NCAA Tournament seeding

lawmanfan said:
If you're serious (so hard to tell with you!):

1. KPI is one of the metrics the NCAA uses for tournament bids/seeding.
2. It was created by a Michigan State guy.
3. It produces some weird outcomes, and has in prior years.
4. According to the tweet, if you compare KPI outcomes to two of the other metrics the NCAA uses:
...... a. Virtually every Big 10 team has a higher KPI ranking than it does under the other two metrics
...... b. Virtually every Big East team has a lower KPI ranking than it does under the other two metrics
5. The conclusion is that KPI is designed in a way that favors the Big 10 and disadvantages the Big East
6. But the methodology has not been explained so there's no way to know where the bug/feature is.

I would be interested in seeing the same outline for KPI vs the other metrics for the rest of the P5 and non-P5 conferences.

My guess (and it's just a guess) is that there is some element of the metric that either directly or indirectly adds weight to schools that happen to be P5 schools and takes it away from those that are not.

In other words, I would expect to see a similar positive divergence under KPI vs the other metrics for the SEC, ACC and Big 12 and a similar downward divergence for the A-10, AAC, MWC, etc.

But I have a day job so.
Click to expand...

#5, the follow-up tweet that I posted shows that every major conference is undervalued (50% of SEC is, even!). So it's very clearly slanted towards only the Big Ten.

He also has a side hustle where he consultants teams on scheduling, so you also have to wonder what the correlation is with his clients: https://www.sportico.com/leagues/co...ate-kevin-pauga-faktor-scheduling-1234770640/

Whole thing reeks of corruption
 
rlogazino said:
How does everyone think the committee will treat the Baylor game? It’s pretty clear that the shot didn’t get off in time. If I remember correctly, back in 2019 the committee looked at our loss to Seton Hall as a win due to the timing issues as well. However, we then did pick up a win vs UVA. Would that go away and a loss or non factor be made against Tennesssee? Overall, I would like the Baylor game to flip to a win in their eyes. Could be the difference between a 3 and a high 2 seed.
Click to expand...

The three pro-big east people (Reed, Jackson & Garcia) on the committee will be favorable to us. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC guys will say it was a loss. The rest won't say anything.
 
dk423 said:
#5, the follow-up tweet that I posted shows that every major conference is undervalued (50% of SEC is, even!). So it's very clearly slanted towards only the Big Ten.

He also has a side hustle where he consultants teams on scheduling, so you also have to wonder what the correlation is with his clients: https://www.sportico.com/leagues/co...ate-kevin-pauga-faktor-scheduling-1234770640/

Whole thing reeks of corruption
Click to expand...
Appreciate that but

1. Franklin General is a yutz

2. The "pct overvalued/undervalued" doesn't provide enough detail for me. The original tweet showed the extent of the deviation in each case, and I think that's an important datapoint. A deviation of +/- 2 doesn't bother me, even it's a bit persistent, because if it makes a difference it's only on the margins. A deviation of +/- 12 is a whole other story. So I'd be interested in seeing how large the deviations are in one conference vs another before drawing any more specific conclusion than that it's a flawed metric that likely has some degree of bias
 
lawmanfan said:
Appreciate that but

1. Franklin General is a yutz

2. The "pct overvalued/undervalued" doesn't provide enough detail for me. The original tweet showed the extent of the deviation in each case, and I think that's an important datapoint. A deviation of +/- 2 doesn't bother me, even it's a bit persistent, because if it makes a difference it's only on the margins. A deviation of +/- 12 is a whole other story. So I'd be interested in seeing how large the deviations are in one conference vs another before drawing any more specific conclusion than that it's a flawed metric that likely has some degree of bias
Click to expand...
#1 -- lol.

But, definitely agree with you that's the next step to it. I am not sure 1-5 points make a difference in anyone's eyes on the committee.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea that he has a business as a scheduling consultant, while the metric is used and he's an active coach in D1. But that's something for Izzo to deal with more than me.
 
Mean Gene said:
Watch how little respect the Big East gets come Selection Sunday. Last year was not an aberration. Three teams is my guess. Lucky to get four. Creighton got blown out today. They better watch out. They lose first game of the BET and they’ll be out.
Click to expand...
Who out of the top 4 are they leaving out? None out of St. John’s, Creighton, Marquette and UConn are bubble teams and are locks to get in. Nova and Xavier have to either have a deep run in the BE Tournament to be considered a bubble team or win it all to get in.

While the scars from last year may still run deep for some, if anything this year should have taught folks so far is to leave the past and the doom and gloom attitude behind us and in the review mirror. This is a new year.
 
austour said:
Allow me to explain and also question some of his decisions. Once I move on to the next seed we will assume the previous seeds are set.

First four seeds are set based on geographic preferences

Two seeds have the other 2 SEC teams in the Duke and Houston brackets to avoid SEC v SEC Elite 8 matchups. The first disconnect is why doesn't Auburn get the 8/Iowa State? Cant' be geography since they're further south and west than Michigan State.

The highest 3 seed is Wisconsin, but again if Mi State is in that quadrant he want's to avoid a B1G matchup in the Sweet Sixteen so he puts the next lowest of this teams, STJ, in that spot. Wisconsin can't go there either nor can Texas Tech be matched up with Iowa St.

Also, these brackets were posted before yesterday's results. Wisconsin and Michigan hurt themselves yeterday, especially Michigan. But strangely the bracket this morning doesn't look that different (see below where again KY now can't e in Auburn's bracket). But he bases it on his rankings which I don't accept - In my mind there is an obvious top 8, then Iowa State if they have all their players, and then a big drop to Texas Tech.

View attachment 4328

The thought I will leave you with, however, is that this doesn't freaking matter anyway. Survive and advance. That's 10 minutes of my lunch two hours that I'll never get back.
Click to expand...
Is there a cliff notes version ?
 
Is there a team regardless of the nova loss well heck factor that in. What team is hotter than us right now ! ?
 
dk423 said:
#5, the follow-up tweet that I posted shows that every major conference is undervalued (50% of SEC is, even!). So it's very clearly slanted towards only the Big Ten.

He also has a side hustle where he consultants teams on scheduling, so you also have to wonder what the correlation is with his clients: https://www.sportico.com/leagues/co...ate-kevin-pauga-faktor-scheduling-1234770640/

Whole thing reeks of corruption
Click to expand...
does it reek by who gets in, or who's a 6or who gets a 7? Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top