| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
 Posted: 02/23/19 4:40 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Phil wrote: |
This essentially is an argument for symmetry.
Ignoring injuries for a moment, consider team A playing team B. There is some metric ranking the two teams, and the ranking of team A, before the game, is X, and the ranking of team B (again, before the game) is Y.
The game is played and Team B wins.
The revised ranking are:
Team A : X -delta
Team B: Y +delta.
Delta not necessarily positive (If Team B is viewed as much better than team A and wins a squeaker, the delta may be negative
The concept of symmetry says that there is only one value for delta. Whatever amount is added to Team B is exactly the same as the amount subtracted from Team A (For the mathematically inclined, I’m making some unstated assumptions about the linearity of the metric).
A general question is whether symmetry is required. Could one devise a metric in which one needs two different deltas, one for the increment to Team B and a different value for the decrement to Team A.
The general answer is: of course.
The more specific question is whether the value of delta might differ in a situation where a key player is out for one of the team.
I think a good case can be made that the adjustment values should be different. |
You raise a few interesting points. As I evaluate teams at the end of the season I give very little value to point differential. In basketball (as opposed to football) there are a sufficient number of games to make reasoned judgments without considering margin of victory. So in my system the team that wins always has a positive adjustment and the losing team always has a negative adjustment, but the amount of the adjustment is negligible for non-competitive games. A top 10 team should almost always beat a team outside the top 100 (this year the top 10 RPI teams are 100-0 vs sub 100 teams).
But you are right to say that the adjustment should not be equal. There are a few reasons for this, the most significant being that as each game is played it affects not only the two teams playing but also the perception of those teams, and therefore the value of wins and losses against those teams. The overall impact on all teams should be zero, but the specific change of those two teams will generally not be zero.
As for the issue of injuries, I believe it is nearly impossible to properly value a particuar injury and apply it across all games. I don't even believe that they should be considered. Should a team that runs a program that creates fewer injuries be penalized because their players always play. Injuries are a part of the game. If you believe they should be considered (and I understand that the Committee seems to do so on occasion) doesn't that just provide teams with a reason to lie about them. Do you really think that the Committee even has the ability to know about every single injury and how it may affect every game played? And does an injury only get considered if a player sits out or should it also be considered if it hampers play? The injury to Ruthie Hebard didn't seem to affect Oregon as they ran out to a 40-18 lead against UCLA, but it sure did affect them the rest of the game.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/23/19 6:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I’m particularly intrigued by the notion that the results of a game result in adjustments to more than just the two teams in that game, and that the sum of all adjustment perhaps should be zero. I need to think about this some more.
Regarding injuries, I need to make clear that there are two types of injuries to consider (in fact, more than two, but these two will illustrate the point.)
One type of injury is a season ending injury, so that the team which will be playing in the NCAA tournament will not be the same team that has played up to the point of the injury.
The second type of injury is one that means a players misses a game or maybe a few, but is expected to return to the team at full strength.
The first type of injury absolutely deserves significant consideration in the ranking process. The second type, much less so, and arguably a complete pass, although few would go that far.
When Hebard or Young miss a game or two, and the team loses without them, I think that loss deserves far less of an adjustment than a season ending injury.
|
|
elsie
Joined: 08 Apr 2016
Posts: 276
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 1:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
the" strongest team in the country" lost to Mich state with all their starters intact....
it gets ridiculous to figure the "ifs" and the "buts".....let the records speak for themselves...let SOS and whatever reasonable metric be the guiding light...
just no funny business.....oh listen to me....this is the NCAA we're talking about....
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 12:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Yeah, why bother playing games. Results obviously don't matter. Just let Massey declare who the best team is. Cancel the Tournament, just give the trophy to Oregon.
Thankfully the Selection Committee ignores Massey.
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 1:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Massey is one of the best, if not the best, evaluators of teams from a scoring perspective. Without Sagarin this season it is an important tool in overall consideration of the quality of teams. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it is always a whole lot better than the RPI.
As for the discussion of Oregon, they are #6 in Massey as a result of their two losses. The top 5 are Baylor, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Louisville and Mississippi St.
Charlie Creme's latest Bracketology as revealed on the Florida St-Miami game shows Baylor, Louisville, UConn and Notre Dame as the number 1 seeds, Mississippi St, Stanford, NC St and Oregon as the 2s, Maryland, Oregon St, Iowa and Iowa St as the 3s and Miami, Marquette, S Carolina and Gonzaga as the 4s.
FWIW these are the same top 16 as Massey except for Gonzaga who is only 18 (Arizona St at 15 is left off Creme's projections). By seed Massey has the same top 4, Oregon St instead of NC St in the top 8, and has Marquette and Miami in the top 12.
Looking at the RPI, Stanford would be a number 1 seed instead of UConn, Iowa would be a 2 seed instead of NC St, Marquette and Syracuse would be 3 seeds instead of Maryland and Oregon St, and UCF and Texas A&M would get 4 seeds. Gonzaga and Miami would only be 5 seeds and Oregon St and S Carolina would only be 6 seeds.
The Committee uses the RPI as its base for evaluating teams, but then looks at the quality of wins and losses based on that ranking. From my standpoint using an inferior rating system overrates wins against a team like UCF while minimizing a win against a team like Oregon St. This year it works to the advantage of UConn. The Huskies are 4-2 over the top 25 RPI but 2 of those are over UCF. UCF will likely be no better than a 9 seed which would mean they are not a top 30 team (Massey has them at 45), but UConn's numbers look much better as a result of the inflated UCF ranking. UConn has only lost to 2 top 4 teams on the road and has a top 4 win on the road so I believe they deserve their seed, but based on prior years a team that is only 2-2 against the top 25 would more likely be a 2 or a 3 seed.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 2:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Anyone watching OR USC?
It's halftime so things can change but:
Hebard starts, OR in lead.
Hebard takes a breather near end of first quarter, USC takes lead.
Hebard comes back early in 2nd quarter holds USC without a basket until final 2 minutes. OR takes double digit lead.
Hebard sits again, USC cuts lead to 4.
Too tiny a data point to say too much, but this doesn't surprise me.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9624
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 3:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Carolyn Peck favors giving the last 10 games extra weight. "Teams can lose their mojo". And they also can suffer injuries.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 4:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| calbearman76 wrote: |
Massey is one of the best, if not the best, evaluators of teams from a scoring perspective. Without Sagarin this season it is an important tool in overall consideration of the quality of teams. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it is always a whole lot better than the RPI.
FWIW these are the same top 16 as Massey except for Gonzaga who is only 18 (Arizona St at 15 is left off Creme's projections). By seed Massey has the same top 4, Oregon St instead of NC St in the top 8, and has Marquette and Miami in the top 12.
. |
Excellent points.
Massey is not perfect, of course, but I don't know of another computer based algorithm that is better.
The Massey algorithm doesn't account for Hebard not playing, one of its few shortcomings. I can't think of an easy way to incorporate that info in a purely mechanical way.
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 5:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
Anyone watching OR USC?
It's halftime so things can change but:
Hebard starts, OR in lead.
Hebard takes a breather near end of first quarter, USC takes lead.
Hebard comes back early in 2nd quarter holds USC without a basket until final 2 minutes. OR takes double digit lead.
Hebard sits again, USC cuts lead to 4.
Too tiny a data point to say too much, but this doesn't surprise me. |
actually Hebard didn't start. Gildon did. Hebard came in at around the 5 min mark and just played 3 or 4 minutes.
But I agree. Oregon is just a totally different team with/without her.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 7:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
Anyone watching OR USC?
It's halftime so things can change but:
Hebard starts, OR in lead.
Hebard takes a breather near end of first quarter, USC takes lead.
Hebard comes back early in 2nd quarter holds USC without a basket until final 2 minutes. OR takes double digit lead.
Hebard sits again, USC cuts lead to 4.
Too tiny a data point to say too much, but this doesn't surprise me. |
actually Hebard didn't start. Gildon did. Hebard came in at around the 5 min mark and just played 3 or 4 minutes.
But I agree. Oregon is just a totally different team with/without her. |
Oops, the problems of assumptions. I actually missed the first few minutes, but saw she was in when I turned to the game and assume she started.
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/24/19 7:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
Anyone watching OR USC?
It's halftime so things can change but:
Hebard starts, OR in lead.
Hebard takes a breather near end of first quarter, USC takes lead.
Hebard comes back early in 2nd quarter holds USC without a basket until final 2 minutes. OR takes double digit lead.
Hebard sits again, USC cuts lead to 4.
Too tiny a data point to say too much, but this doesn't surprise me. |
actually Hebard didn't start. Gildon did. Hebard came in at around the 5 min mark and just played 3 or 4 minutes.
But I agree. Oregon is just a totally different team with/without her. |
Oops, the problems of assumptions. I actually missed the first few minutes, but saw she was in when I turned to the game and assume she started.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/19 1:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| Carolyn Peck favors giving the last 10 games extra weight. "Teams can lose their mojo". And they also can suffer injuries. |
My understanding is that the tournament committee does exactly this.
|
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/19 12:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Carolyn Peck favors giving the last 10 games extra weight. "Teams can lose their mojo". And they also can suffer injuries. |
My understanding is that the tournament committee does exactly this. |
Two of N Dame's losses have come in their last 10 games, one of those losses being to a Massey No 52 team. So if they win the last 2 games they will be 8-2 in their last 10 games. Is that one seed material? In fact just about every loss by a top ranked P5 team is followed by a comment from Charlie that the loss "won't move their position on the S curve".
There is a ton more subjectivity in seedings than what we are told. Hell, who decides what the "policies & procedures" are to be? Let me write the rules and I have a huge amount of control over the results, given that the committee is bound by those rules.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/19 1:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Carolyn Peck favors giving the last 10 games extra weight. "Teams can lose their mojo". And they also can suffer injuries. |
My understanding is that the tournament committee does exactly this. |
Two of N Dame's losses have come in their last 10 games, one of those losses being to a Massey No 52 team. So if they win the last 2 games they will be 8-2 in their last 10 games. Is that one seed material? |
Well, of course, the committee doesn't look at Massey, but if you're referring to the UNC loss, the Tar Heels are #31 in the RPI at present. Don't know if that loss is or isn't enough to knock the Irish out of a 1-seed... it probably depends on how Notre Dame finishes the season and performs in the conference tournament, and how that resume (including the finish) compares to the resumes (and finishes) of the teams which would otherwise be worthy of consideration for 1-seeds.
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/19 9:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Carolyn Peck favors giving the last 10 games extra weight. "Teams can lose their mojo". And they also can suffer injuries. |
My understanding is that the tournament committee does exactly this. |
Two of N Dame's losses have come in their last 10 games, one of those losses being to a Massey No 52 team. So if they win the last 2 games they will be 8-2 in their last 10 games. Is that one seed material? In fact just about every loss by a top ranked P5 team is followed by a comment from Charlie that the loss "won't move their position on the S curve".
There is a ton more subjectivity in seedings than what we are told. Hell, who decides what the "policies & procedures" are to be? Let me write the rules and I have a huge amount of control over the results, given that the committee is bound by those rules. |
That is not true. Notre Dame has lost 3 games this season:
UConn (Massey #2)
Miami (Massey #12)
UNC (Massey 38th)
Is Notre Dame #1 seed material? Of course. They have more quality wins than any team. It would be very reasonable to argue that Notre Dame has a much better resume than UConn, as they have far more quality wins and only one more loss.
If you are arguing that Notre Dame is not worthy of a 1-seed, which 4 teams would you argue have a better resume?
|
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/25/19 10:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Carolyn Peck favors giving the last 10 games extra weight. "Teams can lose their mojo". And they also can suffer injuries. |
My understanding is that the tournament committee does exactly this. |
Two of N Dame's losses have come in their last 10 games, one of those losses being to a Massey No 52 team. So if they win the last 2 games they will be 8-2 in their last 10 games. Is that one seed material? In fact just about every loss by a top ranked P5 team is followed by a comment from Charlie that the loss "won't move their position on the S curve".
There is a ton more subjectivity in seedings than what we are told. Hell, who decides what the "policies & procedures" are to be? Let me write the rules and I have a huge amount of control over the results, given that the committee is bound by those rules. |
Actually Notre Dame's loss to UNC will not be among their last 10. The ACC tournament will be 1-3 games. I actually see Notre Dame as the number 2 team right now, just ahead of Louisville. If either wins the ACC tournament they will be number 2.
