"We count the early games (November/December) just the same as we count the late games (February/March)"

Submitted by M-Dog on March 11th, 2018 at 10:16 PM

That statement was just made right now unambiguously by the Committee Chair in an ESPN Interview.

That's insane.

What you do by the time it's February/March should count much more than what you did in November/December.

There is no recognition of improvement?  There is no acknowledgement of failure to improve?

What's the point then?

I don't agree with that at all, especially for trying predict performance to seed a tournament.

March Michigan would wipe the floor with December Michigan.  They are not the same team at all.

That's an arbitrary self-inflicted rule that they can and should change.

 

Comments

Indy Pete - Go Blue

March 11th, 2018 at 10:20 PM ^

But we knew that was the case. I am not sweating it at all. We did not get matched up with duke, and we are not playing any team that has a distinct geographical advantage at any point in the region. (I am arguing that Houston basketball playing in Wichita will not be that big of an advantage).

Yo_Blue

March 12th, 2018 at 6:41 AM ^

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see San Diego State (coached by old Michigan assistant Brian Dutcher) beat Houston.  Would have been a fun matchup with Bill Frieder had he not retired after last season.  Dutcher has kept the tournament streak alive for the Aztecs.

umchicago

March 12th, 2018 at 12:36 AM ^

is my biggest headscratcher.  ya, they beat xavier.  great win.  but that is basically the sole reason they got in.  USC finished 2nd in the PAC12 and lost in the conf finals.  ASU finished tied for 8th (8-10); four games behind USC.

how in the hell does ASU get in over USC.  absolutely no common sense was used there.

it's like the reverse of the msu vs UM seeding.  no consistency was applied at all; especially for teams within the same conference.

M-Dog

March 11th, 2018 at 10:32 PM ^

That was the trigger for me.  Not anything to do with Michigan.  It was Oklahoma.

The Committee Chair publically acknowledged that Oklahoma was not playing well, but said that because of some November/December wins, they got in.   

That's it?  Grab a few wins in November/December when many opponents are still trying to figure things out and then take the rest of the year off?

 

Mr Miggle

March 11th, 2018 at 11:52 PM ^

to do it this year. It makes no sense to look for ulterior motives when they did just what they said they would do. I

think they may be overlooking something though. Those early games went a long way towards determining the relative strengths of the conferences. All those non-conference wins by Oklahoma made their Big 12 opponents schedules look better for playing OU. Then OU benefits from playing them.

The non-conference games with other major conferences basically count double. The best way to remedy that might be to overweight the last ten games or so like they used to do.

Indy Pete - Go Blue

March 11th, 2018 at 10:21 PM ^

I completely agree with you that they should change that arbitrary rule. The only problem with changing it is it introduces a much larger level of subjectivity. However, common sense does not prevail with the current weight of all games being the same.

Longballs Dong…

March 11th, 2018 at 10:36 PM ^

they were ranked top 5 most of the year, only have 4 losses and got a 3 seed. that's not love. analysts might give them love based on history and lack of anything better to say but who gives a shit. also, don't forget M was down a ton to Nebraska and lost to that same northwestern team. just be happy that we are a 3 seed when most thought we were going to go to the NIT early in the year.

ak47

March 11th, 2018 at 10:28 PM ^

This actually makes perfect sense. Why should late games matter more?  The goal of the selection committee isn't to get the 68 best teams in the field but the 68 most deserving teams based on an entire years resume.  Who cares if a team is the most improved over the season? Don't suck at the beginning of the season? Also discounting early season games destroys non-conference meaning.

If you are playing better at the end of the year thats great that you have a better chance to win the tourney, it doesn't magically replace the first half of the season. 

trueblueintexas

March 11th, 2018 at 11:40 PM ^

If a team starts off 20-0 with a couple good wins and then finishes the season 0-10, do you want to see that team in the tourney? Sure their record is 20-10 with a couple good wins, but clearly, they are not playing like one of the top 68 teams in the country by the end of the year.

ak47

March 11th, 2018 at 11:54 PM ^

No but they deserve to be in the tourney. Of course LSU doesn't deserve a 3 seed, what an asinine statement. The entire resume matters.  Its not saying early games count more, its saying they all count the same. Michigan's lose to LSU is why they aren't above msu on the s curve. The reason they are a 3 seed and lsu isn't in the tourney is because of the other 30 games that happened this year.

If a team starts 0-20 but wins its last 10 games including multiple wins over top 10 teams do you think they should be in the tourney? They played well in March which is I guess all that matters

trueblueintexas

March 12th, 2018 at 12:28 AM ^

Regarding your final scenario, that team would be 10-20, so no, they don’t deserve to be in the tourney.

Here is a more likely comparison the committee would have to make:

Team A: 20-12 (13-5 conference) record overall with 3 wins and 2 losses against top 25 teams. #45 SOS. Finished the season winning 8 of their last 10, including all three wins against top 25 teams in that stretch.

Team B: 23-8 (11-7) record overall, with 2 wins and 4 losses against top 25 teams. #41 SOS. Finished the season losing 7 of their last 10, with three of those top 25 loses during the final stretch.

Which team deserves to be seeded higher?

The committee does not get nice easy comparisons. They have to take all kinds of data which does not line up equally and make a decision. That is why how well a team is currently playing becomes a factor in decision making. It’s another way to compare when the rest of the data does not line up perfectly.

MGoCali

March 12th, 2018 at 6:34 AM ^

Did losing to LSU hurt us? Yes. And if we hadn't lost that game we are probably either in the same place or at best swapped with MSU. The bigger loss for us was Northwestern. 

Did Oklahoma losing a shit load to end the season hurt them even more than losing to LSU hurt us? By your statement, no. By reality: yes. Hell yes. They almost fell out of the tournament. They only made it because no one knew how to stop Trae Young until the end of January. They beat Kansas on January 23rd. They were probably a 2-3 seed if the season ended then with three of their four losses at that time to tournament teams and also five wins over tournament teams (seeded 3, 4, and 6 with two wins against the six). They really were in a great spot 6 weeks ago. Now, they are a weak 10 seed and get Duke if they muster a win against URI. 

Read what you said again and then try to put some nuance in your life. 

 

 

 

 

 

snarling wolverine

March 11th, 2018 at 10:40 PM ^

The late games should matter more because you're picking the 68 best teams as of March 11, not of December 11.  Teams should be chosen/seeded based on how their current form is.

That's not to say that November/December games shouldn't count at all; they just shouldn't count equally to late-season games.

 

M-Dog

March 11th, 2018 at 10:49 PM ^

Exactly. 

Late wins are tougher wins.   

You are playing tournament-tough teams in March who have figured things out. 

You're not playing teams that are still figuring out where the pieces fit.

It's especially relevant in CBB because of all the young / new players that teams often have each year.

November / December teams are still work-in-process.  Wins against them are not as revealing.  They should not count the same.