kwyjibo Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I will be posting another update in this thread later in the day when the Bracket Project Matrix gets updated but of the Bracketologists who updated after SLU beat Duquesne, SLU is a 7-11 seed with an average of 9.07. The most important thing to note is that SLU is 100% in all of the 77 brackets (even one's before Duquesne). So where will the seed go? I looked at the Dance Card / Daily Bracket data to guess. The biggest caveat is that seeds are hard to pick and movement of one seed can be completely random in order to make other things work. There is no evidence the A-10 suffers any bias against selection BUT there is a lot of evidence that there are biases in seeding for BCS teams. SLU will not likely get favors but they will not likely be "screwed" either. If SLU loses to LaSalle or Richmond they will obviously lose ground but probably only a seed with LaSalle and 2 with Richmond--if the current 9 is correct that would make it 10 or 11. If SLU beats LaSalleRich and then lose to Xavier or Dayton they would probably stay at 9 but may move to 10 (8 would even possibility I guess if other things break SLUs way). Losing to Xavier may mean some extra top 50 wins paradoxically (Xavier WILL be a top 50 team if they make it to the final--this is true for St. Joe's as well). If SLU beats Xavier or Dayton to go to finals then things start to change IF Temple is in the final. WIN or LOSS to Temple in the Final would mean a much better seed than current (particularly with little turnaround for the committee--this is where some "slotting" is real in the sense they may put SLU in at a certain place win or lose in the Sunday final), I would say 6 or 7 seeds are possible. I would expect a 6 seed if they beat Temple (there is an outside possibility if Washington makes it to top 50 that beating Temple could make SLU a 5 seed but I would not expect to catch that break but in generally IF Washington ends up being a top 50 team--the earlier in the week the better--SLU will go up a touch) and 7 if SLU loses to Temple. If SLU beats St. Joe's in the final they would get a 6 seed and a 6-7 seed if they beat someone else like UMass or Bona. If we lose to St. Joe's it is likely a 7-8 thing and more likely 8 losing to UMass or St. Bona. SO, 5-11 are all probably at play in some way. SLU is the favorite for the tourney in my mind (Temple is very good) so that would mean they should move up. 6-7 seed is most likely final destination but it means beating two decent teams. Bracket Matrix: http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 An excellent article on NCAA selection bias to BCS schools. I know a lot of people here talk as if it is "A" bias (read the article to understand) but there is more evidence of "B" and "C". "C" bias is true and is easily verified. "B" bias has been proven by the Dance Card people. We will see if Iona gets in but history says not. http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/bracketology-a-history-power-conference-bias-169883 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I don't care what system they use as long as it is applied uniformily. They can not simply ignore the system they developed when the selection process comes around. I was in San Diego about 3 weeks ago and was sitting around watching the Missouri game and the trailer being run was the NCAA BMI - it listed SLU as #9 - the only non BCS school listed. When I pointed this out after about the 5th time it ran, there were some in the room who looked at me like I was an alien - in fact I probably was to them not being from a BCS school - but when I said, that the BMI was the NCAA power ranking not something a guy made up in his basement and blogged about so it must have some validity. The others were kind of perplexed by that but one actually said to me - you got to be kidding if you think that they are the 9th best team in the country. I only said, that the numbers speak for themselves and that the BMI may not exactly say that but that it does point out in comparison to other schools the rating is accurate. Not only does the selection committe screw mid majors with selections but also in the seedings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 I don't care what system they use as long as it is applied uniformily. They can not simply ignore the system they developed when the selection process comes around. I was in San Diego about 3 weeks ago and was sitting around watching the Missouri game and the trailer being run was the NCAA BMI - it listed SLU as #9 - the only non BCS school listed. When I pointed this out after about the 5th time it ran, there were some in the room who looked at me like I was an alien - in fact I probably was to them not being from a BCS school - but when I said, that the BMI was the NCAA power ranking not something a guy made up in his basement and blogged about so it must have some validity. The others were kind of perplexed by that but one actually said to me - you got to be kidding if you think that they are the 9th best team in the country. I only said, that the numbers speak for themselves and that the BMI may not exactly say that but that it does point out in comparison to other schools the rating is accurate. Not only does the selection committe screw mid majors with selections but also in the seedings. For the record, BMI is a new ESPN ranking tool developed by a "basement" type guy. It uses a lot of good things and time will tell if it is a worthy