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
Location: PA
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/19 9:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| linkster wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Carolyn Peck favors giving the last 10 games extra weight. "Teams can lose their mojo". And they also can suffer injuries. |
My understanding is that the tournament committee does exactly this. |
Two of N Dame's losses have come in their last 10 games, one of those losses being to a Massey No 52 team. So if they win the last 2 games they will be 8-2 in their last 10 games. Is that one seed material? In fact just about every loss by a top ranked P5 team is followed by a comment from Charlie that the loss "won't move their position on the S curve".
There is a ton more subjectivity in seedings than what we are told. Hell, who decides what the "policies & procedures" are to be? Let me write the rules and I have a huge amount of control over the results, given that the committee is bound by those rules. |
I'm sorry, but where exactly does it say that the NCAA Committee uses Massey rankings?
They often mention RPI, though, and the UNC ranking there is #30. Funny how you conveniently mention a ranking system the NCAA Committee doesn't use, yet fail to mention the ranking in a system that they do use.
BTW, I just checked and currently UNC is ranked #38 in Massey. Their stock seems to be rising... 
Did you also consider that ND has 10 wins against RPI top 25 teams while UConn has only 5? Or that ND has 14 wins against top 50 RPI teams while UConn has only SIX!
Oh wait, let's use Massey!
ND has wins against TEN top 25 teams (according to Massey) and 15 top 50 teams. UConn, meanwhile, has THREE top 25 wins (according to Massey) and SIX top 50 wins (according to Massey).
Are you sure you want to use Massey as a comparison? Yes, he does love to use MOV a lot (which benefits UConn), but when it comes to factoring in strength of schedule, has UConn played as well against top teams?
So UConn is 71.4% vs top 25 and 77.8% vs top 50. ND is 83.3% against top 25 teams and 83.3% vs top 50 teams. (All Massey numbers)
BTW, if you look at UConn's last 10 games, you won't find one with a Massey ranking better than 65, and only two of those games are against teams ranked in the 60s. Three are against teams outside the top 100. Meanwhile, 7 of ND's last 10 opponents are in Massey's top 50.
UConn is 3-2 vs Massey top 25 teams. ND is 10-2 vs Massey top 25 teams. UConn is 1-2 vs Massey top 10 teams. ND is 3-1 vs Massey top 10 teams.
Linkster, I hate to say this, but you used to be so much better than this. You were often in the past one of the more rational UConn fans, but this year you seem to have lost objectivity. When presented with evidence that ND has played more ranked teams, your response seems to be to highlight ND's loss to UNC (which happened with a starter out with an injury) and not getting UNC's ranking correct.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/19 10:34 am ::: |
Reply |
|
How many losses to top 4 teams does ND have 1 and then a bad loss out of the top 25. You cannot hide that loss, its just BAD, and the loss to Miami was when they were down low not where they are now. They are only there as they beat you because the rankers love to boost those teams with those type of wins. LOSSES and who they are to is more relevant. Beat Louisville in the tournament and then you can argue to move above them.
Plus the whole whining about the injury thing is such a ND thing to do. Most teams have injuries, they just don't all whine about them. It is a little hard to feel sorry for you when you have all senior age players that you have bragged about for 2 years and were handed a player of one of those caliber players by the NCAA.
There is a good whiners anonymous hotline at 317-917-6222.
_________________
"White privilege is unseen by white pompous asses"
Feelings, nothing more than feelings...
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66914
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/19 10:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
| LOSSES and who they are to is more relevant |
Yeah, not just anybody can lose to top teams...
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Phil
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 1273
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/19 11:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
When multiple metrics exist, it is always understandable that someone might prefer to emphasize the metric that puts their own favorite team in the best light.
Arguments made a posteriori that the desired metric is preferable may fall flat.
One could make a strong argument that, even if some metric, say Massey, is a better metric than another one, say RPI, we could still prefer the inferior metric is we are interested in bracketology (as opposed to true strength) and we have evidence that RPI is the metric used by the selection committee.
On its surface, this sounds like a solid argument for using RPI over Massey. The selection committee openly states that they use RPI, and they’ve said things that suggest they would not emphasize Massey.
However, it is simplistic and wrong to say that the committee solely uses the Raw RPI. The selection committee is given a sheet that has the RPI numbers, but they have a number of other pieces of information which they use as well. Some of those other measures may simply be included so that each committee member has as much information as is reasonably practical, but we know that some of those alternative measure are included because of the known deficiencies of raw RPI.
