clemson in, UVa out

UVA should have been in IMO.  They have pretty much equal resumes and UVA won the heads up match-up by a sizeable margin, although it was at home.

Personally I don't think either should've made it, but I think Clemson had the better case considering they had 2 good wins in the NC, while Virginia had 0. Clemson also had more wins against tthe top 50. And while, VA won the H2H I don't think that offsets those other 2 things, because it was at VA who has an A homecourt.  

Tark D3 looks off. 

Rivier got bubbled out while Earlham is in?
Rivier: http://whatifsports.com/hd/TeamProfile/Schedule.aspx?tid=12475

Honestly Rivier has 0 quality wins, and gamed the RPI system to get their RPI. Earlham doesn't have many more quality wins, only 1 against the top 50, but 1 is better than none.

River has 3 wins against rpi 50-100, Earlham has 1 win against rpi 1-50 (the 1 win ended up being rpi 46) and 2 against rpi 50-100. Rpi is not the perfect metric for seeding but to have a team with mid-30s rpi get bubbled out while a team 30 places lower, with similar resume, get in, seems very iffy to me. 

I also think my Drew team with 28-1 record got shafted with the 3 seed, with 3 wins against rpi 1-50 and 8 wins against rpi 51-100. The loss to La Roche is definitely a bad loss but does that negate a 4-5 win advantage + CT championship edge over some of the 2 seeds?

tianyi, you're Drew team is very good , but you have only played six games against human coached teams all season and CT championships shouldn't count for much in conferences with hardly any humans (that's coming from a coach in a similar position conference wise).  

Posted by coolman97865 on 12/10/2011 9:30:00 PM (view original):
tianyi, you're Drew team is very good , but you have only played six games against human coached teams all season and CT championships shouldn't count for much in conferences with hardly any humans (that's coming from a coach in a similar position conference wise).  

That would count if the other 2 seeds had better performance against their human opponents, but I'm not seeing that. Specifically, Greensboro and Lynchberg.

Drew is at 28-1, 5 rpi, 57 SOS, 4-0 against rpi 1-50, 9-0 against rpi 50-100, CT champion
Greensboro is 23-6, 11 rpi, 7 SOS. 4-6 against rpi 1-50, 7-0 against rpi 50-100, lost in CT championship game
Lynchberg 22-6, 8 rpi, 6 SOS, 6-5 against rpi 1-50, 7-0 against rpi 50-100, lost in CT semis

You can make a case that Lynchberg should get a 2 seed ahead of Drew, but it's not an extremely strong case.

Greensboro is more questionable. We had the same # of wins against rpi 1-50, while I had more wins against rpi 50-100. It seems like Greensboro losing 6 times against top rpi 50 team boosted him into the #2 seed. Or it's that my lone loss against an rpi team outside of rpi 100 outweighed all of Greensboro's losses.

I believe someone posted a thread earlier about NT seeding for D1, and a higher % of the top 32 spots are taken by big 6 conferences than before the new system. As far as I can tell, losing to good teams is now a good thing; even more so than before.

And what's weird here is that I was #5 on the projection report before the CT championship game played, with Greensboro lower than me. Somehow with me winning my CT game and Greensboro losing, I get dropped by 6 spots while Greensboro moves up. This again reads like losing to good teams is good for seeding.

I did a little more of an RPI breakdown because I think the 1-50 is too wide.  What's important, especially for the top seeds is an ability to perform well against the teams at the very top.  

Greensboro is 5-5 against RPI 0-25, 0-1 against RPI 26-50, 7-0 against RPI 51-99, 5-0 against RPI 100-150, and 6-0 against RPI 151+
Drew is 2-0 against RPI 1-25, 1-0 against RPI 26-50, 8-0 against RPI 51-99, 3-1 against RPI 100-150, and 14-0 against RPI 151+

Greensboro shouldn't have jumped you after the CT final, and it's absurd to think they have a better resume for a 2-seed after losing any game, but IMO they have demonstrated an ability to keep up with the top teams.  Drew just doesn't have a big enough sample size against top teams.  A lot of what is driving your RPI is wins against SIM AI's in non-conf that have 19-21 wins against a weak schedule.  IMO those wins shouldn't give a huge boost to a resume of a team trying to get a 2-seed.

I'll toss my Hamline into that discussion, tianyi.

Hamline is 4-1 against RPI 1-25 (wins over RPI 6, 8, 9, 16; loss to RPI 11 Greensboro); 3-0 against 26-50; 5-0 against 51-99; 3-0 against 100-150; and  13-0 against RPI 151+. 

zbrent, FWIW you have a better resume than my Moravian team, on top of beating me heads up.  No question you should be higher than a 3-seed in my view.

Posted by zbrent716 on 12/10/2011 11:07:00 PM (view original):
I'll toss my Hamline into that discussion, tianyi.

Hamline is 4-1 against RPI 1-25 (wins over RPI 6, 8, 9, 16; loss to RPI 11 Greensboro); 3-0 against 26-50; 5-0 against 51-99; 3-0 against 100-150; and  13-0 against RPI 151+. 

This is even a better example of how D3 seeding is off right now.

As far as I know, the seeding system use rpi 1-50 as one category but if you want to break it down to 1-25, and 25-50, thats fine as well. Somehow Greensboro's 1 more win against rpi 1-25 is worth more than zbrents 3 more wins against rpi 26-50, and zbrent's 4 fewer losses against rpi 1-25, and zbrent's CT title...

I thought the reason for the seeding change was due to the fact that rpi can be easily manipulated by losing against really good teams. It looks like the system is valuing losses against good teams even more now.