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
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Seed List, February 3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Alright, I'm convinced. I underrated Stanford (and overrated Washington St.). Look for this to be reflected in my bracket later in the week.
now if only the committee were so receptive... ;)
Post a Comment