Top 25 not connected NT - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 71 (0)

All Star

25

Prospect

I've been trying to tell people (including seble) that IRL, the Top 25 rankings have nothing to do with NT selection/seeding. IRL, rankings are just window dressing used to promote the game, voted on by grad assistants and beat writers who don't see 90% of the teams.

We are family friends with a former member of the selection committee, and I was explicitely told that the selection committee does not take the Top 25 into account at all.

Yesterday I was reading a chat w. Joe Lunardi, ESPN's Bracketologist (man, anyone here who doesn't want that guy's job?), and saw the following exchange:

Q: If Baylor is a top 25 team and they are in the Bracket as an 11 seed. That means there are at least 25 teams that have better resumes than them that are currently not ranked. Doesn't make much sense to me. Could you explain further.

A (Lunardi): Only makes sense if you go by the polls, which, thankfully, the Selection Committee does not.

The selection committee doesn't use the top 25 IRL, and we certainly shouldn't be using the flawed HD top 25.

1/12/2010 8:53 AM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Nice catch dalt. (and yes I would love his job).

1/12/2010 9:05 AM

ardthomp

Posts: 210 (0)

Hall of Famer

417 24 77

Prospect

So, who would be your number 1 seeds right now?

1/12/2010 9:42 AM

kujayhawk

Posts: 396 (0)

Hall of Famer

203 89

Rookie

I'm not sure that this is an instance where HD should mirror real life.

I don't like that the HD top 25 is flawed. It'd be nice to fix it. But assuming it somewhat works (and even if it stays the same) I think it's helpful to include it for purposes of NT seeding. In real life the committee doesn't use the polls but also uses a plethora of available information that isn't used in this game.

What happens if top 25 rankings stop being utilized for the NT? The two most likely outcomes that I would see are (1) a further reliance on RPI and (2) more weight given to conference tourney wins/losses. I think both of those are considered to have too much influence already by the majority of users.

In real life, there are so many tools available to the selection committee that it would be dishonest to use the polls which have an enormous amount of built in bias. In HD there are so few tools available, that I think including the top 25 in the mix helps spice things up a bit.

1/12/2010 9:59 AM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Quote post by zhawks on 1/12/2010 10:16:00 AM:

I agree with ya here dalt, I know we both agree that the Top 25 should just be window dressing, stoping the need for WIS to keep 'fixing' it.

But to play a little devils advocate here, just because it isn't used in real life doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in HD... (kind of the opposite of what you always say?) IF it was correct and worked properly, agreed something that has never been true about the Top 25 in HD, we don't have the added benefit of using our human brains, ie the selection commitee, to pick who does and doesn't make the dance. So I assume the thought has always been (and will always be @ WIS) that they have to use it since they need as much 'information' to compile into the engine to get close to getting the seeds right.

1/12/2010 11:26 AM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Quote post by seble on 1/12/2010 10:59:00 AM:

In our analysis ranking had a very high correlation to tournament seed, based on the last X number of years. While they may claim that it doesn't impact their decisions directly, there is pretty strong evidence that it at least has a very strong indirect impact. So it will be included in our seeding logic. Zhawks made the important point, that the selection committee has human reasoning on their side to select the 64 teams, whereas this all has to be automated logic. If we excluded rankings then it would basically be strictly RPI, and I think you'd agree that is not a good idea.

1/12/2010 11:26 AM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

I hope seble doesn't mind me posting his response here I do agree with dalt in this, I do also understand what seble is saying, but I thought others might like to see his response.

1/12/2010 11:27 AM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

I like how seble says that using "strictly RPI...is not a good idea" yet in the FAQ according to how seeds are determined...overall RPI is 2nd most important, and then RPI is circularly referenced 6 more times in the formula.

It would seem however that RPI is most important because Tark just had a 12-16 team as the #1 overall PI seed (they lost their first round game) with an RPI of 48....no team in the PI had a higher RPI, so....

I wouldn't be surprised at all that all that FAQ stuff is mumbo jumbo, masking the fact that basically "strictly RPI" determines seeding.

1/12/2010 11:41 AM

metsmax

Posts: 1598 (0)

Hall of Famer

5 2 836 2

Pro

I had long assumed that ranking (top 25 etc) was not expressly a factor in the HD programming for the NT, but that the variables that determine ranking were also key variables in NT seeds and therefore one observes a meaningful correlation between ranking and seeds

someone smarter than me once posited a predictive rule that 1/3 or 1.4 value to ranking and the rest to RPI predicted HD NT seeds pretty well - and when last I looked carefully it generally did

1/12/2010 11:49 AM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/12/2010
I like how seble says that using "strictly RPI...is not a good idea" yet in the FAQ according to how seeds are determined...overall RPI is 2nd most important, and then RPI is circularly referenced 6 more times in the formula.

