I'm starting to get very frustrated by my Tiffin team's seeding issues in Crum.

I'm in an awful conference and try to schedule really hard out of conference to make up for it. I came into the conference season with the #1 SOS.

In the end I finished 24-5 #13 RPI and #24 SOS and wound up with a 6 seed

My 4 OOC losses were to the #1, 2, 7 and 14 RPI teams. I lost one bad game in conference but that team's RPI was still #61 so not horrible.

I have wins over the # 4, 17, and 21 RPI team so it's not that I won no big games.

This has happened several seasons in a row to my team.  3 seasons ago I came into the NT with ta 25-4 record and went to the elite 8 because I had a great team...but I did it as a 9 seed!

I just don't know what more to do besides go undefeated. Is my weak conference hurting my seeding THAT much? Even if I didn't drop the 1 conference game to the 61 RPI I can't see that I'd be much higher than a 5 or maybe a 4.

Any advice for future seasons on how to be a top line seed when I have the talent and the record  for it?

You're going to have to go 8-2 or 9-1 OOC to get much better seeding. On the plus side, there's little difference in talent in WiS, so you're going to get a tough round 2 game no matter where you're seeded...

Take a look at U of DC in Allen.  Yeah, they are usually a 1- or 2-loss team heading into the tourney, but that's how you nab top-3 seeds out of a bad conference.  I agree with wronoj, 5 losses with that schedule isn't going to get you a top-2 seed.  I actually think you should play slightly worse competition in non-con and make sure you win those games.  Not saying barely-top-100 teams or anything, but top-50 teams who will have good records as a result of racking up wins.

Just my .02.

I didn't expect a top 2, but I think I certainly have the record of a 4 seed.  I mean the #24 SOS and #13 RPI is still very good given the conference I"m in. 

The 4 seed in my bracket is 25-4 with 34 RPI and 81 SOS. Another is 25-4 with 11 RPI and 40 SOS. I should at least be on par with these 2 teams shouldn't I? 

There is a 3 seed that is 22-6 with the 16 SOS. Is the 8 SOS spots and 1 extra loss worth 3 entire seeds above me?

your issue, mjp, comes down to 1 thing - record vs top X... top 25, 50, 100 (and maybe 75?). for example, your record vs the top 50 is 3-4. that suggests you are worse than the average top 50 team (which would be ~25th, a 6 seed). your record vs the top 25 is also 3-4, which is definitely better, that pegs you around a 4 seed. its your record vs the top 100 that is killing you, 6-5. that suggests you are basically an average (or slightly above average) team for the top 100 group, which puts you around 45-50, 12-13 seed. 

its unfortunate you are in SUCH a bad conference. its going to be tough any time you play in a conference with *one* team in the top 100 rpi. how will you build your record vs top 25/50/100? all you've got is non conference. id try to schedule almost all my teams in the top 100, and a bunch in the top 50, but within those constraints, you want the weakest teams you can find, so you will come out with a better record. you have 6 top teams and split them, i think thats good - but the problem is you didnt leave enough games to pad your top 50 and top 100 records. you most likely would have won most of your vs 35-100 rpi games (or maybe not, but then you don't deserve a 4 seed, either), problem is, you don't really have any.

for the record, i think most conferences are workable, but a conference that bad is always going to make things more challenging. thats like, a bottom in the world conference, which is the worst place for top teams to be. even a bottom 3rd-4th type conference is fine, because you get some double digit rpis to help your record vs top X. the new seeding algorithms seble did absolutely favor those who are able to play, and win, those games.

Posted by gillispie1 on 9/18/2012 12:38:00 PM (view original):
your issue, mjp, comes down to 1 thing - record vs top X... top 25, 50, 100 (and maybe 75?). for example, your record vs the top 50 is 3-4. that suggests you are worse than the average top 50 team (which would be ~25th, a 6 seed). your record vs the top 25 is also 3-4, which is definitely better, that pegs you around a 4 seed. its your record vs the top 100 that is killing you, 6-5. that suggests you are basically an average (or slightly above average) team for the top 100 group, which puts you around 45-50, 12-13 seed. 

its unfortunate you are in SUCH a bad conference. its going to be tough any time you play in a conference with *one* team in the top 100 rpi. how will you build your record vs top 25/50/100? all you've got is non conference. id try to schedule almost all my teams in the top 100, and a bunch in the top 50, but within those constraints, you want the weakest teams you can find, so you will come out with a better record. you have 6 top teams and split them, i think thats good - but the problem is you didnt leave enough games to pad your top 50 and top 100 records. you most likely would have won most of your vs 35-100 rpi games (or maybe not, but then you don't deserve a 4 seed, either), problem is, you don't really have any.

for the record, i think most conferences are workable, but a conference that bad is always going to make things more challenging. thats like, a bottom in the world conference, which is the worst place for top teams to be. even a bottom 3rd-4th type conference is fine, because you get some double digit rpis to help your record vs top X. the new seeding algorithms seble did absolutely favor those who are able to play, and win, those games.

If that's how it's done, it shouldn't be.  That takes everything out of context.

It should be record vs top 25, vs 26-50, vs. 51-100, etc.

I just want to up this post instead of starting a new one like a real jerk to brag that this team made it to the final 4 so screw you seeding committee!


Finally after 56 full seasons and almost 1100 total wins my first final 4 somewhere! Sucks it is in a world where I'm basically in a ghost conference and have nobody there to enjoy it in front of.