Big 12 shaking out...

[KBaden145]

Good point.



Well, I don't think it's seeding errors so much as it was what I was saying earlier... once you get past the top 4 seeds, there isn't much difference between the teams.

Or perhaps more accurately, the teams that are seeded past the top 4 seeds are all going to have some kind of weakness or vulnerability... and so it becomes all about matchups.

Jeff, you would agree the selection does make seeding errors, right? It does come down to matchups but in alot of cases, it is just a 10 seed is just a better team than the 7. The 8/9 is usually a evenly matched game. I imagine it gets difficult to separate any of the 7, 8, 9, and 10 seeds. Just seems the 7/10 game is a usually a matchup of flipped seeds in a sense.

 

[garyeb2]

The best team doesn't always win. The best team only wins a percentage of the time depending on how much the best they are. The Kansas-TCU result is a good example of how difficult it would be to say that the best team wins 100% of the time.

As long as members of the selection committee are recruited from the human race, they will make mistakes in seeding. But, not all tourney upsets are seeding mistakes. Just as likely and as often those unexpected outcomes are a result of the randomness the affects the final score.

 

[MercedeSooner]

No - I don't agree. I've brought this up multiple times. Here is the primary difference:

OU vs. RPI Top 50: 2-6 (0-6 in R+N)
OSU vs. RPI Top 50: 5-4 (3-4 in R+N)

When teams have similar overall profiles, as OSU and OU do, you look at (a) who'd you beat and (b) where'd you beat 'em.

Obviously there is still a few weeks of the season to play out. I'm just talking about the "right now" difference. As of right now, OSU has the slightly stronger overall profile, which is why every bracketologist has us seeded higher.

That doesn't mean this is the way it'll shake out on Selection Sunday. It just means that right now OSU has the stronger profile.

This is a huge difference, OU has a great resume because we didn't schedule a bunch of cupcakes in non-conference play - our rankings are slightly inflated by the sum of our parts rather then looking at us on a game by game basis.

When you start looking at seeding you look at who you beat as much as anything else - OSU's record against the top 50 will keep them at worst at the 5 line unless they somehow collapse down the stretch. I want a 7 seed or a 10, 7 definitely within reach for us.

 

[KBaden145]

The best team doesn't always win. The best team only wins a percentage of the time depending on how much the best they are. The Kansas-TCU result is a good example of how difficult it would be to say that the best team wins 100% of the time.

As long as members of the selection committee are recruited from the human race, they will make mistakes in seeding. But, not all tourney upsets are seeding mistakes. Just as likely and as often those unexpected outcomes are a result of the randomness the affects the final score.

Percentage wise, the best team usually wins in the tournament. 10 seeds having a better record than 7 seeds in that matchup doesn't point to being random. I just think those 4 seeds are the toughest to get right and, historically speaking, seeding errors have occurred frequently in this particular matchup.

 

[oSuJeff97]

Jeff, you would agree the selection does make seeding errors, right? It does come down to matchups but in alot of cases, it is just a 10 seed is just a better team than the 7. The 8/9 is usually a evenly matched game. I imagine it gets difficult to separate any of the 7, 8, 9, and 10 seeds. Just seems the 7/10 game is a usually a matchup of flipped seeds in a sense.

I'm sure they probably do make errors, but I don't know how you can definitively say that a 10 is "better" than a 7 because the 10 may have beaten the 7.

Upsets happen all the time in the regular season and in the tournament.

My point is that I wouldn't get all worked up about the seeds once you get below the top 4, because there's so much parity.

 

[garyeb2]

Percentage wise, the best team usually wins in the tournament. 10 seeds having a better record than 7 seeds in that matchup doesn't point to being random. I just think those 4 seeds are the toughest to get right and, historically speaking, seeding errors have occurred frequently in this particular matchup.[/QUOT

I don't think you are following my line of thought.

 

[KBaden145]

I'm sure they probably do make errors, but I don't know how you can definitively say that a 10 is "better" than a 7 because the 10 may have beaten the 7.