It would seem however that RPI is most important because Tark just had a 12-16 team as the #1 overall PI seed (they lost their first round game) with an RPI of 48....no team in the PI had a higher RPI, so....

I wouldn't be surprised at all that all that FAQ stuff is mumbo jumbo, masking the fact that basically "strictly RPI" determines seeding.

Would you shut up about that PI team. Seriously that is getting about as old as the rest of your act.

1/12/2010 1:07 PM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/12/2010
I had long assumed that ranking (top 25 etc) was not expressly a factor in the HD programming for the NT, but that the variables that determine ranking were also key variables in NT seeds and therefore one observes a meaningful correlation between ranking and seeds

someone smarter than me once posited a predictive rule that 1/3 or 1.4 value to ranking and the rest to RPI predicted HD NT seeds pretty well - and when last I looked carefully it generally did

Was this Iguana? I think it might have been...

1/12/2010 1:07 PM

schroedess26

Posts: 54 (0)

All Star

29 1 1

Prospect

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

1/12/2010 1:15 PM

dalter

Posts: 71 (0)

All Star

25

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 1/12/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/12/2010

I had long assumed that ranking (top 25 etc) was not expressly a factor in the HD programming for the NT, but that the variables that determine ranking were also key variables in NT seeds and therefore one observes a meaningful correlation between ranking and seeds

someone smarter than me once posited a predictive rule that 1/3 or 1.4 value to ranking and the rest to RPI predicted HD NT seeds pretty well - and when last I looked carefully it generally did

Was this Iguana? I think it might have been...

I think that's OR's.

1/12/2010 2:46 PM

zhawks

Posts: 881 (0)

Hall of Famer

208 66 38

Pro

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 1/12/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 1/12/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 1/12/2010

I had long assumed that ranking (top 25 etc) was not expressly a factor in the HD programming for the NT, but that the variables that determine ranking were also key variables in NT seeds and therefore one observes a meaningful correlation between ranking and seeds

someone smarter than me once posited a predictive rule that 1/3 or 1.4 value to ranking and the rest to RPI predicted HD NT seeds pretty well - and when last I looked carefully it generally did

Was this Iguana? I think it might have been...
I think that's OR's.

Ok, my bad - two great coaches I guess I get them confused sometimes... lol Thanks.

1/12/2010 2:50 PM

mmt0315

Posts: 450 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 323 4 7

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/12/2010
I like how seble says that using "strictly RPI...is not a good idea" yet in the FAQ according to how seeds are determined...overall RPI is 2nd most important, and then RPI is circularly referenced 6 more times in the formula.

It would seem however that RPI is most important because Tark just had a 12-16 team as the #1 overall PI seed (they lost their first round game) with an RPI of 48....no team in the PI had a higher RPI, so....

I wouldn't be surprised at all that all that FAQ stuff is mumbo jumbo, masking the fact that basically "strictly RPI" determines seeding.

Good lord. I havent posted in these forums in awhile because of all your stupid nonsense and how you take over every thread with your stupid BPI here are some things to chew over:

1) It took you 6 years to come up with a formula whose very basic assumptions are flawed (been pointed out countless times in various other threads BUT the most important is your thought that beating the 365th ranked team by one at home is better than losing to the #1 team on the road by one...We know Herm you play to win the games)...Youre either to dumb to understand OR to stubborn to open your mind...either way if it TOOK YOU SIX FREAKING YEARS to come up with something rather simplistic...FIND SOMETHING NEW TO DO...;

2) The exception doesn't make the rule...Do you think David Tyree is the best receiver to ever play the game simply because he made the greatest or one of the greatest catches in NFL history? What about Santonio Holmes or Dwight Clark? You were also given a very good example of the Arizona Wildcats...Are you really that dense?;

3) RPI isnt the only factor this game uses...otherwise when the selections are announced each season (IN HD) you wouldnt have a bunch of ****** off coaches wondering why they got a 3 seed when their RPI was 2. Is it one of the factors? YES Is it one of the more heavily rated factors? YES? But why shouldnt it be...For the most part HD's seeding system works as is reflected in the Final Four and Elite 8. Do the top 8 seeds always reach that far, of course not, but if you don't get it we cant help you.

Ok rant over...sorry but Ive written and deleted post to this jackass five or 6 times in the past two weeks but have finally had enough.

As an aside, I was going to reply to Dalter in the same manner as what Hawks posted from Seble, which is very spot on. While they might not officially use it, there is typically a very strong correlation and its not often a team in the top 25 if out of the tournament or anything lower than a 7-8 seed.

1/12/2010 2:56 PM

Forums

Top 25 not connected NT Topic

Search Criteria