cabse5
Banned
If there were a general college basketball forum this would go there.
Are you prepared to say that Butler, VCU, Connecticut, or Kentucky is the best team in NCAA
division one college basketball this year?
I'm not.
Let's see: 67 to 64 =1; 64 to 32; = 2 32 to 16 = 3; 16 to 8 = 4; 8 to 4 = 5; 4 to 2 = 6; 2 to 1 = 7.
There are two main criterion to win the NCAA Final Four tournament:
(1) A team has to be picked to play in the NCAA tournament.
(2) The winning team could have to win as many as 7 tournament games in a row.
IMO, if the NCAA wants to determine the best basketball team with a tournament, it needs to make the picking and seeding of teams more 'accurate'.
The NCAA also needs to have a team's regular season record carry more 'weight' for being picked.
By my guestimation, the conference a team plays in counts for 20% of the criteria needed to enter the tourney - that's tradition.
For example, the B1G will always have more teams entered into the NCAA tournament than the Missouri Valley.
The strength of schedule formula is also used to pick a 'qualified' team for the NCAA tournament.
A lot of wins against 'patsies' will probably hurt a team's chances of getting into the tournament.
You have to realize this: any team from a mid-major, or 'smaller' conference will always be short-changed when strength of schedule comes into play.
Most mid-major teams will have conference wins against 'lower' rated teams - 'patsy' wins.
A team from a 'smaller' school has no choice but schedule non-conference games against good teams with schools from 'power' conferences.
Unfortunately, the 'power conference' schools will be reluctant to schedule mid-major schools in non-conference because the win wouldn't be a 'quality' win and a loss would be horrendous.
It's a vicious cycle - IMO, it's an impediment to correctly determinig 'worthy' tourney teams.It's a reason why mega conferences are being formed.
IMO, the strength of schedule formula isn't adequate for picking 'worthy' tourney teams because it's picking a team based on the number of 'quality' wins (and loses) the team has.
The mid-major will always lose - or be seeded lower.
UnfortunateIy, I haven't been able to refine a sensible alternative to the Strength of Schedule formula when ranking teams.
I'm going to point out flaws but have few alternatives.
IMO, the value of a win or loss should be static.
In other words, if, according to SOS, a team wins against the fourth ranked team, the winner should always reap the benefit of winning against the fourth rated team.
It shouldn't be diminished if the loser goes on a 10 game skid. I trust the integrity of the ranking system - the ranking system must have integrity. I don't think a team should be penalized for other teams' injuries or other unforeseens.
Instead of SOS, for example, Butler wouldn't be penalized if they didn't play lots of 'power' schools.
Butler's incentive to schedule 'power' schools would be the increase in their ranking if they won. I repeat - they won't be penalized for scheduling too few games against 'power' teams.
If a goal is to determine the best team in NCAA division one, then having automatic qualifiers come from winners of conference tournaments doesn't necessarily achieve that goal. if a goal is to crown a champion of the NCAA tournament, it would.
I'm making that distinction here: the best team and the champion of the NCAA tourney could very easily be two different teams.
What incentives are there to pay attention to any other parts of the basketball season than the selection process and the tourney?
What incentives are there for coaches and teams to 'play to their fullest' throughout the year?
On a side note, someone should tell teams like Kansas to put as much emphasis on the tourney as they do the regular season.
Yes, seeding. Seed teams 1 - 67. The top seed plays the lowest seed. The second top seed plays the second lowest seed. And so on. Scatter those games throughout the brackets.
Are you prepared to say that Butler, VCU, Connecticut, or Kentucky is the best team in NCAA
division one college basketball this year?
I'm not.
Let's see: 67 to 64 =1; 64 to 32; = 2 32 to 16 = 3; 16 to 8 = 4; 8 to 4 = 5; 4 to 2 = 6; 2 to 1 = 7.
There are two main criterion to win the NCAA Final Four tournament:
(1) A team has to be picked to play in the NCAA tournament.
(2) The winning team could have to win as many as 7 tournament games in a row.
IMO, if the NCAA wants to determine the best basketball team with a tournament, it needs to make the picking and seeding of teams more 'accurate'.
The NCAA also needs to have a team's regular season record carry more 'weight' for being picked.
By my guestimation, the conference a team plays in counts for 20% of the criteria needed to enter the tourney - that's tradition.
For example, the B1G will always have more teams entered into the NCAA tournament than the Missouri Valley.
The strength of schedule formula is also used to pick a 'qualified' team for the NCAA tournament.
A lot of wins against 'patsies' will probably hurt a team's chances of getting into the tournament.
You have to realize this: any team from a mid-major, or 'smaller' conference will always be short-changed when strength of schedule comes into play.
Most mid-major teams will have conference wins against 'lower' rated teams - 'patsy' wins.
A team from a 'smaller' school has no choice but schedule non-conference games against good teams with schools from 'power' conferences.
Unfortunately, the 'power conference' schools will be reluctant to schedule mid-major schools in non-conference because the win wouldn't be a 'quality' win and a loss would be horrendous.
It's a vicious cycle - IMO, it's an impediment to correctly determinig 'worthy' tourney teams.It's a reason why mega conferences are being formed.
IMO, the strength of schedule formula isn't adequate for picking 'worthy' tourney teams because it's picking a team based on the number of 'quality' wins (and loses) the team has.
The mid-major will always lose - or be seeded lower.
UnfortunateIy, I haven't been able to refine a sensible alternative to the Strength of Schedule formula when ranking teams.
I'm going to point out flaws but have few alternatives.
IMO, the value of a win or loss should be static.
In other words, if, according to SOS, a team wins against the fourth ranked team, the winner should always reap the benefit of winning against the fourth rated team.
It shouldn't be diminished if the loser goes on a 10 game skid. I trust the integrity of the ranking system - the ranking system must have integrity. I don't think a team should be penalized for other teams' injuries or other unforeseens.
Instead of SOS, for example, Butler wouldn't be penalized if they didn't play lots of 'power' schools.
Butler's incentive to schedule 'power' schools would be the increase in their ranking if they won. I repeat - they won't be penalized for scheduling too few games against 'power' teams.
If a goal is to determine the best team in NCAA division one, then having automatic qualifiers come from winners of conference tournaments doesn't necessarily achieve that goal. if a goal is to crown a champion of the NCAA tournament, it would.
I'm making that distinction here: the best team and the champion of the NCAA tourney could very easily be two different teams.
What incentives are there to pay attention to any other parts of the basketball season than the selection process and the tourney?
What incentives are there for coaches and teams to 'play to their fullest' throughout the year?
On a side note, someone should tell teams like Kansas to put as much emphasis on the tourney as they do the regular season.
Yes, seeding. Seed teams 1 - 67. The top seed plays the lowest seed. The second top seed plays the second lowest seed. And so on. Scatter those games throughout the brackets.
Last edited:
