I get the "win the Big East" thing, as thats something which has an impact that we cant quantify whats going to be done with it really. But, I find it really difficult to with a straight face to even put aside my biases and find any way to be on their side.bobinator said:
At some point the quantity is a quality though. I also just think they'll lean their way for winning a major conference. Not supposed to matter but it usually does.
I would venture a guess that Gonzaga may have done that in the earlier years of Mark Few's tenure.JJxvi said:
I also asked this on the Bubble Watch thread, but is there even a precedent of any kind of a team getting a #2 when they haven't played even one game against a top 20 team?
Why is St Johns 4 seed lines better than, say Clemson, then?Quote:
If we hypothetically played each others schedules who knows what happens but with the schedules we did play we have five more losses than they do.
What annoys me is the lack of transparency in what Torvik does on his TRanketology ( I get that he's not gonna just give out the formula though).bobinator said:
Come on you know that what you're comparing can change depending on who you're comparing. We can kill St. John's lack of high end wins but their overall SOS is better than Clemson's and their losses aren't as bad.
That said it wouldn't be surprise me if people are also sleeping on Clemson's seed a bit too
Well St Johns is #8 and Clemson is #20 so I guess literally. St Johns is the only team in Torvik's array 8-20 that I have a large problem with where they are. I dont like where Kentucky is either but I can understand it far better.bobinator said:
Like Colleyville has been saying though, there's a narrow margin from #8 to #20 or so.
Clemsons avg loss is significantly worse than St John's, and those not even accounting for all four of St. John's losses being by a combined 7 points.
bobinator said:
If we hypothetically played each others schedules who knows what happens but with the schedules we did play we have five more losses than they do.
It also does make the bracketing a little easier if that eighth team isn't a Big 12 or SEC team.
I agree with your logic, in a perfect world of logical machines picking I think it's probably Texas Tech or us in that spot but my guess on what the committee is going to do is St. John's.
bobinator said:
I might be biased the other way, but I've just thought all season they'll use my excuse they can think of to keep from giving one conference five of the top eight seeds.
Partly why if it's not St. John's I think it's Tech
No problem with that. I think Texas Tech is deserving. Their quad-1a record is the same as St John's quad 1 record. They also have the better qualitative case, except in terms of non-conference SOS.bobinator said:
Partly why if it's not St. John's I think it's Tech
I don't think order of the games matters at all, and don't consider it.carl spacklers hat said:
To further your point, or maybe to reinforce the other side of the argument, take A&M's 4-game losing streak and instead sprinkle those 4 losses across the conference schedule and see what happens. My guess is A&M is a solid 2 seed.
JJxvi said:No problem with that. I think Texas Tech is deserving. Their quad-1a record is the same as St John's quad 1 record. They also have the better qualitative case, except in terms of non-conference SOS.bobinator said:
Partly why if it's not St. John's I think it's Tech
The pro-St Johns case will essentially be to exploit the fact that some of Tech's wins and losses are like, on the border lines dividing up the quad sections shade Tech somewhat to make them appear in a worse light than they actually are.
Its also interesting going through this, how few Big East vs Big 12 games there were this year. I guess less than in the past because those leagues used to have a challenge and dont anymore? It wouldve helped to have that data mix.
