2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby humb le on Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:15 pm

As in previous years, this thread will be an attempt to rationally discuss and predict the NCAA tournament selections. I am by no means an expert on this, but I do try to do my due diligence in regards to respecting the criteria and focusing on the numbers. This thread is meant to encourage respectful, thoughtful conversation. All of my projections are based on the criteria explained below:

Prior to the 2009 season, the NCAA adopted the following criteria for determining which teams receive at-large bids:

Primary Criteria for Selecting At-Large Teams

The Division I Men's Lacrosse Committee employs criteria specified in NCAA Bylaws. When selecting teams for possible at-large berths, primary factors considered when reviewing teams' won-loss records and strength of schedule are (not in priority order) as follows:
1. Strength of Schedule Index which is based on the 10 highest-ranking opponents in the ratings percentage index RPI. Two games against the same opponent will count as two contests.
2. Results against teams in descending order, as determined by the "normal RPI [Ratings Percentage Index] rank" used during the selection process, that is, the record against teams ranked 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, and team ranked greater than 20.
3. Average RPI win (average RPI of all wins)
4. Average RPI loss (average RPI of all losses)
5. Head-to-head competition.
6. Results against common opponents.
7. Locations of contests.
8. Significant wins" (wins against teams ranked higher in the RPI)
9. Significant losses" (losses against teams ranked lower in the RPI)


Off of this page(http://www.laxpower.com/update12/binmen/ncaa_d1.php) on Laxpower, you can access and see all of the numbers I am using for my analysis.

To be eligible, a team must have a .500 record or better. It is important to remember that the NCAA committee doesn’t care about poll rankings or “quality” losses.

The selection of Brown in 2009 over Loyola highlights how the criteria can be used. Loyola had good numbers (RPI, SOS) but lacked quality wins. Brown had a very weak SOS, but had quality wins and beat UMass on the road while Loyola lost to UMass at home.

The selection of Notre Dame and Hofstra in 2010 over Georgetown highlights the importance of wins against teams in the RPI Top 20, especially teams in the top 10. While Georgetown had a better RPI and SOS than Notre Dame and Hofstra, they did not have a top 10 RPI win while the Irish and Pride did.

In 2011, the committee acknowledged they do not view the ACC as a conference since they do not have an AQ. This is why UNC and Maryland played in the first round when conference match-ups are to be avoided.

For the 2012 Tournament, there are 7 AQs (America East, Big East, Ivy, Patriot, Colonial, ECAC and MAAC) and 9 At-Large teams. All teams in the ACC and NEC can only make the tourney as at-large teams (ACC has only 4 teams while the NEC hasn’t been around long enough to qualify for an AQ).

Inside the parenthesis for each team is their RPI rank, SOS Index rank and a listing of their top 20 RPI wins at the moment. Projected seeds have it listed in front of their names. The projection is based on the numbers as they stand today.

The current front-runners for their league AQs (if tied, RPI is used as the tiebreaker for the projection)
America East – Stony Brook (#34 RPI, #38 SOS, QWs – None) This is a one-bid league and Stony Brook took a huge step toward having home field throughout the conference tournament with their win over UMBC. Albany also stands at 3-0 in league but has a lower RPI.
Big East –#8 Notre Dame (#6 RPI, #18 SOS, QWs – Duke (7); Denver (15); Ohio State (20)) The Irish have a higher RPI than Villanova so they are slotted as the AQ while Villanova is in the at-large pool. The Big East will settle their AQ with a conference tournament held at Villanova the final weekend of the regular season
Colonial –#5 UMass (#5 RPI, #43 SOS, QWs – Penn State (11); Bucknell (18); Towson (19); Ohio State (20)) Undefeated but not in great shape for a higher seed due to their RPI and lack of top 10 RPI wins at the moment.
ECAC – #1 Loyola (#1 RPI, #23 SOS, QWs – Duke (7); Fairfield (13); Denver (15); Towson (19); Ohio State (20)) Every year the committee has given the #1 RPI team the #1 seed. While the Greyhounds lack a top 5 RPI win, it is hard to see them not getting the #1 seed if they win out.
Ivy – Cornell (#9 RPI, #37 SOS, QWs – Denver (15); Syracuse (16)) - Higher RPI gets the Big Red the AQ slot in this projection over Princeton. A #9 RPI with their best win being #15 Denver means no seed for the Big Red. In fact, if they aren't careful, their resume is starting to look a good deal like Georgetown's in 2010 when they had the #9 RPI but did not get in.
MAAC – Siena (#33 RPI, #59 SOS, QWs – None) - AQ or bust in this league
Patriot – Colgate (#14 RPI, #28 SOS, QWs - Lehigh (8); Fairfield (13)) -The Red Raiders have the head-to-head tiebreaker over Lehigh for possibly hosting the league tournament. Two bad losses to Dartmouth and Navy could haunt them if they fail to get the AQ and other teams strengthen their resumes.