Upsets happen all the time in the regular season and in the tournament.

My point is that I wouldn't get all worked up about the seeds once you get below the top 4, because there's so much parity.

I just don't think it is random like Gary was saying and I don't think whenever a 10 beats a 7 they are always the better team. I think the fact 10's have won more points to that group of seeds being difficult to sort out and more errors seem to have occurred with the 7/10 matchup than anywhere else. I also don't mean to suggest the 7 and 10 seeds need to be switched in certain years. I think the errors occur in slotting the 7, 8, 9, and 10 seeds properly.

I actually do care about the seeds after 4. To me, there is a huge difference between being an 8/9 seed vs a 6, 7, or a 10. Having to get through a 1 seed to get to the sweet 16 is tough.

 

[garyeb2]

I'm sure they probably do make errors, but I don't know how you can definitively say that a 10 is "better" than a 7 because the 10 may have beaten the 7.

Upsets happen all the time in the regular season and in the tournament.

My point is that I wouldn't get all worked up about the seeds once you get below the top 4, because there's so much parity.

I think I'm on your side. You seem to have the best grasp of the concept. A 3 pt. or less favorite on a neutral court will only win the game about 53% of the time. The other 47% does not indicate a seeding error. It just means that when two teams are closely matched, the inferior team will win a significant amount of the time.

In 7-10 matchups the two teams are closely matched. As a point spread increases above 3 the likelyhood of the underdog winning the game decreases.

I know that I am talking point spreads and the conversation is about seeding.
But, typically, the best seed of the two will be the favorite over the inferior seed. When that isn't the case, that is when that I would argue a seeding error occurred. The point spread studies are large in sample size and reliable.

 

[campbest]

The tournament is more about match-ups than seeding.

 

[KBaden145]

I think I'm on your side. You seem to have the best grasp of the concept. A 3 pt. or less favorite on a neutral court will only win the game about 53% of the time. The other 47% does not indicate a seeding error. It just means that when two teams are closely matched, the inferior team will win a significant amount of the time.

In 7-10 matchups the two teams are closely matched. As a point spread increases above 3 the likelyhood of the underdog winning the game decreases.

I know that I am talking point spreads and the conversation is about seeding.
But, typically, the best seed of the two will be the favorite over the inferior seed. When that isn't the case, that is when that I would argue a seeding error occurred. The point spread studies are large in sample size and reliable.

I have no idea about point spreads in the tourney and frankly never pay any attention to them in basketball. When picking, I look at matchups. I've just always been intrigued by the numbers involved in the 7/10 game. When I start my bracket I start by advancing the 1 and 2 seeds. My next move is to usually advance the 10 seeds (almost always 2 of them and often 3) and I almost always get them right. I just know I have spent a lot of time wondering what the committee was thinking when they got to that part of the selection and usually thinking they have the 10 seeded too low.

 

[KBaden145]

Forget everything I said about a 6 seed. Maybe we are an 8 or 9. Bad loss. Can't let them beat us twice. Need to wash it and move on.

 

[oSuJeff97]

Forget everything I said about a 6 seed. Maybe we are an 8 or 9. Bad loss. Can't let them beat us twice. Need to wash it and move on.

I still think that R+N top 50 wins are still OU's limiting factor for seeding.

I don't think this loss will matter all that much.

OU is still in position to get off the 8/9 line if it can knock off two of the top 3 teams in the conference in KC. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Texas game changes that.

Although, what the Texas loss does is gives you no room for error on other games. Beating Iowa State at home is now a must.

 

[DenverSooner]

I still think that R+N top 50 wins are still OU's limiting factor for seeding.

I don't think this loss will matter all that much.

OU is still in position to get off the 8/9 line if it can knock off two of the top 3 teams in the conference in KC. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Texas game changes that.

Although, what the Texas loss does is gives you no room for error on other games. Beating Iowa State at home is now a must.

No it isn't. It is now a more important win.