Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
In response to comments like PAP's, here's THE BOTTOM LINE: Until MWC teams (besides Utah, which is currently on its ass) start winning NCAA playoff games to any extent there's nothing to talk about. If BYU were from the MVC there would be some room to gripe. It's not, and BYU hasn't won an NCAA game for decades. BYU needs to put its own house in order, tend its own garden, before harping about how weak other conferences are or how unfair is the system. It's like somebody with a C average and fiftieth percentile SAT complaining Harvard admissions are rigged.
|
I could be wrong, but I don't think one has to engage in slighhtly over the top hyperbole to explain the difference. In virtually every rating system besides RPI, Texas is rated higher. Here is a sampling:
Code:
BYU Texas
Massey 39 21
Sagarin (ELO) 25 19
Sagarin (MOV) 56 16
Wolfe 25 20
Rothman 42 19
Me 53 17
Texas is not an isolated case here. The seeds this year are less correlated with the RPI then in the past (see Indy's post), and as I demonstrate in a different post the deviations comparing massey and the NCAA seeds are smaller than the deviations from RPI. In my mind a better and more systematic question is why the committee shifted away from RPI. The Texas vs BYU example is just a manifestation of the shift and not an unique case