The following teams look to be in very good shape for at-large bids since each has a top 10 RPI, top 10 SOS and at least 1 top 5 RPI win:
#2 Virginia (#3 RPI, #5 SOS, QWs –Maryland (4); Cornell (9); UNC (10); Syracuse (16); Ohio State (20)) - #2 based on three top 10 RPI wins with a strong RPI and SOS.
#3 Maryland (#4 RPI; #4 SOS, QWs – Johns Hopkins (2); Duke (7); Villanova (12)) - While they only have 3 top 20 RPI wins, their head-to-head wins over both Hopkins and Duke combined with the RPI/SOS being #4 each makes me think #3. unless the committee decides to count the UMBC loss heavily against them.
#4 Johns Hopkins (#2 RPI, #8 SOS, QWs –Virginia (3); Syracuse (16); Princeton (17); Towson (19)) - Hard to drop Hopkins much further than #4 with a #2 RPI and the win over UVa. The lack of another big RPI win prevents them from being seeded higher
#6 Duke (#7 RPI, #2 SOS, QWs – Virginia (3); UNC (10); Syracuse (16)) - Two top 10 RPI wins with a better RPI, SOS and a head-to-head win mean the Blue Devils should be seeded above UNC.
#7 North Carolina (#10 RPI, #1 SOS, QWs – Johns Hopkins (2); Maryland (4); Penn State (11); Princeton (17)) - They are the only team with 2 top 5 RPI wins but they also have the inexplicable loss to a 2-win Penn squad. A good showing in the ACC tournament could significantly boost their seeding potential.

That leaves 4 at-large spots. Here are the teams that are currently in the mix:
Lehigh (#8 RPI, #32 SOS, QWs – UNC (10); Penn State (11); Bucknell (18))
Penn State (#11 RPI, #6 SOS, QWs –Notre Dame (6); Villanova (12); Towson (19); Ohio State (20))
Villanova (#12 RPI, #12 SOS, QWs – Lehigh (8); Syracuse (16); Bucknell (18))
Denver (#15 RPI, #13 SOS, QWs – Penn State (11))
Bucknell (#18 RPI, #17 SOS, QWs – Penn State (11))
Princeton (#17 RPI, #24 SOS, QWs – Villanova (12))
Ohio State (#20 RPI, #7 SOS, QWs - Denver (15))
Syracuse (#16 RPI, #3 SOS, QWs – Princeton (17))
Fairfield (#13 RPI, #33 SOS, QWs – none)
Towson (#19 RPI, #20 SOS, QWs – none )
Robert Morris (#22 RPI, #47 SOS, QWs – Ohio State (20))
Army (#24 RPI; #16 SOS; QWs – Bucknell (18))
St. John’s (#23 RPI,#35 SOS, QWs – None)
Bryant (#25 RPI; #50 SOS; QWs – None)

Out of this group, Lehigh, Penn State and Villanova have resumes that currently stand out due to having at least 3 top 20 RPI wins while no one else has more than 1.

That leaves one more spot. No team outside the top 20 of the RPI has ever made the tournament so that eliminates Robert Morris, Army, St. John's and Bryant. No team without a top 20 RPI win has made it since the change in the criteria so that knocks out Fairfield and Towson.

That leaves these 5 for consideration: Denver, Bucknell, Syracuse, Princeton and Ohio State. It is a tough call but I am going with Denver as last in at the moment. They have the best RPI win of the group (#11 Penn State) as does Bucknell. They also have the best RPI and do not have any losses to teams outside the top 20 in the RPI. Some clarity should happen over the next few weeks as each of these teams along with others on the bubble have chances to gain more quality wins.

I freely admit I have been much better at picking who is in and who is out versus actual seedings and match-ups. That said, I am still going to give my best effort at it. Keep in mind that only the top 8 teams are seeded. The commitee has the latitude to make any match-ups they want between unseeded and seeded teams while keeping conference affliations and geography/travel considerations in mind.

