dbackjon wrote:You keep falling back on RPI and SOS (which are linked). This tourney, more than most I remember, have shown that these are only vague guides, not absolutes.
There are so few games played OOC that a good comparison, especially if you are talking the difference between #6 RPI or #15, is not really possible.
The eye test, based on reality, tells me that Villanova was not a 2 seed.
Can't use the eye test when seeding. If that was the case, I can say WSU, Cuse, Kansas, and Duke should have all been seeded lower because they weren't as good as their resumes suggested and all lost in the first weekend.
Other than RPI and SOS, I use Kenpom and BPI which also have Nova on the 2 line. When everything matches up, it's hard to argue against them.
dbackjon wrote:You keep falling back on RPI and SOS (which are linked). This tourney, more than most I remember, have shown that these are only vague guides, not absolutes.
There are so few games played OOC that a good comparison, especially if you are talking the difference between #6 RPI or #15, is not really possible.
The eye test, based on reality, tells me that Villanova was not a 2 seed.
Can't use the eye test when seeding. If that was the case, I can say WSU, Cuse, Kansas, and Duke should have all been seeded lower because they weren't as good as their resumes suggested and all lost in the first weekend.
Other than RPI and SOS, I use Kenpom and BPI which also have Nova on the 2 line. When everything matches up, it's hard to argue against them.
The committee does use the "eye test" when seeding. The committee chairman even said "eye test" when talking about the team seeds on selection Sunday.
Seahawks08 wrote:
Can't use the eye test when seeding. If that was the case, I can say WSU, Cuse, Kansas, and Duke should have all been seeded lower because they weren't as good as their resumes suggested and all lost in the first weekend.
Other than RPI and SOS, I use Kenpom and BPI which also have Nova on the 2 line. When everything matches up, it's hard to argue against them.
The committee does use the "eye test" when seeding. The committee chairman even said "eye test" when talking about the team seeds on selection Sunday.
That's hilarious if true. And strengthens the argument that Nova is a 2 seed.
Game. Set. Match.
BlueHen86 wrote:
The committee does use the "eye test" when seeding. The committee chairman even said "eye test" when talking about the team seeds on selection Sunday.
That's hilarious if true. And strengthens the argument that Nova is a 2 seed.
Game. Set. Match.
Nova should have been no higher than a 4 seed.
"What I'm saying is: You might have taken care of your wolf problem, but everyone around town is going to think of you as the crazy son of a bitch who bought land mines to get rid of wolves."
BlueHen86 wrote:
The committee does use the "eye test" when seeding. The committee chairman even said "eye test" when talking about the team seeds on selection Sunday.
That's hilarious if true. And strengthens the argument that Nova is a 2 seed.
Game. Set. Match.
If you want people to take you seriously, you need to learn to admit when you are wrong; or at the very least don't say anything. The constant spinning gives you are much credibility as this guy:
Seahawks08 wrote:
That's hilarious if true. And strengthens the argument that Nova is a 2 seed.
Game. Set. Match.
If you want people to take you seriously, you need to learn to admit when you are wrong; or at the very least don't say anything. The constant spinning gives you are much credibility as this guy:
I bet Seahawks08 is Kim Jung Il on this site...He is always right and anyone that things otherwise is put to death.
"What I'm saying is: You might have taken care of your wolf problem, but everyone around town is going to think of you as the crazy son of a bitch who bought land mines to get rid of wolves."
BlueHen86 wrote:
If you want people to take you seriously, you need to learn to admit when you are wrong; or at the very least don't say anything. The constant spinning gives you are much credibility as this guy:
I bet Seahawks08 is Kim Jung Il on this site...He is always right and anyone that things otherwise is put to death.
He takes himself way to seriously. Can't admit when he is wrong, has to have the last word. Not gonna let that happen on this thread.
grizzaholic wrote:
I bet Seahawks08 is Kim Jung Il on this site...He is always right and anyone that things otherwise is put to death.
He takes himself way to seriously. Can't admit when he is wrong, has to have the last word. Not gonna let that happen on this thread.
I am wrong most of the time.....But on Villanova, I was actually correct. But, he doesn't agree with the poll.
Best of luck. Clenz has given up on talking to him and the other guy...and I agree with Clenz.
