The Selection Committee

R

rodthompson

Well-Known Member
I will preface this by saying I don't think Iowa is making the tournament, but....

What ever did happen to the eyeball test? Has the selection committee just beome totally reliant on rpi and statistics rather than actually watching these conference tournament games? If so that is just laziness. Why even have a committee? Just have a computer work.

If you actually watched college basketball the last month you can't tell me Iowa isn't worthy of an at-large bid. I'm glad Gottlieb is at least talking about it. Unfortunately it won't make any difference tomorrow.
 
I tend to agree, although I don't think they are getting in either.
My other question is on Lunardi, how often is he right?
 
OP you are exactly right. If it is all numbers, then just let a computer pick them.
You have to have an eyeball test, to me, as the final make or break.
For instance, the Gophers wouldn't sniff the dance.
 
I think I found why Lunardi is against the Hawks so much.. He picked a Colorado team with extremely similar stats 2 years ago and they didn't get in. I think he's just going off of his experience with what happened w/ Colorado. If someone wants to dig up the exact stats go for it, but from reading it sounded like their ooc was worse than the Hawks this year. After reading ole Joes snappy remarks toward some of the Hawkeye questions a few days back I guess he's still really mad about being wrong.
 
Iowa as of this very minute...whenever they last updated these


Sagarin = 28
Kenpom = 30
LRMC = 34
BPI = 43
RPI = 78
 
If everyone on the Committee watched the game Thursday night...we're in. They have to feel guilt about the hose job.
 
They have been doing mock selection Sunday sessions with the media for a few years now. I suggest you Google and read an account from that. Everyone of them says RPI ranking is never mentioned. RPI means less and less each year. It is primarily an organizational tool. The committee chair also made a point today that you can't just look at data otherwise you wouldn't need a committee to field the tourney.
 
TecmoSuperHawk said:
They have been doing mock selection Sunday sessions with the media for a few years now. I suggest you Google and read an account from that. Everyone of them says RPI ranking is never mentioned. RPI means less and less each year. It is primarily an organizational tool. The committee chair also made a point today that you can't just look at data otherwise you wouldn't need a committee to field the tourney.
Click to expand...

This is encouraging. It's going to be a long day.
 
rodthompson said:
I will preface this by saying I don't think Iowa is making the tournament, but....

What ever did happen to the eyeball test? Has the selection committee just beome totally reliant on rpi and statistics rather than actually watching these conference tournament games? If so that is just laziness. Why even have a committee? Just have a computer work.

If you actually watched college basketball the last month you can't tell me Iowa isn't worthy of an at-large bid. I'm glad Gottlieb is at least talking about it. Unfortunately it won't make any difference tomorrow.
Click to expand...

When applying only the human factor, you succumb to recency bias, which would unjustly penalize teams with an exemplary early-season table, but struggled as it progressed. In the case of Iowa as you present it, they superficially appear to have ended the season in a distinguished manner, but they had a fortunate schedule that afforded them an opportunity to do so. Such factors, while roundly ignored here, are certainly in the consciousness of those determining the validity of tournament teams.
 
rodthompson said:
I will preface this by saying I don't think Iowa is making the tournament, but....

What ever did happen to the eyeball test? Has the selection committee just beome totally reliant on rpi and statistics rather than actually watching these conference tournament games? If so that is just laziness. Why even have a committee? Just have a computer work.

If you actually watched college basketball the last month you can't tell me Iowa isn't worthy of an at-large bid. I'm glad Gottlieb is at least talking about it. Unfortunately it won't make any difference tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I agree. It seems everyone is focusing too much on number-crunching. There is a lot of over-analyzing IMO. Sometimes you just need to use common sense.

Iowa is obviously one of the top 35 or whatever at large teams. Based on that, and their play in the Big 10... they deserve consideration. They are every bit as good as Iowa State (and beat them), and Minnesota. And the Hawks certainly merit more consideration than Middle Tennessee.