Here's my best guess:

#1 Loyola v Stony Brook
#2 Virginia v Siena
#3 Maryland v Denver
#4 Johns Hopkins v Villanova
#5 UMass v Cornell
#6 Duke v Lehigh
#7 UNC v Penn State
#8 Notre Dame v Colgate
Last edited by humb le on Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bracketologist Emeritus
humb le
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:07 pm

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby CU77 on Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:38 pm

Great work as always, humb le, thanks.
Cornell Big Red Lacrosse: NCAA Champions 1971 1976 1977
User avatar
CU77
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:40 pm
Location: Santa Barbara CA

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby CU88 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:41 am

Well done, as always. I wish I had a strong argument for strengthening Cornell's positioning; but the math does not lie. If Cornell wants to play in the NCAA's they must win out.
A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.
Mark Twain
CU88
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:13 am

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby Lax Fidelis on Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:45 am

I'm sure that humb le didn't intentionally do it but his analysis sure says a lot about the Ivy League in 2012. Denver over Princeton for the last slot - textbook example of irony?
Hopkins 11 Maryland 6

Caveat lector, nullius in verba.
User avatar
Lax Fidelis
 
Posts: 11107
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:04 am
Location: University Hill, Columbia, SC

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby otr on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:34 am

humb le wrote:Here's my best guess:

#1 Loyola v Stony Brook
#2 Virginia v Siena
#3 Maryland v Denver
#4 Johns Hopkins v Villanova
#5 UMass v Cornell
#6 Duke v Lehigh
#7 UNC v Penn State
#8 Notre Dame v Colgate


of course I'd be disappointed not to see SU in the mix (IMO though, if they don't beat ND, they don't deserve a shot) but these first round games would be the best match ups I can remember. as a fan of the game, and based on humble's excellent work (once again), I'm pumped up already...HOP vs Nova, UMass vs Cornell, Duke vs Lehigh,... et al ? WOW!
otr
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:02 pm

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby jhu06 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:40 am

what stands out to me about this tournament is the depth you're going to have in the 5-8 range. I could see just as many of the duke, unc, notre dame's making a run to memorial day as I could the loyola, umd, uva group, or 3 weeks from now, being the 1-4 seeds. Tough for syracuse, but that's life
User avatar
jhu06
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby SClaxattack on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:44 am

The potential matchups are incredible. There's a strong possibilty that this year's FF could be made up of two and possibly three FF first timers.

It's time for a new thread and associated survey - "Will a team that's never won a NC win one this year?"
SClaxattack
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:35 pm

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby Paesan33 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:51 am

I agree- and look at the storylines here:

#1 Loyola v Stony Brook- Nagle vs former team
#6 Duke v Lehigh- Cassese vs former team
#7 UNC v Penn State- Rastivo vs former team

Good job humble- even if its theoretical and way early! 8-)
There's 29,413,039 corporations in America; but only one Chairman of the Board.
User avatar
Paesan33
Moderator
 
Posts: 8077
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:38 am
Location: Having a beer with CWBJ in Helsinki, Finland

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby Lax Fidelis on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:52 am

humb le wrote:Here's my best guess:

#1 Loyola v Stony Brook
#2 Virginia v Siena
#3 Maryland v Denver
#4 Johns Hopkins v Villanova
#5 UMass v Cornell
#6 Duke v Lehigh
#7 UNC v Penn State
#8 Notre Dame v Colgate

I missed that he projects Kevin Cassese going against his alma mater. That could be fun.
Hopkins 11 Maryland 6

Caveat lector, nullius in verba.
User avatar
Lax Fidelis
 
Posts: 11107
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:04 am
Location: University Hill, Columbia, SC

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby MaizeAndBlueWahoo on Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:34 am

CU88 wrote:Well done, as always. I wish I had a strong argument for strengthening Cornell's positioning; but the math does not lie. If Cornell wants to play in the NCAA's they must win out.