system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 -i have not read the article, and i have no particular team in mind, but i would reward a team that goes 13-3 in their mid-major conf and had no hiccups along the way with a bid as opposed to a team that is .500 in a bcs conf, and being under .500 in conf should not get a bid unless something crazy is out there and i am not sure that what that could be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 So does this BMI stand for the Bowel Movement Index? I think you're actually referring to the BPI ; some sort of Power Index. Also for the poster "DUFF". Mizzou did not get a #1 seed in 1994 by winning the conference tournament. Nebraska, with Eric Piatkowski, won the tournament and automatic bid. Missouri got the #1 by going 14-0 in the Big 8 and 26-3 overall. No big deal but your logic was faulty. Congrats on a very good season and good luck in the tournament unless or until..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 So does this BMI stand for the Bowel Movement Index? I think you're actually referring to the BPI ; some sort of Power Index. .. Yes! BPI. But your BMI does remind of this (an extremely funny scene from the British comedy "Getting On" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 NCAA fans want to see BCS schools, lets face it. It sells tickets and gets TV ratings when KU makes it instead of N. Iowa. Sure, we all root for some "cinderella" teams, the media promotes that every year when a few non BCS teams make it to the Sweet 16. But the big schools put asses in the seats. As far as rankings, what, BPI said we were/are # 9? Fine, but their mathematical computer program is wrong. So are many of them. We are about 25-30th. We only played one top 50 team (Temple) and lost. But we are playing better since that loss, we are an unknown, and could be this year's VCU or Butler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 NCAA fans want to see BCS schools, lets face it. It sells tickets and gets TV ratings when KU makes it instead of N. Iowa. Sure, we all root for some "cinderella" teams, the media promotes that every year when a few non BCS teams make it to the Sweet 16. But the big schools put asses in the seats. This is not true and you actually contradict yourself. "The NCAA" could care less as long as all the games sell out which they do (and in the rare cases it does not, it is not related to BCS/non-BCS). CBS cares who wins because they are a profit maximizing corporation but their research shows that they get better ratings when "cinderellas" are around. It is why CBS goes to such lengths to "create" Cinderella story lines (ratings). "Big Name" teams individually have larger fan bases but by the time the Sweet 16 rolls around, much larger numbers are "neutrals" and the underdogs are a MUCH bigger draw for neutrals. Last year, CBS had much better ratings because of upsets (their conclusion by the way not mine). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCityBilliken Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 This is not true and you actually contradict yourself. "The NCAA" could care less as long as all the games sell out which they do (and in the rare cases it does not, it is not related to BCS/non-BCS). CBS cares who wins because they are a profit maximizing corporation but their research shows that they get better ratings when "cinderellas" are around. It is why CBS goes to such lengths to "create" Cinderella story lines (ratings). "Big Name" teams individually have larger fan bases but by the time the Sweet 16 rolls around, much larger numbers are "neutrals" and the underdogs are a MUCH bigger draw for neutrals. Last year, CBS had much better ratings because of upsets (their conclusion by the way not mine). I have to agree. Folks love a over achieving underdog. How many folks turned into a Zag fan (who did not watch a college bball game all season) during tourney time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Lunardi has updated his bracketology. Apparently beating Duquesne by 15 knocked us down 2 seeds to 10th (I know other teams could have leap-frogged us, but come on man). He's got us playing Mizzou in the 2nd round. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology I'm getting a little pissed that basically every "bracketologist" has us well below where we would be if the computers did the picking. Our RPI is 28 and its far and away the lowest of all our computer rankings. Goddam eye test b.s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Zero wins against the top 50 is killing our seed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Zero wins against the top 50 is killing our seed. They always find something to use against non-BCS schools. You can't win Top 50's when BCS chickens and ducks won't play you and hide at home in their bakeries serving up non-con low con cupcakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Lunardi has updated his bracketology. Apparently beating Duquesne by 15 knocked us down 2 seeds to 10th (I know other teams could have leap-frogged us, but come on man). He's got us playing Mizzou in the 2nd round. http://espn.go.com/m...ll/bracketology I'm getting a little pissed that basically every "bracketologist" has us well below where we would be if the computers did the picking. Our RPI is 28 and its far and away the lowest of all our computer rankings. Goddam eye test b.s. I agree this 10 seed stuff is rubbish. Just take SLU's RPI of 29 and divide it by 4, yields an 8 seed, and 1 spot