e808 3,028 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 26 minutes ago, e808 said: I am thinking similar to 2021. Auburn had a few defensive collapses late that cost them. It was a good game though . Auburn can beat them is they clean up the missed free throws and layups. All points matter in the tourney and have the capitalize. Have to get past Yale and either SDSU /UAB first I am thinking Strength of schedule has to come in somewhere. They also played Creighton , Clemson and beat Oregon who is hit right now. If Auburn played those teams probably be sitting at a 2 seed . The same applies for Tennessee and KY tougher OOC Edited March 18 by e808 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said: Your words toward Steven belie your response. I can love someone and think they phrased something very poorly. We just won an SEC tournament. Let’s not diminish anything about that. Critique the process. Critique the decision. Exult our accomplishments and passionately say why it should matter more. I know this is pretty complex for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj3jordan 2,059 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said: I can love someone and think they phrased something very poorly. We just won an SEC tournament. Let’s not diminish anything about that. Critique the process. Critique the decision. Exult our accomplishments and passionately say why it should matter more. I know this is pretty complex for you. I believe you said "moronic". That's a little more than poor phrasing. But whatever..call it a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,998 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 12 minutes ago, jj3jordan said: I believe you said "moronic". That's a little more than poor phrasing. But whatever..call it a draw. A lot of smart people can say moronic things when upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 2 hours ago, TuscaloosaTiger said: Perhaps, but if Quad 1 wins are so highly weighted how does the committee consider a team with more Quad 1 wins and losses such as UA, which is 4/10 vs AU which is 2/7 (I believe this is still accurate post SEC tournament)? Do they take a percentage of total wins to total games played against Quad 1 teams? If so, then UA should have been the 15 overall seed and AU the 16 seed. Maybe we had better road wins than UA, which was also a consideration weighted by the Committee. It just seems very tricky to rely so heavily on Quad 1 wins for placement when there are so many other metrics to consider. It’s a weighted/ratio scale. Ask @JwgreDeux for a breakdown. Those who claim there is blue blood bias doesn’t follow seeding year after year. The committee uses simple math and a total body of work for seeding instead of the eye test and what have you done for me lately that the CFB committee uses to determine seeding in the playoffs. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e808 3,028 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 20 minutes ago, Viper said: It’s a weighted/ratio scale. Ask @JwgreDeux for a breakdown. Those who claim there is blue blood bias doesn’t follow seeding year after year. The committee uses simple math and a total body of work for seeding instead of the eye test and what have you done for me lately that the CFB committee uses to determine seeding in the playoffs. I think total body of work has to be the case Auburns OOC foes don’t compare to Bama, KY and Tenn. I can see the committee rewarding teams for having the courage to play against tougher team in a tournament or agreed neutral sight. The tournament that Auburn played against UConn in was very different from exciting. Auburn had a real good showing against Duke even though Cooper didn’t play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscaloosaTiger 285 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 37 minutes ago, Viper said: It’s a weighted/ratio scale. Ask @JwgreDeux for a breakdown. Those who claim there is blue blood bias doesn’t follow seeding year after year. The committee uses simple math and a total body of work for seeding instead of the eye test and what have you done for me lately that the CFB committee uses to determine seeding in the playoffs. So then a computer algorithm should be readily able to pick the selection field and make up the brackets (without the potential for committee member bias), with consideration of all games played including end-of-season league tournaments. The latter apparently now contribute little or not at all to placement unless you are a bubble team and beat a Quad 1 team. All the algorithm needs to know are the specific weights assigned to the selection criteria. The algorithm also would likely be better at calculating distance for each team to placement site than the current committee members. A smart high school kid could probably program such an algorithm throughout the season and update the metrics each week throughout the season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgoEagle 1,793 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 4 hours ago, e808 said: I think u have to look at the overall schedule. I believe they played Zona and Purdue pretty close to name a few in out of conference. Unfortunately the teams that Auburn played didn’t fare as well outside of maybe App State 2 games that hurt us I feel were Indiana & Notre Dame (both being perennial NCAA Tourney teams for years) who happened to have off years this year. That's not our fault that they were not good teams this year, but we did schedule them. That's just bad luck as far as the (Quad ) debate goes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, TuscaloosaTiger said: So then a computer algorithm should be readily able to pick the selection field and make up the brackets (without the potential for committee member bias), with consideration of all games played including end-of-season league tournaments. The latter apparently now contribute little or not at all to placement unless you are a bubble team and beat a Quad 1 team. All the algorithm needs to know are the specific weights assigned to the selection criteria. The algorithm also would likely be better at calculating distance for each team to placement site than the current committee members. A smart high school kid could probably program such an algorithm throughout the season and update the metrics each week throughout the season. I don’t disagree in the least. In fact, I applaud the committee for using simple math to determine seedings. It keeps personal bias out of it. I saw a graphic on the CBS show yesterday of all-time records of lower seeds in Round 1 vs their higher seeds. The records were sequentially aligned with exactly what the committee seeded them as. Meaning the 9-seed had the best all-time record, then the 10-seed, etc, down to the 16-seed having the worst all-time record in Round 1. In other words, the committee’s formula gets it right more than they get it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 6 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said: 2 games that hurt us I feel were Indiana & Notre Dame (both being perennial NCAA Tourney teams for years) who happened to have off years this year. That's not our fault that they were not good teams this year, but we did schedule them. That's just bad luck as far as the (Quad ) debate goes. True but those were neutral floor games. The true road games carry the most weight. And we lost true road games against TN, bammer, FL and MSU. A win at TN could