Cornell has a leg up on two of the bubble teams (Syracuse and Denver) so I think Cornell could get in if they won out in the regular season (i.e. beat Princeton) but lost to them in the Ivy championship game. (Or, obviously, vice versa.) I think in that case Cornell would be at least somewhat likely to slide in before the door is closed.
User avatar
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:09 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby Big_Big_Red_Fan on Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:42 am

Congrats on an undefeated season UMass. Your reward is a matchup with the #3 ranked Big Red. And I think this is a realistic matchup regardless of how the teams finish. With geography such a big factor, these teams have a very good chance of seeing each other in the first round, either in Ithaca or Amherst.
User avatar
Big_Big_Red_Fan
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:17 am

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby brown87 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:15 pm

Great work Humble. A few thoughts on your analytics: (i) given the increased parity in college lacrosse, I believe QWs, specifically Top 5 RPI wins will be paramount in determining seeds; (ii) losses matter very little.

Given the importance of Top 5 RPI wins, it is interesting to note that the RPI 3-7 teams are, at present, separated by 0.005 (0.631-0.626), with a significant drop (0.019) to #8. If I was a judge on the selection committee, I would view Top 7 wins as paramount. Under this scenario, the Top 8 seeds would be as follows:

1. UNC (#10 RPI, #11 SOS, QWs – JHU (2); UMD (4); PSU (11); PU (17)): Two Top 7 wins.
2. UMD (#4 RPI, #4 SOS, QWs – JHU (2); Duke (7); 'Nova (12)): Two Top 7 wins.
3. UVa (#3 RPI, #5 SOS, QWs – UMD (4); CU (9); UNC (10); SU (16); OSU (20)): One Top 7, three Top 10.
4. Duke (#7 RPI, #2 SOS, QWs – UVa (3); UNC (10); SU (16)): One Top 7, two Top 10.
5. Loyola (#1 RPI, #23 SOS, QWs – Duke (7); FU (13); Denver (15); Towson (19); OSU (20)): One Top 7, 5 Top 20.
6. JHU (#2 RPI, #8 SOS, QWs – UVa (3); SU (16); PU (17); Towson (19)): One Top 7 win, 4 Top 20.
7. PSU (#11 RPI, #6 SOS, QWs – ND (6); 'Nova (12); Towson (19); OSU (20)): One Top 7 win, 4 Top 20.
8. ND (#6 RPI, #18 SOS, QWs – Duke (7); Denver (15); OSU (20)): One Top 7 win, 3 Top 20.

This would leave UMass, even if they win out and remain undefeated, unseeded:

UMass (#5 RPI, #43 SOS, QWs – PSU (11); Bucknell (18); Towson (19); OSU (20)): No Top 7 or Top 10 wins.

One could argue that Lehigh and Villanova have stronger resumes than UMass:

Lehigh (#8 RPI, #32 SOS, QWs – UNC (10); PSU (11); Bucknell (18)): Two Top 11 wins.
Villanova (#12 RPI, #12 SOS, QWs – Lehigh (8); SU (16); Bucknell (18)): One Top 10 win.

Ironically, the only way UMass will obtain a Top 10 win is if PSU wins out and wins the Colonial tournament, defeating UMass in the process, to raise PSU's RPI to Top 10 status.

Interestingly, the Top 6 teams all have the opportunity to boost their resumes and secure Top 4 seeds. The four ACC teams have the ACC tournament. The JHU-Loyola winner will likely be a Top 4 seed.

Thoughts / reactions always appreciated.
brown87
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:43 pm

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby CU77 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:19 pm

MaizeAndBlueWahoo wrote:Cornell has a leg up on two of the bubble teams (Syracuse and Denver)

Alas for us Cornell fans, head-to-head, though an official criterion, does not seem to matter very much; see humb le's 2010 example of ND being selected over Georgetown despite beating them.
MaizeAndBlueWahoo wrote:so I think Cornell could get in if they won out in the regular season (i.e. beat Princeton) but lost to them in the Ivy championship game.

I think Cornell would be likely to get in in this situation. They would have only 2 losses (one to a highly seeded UVa, in OT). That 2010 Georgetown team had 5 losses. But whether the official criteria can be arranged to support such a conclusion depends on the outcomes of games to come.

And as always, if there are upsets in the conference tournaments, the number of available at-large bids goes down ...
Cornell Big Red Lacrosse: NCAA Champions 1971 1976 1977
User avatar
CU77
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:40 pm
Location: Santa Barbara CA

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby CU77 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:20 pm

brown87 wrote:This would leave UMass, even if they win out and remain undefeated, unseeded

That's inconsistent with the example of ND in 2009.
Cornell Big Red Lacrosse: NCAA Champions 1971 1976 1977
User avatar
CU77
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 3:40 pm
Location: Santa Barbara CA

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby Cooter on Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:29 pm

CU77 wrote:
brown87 wrote:This would leave UMass, even if they win out and remain undefeated, unseeded

That's inconsistent with the example of ND in 2009.


