billiken_roy Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 i got this off of the cincy site from a poster there that said he e-mailed cusa about how the final seeds were determined for breaking the five way tie. it is wild. and ultimately if we can beat southern miss, we will meet memphis the second game instead of cincy because memphis got to play tcu twice and cincy only got to pay them once. this schedule this year (and i assume next year will be as bad) was stupid. Seeding Analysis for the 2004 C-USA Men’s Tournament According to the final regular season standings, there was a tie among five (5) teams for first place. The Conference has a policy that is used in order to seed teams in the tournament bracket that are tied in the final regular season standings, including in instances when there are multiple teams tied. This policy is for seeding purposes only and does not change the final standings, which in this case will remain a five-way tie for first place and co-champion status for all five teams. The approved tie breaking policy is attached and has been posted on the Conference’s website. Also attached is a copy of the final regular season standings. According to the policy, in cases of multiple team ties, the first analysis is a comparison of head to head competition among the tied teams. The comparative records of the five tied teams are: DePaul 3-2 (.600) Memphis 2-2 (.500) Cincinnati 3-3 (.500) UAB 2-2 (.500) Charlotte 2-3 (.400) By virtue of the five-team comparison, DePaul was awarded the #1 seed and Charlotte the #5 seed for the tournament. The policy states that after the #1 seed is determined, the second team should be ranked by its record among the original tied teams, not by the head-to-head record versus the remaining team(s). In this case, three teams of the original five tied teams remained tied for the second seed (Memphis, Cincinnati, UAB). The second provision of the tie-breaking policy indicates that each of the remaining tied team’s record shall be compared to the team occupying the highest position in the regular season standings, continuing down the standings until one team gains an advantage. This is clarified by 2a in the policy, which indicates that when arriving at another pair of tied teams (or in this case a set of tied teams that are all in first place in the regular season standings) we must use each team’s record against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to their own tie breaking procedures) rather than their performance against the individual tied teams. The policy specifically does not allow a head to head comparison of the records of the remaining tied teams versus the team established as the #1 seed, in this case DePaul, because DePaul did not solely occupy the highest position in regular season standings (five teams occupied that spot). They obtained the #1 seed through the tiebreaker. Therefore, when comparing against the highest position following regular season standings prior to a tiebreaker, Cincinnati, Memphis and UAB remain tied against the first five teams. In this case, the next highest positions are held by Louisville and Saint Louis (tied for 6th), Marquette (#8), TCU (#9), Southern Miss (#10), ECU (#11) and Tulane (#12). Again, when arriving at another pair of tied teams (Louisville and Saint Louis) while comparing the records of Memphis, Cincinnati and UAB, the policy requires the use of each team’s record against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to their own tie breaking procedures) rather than their performance against the individual tied teams. The comparative record of the three tied teams against Louisville and Saint Louis are: Cincinnati 2-1 (.666) Memphis 2-1 (.666) UAB 1-1 (.500) As a result, UAB was awarded the #4 seed. Cincinnati and Memphis remain tied and as indicated in #2 the policy states that you continue down through the standings until one team gains an advantage. The policy does not provide at this point for a head to head comparison against the remaining two teams. Continuing the process, when comparing the records of Cincinnati and Memphis against #8 Marquette, they remained tied. TCU was the next team in the regular season final standings. Memphis was 2-0 against TCU and Cincinnati was 1-0. Based on 2b of the tie breaking procedures, a 2-0 record is better than a 1-0 record. Thus, Memphis was awarded the #2 seed and Cincinnati the #3 seed. Throughout the multiple team tiebreaker, the policy indicates that once a team has been pulled from the original group to be seeded, you do not regroup any segment of the original tied teams in order to compare that segment head to head. In fact, the policy states that teams should continue to be ranked by records against the original tied teams, not the head-to-head records vs. the remaining (tied) teams. In this example, we did not regroup the remaining three tied teams following the seeding of DePaul and Charlotte to compare head to head records against Cincinnati, Memphis and UAB. Similarly, the policy does not have language to allow us to regroup the remaining two schools (Cincinnati and Memphis) to compare head to head records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worthington Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 you must have figured that out by deleting the brain space that would be used to remember that Larry Hughes did not play Mizzou in the dome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.