Just out......#25 in basketball

[ugarte]

Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses.  As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses.  There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year.  Plenty of teams have bad losses.  If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight.  It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process.  I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right.  I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field.  It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out.  It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

Exactly. There isn't a formula, so if someone in the room says "But did you see how close they came to knocking off Kansas!" it becomes part of the discussion.

[Josh '99]

Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses.  As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses.  There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year.  Plenty of teams have bad losses.  If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight.  It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process.  I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right.  I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field.  It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out.  It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

Exactly. There isn't a formula, so if someone in the room says "But did you see how close they came to knocking off Kansas!" it becomes part of the discussion.

Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

[jtwcornell91]

officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process.  I could be wrong though...

I guess they do indirectly to the extent that it gooses the SOS.

That's pretty close to what should be the point.  Losing to Kansas does not make us a better team, but being 23-4 looks a lot better if one of those losses is to Kansas than if you replace that game with e.g., a loss to Colgate.

[Insert Bradley-Terry stump speech here.]

[Al DeFlorio]

Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses.  As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses.  There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year.  Plenty of teams have bad losses.  If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight.  It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process.  I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right.  I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field.  It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out.  It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

Exactly. There isn't a formula, so if someone in the room says "But did you see how close they came to knocking off Kansas!" it becomes part of the discussion.

Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

[Josh '99]

Ought to be weight given to quality losses. Kansas for sure, Syracuse possibly.

There is. It comes up in the discussion. Basketball seeds and bids aren't mechanical like hockey/lax. It will help but only so much. Those losses should keep the team from being a 14 just like the Penn loss will keep them from being a 9.

I didn't know that the Committee looks at quality losses.  As I understand it, they look at QUALITY wins and BAD losses.  There are too many teams in the field fighting for seeding or a spot in the tourney for the committee to worry about who lost to Kansas by 5 pts during the course of the year.  Plenty of teams have bad losses.  If that's the case, San Diego State should be get in because they lost a bunch of close games to good teams.

That said, the Kansas loss is really what propelled this team into the national spotlight.  It will help, if only because of the impression it left with selection committee members, but officially I don't believe the Committee weighs quality losses (IMO no such thing as one) in the selection process.  I could be wrong though...

I'm not sure this is right.  I'm pretty sure the committee literally takes every piece of evidence available in order to make and seed the field.  It's why George Mason got a seed a few years ago despite not having as strong a profile as some of the others left out.  It's why injuries to players can knock down a team's seed if it occurs late in the season, or conversely, why some teams can get higher seeds when they have players returning to health despite struggling without them.

Exactly. There isn't a formula, so if someone in the room says "But did you see how close they came to knocking off Kansas!" it becomes part of the discussion.

Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

Granted, but the hockey selection formula isn't as bad as the lacrosse formula.

[semsox]

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

Agreed times a million.  Give me the closed door Basketball selection any day of the week

[heykb]

This morning on ESPN Radio, Jay Bilas gave the Cornell men a nice shout-out. He said one NBA scout called Wittman "an assassin" who would wind up in the NBA. Then Bilas mentioned both Dale and Foote and said CU would not be an easy out.

I think it's safe to say that the Big Red will not be sneaking up on whoever they get in the first round.

[KeithK]

Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

True. But a closed door selection system is much more ripe for abuse. Maybe a committee is better than a bad formula but a decent formula bats a committee any day. The hockey situation is about as good as we're going to get. (Sorry John, I don't think they're going to adopt KRACH. And from a selfish perspective that's a good thing.)

Fixed.

[Al DeFlorio]

..

Man, do I love the NCAA hockey selection process (imperfect though it may be) for how objective it is.

Taking a bad formula and following it blindly results in travesties like the 2007 NCAA lacrosse seedings.

True. But a closed door selection system is much more ripe for abuse. Maybe a committee is better than a bad formula but a decent formula bats a committee any day. The hockey situation is about as good as we're going to get. (Sorry John, I don't think they're going to adopt KRACH. And from a selfish perspective that's a good thing.)

You've screwed up the quotes, Keith, but, in any case, I disagree.  In the years before PWR I felt decisions by the committee were good ones, so, while it may have been ripe for abuse, there was none.  What was not good was when they adopted the stupid "Clarkson" and "Colorado" rules and took discretion away from the committee.  

PWR, like the lacrosse criteria, is based on the awfulcrumbling foundation of RPI, a ranking that pays no attention to whom a team has beaten and to whom it's lost, only it's bottom-line won-lost record and their opponents' and opponents' opponents'.  Last year, when the lacrosse committee was given much more latitude in seeding, they were finally able to overcome the tunnel vision of the criteria and put Hopkins where a 9-4 team that couldn't beat a top eight team belonged--at #8, not #3, despite their #1 RPI.  Humans are much better at evaluating multiple factors than a formula.  The TUC cut-off is another terrible flaw in PWR.  Beating the last team in TUC gets as much credit as being the top team, while beating the first team that just missed making TUC counts for nothing.  Ridiculous.

[KeithK]

Fair enough.  If you have a good committee you might do as well or better using that route.  But you have to trust that you will always have a good committee.

I think a hard and fast formula for deciding who goes is optimal. PWR isn't the best formula they could use but at least you know their was't any subjectivity in deciding who gets to go.  I am happy to have seeding done by a committee though.  As much as it's fun to bitch about getting screwed in seeding that's much less of a big deal than who gets in the tournament.

[YankeeLobo]

Lunardi's latest Bracketology has Cornell as a 12 seed vs Temple in New Orleans, which probably means that an 11 seed is about as good a seed as we can possibly get.  Most likely we'll be a 12.

That loss vs Penn really cost us.  Since there are a lot of good teams in college basketball this year, we'll most likely be facing a very strong team in the first round, a Tennessee/Temple type.

[Jordan 04]

Lunardi's latest Bracketology has Cornell as a 12 seed vs Temple in New Orleans, which probably means that an 11 seed is about as good a seed as we can possibly get.  Most likely we'll be a 12.

That loss vs Penn really cost us.  We'll most likely be facing a VERY good team in the first round.

I put no stock in the predicted matchups since so much will change, but that'd be some crap luck. The team against whom we are least likely to sneak under the radar.

[phillysportsfan]

Yeah playing against Dunphy would not be a good thing but I dont see us flying under the radar no matter what we do since the national media keeps pointing us out. All an opposing coach has to do is show his team the Kansas tape and say look these guys almost broke Kansas' 50+ home winning streak, dont underestimate them

[Al DeFlorio]

Yeah playing against Dunphy would not be a good thing but I dont see us flying under the radar no matter what we do since the national media keeps pointing us out. All an opposing coach has to do is show his team the Kansas tape and say look these guys almost broke Kansas' 50+ home winning streak, dont underestimate them

Kansas made Temple look like a high school team on the Owls' home court.

[phillysportsfan]

True but that was just one game, just as Cornell's loss to Penn does not define what kind of team Cornell is. Although from looking at Temple's schedule they seem to have a few weird loses including St Johns at home but they did beat Villanova and are leading a very tough A10 conference this year