Not necessarily. Notre Dame was the #7 seed, but did have a win over the #6 seed UNC.
Of course, seeding also depends upon the quality of other teams' records.

hum ble wrote:It is important to remember that the NCAA committee doesn’t care about poll rankings or “quality” losses.

"quality" losses - if you mean that the NCAA committee doesn't using scoring margin, that is true. But certainly losing to better teams helps one in a number of criteria: 1,2, 4, and 9.


Note to Baldo or Laf or other important persons
Would it be possible, as we move forward, to set up a link to a static RPI page that showed the RPI at the end of the regular season (before NCAA tmt results)? So when we look back from future years, we will know exactly how the RPI stood when the selection committee made its decisions for previous seasons.
Last edited by Cooter on Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Go Terps Current owners of the longest D1 NCAA tmt. streak.
User avatar
Cooter
 
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:57 pm
Location: Swamp

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby humb le on Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:31 pm

brown87 wrote:Great work Humble. A few thoughts on your analytics: (i) given the increased parity in college lacrosse, I believe QWs, specifically Top 5 RPI wins will be paramount in determining seeds; (ii) losses matter very little.

Given the importance of Top 5 RPI wins, it is interesting to note that the RPI 3-7 teams are, at present, separated by 0.005 (0.631-0.626), with a significant drop (0.019) to #8. If I was a judge on the selection committee, I would view Top 7 wins as paramount. Under this scenario, the Top 8 seeds would be as follows:

1. UNC (#10 RPI, #11 SOS, QWs – JHU (2); UMD (4); PSU (11); PU (17)): Two Top 7 wins.
2. UMD (#4 RPI, #4 SOS, QWs – JHU (2); Duke (7); 'Nova (12)): Two Top 7 wins.
3. UVa (#3 RPI, #5 SOS, QWs – UMD (4); CU (9); UNC (10); SU (16); OSU (20)): One Top 7, three Top 10.
4. Duke (#7 RPI, #2 SOS, QWs – UVa (3); UNC (10); SU (16)): One Top 7, two Top 10.
5. Loyola (#1 RPI, #23 SOS, QWs – Duke (7); FU (13); Denver (15); Towson (19); OSU (20)): One Top 7, 5 Top 20.
6. JHU (#2 RPI, #8 SOS, QWs – UVa (3); SU (16); PU (17); Towson (19)): One Top 7 win, 4 Top 20.
7. PSU (#11 RPI, #6 SOS, QWs – ND (6); 'Nova (12); Towson (19); OSU (20)): One Top 7 win, 4 Top 20.
8. ND (#6 RPI, #18 SOS, QWs – Duke (7); Denver (15); OSU (20)): One Top 7 win, 3 Top 20.

This would leave UMass, even if they win out and remain undefeated, unseeded:

UMass (#5 RPI, #43 SOS, QWs – PSU (11); Bucknell (18); Towson (19); OSU (20)): No Top 7 or Top 10 wins.

One could argue that Lehigh and Villanova have stronger resumes than UMass:

Lehigh (#8 RPI, #32 SOS, QWs – UNC (10); PSU (11); Bucknell (18)): Two Top 11 wins.
Villanova (#12 RPI, #12 SOS, QWs – Lehigh (8); SU (16); Bucknell (18)): One Top 10 win.

Ironically, the only way UMass will obtain a Top 10 win is if PSU wins out and wins the Colonial tournament, defeating UMass in the process, to raise PSU's RPI to Top 10 status.

Interestingly, the Top 6 teams all have the opportunity to boost their resumes and secure Top 4 seeds. The four ACC teams have the ACC tournament. The JHU-Loyola winner will likely be a Top 4 seed.

Thoughts / reactions always appreciated.


Each year you provide a very interesting take on the selection process and the numbers. While the 3-7 RPI teams are very tight, there is no wiggle room in the criteria. While I appreciate your argument for the seeds, it is not how the committee will do it based on their track record. Look no further than Denver being seeded last year with only 2 quality wins (0 Top 5, 1 Top 10, the other was Top 20) while Maryland was not seeded despite 3 Top 10 RPI wins (1 being a Top 5). As I attempt to get better every year at doing this, the past few years have shown that Quality Wins get you in the door, but do not neccessarily determine seedings. They are definitely looking into the other criteria when determining seedings.
Bracketologist Emeritus
humb le
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:07 pm

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby humb le on Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:37 pm

Cooter wrote:
hum ble wrote:It is important to remember that the NCAA committee doesn’t care about poll rankings or “quality” losses.