"What I'm saying is: You might have taken care of your wolf problem, but everyone around town is going to think of you as the crazy son of a bitch who bought land mines to get rid of wolves."
Seahawks08 wrote:
That's hilarious if true. And strengthens the argument that Nova is a 2 seed.
Game. Set. Match.
If you want people to take you seriously, you need to learn to admit when you are wrong; or at the very least don't say anything. The constant spinning gives you are much credibility as this guy:
Holy shit. There is no spinning going on here. You just said the committee uses the eye test, so therefore, they used it on Nova as a metric along with the resume and decided they were a 2 seed. How dumb can you be?
BlueHen86 wrote:
If you want people to take you seriously, you need to learn to admit when you are wrong; or at the very least don't say anything. The constant spinning gives you are much credibility as this guy:
Holy shit. There is no spinning going on here. You just said the committee uses the eye test, so therefore, they used it on Nova as a metric along with the resume and decided they were a 2 seed. How dumb can you be?
The whole reason that this exists is because some people think the Villanova was overrated, by pollsters and by the selection committee. This thread probably wouldn't exist if the selection committee didn't seed Villanova so high (although the second round loss, and thin skinned Villanova posters had something to do with it).
Since we are arguing about the committees decision, you can't say that the committee's decision proves that the committee's decision was right.
As far as the eye test goes, you tried to prove your point by saying that the committee can't use the eye test. When I mentioned that the committee claims that they did use the eye test, you immediately spun that by saying that it proves your point. The only thing that has been proven so far is that you were wrong about how the committee does the seeding process.
Seahawks08 wrote:
Holy ****. There is no spinning going on here. You just said the committee uses the eye test, so therefore, they used it on Nova as a metric along with the resume and decided they were a 2 seed. How dumb can you be?
The whole reason that this exists is because some people think the Villanova was overrated, by pollsters and by the selection committee. This thread probably wouldn't exist if the selection committee didn't seed Villanova so high (although the second round loss, and thin skinned Villanova posters had something to do with it).
Since we are arguing about the committees decision, you can't say that the committee's decision proves that the committee's decision was right.
As far as the eye test goes, you tried to prove your point by saying that the committee can't use the eye test. When I mentioned that the committee claims that they did use the eye test, you immediately spun that by saying that it proves your point. The only thing that has been proven so far is that you were wrong about how the committee does the seeding process.
BlueHen86 wrote:
The whole reason that this exists is because some people think the Villanova was overrated, by pollsters and by the selection committee. This thread probably wouldn't exist if the selection committee didn't seed Villanova so high (although the second round loss, and thin skinned Villanova posters had something to do with it).
Since we are arguing about the committees decision, you can't say that the committee's decision proves that the committee's decision was right.
As far as the eye test goes, you tried to prove your point by saying that the committee can't use the eye test. When I mentioned that the committee claims that they did use the eye test, you immediately spun that by saying that it proves your point. The only thing that has been proven so far is that you were wrong about how the committee does the seeding process.
Been in Vegas this week and just had a chance to view these posts. Some great points made for and against for sure. UCONNs continued run making the loss look better now. Can't help but compare this run. with Shabazz with the last Uconn title.
vutomcat wrote:Been in Vegas this week and just had a chance to view these posts. Some great points made for and against for sure. UCONNs continued run making the loss look better now. Can't help but compare this run. with Shabazz with the last Uconn title.
We've argued a lot about Villanova being overrated, but the real debate should be how the committee underrated the entire AAC conference. Louisville should not have been a 4, UConn should not have been a 7 and SMU should have been in the field.
The difference between Villanova being a 2 or 3 seed is splitting hairs, you can make a reasonable argument either way. The committee clearly didn't like the AAC. Hopefully we can all agree the UConn - Villanova matchup should not have happened on the first weekend of the tourney.
vutomcat wrote:Been in Vegas this week and just had a chance to view these posts. Some great points made for and against for sure. UCONNs continued run making the loss look better now. Can't help but compare this run. with Shabazz with the last Uconn title.
We've argued a lot about Villanova being overrated, but the real debate should be how the committee underrated the entire AAC conference. Louisville should not have been a 4, UConn should not have been a 7 and SMU should have been in the field.
The difference between Villanova being a 2 or 3 seed is splitting hairs, you can make a reasonable argument either way. The committee clearly didn't like the AAC. Hopefully we can all agree the UConn - Villanova matchup should not have happened on the first weekend of the tourney.
