Sunday, February 3, 2008

Seed List, February 3

1: Memphis, Duke, Tennessee, UCLA
2: Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, Georgetown
3: Wisconsin,
Indiana, Washington St., Michigan St.
4: Drake, Arizona, Ohio St., Connecticut
5: Oklahoma, Gonzaga, Texas A&M, Marquette
6: Baylor, Butler, Notre Dame, Kansas St.
7: Stanford, Xavier, West Virginia, Vanderbilt
8: Southern Cal, Mississippi, St. Mary’s, Mississippi St.
9: Louisville, Florida, Arkansas, Pittsburgh
10: Clemson, Purdue, California, Dayton
11: Seton Hall, Miami (FL), Rhode Island, Brigham Young
12: Syracuse, UNLV, South Alabama, Virginia Commonwealth
13: Oral Roberts, UNC-Asheville, Kent St., Stephen F. Austin
14: Davidson, Boise St, Rider, Portland St.
15: East Tennessee St, Cornell, CSU-Fullerton, Morgan St.
16: American, Wagner, Austin Peay, UMBC, Alabama St.

Last Four Out: UMass, Houston, Villanova, St. Joseph’s
New Teams IN: California, UNLV, Rider, Portland St, Boise St, Morgan St, American, CSU-Fullerton
Old Teams OUT: Providence, UMass, Siena, NAU, Utah St, Hampton, Lafayette, CSU-Northridge
Conference Breakdown:
9: Big East
7: Pac-10
6: Big XII
5: SEC, Big 10
4: ACC
3: A-10
2: WCC, MWC

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

osu on the 4 line after a loss to Iowa? Buckeyes are solid but not that good. Misprint perhaps with Xavier on the 7 line after being on the 4 line last week?

Evilmonkeycma said...

Many of my changes with regard to my seeding reflect the decrease in importance of the RPI. Kent St., Dayton, and Massachusetts are all counted as Top-50 RPI wins when they should not be. Take those away, and Xavier is 2-1 vs. the Top 50 rather than 5-1. This is why they dropped.

Regarding Ohio St.: The Iowa loss is their first bad loss, and its not a horrible loss. Their other losses are to a 1, a 2, a 3, a 5, a 6, and a 10. They have wins over Syracuse and Florida, and pretty much everyone after Drake has a bad loss.

Please note that I consider everyone between Ohio St. and Stanford on roughly the same level.

I hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

If your seeding philosophy is to "act as if the season were ending today,: your seeding of Stanford as a 7 with Wazzu as a 3 makes absolutely no sense. Stanford has a better overall record, better RPI, just beat the Cougars at their hoem court, and is 2 games ahead of the Cougars in conference. If the season ended today, Stanford would be at worst a 4 seed and more likely a 3, and Wazzu would probably be a 5 seed.

Evilmonkeycma said...

The reason the Cougars are still getting a high seed is that they still have no bad losses. Their worst loss was to Cal, who I currently have in as a 10. Stanford, on the other hand, has two bad losses - Siena and Oregon.

Also looking at the OOC schedule, WSU picked up great wins over Baylor and Gonzaga, while Stanford has nothing OOC.

A team's RPI has NOTHING to do with seeding. The only proper use of RPI is to see how a team did against 1-50 RPI, 50-100 RPI, etc., so you can determine good/bad losses.

Washington St. was a tough team to seed this week. At times I had them down as a 5 seed. In the end I felt they were better suited as a 3 seed. Stanford is easier to seed - I believe they should either be a 6 or 7 this week.

Anonymous said...

Wazzu's home loss to Cal is far worse than Stanford's road loss at Oregon as both Cal and Oregon are 4-5 in conference and both are bubble teams. The fact that Wazzu lost at home makes it a worse loss. As for Stanford's other purported bad loss, that was during Brook Lopez's suspension, and the Committee, as a result, will absolutely discount that loss.

I will give you that Stanford's NC schedule was non-descript (though the win in Dallas against Texas Tech is decent).

Given the strength of the Pac-10, the fact that Stanford is 2 games ahead of Wazzu in conference and won on their home floor would trump any purported non-conference advantage Wazzu has, especially when you consider the absence of Brook Lopez during Stanford's non-conference games.

Evilmonkeycma said...

Alright, I'm convinced. I underrated Stanford (and overrated Washington St.). Look for this to be reflected in my bracket later in the week.

Anonymous said...

now if only the committee were so receptive... ;)