But...I expect an NIT invite. Hopefully the Hawks will play with a chip on their shoulder and win several more games.
 
After more thought, I don't think the RPI is going to be the thing to hurt us. I just have this feeling that they aren't going to rely on it as much as people think. But I do think we get passed by because our best road win is Northwestern and we just couldn't get that huge win (unless Wisconsin is good enough to fit into that criterisa)
 
83Hawk said:
Iowa is obviously one of the top 35 or whatever at large teams. Based on that, and their play in the Big 10... they deserve consideration. They are every bit as good as Iowa State (and beat them), and Minnesota. And the Hawks certainly merit more consideration than Middle Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Your assertion is far from absolute, and you certainly forsake the importance of analyzing the statistics. Take an important number to factor, games won for instance, you'll see that a mere 33% of Iowa's victories were gained over teams who completed the season with a winning record.
 
Klondike53226 said:
When applying only the human factor, you succumb to recency bias, which would unjustly penalize teams with an exemplary early-season table, but struggled as it progressed. In the case of Iowa as you present it, they superficially appear to have ended the season in a distinguished manner, but they had a fortunate schedule that afforded them an opportunity to do so. Such factors, while roundly ignored here, are certainly in the consciousness of those determining the validity of tournament teams.
Click to expand...

Good post here. Kinda wish iowa woulda had their conference schedule flipped and ended with the stronger teams late. Hard to say if we played better due to schedule or just in general. Michigan wasn't as strong down the stretch. Think we get Indiana at home if that was senior day. Just talking here...
 
bcl20 said:
After more thought, I don't think the RPI is going to be the thing to hurt us. I just have this feeling that they aren't going to rely on it as much as people think. But I do think we get passed by because our best road win is Northwestern and we just couldn't get that huge win (unless Wisconsin is good enough to fit into that criterisa)
Click to expand...

Wisconsin is terrible. Everyone on here thinks so, so if that is your best win and it came at home then you are in trouble.

Iowa went 10-10 in the BIG if you include BTT games. 30% of those wins came against a program that just fired their coach. Another 30% came from PSU and Purdue and another 20% came from teams in total meltdown mode (Minny and Illinois) again both at home.

Zero quality road wins. Zero.

What about that resume says NCAA tourney team? That you played a few teams close and lost?
 
Klondike53226 said:
When applying only the human factor, you succumb to recency bias, which would unjustly penalize teams with an exemplary early-season table, but struggled as it progressed. In the case of Iowa as you present it, they superficially appear to have ended the season in a distinguished manner, but they had a fortunate schedule that afforded them an opportunity to do so. Such factors, while roundly ignored here, are certainly in the consciousness of those determining the validity of tournament teams.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, just because a team wins a few games early, does not mean poor play later on should be ignored. Minnesota is a great example. Their play down the stretch has been horrible, and includes some bad losses. They are a terrible basketball team right now. At some point the committee needs to use the "smell test". I have no problem with giving a team that struggles a little at the end of the season the benefit of the doubt if they had an early tough schedule and some good wins. I have a huge problem with teams that have some good wins early, but fall apart the last 2 months.

What good is beating a top team in December if you can't beat a bottom feeder in March?
 
83Hawk said:
On the other hand, just because a team wins a few games early, does not mean poor play later on should be ignored. Minnesota is a great example. Their play down the stretch has been horrible, and includes some bad losses. They are a terrible basketball team right now. At some point the committee needs to use the "smell test". I have no problem with giving a team that struggles a little at the end of the season the benefit of the doubt if they had an early tough schedule and some good wins. I have a huge problem with teams that have some good wins early, but fall apart the last 2 months.

What good is beating a top team in December if you can't beat a bottom feeder in March?
Click to expand...

Your example is faulty for many reasons, particularly when by your own metric, Minnesota is a good team since they defeated a top team in March. Conversely, to what benefit is it to feast on bottom feeders in March while additionally failing to best a top team all season?

Actually, amend this to signify Minnesota did not beat a top team in March, but rather late February.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top