"quality" losses - if you mean that the NCAA committee doesn't using scoring margin, that is true. But certainly losing to better teams helps one in a number of criteria: 1,2, 4, and 9.


It is exactly what I mean. The NCAA committee does not care about scoring margain. They do not care when the game was played. They do care about whether you won or lost as well as where the game was played. Implicitly, playing better teams, even if you lose, will help you in a number of the NCAA selection criteria. The trick is that sometimes it is hard to predict in February what will and what will not be a good win/bad loss. I'm guessing Villanova had no idea that beating Lehigh in February would turn out to be their signature win to date over a top 10 RPI team.
Bracketologist Emeritus
humb le
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:07 pm

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby Cooter on Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:48 pm

humb le wrote: The trick is that sometimes it is hard to predict in February what will and what will not be a good win/bad loss. I'm guessing Villanova had no idea that beating Lehigh in February would turn out to be their signature win to date over a top 10 RPI team.

Definitely, and most teams tend to finalize their schedules much earlier than that.
At the moment, the converse to Lehigh, is Syracuse - who a lot of teams look for as a top 10 game - especially Cornell.
Go Terps Current owners of the longest D1 NCAA tmt. streak.
User avatar
Cooter
 
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:57 pm
Location: Swamp

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby MaizeAndBlueWahoo on Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:09 pm

CU77 wrote:
MaizeAndBlueWahoo wrote:Cornell has a leg up on two of the bubble teams (Syracuse and Denver)

Alas for us Cornell fans, head-to-head, though an official criterion, does not seem to matter very much; see humb le's 2010 example of ND being selected over Georgetown despite beating them.
MaizeAndBlueWahoo wrote:so I think Cornell could get in if they won out in the regular season (i.e. beat Princeton) but lost to them in the Ivy championship game.

I think Cornell would be likely to get in in this situation. They would have only 2 losses (one to a highly seeded UVa, in OT). That 2010 Georgetown team had 5 losses. But whether the official criteria can be arranged to support such a conclusion depends on the outcomes of games to come.

And as always, if there are upsets in the conference tournaments, the number of available at-large bids goes down ...

It's my somewhat unscientific opinion that head-to-head matters more than it might seem, just because it's very easy to spot when Team X beats Team Y and Team Y makes it over Team X anyway, but not very noteworthy the other way round. Anyway, Cornell also has quite a few other things going for it over Syracuse and Denver, and I think they're in barring a meltdown and/or a string of crazy upsets by the other two. You're right about the tournaments for sure - no doubt you'll be pulling for the chalk in the ECAC, CAA, and PL. Fairfield is probably a bigger threat to Cornell than Syracuse or Denver just because they could sneak an upset. I don't think Colgate is in without the autobid, either.
User avatar
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:09 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: 2012 NCAA Bracketology - 4/15/12

New postby brown87 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 3:27 pm

humb le wrote:Each year you provide a very interesting take on the selection process and the numbers. While the 3-7 RPI teams are very tight, there is no wiggle room in the criteria. While I appreciate your argument for the seeds, it is not how the committee will do it based on their track record ... As I attempt to get better every year at doing this, the past few years have shown that Quality Wins get you in the door, but do not neccessarily determine seedings. They are definitely looking into the other criteria when determining seedings.


Appreciate the kudos. You do the most thorough job annually.

Based on the opening paragraph that introduces the selection criteria, it would appear the committee has a great degree of latitude on weighing the various criteria. Note that RPI #4-6 have identical RPI ratings. Surely if RPI #1-10 were numerically equal, one would not award more weight to a top 5 win versus a top 10 win. Rules are only meaningful if they lead to the correct conclusions.

I would hope the criteria the committee factors in are as much forward looking as backward looking and morphs annually to best evaluate the current crop of candidates.
brown87
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 1:43 pm

Sponsor
 

Next

Return to Men's - Division I

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arealax, arml, Benthere, catman, doug7779, Dwich1982, Google [Bot], HooDat, Jim Fenzel, SUThrob1, vgls88, voyuer and 110 guests