real life NCAA seedings over the past 10 years (showing the lowest RPI and the highest RPI to get that seed)

Michigan State had the lowest pre-tournament RPI of any #1 seed, with a 13 in 2000. Ironically they won the title that season.

seed RPI
1: 1-13
2: 1-34
3: 1-26
4: 7-55
5: 4-40
6: 9-47
7: 10-60
8: 13-60
9: 19-63
10: 20-65
11: 23-71
12: 19-79
13: 33-138
14: 53-146
15: 73-177
16: 116-284

Quote: Originally Posted By Iguana1 on 10/15/2009
real life NCAA seedings over the past 10 years (showing the lowest RPI and the highest RPI to get that seed)

Michigan State had the lowest pre-tournament RPI of any #1 seed, with a 13 in 2000. Ironically they won the title that season.

seed RPI
1: 1-13
2: 1-34
3: 1-26
4: 7-55
5: 4-40
6: 9-47
7: 10-60
8: 13-60
9: 19-63
10: 20-65
11: 23-71
12: 19-79
13: 33-138
14: 53-146
15: 73-177
16: 116-284

This kind've proves my point, RPI isn't the only thing the committee looks at. There are a bunch of other factors. I'm sure every year there is a 6 seed whose RPI is worse than an 8 seed. Imagine if the #13 team in the RPI got a #1 seed in HD, how outraged people would be.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

The point is everybody looks at RPI as the THE deciding factor on where a team should be ranked. If a team is 4th in the RPI they think they should automatically be at least a top 2 seed, when that chart shows that the #4 RPI team has been a 5 seed. People are implying in real life this stuff doesn't happen, when in fact it does. For example Tanner is making it seem like UCLA being a 7 seed despite a 16 RPI is unheard off, when in fact it's happened several teams in the last decade in real life.

According to the FAQ HD does look at who you've played since they say that your wins against the various RPI ratings is factored in.

Not to mention that #6 seed Chicago St. team is ranked #8.

Mully, I'm going to tell you something you probably should know by now--the teams aren't seeded by overall team rating. Since my Sacramento State team is one you've listed above, I'll focus on that one.

We went 25-4 this season. One of our losses was to Boise State (35 RPI) on the road. The other three were all to Montana, who you've listed as an undeserving 5 seed above in spite of their 22 RPI. We played four BCS teams in our non-conference schedule, three of whom made the NT. (The other, South Carolina, was sent to the PIT despite a 49 RPI.) We beat all four of them, including a three-point win at #1 Michigan State. To look at a season like that and claim that such a team is unworthy of a 3 seed because of their overall rating is to make a nonsensical argument.

Now, I'm not saying I'm thrilled to be playing in the first round a Michigan team whose overall rating is almost 50 points higher than ours, but if I lose I won't whine and cry about it either.

edit: BTW, one way you could "fix" the problem would be to actually beat those undeserving mid-major teams, like Bethune-Cookman, when you play them in your own gym.

Having already lost to one of your teams, I know you have well coached squads.

But my point remains, given a choice, I'd rather face you in the 1st round of a tourney than any of those low seeded teams I listed.

EDIT : what we do in our own gym has nothing to do with these powerfull teams in +#10 seed slots. Stop trying to make this personal.

Quote: Originally Posted By Iguana1 on 10/15/2009
real life NCAA seedings over the past 10 years (showing the lowest RPI and the highest RPI to get that seed)

Michigan State had the lowest pre-tournament RPI of any #1 seed, with a 13 in 2000. Ironically they won the title that season.

seed RPI
1: 1-13
2: 1-34
3: 1-26
4: 7-55
5: 4-40
6: 9-47
7: 10-60
8: 13-60
9: 19-63
10: 20-65
11: 23-71
12: 19-79
13: 33-138
14: 53-146
15: 73-177
16: 116-284

since the original topic had to do with RL i think this is an excellent example. plus, where would the forums be without ******** about seeding when tourney time rolls around. imo, that resembles RL more than anything else in this game.

OK mully, having re-read my post, you're right--it was overly snide. I do think that, for as good a coach as you are you tend to harp on this issue a bit much.

You must know that in the current incarnation of HD the National Tourney is essentially a crapshoot. The #1 (and maybe #2) seeds are generally safe bets to make the second round, but other than that just about any team can win or lose any game. Since potential was rolled out, it's not too difficult for a team, even a low-major, to build a starting lineup of extremely talented players. And since every player has 95+ stamina these days, a team with 5 great players isn't all that different from a team with 12 of them. So in my view, the seeds (and the overall ratings) don't really matter much.