All this leads up to the key point:
While we don’t know exactly how each piece of information is weighted, we do see the results (in the form of the interim reveal) and my analysis shows that Massey is a better predictor of the selection that is the RPI.
For this reason, I think it is perfectly understandable that when analyzing any particular possible placement in the field, that it makes more sense to look at Massey numbers than it does to look at RPI. In theory, you could start with the RPI, and make all the same adjustments as the committee, but you don’t know what those adjustments are.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
|
linkster
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 5423
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/19 4:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CBiebel wrote: |
| linkster wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
| Carolyn Peck favors giving the last 10 games extra weight. "Teams can lose their mojo". And they also can suffer injuries. |
My understanding is that the tournament committee does exactly this. |
Two of N Dame's losses have come in their last 10 games, one of those losses being to a Massey No 52 team. So if they win the last 2 games they will be 8-2 in their last 10 games. Is that one seed material? In fact just about every loss by a top ranked P5 team is followed by a comment from Charlie that the loss "won't move their position on the S curve".
There is a ton more subjectivity in seedings than what we are told. Hell, who decides what the "policies & procedures" are to be? Let me write the rules and I have a huge amount of control over the results, given that the committee is bound by those rules. |
I'm sorry, but where exactly does it say that the NCAA Committee uses Massey rankings?
They often mention RPI, though, and the UNC ranking there is #30. Funny how you conveniently mention a ranking system the NCAA Committee doesn't use, yet fail to mention the ranking in a system that they do use.
BTW, I just checked and currently UNC is ranked #38 in Massey. Their stock seems to be rising...
Did you also consider that ND has 10 wins against RPI top 25 teams while UConn has only 5? Or that ND has 14 wins against top 50 RPI teams while UConn has only SIX!
Oh wait, let's use Massey!
ND has wins against TEN top 25 teams (according to Massey) and 15 top 50 teams. UConn, meanwhile, has THREE top 25 wins (according to Massey) and SIX top 50 wins (according to Massey).
Are you sure you want to use Massey as a comparison? Yes, he does love to use MOV a lot (which benefits UConn), but when it comes to factoring in strength of schedule, has UConn played as well against top teams?
So UConn is 71.4% vs top 25 and 77.8% vs top 50. ND is 83.3% against top 25 teams and 83.3% vs top 50 teams. (All Massey numbers)
BTW, if you look at UConn's last 10 games, you won't find one with a Massey ranking better than 65, and only two of those games are against teams ranked in the 60s. Three are against teams outside the top 100. Meanwhile, 7 of ND's last 10 opponents are in Massey's top 50.
UConn is 3-2 vs Massey top 25 teams. ND is 10-2 vs Massey top 25 teams. UConn is 1-2 vs Massey top 10 teams. ND is 3-1 vs Massey top 10 teams.
Linkster, I hate to say this, but you used to be so much better than this. You were often in the past one of the more rational UConn fans, but this year you seem to have lost objectivity. When presented with evidence that ND has played more ranked teams, your response seems to be to highlight ND's loss to UNC (which happened with a starter out with an injury) and not getting UNC's ranking correct. |
You disparage what is currently the best comparative ranking system in wcbb and then use an endless list of stats to accomplish what? To prove that ND had a tougher schedule? I don't argue with that. I would argue if you tried to say it was a tough schedule, but it was the best of the bunch for sure.
That doesn't make those losses look any better. N dame can play at a very high level but they can also play at a very low level (for a NC contender). You want them judged on their best. I say they also need to take responsibility for their worst.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66914
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
calbearman76
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 5155
Location: Carson City
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/26/19 9:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
| LOSSES and who they are to is more relevant |
Yeah, not just anybody can lose to top teams... |
Not just anybody plays the top teams :wink: |
It can't just be about losses. Suppose the UConn-Notre Dame game had been cancelled by weather. Would you still be claiming the Hussies had earned a #1 seed? |
I would go further. UConn would not be a 1 seed if they weren't UConn. Essentially they have exactly one very good win. No bad losses is not a reason for a #1 seed. I can remember Liberty being undefeated one year and being rewarded with a 16 seed and a game at Knoxville. I don't doubt that UConn is one of the 4 best teams, or at least one of the top 8, but their second best win is against South Carolina. It is a thin resume and even though there isn't a major blemish, there are also few good wins.
|
|
|
|
