MVCfans.com

Consider the case of Illinois State, the highest-rated team in the RPI that missed the 68-team tournament. It wasn’t a surprise that the No. 33 Redbirds were excluded from the field. According to bracketmatrix.com, just nine out of the 100 prognosticators that posted a projected bracket on Sunday had ISU in the field.

Why did Illinois State miss out? We have a system designed to rank teams based on their records and the quality of their schedules, but when it comes to a small-conference school like ISU, the human evaluators don’t trust the computer ranking. Instead, they rely on metrics like “quality wins” and “bad losses,” where “quality” and “bad” have arbitrary definitions.

TheAsianSensation wrote:Just to troll the whole world, I'd like to point out that if we selected at-large teams solely by kenpom, the Big 12 would have 8 teams in.

pafan wrote:Conveniently omitted from Ken Pomeroy's piece:

KenPom rankings
Marquette 28
Illinois State 51

According to his own ranking, Marquette should be easily in, and Illinois State should be just outside the bubble (with positions 48-68 in the tournament occupied by autobid teams). That sounds like exactly what happened.

Wufan wrote:

TheAsianSensation wrote:Just to troll the whole world, I'd like to point out that if we selected at-large teams solely by kenpom, the Big 12 would have 8 teams in.

I'd be totally okay with the selection committee using KP or other similar metric to select the at-larges. A really good system would be to give each conference (32) the auto-qualifier, grant the next 28 highest ranked schools a bid, and then allow the committee to grant 8 teams the play-in game. The committee then seeds the schools either by analytics or some other method.

BCPanther wrote:

pafan wrote:Conveniently omitted from Ken Pomeroy's piece:

KenPom rankings
Marquette 28
Illinois State 51

According to his own ranking, Marquette should be easily in, and Illinois State should be just outside the bubble (with positions 48-68 in the tournament occupied by autobid teams). That sounds like exactly what happened.

He's said over and over that his rankings are merely statistical and predictive and should have no bearing on the selection process.

Wufan wrote:

TheAsianSensation wrote:Just to troll the whole world, I'd like to point out that if we selected at-large teams solely by kenpom, the Big 12 would have 8 teams in.

I'd be totally okay with the selection committee using KP or other similar metric to select the at-larges. A really good system would be to give each conference (32) the auto-qualifier, grant the next 28 highest ranked schools a bid, and then allow the committee to grant 8 teams the play-in game. The committee then seeds the schools either by analytics or some other method.

Stickboy46 wrote:

Wufan wrote:

TheAsianSensation wrote:Just to troll the whole world, I'd like to point out that if we selected at-large teams solely by kenpom, the Big 12 would have 8 teams in.

I'd be totally okay with the selection committee using KP or other similar metric to select the at-larges. A really good system would be to give each conference (32) the auto-qualifier, grant the next 28 highest ranked schools a bid, and then allow the committee to grant 8 teams the play-in game. The committee then seeds the schools either by analytics or some other method.

I wish they would use the play in game properly. It in no way shape or form should EVER be 4 power conference teams like this year. Use it for a mid major that is right outside the cut line, that didn't have 20 built in opportunities for good wins. Pair them with a middling P5 team that "won more good games" with 5 times the chances and let the mid major play its way into the tourney.

Stickboy46 wrote:

Wufan wrote:

TheAsianSensation wrote:Just to troll the whole world, I'd like to point out that if we selected at-large teams solely by kenpom, the Big 12 would have 8 teams in.

I'd be totally okay with the selection committee using KP or other similar metric to select the at-larges. A really good system would be to give each conference (32) the auto-qualifier, grant the next 28 highest ranked schools a bid, and then allow the committee to grant 8 teams the play-in game. The committee then seeds the schools either by analytics or some other method.

I wish they would use the play in game properly. It in no way shape or form should EVER be 4 power conference teams like this year. Use it for a mid major that is right outside the cut line, that didn't have 20 built in opportunities for good wins. Pair them with a middling P5 team that "won more good games" with 5 times the chances and let the mid major play its way into the tourney.