ignorant. But people like to have something to complain about so we'll have the same dumb conversation every year.

 

[randomfan44]

No it's not. Seedings are rankings, and done for one purpose only: to set up the better teams to meet as late as possible in the tournament. To prevent them from playing each other too early. That's why you have a committee - to rank the teams. As in every year.

The seeding results that have been done for the last several years does not support your opinion. That's just "the little guy always gets screwed by The Man" mentality with nothing to back it up.

 

[randomfan44]

@randomfan44 would love to hear your bragging of Bill Self today.

It's right up above your post about 7 spots.

 

[Halincandenza]

Seeding is a reward for your accomplishments, not a ranking of your ability. They were given the seeds their resumes earned and have played well in their match ups. This year, seeding mattered very little.

You truly are a moron.

 

[randomfan44]

It was a team constructed of 4 and 5 star recruits that have been at Kansas for several years. If they're limited offensively, maybe that is on Self and his staff.

Oh I absolutely agree with that. Some is recruiting misses, some is the ncaa case hanging over their head, some is failure to develop. Sometimes you just end up with a roster where the pieces dont fit what you coach well. It's a fickle sport reliant on consistency from 18-22 year olds (ha, ha), part of what I like about it.

 

[randomfan44]

You truly are a moron.

Feel free to provide an alternate explanation of how the committee does their seeding.

 

[Halincandenza]

Feel free to provide an alternate explanation of how the committee does their seeding.

Feel free to provide an explanation of why you are such a compete moron that you can't understand that the committee did a poor job seeding teams this year.

 

[jctisu]

You can pick and choose metrics to justify seeding any team in virtually any spot. At some point you have to reward teams for what they have actually done to date.

Using the results to rate in hindsight how well the committee did in seeding in fundamentally ignorant. But people like to have something to complain about so we'll have the same dumb conversation every year.

But who decides and judges what those teams have “Done to date”? There is bias there whether you want to admit it or not. For crying out loud teams with 9 losses were getting 2 seeds. And again I will then still give you Loyola and even Colgate who were both top-10 in NET yet got an 8 and 14 seed... So only listen to the data and metrics they are supposed to use to help determine seeding when it fits what the agenda is?

The Big Ten is the best! Let’s give the entire conference top-4 seeds because we just think they all look amazing when they only play each other.

 

[joefrog]

I’m not buying this one. If they are elite coaches, they know better how to use the time they had with their teams.

Isn't it funny how this year when the bluebloods are all down coincides with the recruiting lag from when the FBI investigations hit a couple years ago? Almost as if this year revealed which teams felt the greatest impact of questionable recruiting being curtailed.

 

[Neptune78]

Feel free to provide an alternate explanation of how the committee does their seeding.

They've added a sympathy criteria for teams that have self identified as 'victims'. This ups their seeding by two. Evidently, it didn't help.

 

[randomfan44]

Isn't it funny how this year when the bluebloods are all down coincides with the recruiting lag from when the FBI investigations hit a couple years ago? Almost as if this year revealed which teams felt the greatest impact of questionable recruiting being curtailed.

It really didn't. The team hit the hardest by it, Kansas, advanced further in the tourney than the teams less impacted by it (Duke, Kentucky who didn't even make the tourney). And Kansas was beat by one of the other teams named in the ncaa investigation, USC.

So your theory doesnt seem to be supported by facts.

 

[randomfan44]

They've added a sympathy criteria for teams that have self identified as 'victims'. This ups their seeding by two. Evidently, it didn't help.

Maybe it helped them get an easier first game or they might have lost in a 5 vs. 12 upset.

 

[randomfan44]

But who decides and judges what those teams have “Done to date”? There is bias there whether you want to admit it or not. For crying out loud teams with 9 losses were getting 2 seeds. And again I will then still give you Loyola and even Colgate who were both top-10 in NET yet got an 8 and 14 seed... So only listen to the data and metrics they are supposed to use to help determine seeding when it fits what the agenda is?

The Big Ten is the best! Let’s give the entire conference top-4 seeds because we just think they all look amazing when they only play each other.

So make a different list of criteria that should be used and that list will be considered biased. Breaking news, there is no uniformly fair and unbiased way to rank the resumes of 350+ ncaa basketball teams who all play different teams. It is impossible.

 

[FouchodeHond]

So it's just a complete coincidence? Got it.

I wouldn’t call it a coincidence. I just don’t think your premise that elite players and elite coaches are going to be at any bigger handicap than the non-elites makes sense.

 

[simply1]

Thank goodness we had a quality team like Kansas playing today and not some Cinderella like eastern Washington.

You can pick and choose metrics to justify seeding any team in virtually any spot. At some point you have to reward teams for what they have actually done to date.

Using the results to rate in hindsight how well the committee did in seeding in fundamentally ignorant. But people like to have something to complain about so we'll have the same dumb conversation every year.

 

[randomfan44]

I wouldn’t call it a coincidence. I just don’t think your premise that elite players and elite coaches are going to be at any bigger handicap than the non-elites makes sense.

If I had a 2 hour training session with a master in my field cancelled, it would be more negatively impactful to my potential development than if I had a 2 hour training session with some random person in the field cancelled.

It is also likely more impactful to the teams with younger/less experienced players. They don't know what they are supposed to do as well as some guy who is in his fifth year listening to Scott Drew or Mark Few tell them the same concepts. I don't have a subscription to kenpom's advanced stats but I'd be interested to see what the "experience" rankings are for the teams knocked out early and the teams still alive.

 

[besserheimerphat]

SIAP but this is awesome.