Uconn under seeded. I agree. AAC no.
Louisville lost to an #8 seed. Only beat Manhattan and St Louis in tourney. Weak wins.
BlueHen86 wrote:
We've argued a lot about Villanova being overrated, but the real debate should be how the committee underrated the entire AAC conference. Louisville should not have been a 4, UConn should not have been a 7 and SMU should have been in the field.
The difference between Villanova being a 2 or 3 seed is splitting hairs, you can make a reasonable argument either way. The committee clearly didn't like the AAC. Hopefully we can all agree the UConn - Villanova matchup should not have happened on the first weekend of the tourney.
Uconn under seeded. I agree. AAC no.
Louisville lost to an #8 seed. Only beat Manhattan and St Louis in tourney. Weak wins.
That #8 seed was a rivalry game against someone who could beat anyone in the country when they play to their potential so I don't think that is a bad loss.
Which conference was better the Big East or the AAC?
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
vutomcat wrote:
Uconn under seeded. I agree. AAC no.
Louisville lost to an #8 seed. Only beat Manhattan and St Louis in tourney. Weak wins.
That #8 seed was a rivalry game against someone who could beat anyone in the country when they play to their potential so I don't think that is a bad loss.
Which conference was better the Big East or the AAC?
Good point , but they were still an #8 seed and an argument can be made Louisville was over seeded. Much like this thread we could start one with that premise.
The AAC argument vs. Big East has been hashed out in prior threads but it boils down to this; if you go by RPI the Big East was better. If you go by the entire conference strength the Big East was better. If you go by the top of the conference the AAC could be considered better. Depends on what side of the fence you are on when making the decision. The argument is moot anyway since Louisville was an AAC member for one year only and now the AAC will be weaker at the top and the middle and bottom will continue to be very weak.
East coast basketball was down overall this year ACC, Big East, ACC and A-10 only have one representative left of the remaining teams.
That #8 seed was a rivalry game against someone who could beat anyone in the country when they play to their potential so I don't think that is a bad loss.
Which conference was better the Big East or the AAC?
Good point , but they were still an #8 seed and an argument can be made Louisville was over seeded. Much like this thread we could start one with that premise.
The AAC argument vs. Big East has been hashed out in prior threads but it boils down to this; if you go by RPI the Big East was better. If you go by the entire conference strength the Big East was better. If you go by the top of the conference the AAC could be considered better. Depends on what side of the fence you are on when making the decision. The argument is moot anyway since Louisville was an AAC member for one year only and now the AAC will be weaker at the top and the middle and bottom will continue to be very weak.
East coast basketball was down overall this year ACC, Big East, ACC and A-10 only have one representative left of the remaining teams.
I agree. The seeding committee did not. They gave the top 2 Big East teams better seeds than the top two AAC teams. Louisville should not have been a 4 seed, on the day the seeding committee met Louisville was clearly one of the top 12 teams in the county, if not top 8.
For whatever reason the committee didn't like the AAC. I think they gave too much weight to the RPI. The AAC also doesn't have a representative on the committee, that doesn't help their cause. Maybe Pitino pissed the committee off when he said Louisville was going to be a 1 seed.
Good point , but they were still an #8 seed and an argument can be made Louisville was over seeded. Much like this thread we could start one with that premise.
The AAC argument vs. Big East has been hashed out in prior threads but it boils down to this; if you go by RPI the Big East was better. If you go by the entire conference strength the Big East was better. If you go by the top of the conference the AAC could be considered better. Depends on what side of the fence you are on when making the decision. The argument is moot anyway since Louisville was an AAC member for one year only and now the AAC will be weaker at the top and the middle and bottom will continue to be very weak.
East coast basketball was down overall this year ACC, Big East, ACC and A-10 only have one representative left of the remaining teams.
I agree. The seeding committee did not. They gave the top 2 Big East teams better seeds than the top two AAC teams. Louisville should not have been a 4 seed, on the day the seeding committee met Louisville was clearly one of the top 12 teams in the county, if not top 8.
For whatever reason the committee didn't like the AAC. I think they gave too much weight to the RPI. The AAC also doesn't have a representative on the committee, that doesn't help their cause. Maybe Pitino pissed the committee off when he said Louisville was going to be a 1 seed.
