IdaGriz01
Well-known member
Debated with myself about whether or not to post this in a new thread, or use an existing one. I finally decided it did not really fit any place else.
Getting a #15 seed for UND is about what most people expected (and reasonably fair, all things considered). But having Arizona as the first round opponent could get ugly, since the Wildcats could, potentially, win the bracket (revenge against Gonzaga) and go to the final four. They’re that good.
But my real topic is the professed “outrage” by both Dick Vitale, Jay Bilas and others that Syracuse did not get a bid. Now I usually like Dickie V, even when I don’t agree with him … his enthusiasm about college BBall is just fun to watch. My feeling about Bilas … well, not so much.
As it happens, my “formula” did exactly as well as the famed Joe Lenardi, who had Syracuse as a #11 in a “first four” game against Providence. He gets paid for his opinions, of course, and spends a lot of time on it. I just pop in for a bit after the regular season and then spend maybe an hour or two “tweaking” the list as the conference tournament results come in.
My one miss was picking Cal over USC as a fourth team from the Pac-12. I might have picked USC -- they won more games overall and had a better RPI (#43 vs #55). However, Cal won more games in the post-season tournament and had a better BPI (#51 vs 61) and much better SOS (42 vs 73). Oh well, my formula does not try to delve into “good wins” or “bad losses” or any of that.
The tournament at-large bid system is known as a “zero-sum” game in classic game theory. To put this team in, you have to bump someone else. The outrage about Syracuse not getting a bid seems like (to this Westerner) a typical Eastern bias (Bilas without the “l” … get it?) Yes, Syracuse had an SOS midway between USC and Cal, and a better BPI. But their RPI was much worse (#85 versus 43 for USC and 55 for Cal). And Syracuse won just 18 games vs 21 for Cal and 24 for USC.
Syracuse was 2-4 in their last six regular season games and lost right away in the post-season tournament.
Cal was not so hot either, toward the end of their season, going 1-5 … but they then went 2-1 in the post-season.
USC (like Syracuse) went 2-4 in their final six games … but they then went 1-1 in the post-season.
Had I looked at the specific end-game for USC vs Cal, I might have picked the Trojans and had a 100% hit rate … but Syracuse was never in the running as far as I was concerned. Sorry Dick and Joe.
Getting a #15 seed for UND is about what most people expected (and reasonably fair, all things considered). But having Arizona as the first round opponent could get ugly, since the Wildcats could, potentially, win the bracket (revenge against Gonzaga) and go to the final four. They’re that good.
But my real topic is the professed “outrage” by both Dick Vitale, Jay Bilas and others that Syracuse did not get a bid. Now I usually like Dickie V, even when I don’t agree with him … his enthusiasm about college BBall is just fun to watch. My feeling about Bilas … well, not so much.
As it happens, my “formula” did exactly as well as the famed Joe Lenardi, who had Syracuse as a #11 in a “first four” game against Providence. He gets paid for his opinions, of course, and spends a lot of time on it. I just pop in for a bit after the regular season and then spend maybe an hour or two “tweaking” the list as the conference tournament results come in.
My one miss was picking Cal over USC as a fourth team from the Pac-12. I might have picked USC -- they won more games overall and had a better RPI (#43 vs #55). However, Cal won more games in the post-season tournament and had a better BPI (#51 vs 61) and much better SOS (42 vs 73). Oh well, my formula does not try to delve into “good wins” or “bad losses” or any of that.
The tournament at-large bid system is known as a “zero-sum” game in classic game theory. To put this team in, you have to bump someone else. The outrage about Syracuse not getting a bid seems like (to this Westerner) a typical Eastern bias (Bilas without the “l” … get it?) Yes, Syracuse had an SOS midway between USC and Cal, and a better BPI. But their RPI was much worse (#85 versus 43 for USC and 55 for Cal). And Syracuse won just 18 games vs 21 for Cal and 24 for USC.
Syracuse was 2-4 in their last six regular season games and lost right away in the post-season tournament.
Cal was not so hot either, toward the end of their season, going 1-5 … but they then went 2-1 in the post-season.
USC (like Syracuse) went 2-4 in their final six games … but they then went 1-1 in the post-season.
Had I looked at the specific end-game for USC vs Cal, I might have picked the Trojans and had a 100% hit rate … but Syracuse was never in the running as far as I was concerned. Sorry Dick and Joe.
)
