DeCourcy said putting Wisconsin in UK's region is indefensible
- Thread starter SilentsAreGolden
- Start date
^iIt might not be balanced to me or you, but I can see how the committee might see it that way.
Some people might argue that putting Gonzaga, a team that spent many weeks as the number 2 team and just fell off the 1 line, with us is unfair to both teams.
Some people might argue that putting Gonzaga, a team that spent many weeks as the number 2 team and just fell off the 1 line, with us is unfair to both teams.
Competitive balance of regions is not a consideration anymore, geography is the buzzword, this committee is sorely lacking in basketball IQ
I've posted this a few times, I'll post it again- if you look at the 2012 through 2014 tournaments, it's very obvious how the selection committee was making the bracket. They were ranking teams 1-68, breaking them up into seeds, then going through each seed line and sending the best to the closest regional, down the line.
What that means is that they were eliminating the distinction between the best team at the top of a seed line, and the worst, as if all 2 seeds were equal, all 3 seeds equal, and so on. That's why the Midwest Region last year had the 2nd rated 2 seed, the best 3, the best 4, the 2nd best 5, the best 7, best 8, and best 9, while the West had the lowest rated 2 seed, 2nd lowest 3, lowest 4, lowest 5, lowest 6, and 2nd lowest 7.
If they do it like that again this year, Wisconsin will be in UK's region if they're a 2 seed. However, we don't know if they'll do it like that. They've taken a lot of (deserved) criticism for having unbalanced regions, and they'll come under heavy fire if the 5th rated team (be that Wisconsin, or someone else) ends up the 2 seed in UK's region.
I suspect they won't do it, and will give UK either Kansas or Gonzaga. They leave themselves leeway to emphasize different things, so there really aren't any rules set in stone, at least not when it comes to how they approach balancing the brackets.
What that means is that they were eliminating the distinction between the best team at the top of a seed line, and the worst, as if all 2 seeds were equal, all 3 seeds equal, and so on. That's why the Midwest Region last year had the 2nd rated 2 seed, the best 3, the best 4, the 2nd best 5, the best 7, best 8, and best 9, while the West had the lowest rated 2 seed, 2nd lowest 3, lowest 4, lowest 5, lowest 6, and 2nd lowest 7.
If they do it like that again this year, Wisconsin will be in UK's region if they're a 2 seed. However, we don't know if they'll do it like that. They've taken a lot of (deserved) criticism for having unbalanced regions, and they'll come under heavy fire if the 5th rated team (be that Wisconsin, or someone else) ends up the 2 seed in UK's region.
I suspect they won't do it, and will give UK either Kansas or Gonzaga. They leave themselves leeway to emphasize different things, so there really aren't any rules set in stone, at least not when it comes to how they approach balancing the brackets.
So Gonzaga to the east or south is and Villanova to the west are also examples of "geography over balance"?
I know you're merely parroting the argument and that is not your own, but I don't buy the notion that geography matters for Wisconsin but not other 1 and 2 seeds. It doesn't add up at all.
Ideally, Wisconsin wins out and gets a 1, and we get Nova for our 2. Cleveland and Philadelphia are pretty close.
If somehow it works out that we get Wisconsin as our 2, and Duke gets Gonzaga (which is what Bracketology has right now), there will be riots.
If somehow it works out that we get Wisconsin as our 2, and Duke gets Gonzaga (which is what Bracketology has right now), there will be riots.
Ugh. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
Geography matters the most. Obviously in the case of Villanova, if they are the LAST 1 seed, they can't go to the natural region because it's already been taken up by other teams.
So say it's UK, UVA, Duke and Villanova as 1 seeds.
UK natural MW
UVA natural E
Duke natural S
Villanova must go W
Another thing you have to factor in is there's principles and rules as well. The top 4 teams from each conference if they are on the first four seed lines MUST go to different regions. So again that will put some limitations on whether or not they could go to their natural region.
If you have a two line of Wisconsin, KU, Arizona and Gonzaga in that order then again.........Wisconsin natural is MW, KU is S, Arizona is W........well then the only other place for Gonzaga to go is E.
It just depends where you are ON each line. If you in the front and theres no restrictions on what region you can go, well then you'll go to the closest region possible. If your towards the back (Villanova being the last 1 and Zags being last 2)..well then your not going to your natural most likely.
CONVERSELY......lets say that two line is reversed.........Zags, Arizona, KU and Wisconsin........Zags will go W, Zona will go MW, KU will go S and Wisconsin will go E.
It just depends who is on your line and where u are on that line.
This post was edited on 3/6 11:21 PM by The_Answer1313
Good call weatherbird. That makes sense. It's a shame the committee doesn't just hire us as consultants. Haha!
It all depends on what you want.
If u go true S Curve assuming the committee does it's job........then u have balanced brackets but teams will not always be placed closer to home.
If u abandon the S Curve more teams can go to their natural regions...........but the regions will be unbalanced.
If u go true S Curve assuming the committee does it's job........then u have balanced brackets but teams will not always be placed closer to home.
If u abandon the S Curve more teams can go to their natural regions...........but the regions will be unbalanced.
I would like to see UVA, UW, Duke, and Zona on the other side of the field.
I would like to see KU, Nova, and Zaga on our side of the bracket. Not sure what has to happen for that to occur, but that would be the best scenario, IMHO.
I would like to see KU, Nova, and Zaga on our side of the bracket. Not sure what has to happen for that to occur, but that would be the best scenario, IMHO.
Having faithfully listened this year and in years past to Mike on Tom Leach and elsewhere, I consider him the most fair-minded, most informed, and most educated about teams of anyone covering college basketball. On this point, I heartily agree. Wisconsin should not be our two; if anything, they should be on the one line and Gonzaga should be our two.
I get it. My confusion is based on why Kansas, a team reeling and fighting for their lives now that Ellis is done for a week and Alexander for the season, gets the proximity to home factor but not Gonzaga. I could even understand Gonzaga being the 2 in the south (I understand Arizona has the edge as the 2 in the west) and Kansas getting thrown somewhere else.
And will geography "matter the most" this year? No one really knows, especially after the NCAA committee rep said it would only factor one part this year.
This post was edited on 3/7 10:19 AM by Son_Of_Saul
I think that this will take care of itself. If KU continues to struggle they probably lose out on going to their natural region. It's possible they slip to a 3 seed even IMO.
Despite what the rep said, I have a hard time believing it won't. The policies and procedures were updated for 2014-15 and it still says the same exact thing it's said the past few years. Furthermore, when they had the media mock bracket a few weeks ago where it's supposed to simulate the actual selection process, geography was the most important factor, I took the seed list 1 to 68 and went through team by team.........I found very few circumstances in which they deviated from the closest location for teams.
We'll find out in a week or so but I just have a hard time believing it will be any different this time
This post was edited on 3/7 10:59 AM by The_Answer1313
Latest posts
-
-
Refs don’t think we’re missing enough players- Latest: chattanoogawildcat
-