have put us in the #12 spot instead of the #15 spot. Edited March 18 by Viper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgoEagle 1,793 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 minute ago, Viper said: True but those were neutral floor games. The true road games carry the most weight. And we lost true road games against TN, bammer, FL and MSU. A win at TN could have put us ahead of Kansas & Duke. I get that, but just don't like it and don't agree with the process as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 4 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said: I get that, but just don't like it and don't agree with the process as a whole. So you prefer the CFB committee’s eye test and what have you done for me lately process better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e808 3,028 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 13 minutes ago, Viper said: True but those were neutral floor games. The true road games carry the most weight. And we lost true road games against TN, bammer, FL and MSU. A win at TN could have put us in the #12 spot instead of the #15 spot. Don’t forget App State would have been a great win as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 10 minutes ago, e808 said: Don’t forget App State would have been a great win as well Yup I pointed that out a few days ago. It hurt some, but not as detrimental as at TN, bammer, FL and MSU due to App St missing the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgoEagle 1,793 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 31 minutes ago, Viper said: So you prefer the CFB committee’s eye test and what have you done for me lately process better? No, as I had stated in an earlier thread. I think that there are several components being left out of the formula bc of the timing of the League Tournaments ( eye test being one of them) So in conclusion I'm saying we have too few components that factor into the final bracket conclusion. Using the Quad system as the bulk of the consideration for seeding is what I strongly disagree with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscaloosaTiger 285 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Viper said: I don’t disagree in the least. In fact, I applaud the committee for using simple math to determine seedings. It keeps personal bias out of it. I saw a graphic on the CBS show yesterday of all-time records of lower seeds in Round 1 vs their higher seeds. The records were sequentially aligned with exactly what the committee seeded them as. Meaning the 9-seed had the best all-time record, then the 10-seed, etc, down to the 16-seed having the worst all-time record in Round 1. In other words, the committee’s formula gets it right more than they get it wrong. I doubt that the Committee's personal bias is removed when it comes to regional placement. I've questioned elsewhere (as have others on this site) why Bama as the 16th overall seed (weakest of the 4th line seeds) is not in the bracket with top seed UCONN (rather than us). UCONN wonders too. Indeed, UA got placed in the bracket with UNC, the 4th overall seed and weakest of the top line seeds. Looks fishy to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubiefifty 16,873 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, ArgoEagle said: No, as I had stated in an earlier thread. I think that there are several components being left out of the formula bc of the timing of the League Tournaments ( eye test being one of them) So in conclusion I'm saying we have too few components that factor into the final bracket conclusion. Using the Quad system as the bulk of the consideration for seeding is what I strongly disagree with. So what do you make of the graphic on the CBS show yesterday of all-time records of lower seeds in Round 1 vs their higher seeds? And are you are this opposed against the committee seeding criteria every year? Or just this year because it happened to our team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 45 minutes ago, TuscaloosaTiger said: I doubt that the Committee's personal bias is removed when it comes to regional placement. I've questioned elsewhere (as have others on this site) why Bama as the 16th overall seed (weakest of the 4th line seeds) is not in the bracket with top seed UCONN (rather than us). UCONN wonders too. Indeed, UA got placed in the bracket with UNC, the 4th overall seed and weakest of the top line seeds. Looks fishy to me. Seems like Reece Davis (or someone else on the ESPN show yesterday) stated that the seeding placements are not allowed to be uniform down the ladder. Meaning #1 can’t always be aligned in the same bracket with #16, #2 with #15, #3 with #14 and #4 with #13. That they must alternate. I don’t recall the exact wording, but it was something to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscaloosaTiger 285 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 8 minutes ago, Viper said: Seems like Reece Davis (or someone else on the ESPN show yesterday) stated that the seeding placements are not allowed to be uniform down the ladder. Meaning #1 can’t always be aligned in the same bracket with #16, #2 with #15, #3 with #14 and #4 with #13. That they must alternate. I don’t recall the exact wording, but it was something to that effect. It would not have been too hard to place Bama in the East bracket rather than AU since that is where Bama was seeded by overall ranking. There is no doubt that UA was given VERY favorable seeding for whatever reason and we were not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 6 minutes ago, TuscaloosaTiger said: It would not have been too hard to place Bama in the East bracket rather than AU since that is where Bama was seeded by overall ranking. There is no doubt that UA was given VERY favorable seeding for whatever reason and we were not. bammer played six tournament teams before hitting the SEC schedule. They went 2-4 against them. Two of those losses are a 1 and a 2 seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuscaloosaTiger 285 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Just now, Viper said: bammer played six tournament teams before hitting the SEC schedule. They went 2-4 against them. Two of those losses are a 1 and a 2 seed. But they lost. Should we have played more top teams and lost to raise our seed? That is illogical! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 5 minutes ago, TuscaloosaTiger said: But they lost. Should we have played more top teams and lost to raise our seed? That is illogical! Yes. They beat two tournament teams in their non-conference schedule. We beat none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper 3,132 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 7 hours ago, e808 said: beat Oregon who is hit right now. beat Morehead St too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuscAUse! 1,443 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 (edited) 8 hours ago, Viper said: It’s a weighted/ratio scale. Ask @JwgreDeux for a breakdown. Those who claim there is blue blood bias doesn’t follow seeding year after year. The committee uses simple math and a total body of work for seeding instead of the eye test and what have you done for me lately that the CFB committee uses to determine seeding in the playoffs. The Big East got totally screwed and nobody has more reason to bitch than UCONN. 4 tournament champs in the same region. Edited March 19 by JuscAUse! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now