Distribution of NCAA Actual vs Expected Seedings - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Indy Coug · 10-31-2007, 04:21 PM

Code:

Diff	Overall		2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000	1999
-7	0.2%		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
-6	0.2%		0.0%	0.0%	1.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
-5	0.7%		4.6%	1.5%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	1.6%
-4	1.8%		4.6%	1.5%	0.0%	3.1%	0.0%	1.6%	4.7%	1.6%	1.6%
-3	3.8%		6.2%	4.6%	3.1%	1.5%	1.6%	7.8%	4.7%	3.1%	4.7%
-2	7.1%		6.2%	9.2%	10.8%	7.7%	7.8%	7.8%	4.7%	4.7%	6.3%
-1	18.2%		18.5%	12.3%	20.0%	18.5%	15.6%	15.6%	17.2%	21.9%	18.8%
0	36.9%		18.5%	40.0%	26.2%	36.9%	42.2%	37.5%	37.5%	39.1%	39.1%
1	16.0%		18.5%	13.8%	23.1%	23.1%	14.1%	14.1%	15.6%	9.4%	12.5%
2	7.8%		10.8%	10.8%	10.8%	3.1%	9.4%	9.4%	6.3%	10.9%	4.7%
3	5.1%		4.6%	3.1%	3.1%	4.6%	3.1%	3.1%	6.3%	7.8%	7.8%
4	1.3%		4.6%	1.5%	1.5%	0.0%	3.1%	0.0%	3.1%	0.0%	1.6%
5	0.7%		1.5%	1.5%	0.0%	1.5%	0.0%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%
6	0.0%		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
7	0.2%		1.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

MikeWaters · 10-31-2007, 04:21 PM

Tired of being owned by pelagius?

Indy Coug · 10-31-2007, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tired of being owned by pelagius?

Did his research get used by BYU in a presentation to the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee?

jay santos · 10-31-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Did his research get used by BYU in a presentation to the NCAA Basketball Tournament Committee?

Indy's stats are just good enough to fool the lay person.

Just messin with ya, Indy. Thanks for the analysis.

BlueK · 11-03-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay santos

Indy's stats are just good enough to fool the lay person.

Just messin with ya, Indy. Thanks for the analysis.

interesting that last year's committee deviated the most from the RPI. I wonder if that's an aberration or the start of a trend.

ChinoCoug · 11-05-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Code:

Diff	Overall		2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000	1999
-7	0.2%		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
-6	0.2%		0.0%	0.0%	1.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
-5	0.7%		4.6%	1.5%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	1.6%
-4	1.8%		4.6%	1.5%	0.0%	3.1%	0.0%	1.6%	4.7%	1.6%	1.6%
-3	3.8%		6.2%	4.6%	3.1%	1.5%	1.6%	7.8%	4.7%	3.1%	4.7%
-2	7.1%		6.2%	9.2%	10.8%	7.7%	7.8%	7.8%	4.7%	4.7%	6.3%
-1	18.2%		18.5%	12.3%	20.0%	18.5%	15.6%	15.6%	17.2%	21.9%	18.8%
0	36.9%		18.5%	40.0%	26.2%	36.9%	42.2%	37.5%	37.5%	39.1%	39.1%
1	16.0%		18.5%	13.8%	23.1%	23.1%	14.1%	14.1%	15.6%	9.4%	12.5%
2	7.8%		10.8%	10.8%	10.8%	3.1%	9.4%	9.4%	6.3%	10.9%	4.7%
3	5.1%		4.6%	3.1%	3.1%	4.6%	3.1%	3.1%	6.3%	7.8%	7.8%
4	1.3%		4.6%	1.5%	1.5%	0.0%	3.1%	0.0%	3.1%	0.0%	1.6%
5	0.7%		1.5%	1.5%	0.0%	1.5%	0.0%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%
6	0.0%		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
7	0.2%		1.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	1.6%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

expected seeding as defined by what?

Indy Coug · 11-05-2007, 08:23 PM

Expected seed is derived by sorting the 64 tournament seeds by their RPI. The top 4 RPI get a 1 seed and so forth.

ChinoCoug · 11-05-2007, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Expected seed is derived by sorting the 64 tournament seeds by their RPI. The top 4 RPI get a 1 seed and so forth.

Gotcha. So the analysis shows the NCAA is at least objective in sticking to its joke indicator.

Indy Coug · 11-05-2007, 09:00 PM

Yes. Please don't take this thread to be a defense of the RPI. It simply acknowledges the almost supreme importance it has in the eyes of the committee.

10-31-2007, 04:21 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Tired of being owned by pelagius?

11-05-2007, 08:23 PM	#7
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Expected seed is derived by sorting the 64 tournament seeds by their RPI. The top 4 RPI get a 1 seed and so forth.

11-05-2007, 09:00 PM	#9
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Yes. Please don't take this thread to be a defense of the RPI. It simply acknowledges the almost supreme importance it has in the eyes of the committee.