away from a 7 seed. However, if this is what it take to get Missouri in Round 2 (NCAA now calls it Round 3), I would take that in a heartbeat. SLU could render true justice by eliminating Missouri in such a scenario. And I'd take that entire West Regional field; I think the good SLU team could go to the Elite 8 in that group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLU_Nick Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Lunardi has updated his bracketology. Apparently beating Duquesne by 15 knocked us down 2 seeds to 10th (I know other teams could have leap-frogged us, but come on man). He's got us playing Mizzou in the 2nd round. http://espn.go.com/m...ll/bracketology I'm getting a little pissed that basically every "bracketologist" has us well below where we would be if the computers did the picking. Our RPI is 28 and its far and away the lowest of all our computer rankings. Goddam eye test b.s. Lunardi must have read my post in an earlier thread that said we need to play 2 seed MO in the 2nd round if we are a 10 seed. hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappy96 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Lunardi has updated his bracketology. Apparently beating Duquesne by 15 knocked us down 2 seeds to 10th (I know other teams could have leap-frogged us, but come on man). He's got us playing Mizzou in the 2nd round. http://espn.go.com/m...ll/bracketology I'm getting a little pissed that basically every "bracketologist" has us well below where we would be if the computers did the picking. Our RPI is 28 and its far and away the lowest of all our computer rankings. Goddam eye test b.s. That is a little odd that we dropped two seeds but honesty I'd be happier with a 10 than an 8/9 as has been mentioned on this board frequently. Clearly we are a big time sleeper at a 10 seed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Lunardi must have read my post in an earlier thread that said we need to play 2 seed MO in the 2nd round if we are a 10 seed. hahaha I think the bracketology guys do the interesting match-up things to draw clicks to their site, but its not steeped in any reality. Countless guys have worked on the committee and said they never worry about interesting match-ups in the process. I guess they all could be liars, but I doubt it. Besides we are going to win the A-10 tourney and earn our way to a 5/6 seed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showthebill Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 The non-BCS teams don't get the TV ratings that BCS teams get. And that's a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think the bracketology guys do the interesting match-up things to draw clicks to their site, but its not steeped in any reality. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Besides we are going to win the A-10 tourney and earn our way to a 5/6 seed... This would be ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm guessing here, but I bet that the underdog ratings are optimized when they are playing a BCS team (Butler in last year's final). So, it seems you need both a BCS and non-BCS team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappy96 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm guessing here, but I bet that the underdog ratings are optimized when they are playing a BCS team (Butler in last year's final). So, it seems you need both a BCS and non-BCS team. This. CBS and Turner's worst nightmare is two mid-majors playing for a trip to the Final Four. The underdog/cinderella interest is maximized when you've got a Davidson/KU or George Mason/UConn or the dream scenario which was Butler/Duke for all the marbles. Somebody said it earlier, BCS teams draw the interest from the casual fan unless there is a compelling backstory that the networks can play up with regards to a cinderella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 That is a little odd that we dropped two seeds but honesty I'd be happier with a 10 than an 8/9 as has been mentioned on this board frequently. Clearly we are a big time sleeper at a 10 seed.If you don't like Lunardi, try this site: http://bracketproject.50webs.com/rankings.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 This is not true and you actually contradict yourself. "The NCAA" could care less as long as all the games sell out which they do (and in the rare cases it does not, it is not related to BCS/non-BCS). CBS cares who wins because they are a profit maximizing corporation but their research shows that they get better ratings when "cinderellas" are around. It is why CBS goes to such lengths to "create" Cinderella story lines (ratings). "Big Name" teams individually have larger fan bases but by the time the Sweet 16 rolls around, much larger numbers are "neutrals" and the underdogs are a MUCH bigger draw for neutrals. Last year, CBS had much better ratings because of upsets (their conclusion by the way not mine). We are not too far apart. Have you ever gone to a regional? I have been to several, and I bet you have. Example of my point, looking at the current Lunardi bracket, the St. Louis Regional (and the City of St. Louis) would love: KU, Michigan State, Georgetown, Wisconsin Maybe one cinderella, yes. Who wants to see Colorado State? So Miss? Alabama? (all I really care about is playing MU in the 2nd and pounding them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 this Sunday will have a Christmas morning feel for me 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.