flexmaster33 wrote:Yes...those are the final counting RPI numbers as far as power-ups and such.
And no bother on the gripes and such...I like hearing everyone's thoughts on seeding. And like in the real tourney, some are going to be unhappy and others joyous about where they were placed. In the end, it's the first to six wins gets the title
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
To answer viper's concerns somewhat, 1) the top-40 factored a solid amount into seeding.
To answer viper's and dcc's question on power-ups...I made the brackets based solely on performance during the regular season and added the "power-ups" after the brackets were set. I didn't want them to influence where teams were placed, and I think it makes for some interesting matchups.
Often times, the committee will try to rank teams in a certain order only to have the analysts vote a different region as the toughest to emerge from. All in all, I'm loving the tourney this year...it will be back with a pretty similar format in 2011-12. Just wish I was part of the March Madness field, but alas my Beavers appear bound for the NIT.
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_e_sad.gif)
I did have a weak versus Top 40 resume, but to me that is but a small component. Versus Top 40 should really just be a potential tie breaker factor IMO. The versus Top 40 goes into the RPI. And after my recent showing in the conference tourney combined withe other teams falling off, I think it's quite possible (if not likely) that Butler finished in the Top 15 RPI. But we don't really know the exact data since the season is still going. Which makes me wonder why do the seeds before all of the data is truly in? I think a Top 15 RPI, Conference Championship, Conference Tourney Championship would have had Butler looking like a lock for a 3 or a 4 seed.
Also, I can't quite fault you for putting as much stock into the Top 40 Versus Record. I know that at least a good amount of the time that they do that in real life. I think I'm more partial to the overall RPI though, since it is approximate statistical ranking with a very slight margin of error.
I guess I can't say I disagree with not looking at the power-ups although if your goal is to simulate the type of thinking that the committee uses then I'd say you should. They have often referred to 'the eyeball test.' Bur really that's just their modem operandi to justify giving BYU RPI 5 and SDSU 4 a 3 and 2 seed when they should have had 2 and 1 seeds and thereby bump the 'power six' teams up.
Also, if you can't tell already I strongly believe that the real life tournament selection process is rigged. (At least with Flex's system I see a good amount of logic). That is why VCU and USC had their play-in match-up when in reality neither team was really worthy of being there. Besides USC's 'violations', they were a weak 18-13 in a weak conference and about 15 teams that did not get at-large bids had better records and RPIs then USC. So why USC you ask? The committee (operated by the Power SIx) wanted that 2nd largest LA market.
And VCU was in the same situation. I actually watched VCU's conference tourney loss. It was close and when it got to the end that Rodriguez dude took about 3 or 4 terrible shots, totally choking. They only finished 4th in their 'weak' Colonial Conference. And like USC there were 15 teams with better records and RPIs to choose from. So why VCU? Easy - The committee thought that they were the easiest win for USC. And you'll notice that CBS/ESPN who want their gravy always say 'three Colonial teams got in' and not 'the 4th place team from the Colonial league.' They all know how to play the shell game. It serves those bastards right that they tried to rig it and VCU went on this unbelievable run and essentially cost them millions of dollars.
And just so you know, when I talk about 15 teams being better than USC/VCU I'm talking quality teams. Three teams that were in the top 41 RPI and had won their league title or a share of their regular league title. Harvard was 35 RPI and lost the Ivy Playoff to Princeton at the buzzer. We all saw how Princeton almost beat Kentucky in that virtual home game in Florida. Cleveland State was 40 RPI and had 3 way tied Butler for the Horizon Leauge (VCU and USC in late 60s RPI and much worse records). Missouri State was 26-7, had 41 RPI and won the Missouri Valley Conference (but lost a conference tourney game). Naturally any of those teams would have presented bigger challenges to USC. St. Mary's was a 47 RPI, 24-7 (had lost to BYU by a point) and were a monster team in last year's tourney. Nope, got to go with cruddy VCU and give USC a chance. Even if you go to the end of the list, you'll find a New Mexico team that beat BYU (a top 5 RPI team) twice (and once with Davies).
That's all I'll say for now. I have a whole sports blog on this stuff if anybody pms, I'll send the link.
ADD-ON: And I should add that the committee manipulates all types of seedings; from turning 3 seeds from 'lesser' conferences into 6's and then double whammying them with teams that they slid back to limited the potential efffect of 'cinderellas.' Flex's use of the word 'ranking' kind of got me on that rant b/c I know that that is a euphemism. That is why the committee operates behind closed doors. They are a trust that has an agenda the minute that they go into those meetings. It is also why they don't have defined guidelines for picking teams despite what they claim. Anybody that is really pissed off by their usurping power and manipulating the system should message me for the link.