Do we really need a selection committe?

[MCP313]

Lets be real folks. Let these teams do what they do and Sunday at 6 pm just let Vegas decide who makes the field and who is seeded what. I could care what an RPI says or SOS is.....nobody knows these teams better than the linesmakers.

Thoughts?

[Romanowski]

whats the difference? you dont think the same statistical analysis that goes into an RPI index or some thing similar, goes into sending off a line...same shit

the committee allows it to be not simply a computer that picks the at large teams

the "eye test" etc...doesnt make a difference to me, they do a good job imo its tough

[MCP313]

Originally Posted by Romanowski

whats the difference? you dont think the same statistical analysis that goes into an RPI index or some thing similar, goes into sending off a line...same shit

the committee allows it to be not simply a computer that picks the at large teams

the "eye test" etc...doesnt make a difference to me, they do a good job imo its tough

Not sure I agree. When we have 5-12 matchups with DD spreads and 6-11 Pkems and a 4-13 matchup where Vandy is a 3 pt fav something isnt right IMO

Sure its a tough job but I dont think these guys are getting the best teams in the field. Books would do a better job seeding em and getting the best teams in as they are the ones who truly know who is better than who.

[Romanowski]

lol ok...upsets happen, and trust me they are using math models just like the selection committee

difference being sometimes the best teams doesnt always win their conference, with the automatic bids

the seeds are based on body of work all year, which is not what books are doing

books are sending off a line for two teams to play each other, the matchup, now

its arbitrary the seeding

you are making it out to say a team that beats another automatically should have been a better seed

and that is wrong

fact is seeding and spread for a particular game are two totally different animals

one is the matchup between two teams, the other is the body of work for the whole year vs the rest of the field

[MCP313]

Seeding 1-65 means taking the best 65 teams in the nation minus any spots for the guarunteed conference winners.

Since the last at large teams were given 12 seeds that means according to the selection committee roughly 20 teams wouldnt have been invited if they didnt get in automatically. (16s, 15s, 14s, 13s, and 2, 12s)

According to the selection committe Murray St shouldnt have even been here. According to Vegas they were only a 4 pt dog to the 2nd best team in the SEC.

According the committee the Big East is national powerhouse. According to Vegas the likes of the 'so called pathetic' PAC 10 and Old Dominion are Pkems on neutral courts with Notre Dame, Marquette & Louisville.

I think the seeds are way off and in no way did the selection committe get these teams in the right order if they couldnt see teams like Murray St even deemed worthy of being here while oddsmakers make them a near Pkem vs a so called top 16 team in the nation playing close to home.

[Romanowski]

again you are talking about two totally different things...perhaps murray st would have been beaten badly vs another 6 seed, we wont know

but the tournament is one and done

do we need to go over why the best team wouldnt always win in that kind of scenario?

and linesmakers recognize situations much more complex than the committee neednt look into

again, the committee is looking at body of work for the entire year, not the matchup 1st round to determine whos seeded what

and fair or not big conferences teams, mean more fans, more money, and mean they will sometimes get seeded higher than merited

what else is new?

you are talking about two totally different things

[Romanowski]

and just to add the fact theres parity through medicrity in this years field

and books can recognize when certain teams dont matchup is not proof the teams were seeded wrong

I can think of teams IMO who were seeded too high, and they actually arent teams that lost today

They WON because they maybe have a path easier than they should

i.e New Mexico, but the fact some favorites lost SU on some small spreads and others won but didnt cover has zero to do with seeding

seeds are given for the whole years work, and yes the committee will show bias to teams that have historically done well or carry a name, or come from a bigger conference..

but what is new about that? Murray State is seeded higher perhaps they dont win today

who knows, but youre whole argument is flawed, Murray deserved to be an 11 seed yet also deserved to be a small #

[Romanowski]

and one last comment, the line has many components that comprise it. and the line was created AFTER the seeding. Who is to know if because a team has a higher seed, the expectations mount, and the unmeasureable "choke' or not come to play 100% in the spotlight is there. we will never know. but they are so independent of each other, two different things

[MCP313]

I agree with some of what you say, but not all of it. The tournament seeding should be 1-65 from the 65 best teams they have with some wiggle room at the top to get the top 16 teams closest to home for their pods (another thing I dont agree with)

I find it hard to believe that teams like Vanderbilt are in the top 16 teams in the nation playing a team like Murray St who according to the committe wouldnt even be here if they werent forced to take them are seperated by 3 or 4 points on some power scale while a team like Michigan State who us supposedly worse than Vanderbilt according to the committe is a near 13 pt favorite over a supposed team who is better than Murray St.

Im sure matchups play a part in this as well as public perception in setting a line but no way will I believe this committe can come up with a better seeding system than the linesmakers who IMO would seed these teams 1-65 much better than these assclowns.

[Romanowski]

and i def see what youre saying too, the best teams arent always seeded correctly

most notably if a midmajor, your path is made tougher to reach the final 4

for year gonzaga were double digits seeds until they earned respect

[goldengreek]

Originally Posted by MtrCtyPimp

Not sure I agree. When we have 5-12 matchups with DD spreads and 6-11 Pkems and a 4-13 matchup where Vandy is a 3 pt fav something isnt right IMO

Sure its a tough job but I dont think these guys are getting the best teams in the field. Books would do a better job seeding em and getting the best teams in as they are the ones who truly know who is better than who.

THAT HELPS US AS GAMBLERS THO