SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:45 PM - Post#204654
In response to palestra38
Because Tulsa beat two ranked teams, including one on the road. Monmouth beat one. Tulsa beat twice as many tournament teams, and that wasn't purely based on opportunity -- both teams were over .500 in those games. Yes, Tulsa had a couple of bad losses. However, those losses weren't nearly as bad as Monmouth's three worst losses. In regard to your road point, you seem to just be giving Monmouth credit for challenging itself with its OOC schedule. I guess I don't see why that is at all dispositive. All we can do is evaluate the teams in the games they played, and Tulsa played better, and did it against a tougher schedule overall. Monmouth can't help their conference, of course, but Tulsa can't help it either. They've already got a tough schedule whatever they do out of conference. Why should they be expected to play the same sort of OOC schedule that a team in a much easier conference should play? Monmouth should play a tougher OOC schedule.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:45 PM - Post#204655
In response to palestra38
To be fair, that's not my language, it's the selection criteria language:
"The committee selects the 36 best teams not otherwise automatic qualifiers for their
conference to fill the at-large berths. There is no limit on the number of at-large teams
the committee may select from one conference;"
(Emphasis from the original document)
Picking teams based on wins and losses alone is vastly inferior to picking teams based on all available information. Again, this is not a baseless hypothesis, but one that has substantial quantitative evidence behind it (most notably: http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/evid... ).
If the selection criteria said "best resume" or "best wins" or "best (anything)," I'd have to accept that the committee is supposed to pursue something other than the best 36 teams. And for me, that goes far beyond just wins and losses from a sample of 30 games.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32809
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 01:56 PM - Post#204657
In response to mrjames
Your definition of "best" is almost certainly different from theirs. I think SG is correct that in their view, Tulsa played as hard as a schedule as Monmouth and Monmouth's conference losses were what did them in....not efficiency metrics or a likely point spread between the teams. If that were the case, as you pointed out, there were a number of teams whose numbers indicate that in a head to head matchup, they'd be favorites over both and did not get in.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 02:10 PM - Post#204659
In response to SomeGuy
Monmouth should play a tougher OOC schedule.
This is some quality comedy.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 02:10 PM - Post#204660
In response to palestra38
Well, to be clear, both definitions of "best" would have left Monmouth out.
I'm not going to argue about what this particular committee's definition of best was, because it was the least defined definition of best that we've seen in some time. The failure of this selection committee was not the normal one of focusing FAR too much on one metric, but rather having no consistent theme (aside from picking power conference schools) at all.
Not all selection committees are created equal. Some have focused on Top 50 Ws. Others focused on NCSOS. Some have been decently kind to mids. Others have been extremely punitive (this one). Some have seemed laser-focused on the RPI. Others have shown evidence of looking at more advanced metrics. So, I'm not prepared to assume this is the new normal just yet.
For me, the system didn't fail because of Monmouth. And it didn't fail because of St. Mary's, San Diego St. and Valpo. It failed because it lacked consistency. There was such a diversity of profiles among the bubble mids that the only way to keep them all out was to explicitly pick against them. There was no other consistent argument that could be made.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
03-16-16 02:37 PM - Post#204664
In response to mrjames
Consistency is definitely the real problem. Calipari said the same thing in his rant over seeding. When the 10 people change year to year the emphasis on different criteria morph with them.
To be clear, the 68 team field is not about the best teams, no matter your definition of "best". It's about equal access. The at-large bids are focused on the "best" teams and that process is clearly open for debate.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-16-16 03:11 PM - Post#204666
In response to PennFan10
I agree 100% that the Inconsistency of the criteria espoused by the committee even after the fact is bad. But it is the unstated consistency of screwing the mid-majors that is appalling.
|
20Penn14
Senior
Posts: 364
Reg: 02-26-12
|
03-16-16 03:24 PM - Post#204668
In response to SRP
How do you think the affiliation that each member of the selection committee plays into the selections. Looking at this committee, they are affiliated with Oklahoma, LSU, BYU, Michigan St, Stanford, Creighton, Duke, UNC Ashville, Ohio, and Northeastern.
Would having a committee with fewer Power 5 schools, and more schools from smaller conferences change everything?
And did the fact that someone from Columbia was on the womens selection committee increase the odds of #2bidivy and their seedings?
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 03:46 PM - Post#204669
In response to Chip Bayers
Chip -- I think you might be misunderstanding me pulling that sentence out of context. I don't mean that Monmouth should have played a harder OOC schedule than they did -- I can't imagine they can do any more than they did (not their fault UCLA stunk). What I meant (which I thought was clear, but isn't as funny) is that Monmouth should play a tougher OOC schedule than a team like Tulsa.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32809
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 04:14 PM - Post#204672
In response to SomeGuy
You really think that this schedule:
Central Ark
Wichita State
Ohio U
Ind.State
S. Carolina (L)
Ark-Little Rock(L)
@Okl St
Oral Roberts (L)
Iona
@Missouri St
Ore St (L)
Northern Ariz
8-4, only 2 away games
is better than:
@UCLA
@USC (L)
@Drexel
Notre Dame (at Orlando)
Dayton (L) (at Orlando)
USC (at Orlando)
@Georgtown
Wagner
@ Rutgers
@Cornell
@Army(L)
8-3, only 1 home game
Seriously?
|
penn64
Freshman
Posts: 47
Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada
Reg: 11-24-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 07:23 PM - Post#204682
In response to palestra38
Isn't the bottom line, the one bid league is foolish for having a tournament. Rarely, if ever, will more than 1 team make the tournament. If the regular season winner doesn't also win the tournament, that team can forget about the tournament.
But money talks, and ESPN, FOX, CBS, etc. have lots of it as well as lots of stations/places to put on "events", so college presidents and AD's will go for the cash. Impressionable kids can be led to believe it's for them (exposure) but it's the money honey.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32809
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 08:06 PM - Post#204688
In response to penn64
Yes indeed---that was exactly my point. This year is proof that (at least if selection criteria remain the same--something that is questionable) one bid leagues should not have tournaments.
|
section110
Masters Student
Posts: 847
Loc: south jersey
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 10:23 PM - Post#204732
In response to palestra38
Amen.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: The Message Of the Monmouth Snub
03-16-16 11:00 PM - Post#204743
In response to palestra38
No, I don't, and I never said anything that would suggest I thought that was true.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-16-16 11:25 PM - Post#204750
In response to SomeGuy
Vanderbilt and Tulsa really went out of their way to justify the committee's biases.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-18-16 04:25 AM - Post#204867
In response to Chip Bayers
It's probably stupid to moralize these things, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching the hungry Shockers destroy the entitled-seeming Commodores. It was like an Aesop's fable.
|