Quote: Originally posted by kmasonbx on 10/15/2009The point is everybody looks at RPI as the THE deciding factor on where a team should be ranked. If a team is 4th in the RPI they think they should automatically be at least a top 2 seed, when that chart shows that the #4 RPI team has been a 5 seed. People are implying in real life this stuff doesn't happen, when in fact it does. For example Tanner is making it seem like UCLA being a 7 seed despite a 16 RPI is unheard off, when in fact it's happened several teams in the last decade in real life. According to the FAQ HD does look at who you've played since they say that your wins against the various RPI ratings is factored in.

Saying it and actually doing it are different things. There are a few things in the FAQ that are incorrect. If this was the case you would not see teams with SOS pushing 150+ with a seed of 4 or better.

Quote: Originally Posted By aporter on 10/15/2009

Quote: Originally posted by kmasonbx on 10/15/2009
The point is everybody looks at RPI as the THE deciding factor on where a team should be ranked. If a team is 4th in the RPI they think they should automatically be at least a top 2 seed, when that chart shows that the #4 RPI team has been a 5 seed. People are implying in real life this stuff doesn't happen, when in fact it does. For example Tanner is making it seem like UCLA being a 7 seed despite a 16 RPI is unheard off, when in fact it's happened several teams in the last decade in real life.

According to the FAQ HD does look at who you've played since they say that your wins against the various RPI ratings is factored in.

Saying it and actually doing it are different things. There are a few things in the FAQ that are incorrect. If this was the case you would not see teams with SOS pushing 150+ with a seed of 4 or better.

This is just an assumption, there is no way you can be 100% certain this has never happened in the NCAA. I'm pretty close to positive that the season Larry Bird's team was undefeated their SOS was horrendus and they were a 1 seed. SOS is something that is overrated, you can only play who is in front of you, if you go through a season beating every team you play by 20+ you obviously have a really good team regardless of how weak your schedule is. That is where the rankings come in, although it is said they have no impact on seeding, I don't think that is entirely true because an element of the rankings is how impressive your team has been.

Can you honestly say that a team playing the toughest schedule and going 17-12 against it with a point differential of +2 per game is definitely better than the team that went 27-2 against the 100th toughest schedule with a point differential of +20 per game? SOS, and RPI are important parts of the seeding process but in no way should they be all that's looked at.

I'm not saying the seeding process in HD is perfect (It's not even perfect in real life) but the arguments that people are using aren't good IMO. As I've said before RPI isn't everything. If somebody had the #4 RPI and they got a 5 seed they would say HD seeding is broken, when this has happened in real life. RPI can be easily manipulated, just play a bunch of road games agianst good teams and your losses barely matter but your wins count a ton. This is something that is weeded out by the real life seeding committe, maybe in HD there is something similar built into seeding.

I'm the Wake Forest #11 seed coach, facing off against #6 Chicago State. While I have to admit I think the matchup is favorable to me tonight, I don't think the seeding is unfair in any way. I'm a 44 rpi club with a 17-10 record (10-6 in a somewhat off year for the ACC, with a CT flameout in my first game). Chicago State is 26-3, with a 29 rpi. Granted, they only have 2 top-100 rpi wins, and only 9 games against human coaches in total. I think they're overrated as the 8th ranked team in the country, but rankings are another matter. Their seed I think is actually pretty fair.

Quote: Originally posted by bermanap on 10/15/2009I'm not agreeing with how it is done, but my VA squad is ranked #22, so that must have made an impact.

Absolutely not! My team was ranked 22nd at the time of NT selection, and got relegated to the PIT. Rankings are for prestige and window dressing.

I think that the argument that mully raises isn't any different that the one that happens every March. Do you go with the school from the BCS conference that doesn't have a great record but played in a tough conference or the school from the non-BCS conference with a great record but lesser competition? Certainly, I think that HD favors the smaller schools more than real-life. Is that a bad thing? That's a matter of personal preference I suppose.

As the coach of the Montana team listed in the opening post, I'm glad that I know that I don't have to be in a big conference to know that I can get a decent seed, but I understand where that would be frustrating to a BCS coach.

Quote: Originally Posted By kmasonbx on 10/15/2009
The point is everybody looks at RPI as the THE deciding factor on where a team should be ranked. If a team is 4th in the RPI they think they should automatically be at least a top 2 seed, when that chart shows that the #4 RPI team has been a 5 seed. People are implying in real life this stuff doesn't happen, when in fact it does. For example Tanner is making it seem like UCLA being a 7 seed despite a 16 RPI is unheard off, when in fact it's happened several teams in the last decade in real life.

According to the FAQ HD does look at who you've played since they say that your wins against the various RPI ratings is factored in.

It's very tough. WIS is more faithful to rpi than the real-life committee is, and I think for good reason: The committee has the ability to objectively evaluate each team's resume, and the flexibility to make good decsions. The computer program that seeds HD teams does not.

I don't think the system needs an overhaul (always dangerous); I think it just needs a couple tweaks. More emphasis on quality of wins/losses than simply on the W-L record would be #1 in my book. And right now WIS currently overemphasizes CT performance as a seeding factor.