Is there a Big Ten Tournament Seeding Fallacy?

[eyekwah]

Currently the seeding is based on conference standing and head to head competition in event of a tie. There isn't any factoring of a team's conference schedule. This year Iowa two plays are: MSU, Purdue, Michigan, Indiana, and Penn State. This schedule, by all accounts, is much more difficult than some of the contenders; ie Maryland. Another factor with the one plays is where the game is played, i.e. Iowa @ Maryland, @OSU. Should a conference type of RPI rating be used rather than final conference standard? It just seems logical since the NCAA relies on a rating system index to seed teams.

 

[ColumbusHawk]

Currently the seeding is based on conference standing and head to head competition in event of a tie. There isn't any factoring of a team's conference schedule. This year Iowa two plays are: MSU, Purdue, Michigan, Indiana, and Penn State. This schedule, by all accounts, is much more difficult than some of the contenders; ie Maryland. Another factor with the one plays is where the game is played, i.e. Iowa @ Maryland, @OSU. Should a conference type of RPI rating be used rather than final conference standard? It just seems logical since the NCAA relies on a rating system index to seed teams.

Just use the RPI & don't play any conference games. Why play conference games?

 

[WindsorHawk]

Don't change anything IMO. I like the tiebreakers the way they are. And I like the tougher schedule because it's good for the RPI and NCAA seeding. It's not as if we need any help from the schedule or anything else. Win the rest and let everyone else worry about how the tiebreakers work.