Posted by metsmax on 10/24/2011 9:21:00 AM (view original):
I cant keep track here - is this a discussion of what SHOULD be the seeding methodology or what IS the HD seeding methodology?

I joined in to discuss what is not part of the seeding methodology, specifically, rankings are not part of the seeding methodology. This is the point that cburton was trying to emphasize by creating this thread, claiming that GC got the 4 and he got the 7 because GC was ranked.

I told him rankings isn't the reason for the difference. Cburton asks if not rankings, then what? I told him it's the difference in wins, how far each team got into the conf tournament, how each team did in rpi 1-50, 50-100, 100-200, 200-300, and GC has edge in 4 of these categories while New Mexico only has edge in 1. Under the seeding system, it weighs GC's edge in the 4 categories more than New Mexico's edge in the rpi1-50, so GC got the higher seed. That's all I was claiming on the first couple of pages of this thread.

It wasn't until page 3 or 4 when the question of whether wins overall, CT wins, rpi 50-100, or 100-200 should matter.

To girt: I wasn't the one to introduce real world examples into this. Cburton wanted to compare real life D1 teams and conf saying how his situation is similar and he should have the 4 seed. 

I'm also confused why you are so quick to dismiss losses to bad teams girt. So if a team goes 8-0 against rpi 1-50, but 0-8 against rpi 200-300, the losses shouldn't be held against the team?

Does the committee consider ranking in real life? (I really don't know, but someone out there must!)

I asked a knowledgeable friend and he is pretty sure that the real committe doesn't consider rankings.