(03-22-2013 11:11 AM)jam2112 Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 09:18 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:58 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I hit 13 of 16 yesterday - losing a sweet 16 team in New Mexico (I figured that an overrated MWC team would fold against Ohio State). My bracket is damaged goods - not destroyed.

I knew New Mexico was going to get exposed. I didn't think a 19-9 Harvard team was going to come close to doing it. Oh well.

The good thing is everyones bracket is damaged now. No one outside of Cambridge took Harvard.

I saw this tweet from Brett McMurphy...

Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN) tweeted at 0:41 AM on Fri, Mar 22, 2013:
RT @ESPNStatsInfo: Only 1,339 of 8.15 million brackets in ESPN Tournament Challenge still perfect. Just 5.6 pct picked Harvard

I'm actually a little surprised that many people picked Harvard.

Probably some Harvard fans, some Tommy Amaker fans and then ladies who like the color Crimson.

(03-22-2013 11:25 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 11:11 AM)jam2112 Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 09:18 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 07:58 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I hit 13 of 16 yesterday - losing a sweet 16 team in New Mexico (I figured that an overrated MWC team would fold against Ohio State). My bracket is damaged goods - not destroyed.

I knew New Mexico was going to get exposed. I didn't think a 19-9 Harvard team was going to come close to doing it. Oh well.

The good thing is everyones bracket is damaged now. No one outside of Cambridge took Harvard.

I saw this tweet from Brett McMurphy...

Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN) tweeted at 0:41 AM on Fri, Mar 22, 2013:
RT @ESPNStatsInfo: Only 1,339 of 8.15 million brackets in ESPN Tournament Challenge still perfect. Just 5.6 pct picked Harvard

I'm actually a little surprised that many people picked Harvard.

Probably some Harvard fans, some Tommy Amaker fans and then ladies who like the color Crimson.

Yup, rule of thumb is when in doubt, choose your favorite color.

http://newmexico.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1486756

(03-22-2013 11:10 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 06:19 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I think the committee over-seeded the entire MWC, based on inflated RPIs. Well done, Hair Thompson, but I don't think it will work again. (The MWC noticed that buy games against non-Division I schools don't hurt your RPI the way buy games against lousy Division I schools do. So they scheduled Portland Tech while everyone else was scheduling No. 300 Portland State, etc.)

That's right. The MWC had 11 games this year vs. non D-I teams. (CSU, SDSU, and Boise each played two non-D-I teams.) The non D-I games are treated like exhibitions and don't count against RPI or strength of schedule. Clearly an intentional strategy to game the RPI. Others will copy that in the future, I'm sure. And the strategy worked so well because the NCAA selection committee presumably didn't watch enough hoops and used the flawed RPI as a crutch, leading to several goofy seedings.

CSU played really well, though. They dominated the paint against Mizzou.

That's the kind of trick that only works until everybody knows about it. Next season, people are going to scan schedules for non-D-I schools and discount those RPI's. Including the people on the committee.

There will be some kind of fix to protect the usefulness of RPI. Either non-Division I games will be given an arbitrary, low RPI value (maybe calculate the RPI as if the game was against the worst team in Division I, or just against a 0 RPI--an imaginary 0-30 team that played all their games against 0-30 teams). Or maybe everyone will get one "freebie", dropping the lowest game from everyone's RPI.

The non D-1 games against the RPI is nothing new. Rick Majerus did it all the time when he was at Utah. You need a home game, its cheaper and doesn't hurt you to play a non D-1 versus a 300+ school. Not to mention out West isn't crawling with D1 schools to begin with.

(03-22-2013 03:40 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The non D-1 games against the RPI is nothing new. Rick Majerus did it all the time when he was at Utah. You need a home game, its cheaper and doesn't hurt you to play a non D-1 versus a 300+ school. Not to mention out West isn't crawling with D1 schools to begin with.

IT may not be new, but it helped get 5 MWC teams into the tournament, at least 2 of which lost to much lower seeds. (I'm blanking on one right now.) That's going to shine a spotlight on it.

I don't like to get political on CSNBBS, but it's like the "Obamaphones". Even though the program dates back to Reagan, and W's administration broadened it to include cell phones, it suddenly blew up and got attention.

I figure there will be some kind of fix to eliminate the incentive to play non-D-I teams instead of D-I bottom feeders.

Time to start a 'Thanks, Georgetown' thread?

If you see a huge cloud of smoke over my neighborhood, don't be alarmed, it's only my bracket.

(03-22-2013 08:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Time to start a 'Thanks, Georgetown' thread?

If you see a huge cloud of smoke over my neighborhood, don't be alarmed, it's only my bracket.

(03-22-2013 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 03:40 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  The non D-1 games against the RPI is nothing new. Rick Majerus did it all the time when he was at Utah. You need a home game, its cheaper and doesn't hurt you to play a non D-1 versus a 300+ school. Not to mention out West isn't crawling with D1 schools to begin with.

IT may not be new, but it helped get 5 MWC teams into the tournament, at least 2 of which lost to much lower seeds. (I'm blanking on one right now.) That's going to shine a spotlight on it.

I don't like to get political on CSNBBS, but it's like the "Obamaphones". Even though the program dates back to Reagan, and W's administration broadened it to include cell phones, it suddenly blew up and got attention.

I figure there will be some kind of fix to eliminate the incentive to play non-D-I teams instead of D-I bottom feeders.

Is the MWC performance (2-3 with 2 higher seeded teams losing) much different than the BE, who went 3-5 with losses by 2 ( should have been 3 ) higher rated seeds, including the highest seed to lose? Or the Big 12, who went 2-3 with 2 higher rated seeds losing? This is the NCAA tourney. Upsets happen, and it isn't because one league schedules a few Div 2 teams more than another.

Perhaps the practice of scheduling div2 schools instead of crappy div 1 schools boosted Boise into the tourney. But the other MWC teams would have made it, and they'd be about where they were seeded. Regardless, this tendency to overinterpret the results of a few NCAA tourney games, where anything can happen, is silly. Heck, CSU and SDSU actually looked real impressive- what were they under- seeded?

How strictly does he committee follow RPI anyway? The omission of Southern Miss (34 RPI according to ESPN) doesn't suggest that the committee strictly follows it.

SDSU looked pretty strong last night...