Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Upsets and Parity

Started by NaturalStateReb, March 19, 2018, 09:30:01 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NaturalStateReb

Consider the Sweet Sixteen matchups we've got going right now:

9 Kansas State vs. 5 Kentucky
11 Loyola-Chicago vs. 7 Nevada
9 Florida State vs. 4 Gonzaga
7 Texas A&M vs. 3 Michigan
1 Villanova vs. 5 West Virginia
5 Texas Tech vs. 2 Purdue
1 Kansas vs. 5 Clemson
11 Syracuse vs. 2 Duke

We keep hearing about how parity is producing upsets.  There's something to that, but I think there's something else producing upsets--how the committee values teams.  Clearly, the way they're doing it isn't working.  In one region, no one higher than a 5 made it.  That, at least to me, is indicative that some teams were overvalued while others were undervalued.

I'm not enough of a basketball guy to know what's missing here.  I don't think there's any metric or even group of metrics that would make a complete prediction.  However, whatever metrics are in use for seeding obviously aren't working as well as they should. 

Maybe the number of starts the starting rotation has gotten in their career (experienced upperclassmen vs. talented, unexpereinced freshmen)?  But then there's Kentucky.  I don't know, but something's amiss with how we're looking at these teams.
"It's a trap!"--Houston Nutt and Admiral Ackbar, although Ackbar never called that play or ate that frito pie.

hogsanity

Quote from: NaturalStateReb on March 19, 2018, 09:30:01 am
Consider the Sweet Sixteen matchups we've got going right now:

9 Kansas State vs. 5 Kentucky
11 Loyola-Chicago vs. 7 Nevada
9 Florida State vs. 4 Gonzaga
7 Texas A&M vs. 3 Michigan
1 Villanova vs. 5 West Virginia
5 Texas Tech vs. 2 Purdue
1 Kansas vs. 5 Clemson
11 Syracuse vs. 2 Duke

We keep hearing about how parity is producing upsets.  There's something to that, but I think there's something else producing upsets--how the committee values teams.  Clearly, the way they're doing it isn't working.  In one region, no one higher than a 5 made it.  That, at least to me, is indicative that some teams were overvalued while others were undervalued.

I'm not enough of a basketball guy to know what's missing here.  I don't think there's any metric or even group of metrics that would make a complete prediction.  However, whatever metrics are in use for seeding obviously aren't working as well as they should. 

Maybe the number of starts the starting rotation has gotten in their career (experienced upperclassmen vs. talented, unexpereinced freshmen)?  But then there's Kentucky.  I don't know, but something's amiss with how we're looking at these teams.

There are upsets every year and there seems to always be one region where the top gets decimated the 1st weekend. And it is a one game free roll for lots of teams. The " cinderellas " usually turn back into the forgotten step sister either one sat/sun, or in the sweet 16 when the better teams have 4 or 5 days to prepare to play them.

Seeding is always difficult to when you have to figure out where say a Loyola of Chicago belongs. They did go to FLA and win earlier this year, but they also lost to Boise, Milwaukee, Mo St, Indiana St and Bradley. So were they seeded to low at 11? Not really when compared tot eams seeded higher. Would they have been higher had they played in a different league? Maybe, but that is what makes it so hard to seed a tournament this large. 
People ask me what I do in winter when there is no baseball.  I will tell you what I do. I stare out the window, and I wait for spring.

"Anything goes wrong, anything at all, your fault, my fault, nobodies fault, I'm going to blow your head off."  John Wayne in BIG JAKE

 

widespreadsooie

I think preseason polls is an issue. The committee is also very metric heavy, probably making things more difficult than they have to be. I think having a committee comprised of individuals with high basketball IQs, have been around the game of college basketball most of their careers, and who would be willing to devote the time put teams thru the eye test would seed a better field.

99toLife

Quote from: widespreadsooie on March 19, 2018, 12:14:40 pm
I think preseason polls is an issue. The committee is also very metric heavy, probably making things more difficult than they have to be. I think having a committee comprised of individuals with high basketball IQs, have been around the game of college basketball most of their careers, and who would be willing to devote the time put teams thru the eye test would seed a better field.

I look at it the same way when you hire an employee. The eye test from people that know is more important. It's not as simple as a numbers process.

Atlhogfan1

Quote from: NaturalStateReb on March 19, 2018, 09:30:01 am
Consider the Sweet Sixteen matchups we've got going right now:

9 Kansas State vs. 5 Kentucky
11 Loyola-Chicago vs. 7 Nevada
9 Florida State vs. 4 Gonzaga
7 Texas A&M vs. 3 Michigan
1 Villanova vs. 5 West Virginia
5 Texas Tech vs. 2 Purdue
1 Kansas vs. 5 Clemson
11 Syracuse vs. 2 Duke

We keep hearing about how parity is producing upsets.  There's something to that, but I think there's something else producing upsets--how the committee values teams.  Clearly, the way they're doing it isn't working.  In one region, no one higher than a 5 made it.  That, at least to me, is indicative that some teams were overvalued while others were undervalued.

I'm not enough of a basketball guy to know what's missing here.  I don't think there's any metric or even group of metrics that would make a complete prediction.  However, whatever metrics are in use for seeding obviously aren't working as well as they should. 

Maybe the number of starts the starting rotation has gotten in their career (experienced upperclassmen vs. talented, unexpereinced freshmen)?  But then there's Kentucky.  I don't know, but something's amiss with how we're looking at these teams.

Some circumstances also changed some teams during the season making the committee's seeding tougher.  A&M's suspensions and injuries took what most thought was a top 5-10 team to a 7 seed.

AU losing their only post defender and having barely enough players to field a team in the tournament.  SEC regular season champs though.  They weren't a 4 seed when they got to the NCAAT. 

TT is a 3 seed.

We've seen this out of Syracuse before when they weren't seeded highly.  It's the zone.  So hard to play against in the tourney.  But their regular season didn't justify a high seed of course.
Quote from: MaconBacon on March 22, 2018, 10:30:04 amWe had a good run in the 90's and one NC and now the whole state still laments that we are a top seed program and have kids standing in line to come to good ole Arkansas.  We're just a flash in the pan boys. 

NaturalStateReb

"It's a trap!"--Houston Nutt and Admiral Ackbar, although Ackbar never called that play or ate that frito pie.