NCAA Tournament seeding

mattc said:
Who is passing us if we win the BET when we’re already a 2 seed as of now.
Click to expand...
I think it's likely we get a 2 seed if we even make it to Saturday but I wouldn't call it a lock. There's just too much meat on the bone in other conferences for teams to like Texas Tech or A&M to feast on to catapult over us
 
I think I read or heard that the resume metrics decide who make it, and the predictive metrics are a better indicator of how one gets seeded. Our Kenpom (15), Torvik (22) and BPI (16) are all pretty meh on us. But I don't think the committee would make us a four seed under any circumstance.
 
dk423 said:
I think I read or heard that the resume metrics decide who make it, and the predictive metrics are a better indicator of how one gets seeded. Our Kenpom (15), Torvik (22) and BPI (16) are all pretty meh on us. But I don't think the committee would make us a four seed under any circumstance.
Click to expand...
Normally predictive metrics are more important than resume metrics for seeding, but the top 16 the committee published last month was primarily in line with resume metrics, not predictive. We'll know for sure by sunday though lol
 
don_pitino said:
Normally predictive metrics are more important than resume metrics for seeding, but the top 16 the committee published last month was primarily in line with resume metrics, not predictive. We'll know for sure by sunday though lol
Click to expand...

I haven't looked closely at it, but at least for St. John's our NET of #16 would correspond to a 4 seed currently, while most likely we're a 2 seed or at worst a high 3 seed (2 on bracketmatrix). Maybe our Quad wins offset the NET, but still feels we're getting some predictive help from the bracketologists. Regardless of what NET says (a flawed metric), Vegas thinks we're a top 8 team and that should help.
 
Last edited:
ADORAZ said:
I haven't looked closely at it, but at least for St. John's our NET of #16 would correspond to a 4 seed currently, while most likely we're a 2 seed or at worst a high 3 seed (2 on bracketmatrix). Maybe our Quad wins offset the NET, but still feels we're getting some predictive help from the bracketologists. Regardless of what NET says (a flawed metric) Vegas thinks we're a top 8 team.
Click to expand...
I normally don't like to be wrong, but I'll happily come back to this thread to get some "told you so" pie if I am....
 
ADORAZ said:
I haven't looked closely at it, but at least for St. John's our NET of #16 would correspond to a 4 seed currently, while most likely we're a 2 seed or at worst a high 3 seed (2 on bracketmatrix). Maybe our Quad wins offset the NET, but still feels we're getting some predictive help from the bracketologists. Regardless of what NET says (a flawed metric) Vegas thinks we're a top 8 team.
Click to expand...
NET isn't used by the committee for seeding or bids. They use it as a sorting tool
 
Just to add to my last post, St. John's is a clearly a much better team than #16 like the NET says, in large part because we are a better team now than we were a few months ago (our NET was #38 in early January). When it comes to being selected to the Tournament this momentum wouldn't matter, it didn't help last year when we peaked late, but for seeding it does.

The NCAA creates a "true seeds" list, and further each Committee member selects their own top 8 teams. They want to get the seeding right and I expect our position on Selection Sunday to more so reflect our position in areas such as Vegas odds (#8), AP (#6), or Coaches (#5), so in other words a 2 seed if we do well in the BET. I'm not saying that they really care about what the AP or Coaches think, just that their mentality will be similar.

In short, last year we were screwed over with how the Selection Committee operates, UVA for instance was clearly going to perform badly and that's exactly what happened, but this year I think our seed will reflect where we deserve to be.
 
Last edited:
ADORAZ said:
Just to add to my last post, St. John's is a clearly a much better team than #16 like the NET says, in large part because we are a better team now than we were a few months ago (keep in mind how much our NET has improved since November). When it comes to being selected to the Tournament this momentum wouldn't matter, it didn't help last year when we peaked late, but for seeding it does.

The NCAA creates a "true seeds" list, and further each Committee member selects their own top 8 teams. They want to get the seeding right and I expect our position on Selection Sunday to more so reflect our position in areas such as Vegas odds (#8), AP (#6), or Coaches (#5), so in other words a 2 seed if we do well in the BET. I'm not saying that they really care about what the AP or Coaches think, just that their mentality would be similar.

In short, last year we were screwed over with how the Selection Committee operates, UVA for instance was clearly going to perform badly and that's exactly what happened, but this year I think our seed will reflect where we deserve to be.
Click to expand...
I think it's been mentioned on here, but I keep going back to it, since the NCAA announced we were in the top 16, we haven't lost since, and have had multiple wins over ranked teams. Really hard to see how we end up as a 4 just based on that, I think it's gotta be a 2 or 3.
 
Gonzaga is NET 8. They're not getting a 2 seed. NET is one metric included in the seeding and at large bids. In my opinion they should totally do away with NET has it has too much bias. We should be at worst a 4, but probably a 3 with a chance for a 2.
 
Anthony Mattia said:
Crazy that some people have Kentucky as a 2 or 3 seed. They are 21-10. I know people will say they are 10-9 in quad 1, but they still lost 10 games. At what point does actually winning matter?
Click to expand...

Depends on the team. You'll learn this is how the SEC operates. The talking heads and powers that be attempt to justify and rationalize their records by citing strength of schedule, quality wins, quality losses, whatever gives them a competitive edge and makes them look better.

It will get worse, much worse. This is just the beginning.
 
passitback said:
Depends on the team. You'll learn this is how the SEC operates. The talking heads and powers that be attempt to justify and rationalize their records by citing strength of schedule, quality wins, quality losses, whatever gives them a competitive edge and makes them look better.

It will get worse, much worse. This is just the beginning.
Click to expand...
Does Kentucky have a bad lose?
 
passitback said:
Depends on the team. You'll learn this is how the SEC operates. The talking heads and powers that be attempt to justify and rationalize their records by citing strength of schedule, quality wins, quality losses, whatever gives them a competitive edge and makes them look better.

It will get worse, much worse. This is just the beginning.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Florida State football had an UNDEFEATED season and was kept out of the playoffs.

The snub was so egregious that they had to expand the playoffs the following season.
 
carmineabbatiello said:
Yep.

Florida State football had an UNDEFEATED season and was kept out of the playoffs.

The snub was so egregious that they had to expand the playoffs the following season.
Click to expand...

As a fan of CFB, not a fan of it.

As a die hard Cane fan, I loved every second of it, especially the way Georgia tuned them up...

Go Canes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top