Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 200148)

It looks like Dr. Hill did his job - again. ;)

BYU really needs to win a few consecutive 1st round games in order to help itself get a higher seed. Getting bounced on the 1st day isn't doing the Cougars any good.

Originally Posted by Spaz (Post 200151)

Seems to me past performance shouldn't matter all that much. On the other hand, I really don't feel particularly strongly about it either way. I wasn't upset when I heard the seed by any means.

To me, it doesn't really matter - we're going to have to beat teams like A&M & UCLA if we want to go deep in the tourney regardless. Getting to the second round by beating a crappy team isn't really that impressive.

Originally Posted by Spaz (Post 200076)

-Note that I'm not a big believer in the anti-BYU conspiracy. I think it's mostly a lot of bunk.

Still, I wanted to point out some things about the seeding that, to me, seem sort of 'off'.

-Based on straight-RPI seeding, BYU was the FIRST 7-seed (note that UNLV was actually the LAST 6-seed). A one-seed drop isn't that out of the ordinary (of the top-50 RPI teams, 5 appear to have not been seeded at all, and the largest disparity was a 3-seed drop (Kent State), while the largest increase was Purdue (+6).

-Some claim that there were no 7-seeds available for BYU. Not true. The following seeds would play entirely Thursday/Saturday games (Note, I'm ONLY including 5-7 seeds):

7th seed in the West.
6th seed in the West.
5th seed in the East.


-The following teams had an RPI lower than ours. I'll include their record, SOS & conference, for your information.

Notre Dame, 24-7, 81, Big East
West Virginia, 23-10, 45, Big East
Oklahoma, 22-11, 13, Big12
USC, 21-11, 9, Pac10
Gonzaga, 25-7, 93, WCC
Miami (FL), 21-10, 42, ACC
Purdue, 24-8, 114, Big10

I don't think it surprising that any one of these teams were seeded ahead of BYU, but I think BYU has a better resume than several.


-The ONLY team with an RPI-seed higher than BYU that was seeded lower was Kent State.


I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions on this. Did FIVE of the teams with lower RPI's than BYU deserve higher seeds than BYU? Personally, I think West Virginia, Oklahoma, and USC likely did. You can make a case for Notre Dame & Miami.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 200154)

I agree that past performance shouldn't matter, but it seems that it does, especially with teams that are not from BCS conferences. Beating a crappy team to make it to the second round might not always be impressive, but it's more impressive than losing to a crappy team in the first round.

Had BYU beaten Xavier last year and knocked off Syracuse before that, it would show the committee that BYU can play solid basketball and hold it's own against good competition.

The only true crappy teams are the ones who are the 15th and 16th seeds.

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 200160)

It seems over the past five years or so, seedings are going away from RPI and closer to more standard computer rankings. I don't know if this is because the selection committee is using Sagarin, etc. or if they collectively come to an evaluation that is closer to computer rankings. A guy on CB has written some good stuff on this, recently. Someone should invite him over here. I've been busy with work and have slacked off on my analysis.

RPI

BYU 26, SOS 136 (7 seed)
UNLV 24, SOS 71 (last sixth seed)

My model

BYU 31, SOS 136 (8 seed)
UNLV 39, SOS 125 (10 seed)

Sagarin

BYU 30, SOS 138 (8 seed)
UNLV 45, SOS 125 (12 seed)

Originally Posted by UteStar (Post 200170)

2 of the 4 #7 seeds play on Thursday/Saturday...but I believe those all feed into a Friday/Sunday bracket don't they? So, that would not allow BYU to get a #7 seed for fear that they advance past the 2nd round.

On top of that, as you said, one number difference in seeding is not a big deal. I think BYU was seeded fairly. Now, if they had beaten UNLV and still got a #8 seed, then yes, they were not seeded fairly.