Changes To NCAAT Selection/Seeding
-
-
So you’re saying KU will get another #1 seed?
Good info.
-
So there’s an incentive to run up a tight game score at the end. I don’t mind these except #5.
-
@wissox At least they capped it at 10. I’d hate to have to beat St. Mary’s school for the blind by 70 to keep pace with Kentucky.
-
@wissox Actually I view the 10 point cap as a good thing. I guess I don’t fully understand your scenario, how is a team going to run up the score in a tight game? That’s something that would happen in a blowout and this system does not reward it.
-
@BShark Translation: this will allow us to cook the books with a new system we can manipulate.
-
Style points? If a team is ahead by 7 points with the ball and with 15 seconds on the clock, is it going to hold the ball or try to hit a 3 to reach the margin of victory cap? Inquiring minds want to know.
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
Style points? If a team is ahead by 7 points with the ball and with 15 seconds on the clock, is it going to hold the ball or try to hit a 3 to reach the margin of victory cap? Inquiring minds want to know.
I don’t think you take the shot there. It risks missing then the other team hitting a quick three. Unlikely they could win from there but you never know.
-
I never like margin of victory to judge BB. Too many ebbs and flows. Pretty meaningless related to how good a team is. In fact, winning close games, and knowing how to win close games, is more important come tourney time than whether you’ve blown teams out.
This element probably helps the mid-majors most, because a good mid-major playing a lesser schedule can get better margins.
I think this would challenge the view that Brannen Greene dunking at the end was a poor choice. I don’t care for a rule that would change the dynamic of basic sportsmanship. If a team would otherwise hold the ball, and not tack on points, why inspire it?
-
I guess what I was trying to say is that under the conditions outlined the current philosophy would be to hold the ball but now there’s is the incentive of shooting the ball wit a couple of seconds left and try to get to the cap limit.
The reverse could also be true. Say KU is ahead by 20 with lots of time left there is no incentive playing starters as long as the margin stays over 10 points. Perhaps a sliding cap with the value decreasing as the margin increase would be a better approach rather than a hard cap.
-
@BShark I don’t like using this word because it’s a family name, but Greene’s “Dick move” would actually benefit the team, even though it’s classless. Not sure I want to see teams taking meaningless shots for a little extra boost in their power ranking. It probably won’t happen for top seeds like us, but a 22 win team needing that extra boost will be trying to score more points, jacking up 3’s when it’s not necessary.
-
I can see the counterpoint, hopefully not too many games come to that.
-
Regardless of the measurements chosen, I’m just happy to see what appears to be additional transparency.
-
Still not liking these NET rankings. We were up to #4 before last Saturdays loss @ ASU. Now we currently sit at number 13, tho it’s our only loss, ASU is ranked 31st in NET and I haven’t seen a SOS that ranks us lower than 8th. Then I see a two loss Wisconsin team at number 4 that’s has SOS in the mid 40s and doesn’t have the big wins we do. Maybe it puts too much on margin of victory. I just dont see how KU shouldn’t be considered a top 10 team.
-
If you smack that graphic on the top left corner, it will pour you a double espresso non-fat latte at the bottom.
Heck, I can’t even see where they factor in the east-coast bias on this.
