ADVERTISEMENT

All 12 Teams w/ a #1, #2 or #3 Seed have been ELIMINATED from the NIT

Franisdaman

Franisdaman

HB King
Nov 3, 2012
102,395
139,678
113
Heaven, Iowa
All of the #1's, #2's, and #3's have been eliminated from the NIT.

Illinois, a #2 seed, ironically was the last of the top 12 seeds to fall, where they fell in the Elite 8 game vs #4 UCF.


Lots of upsets in the NIT:
#1 Cal loses to #8 CSU Bakersfield
#1 Syracuse loses to #5 Ole Miss
#1 Iowa loses to #4 TCU
#1 Illinois State loses to #4 UCF
------------------------------------------------
#2 Clemson loses to #7 Oakland
#2 Georgia loses to #7 Belmont
#2 Houston loses to #7 #7 Akron
#2 Illinois loses to #4 UCF
------------------------------------------------
#3 IU loses to #6 Ga Tech
#3 Alabama loses to #6 Richmond
#3 Utah loses to #6 Boise State
#3 BYU loses to #6 UT Arlington

Link to LiVE BRACKET: http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/gametool/brackets/nit_mens_2017.pdf
 
Last edited:
Night Court was a television show that aired for 9 years
From (1984-1992). It aired on NBC and was
Set in a Manhattan municipal courtroom during
the night shift. It received several Emmy awards
and nominations during the course of the series.
It runs in syndication on the Laff Network.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buudhawk
Franisdaman said:
That's huge! Syracuse loses 85-80 to Ole Miss. Attendance for this game: 9,556

Interesting how all of the #3 seeds are eliminated, 3/4 of the #2's are done, and 2 of the 3 "not named Iowa" #1's are done.


Lots of upsets in the NIT:
#1 Cal loses to #8 CSU Bakersfield
#1 Syracuse loses to #5 Ole Miss
------------------------------------------------
#2 Clemson loses to #7 Oakland
#2 Georgia loses to #7 Belmont
#2 Houston loses to #7 #7 Akron
------------------------------------------------
#3 IU loses to #6 Ga Tech
#3 Alabama loses to #6 Richmond
#3 Utah loses to #6 Boise State
#3 BYU loses to #6 UT Arlington

Link to LiVE BRACKET: http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/gametool/brackets/nit_mens_2017.pdf
Click to expand...

So, let's see what #1-#4 seeds (and their conferences) are left in the tourney now...

#1 - B1G - Iowa (Iowa bracket, right side)
#1 - Missouri Valley - Illinois State (Illinois State bracket, right side)

#2 - B1G - Illinois (Illinois State bracket, right side)

#3 - (NO ONE!)

#4 - Mountain West - Colorado State (California bracket, left side)
#4 - American Athletic Conference - UCF (Illinois State bracket, right side)
#4 - Big 12 - TCU (Iowa bracket, right side)

It's interesting to see how the conferences did in the top four seeds, and see how the brackets were skewed for these higher seeds that stayed alive to the right side of the bracket. NO ACC, SEC, or Big East teams left in the top four seeds? MUST have been OVERSEEDED and put in the NCAA tourney where so many more lost the last couple of days too.

The tourney committees for both tourneys appeared to have tried to rig these two tourneys to over-inflate the chances that one of these three more east coast conferences were to advance, though it appears they failed.

The RPI system hides their weaknesses too. When you have a large conference like the B1G that have a LOT of young and very good freshman classes on teams (that Iowa epitomized), that started the year when in non-conference games with less experience and therefore less decent performances then than they finished within a very balanced conference where they all knocked each other off, that inflates the collective loss totals for most of the conference teams, which compounds the collective lower RPIs for all of the member teams, even if at the end of the year, many of them are playing better ball than those conferences with clearer divisions and more experienced teams that won a lot of games early on in non-conference, and later inflated the win totals of the better teams in less balanced leagues even if their better (and more experienced) teams didn't get better as the year went on, which lead the RPIs to be higher for them, when arguably they aren't necessarily better than teams with lower collective RPIs in a younger and more improving (as the year went on when they played each other) conference like the B1G.

I think the tourney results are speaking to this equation now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amahawk
Besides maybe some of the 8 seeds, the gap in quality between low seeds and high seeds in the NIT is much smaller than in the NCAA. That, coupled with the mental issues some big name teams may have about even playing in the NIT make "upsets" not that big of deal. For example if we lose today it's not really an upset.
 
SpartyHawk, I think I understood that long sentence about RPI and young teams, so I'm checking into a rehab facility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: farfaraway
El Simbolo said:
Besides maybe some of the 8 seeds, the gap in quality between low seeds and high seeds in the NIT is much smaller than in the NCAA. That, coupled with the mental issues some big name teams may have about even playing in the NIT make "upsets" not that big of deal. For example if we lose today it's not really an upset.
Click to expand...
Exactly, not much seperates the quality of the seeds in the NIT. Iowa better play well today or they'll be next. If the TCU that beat Kansas in the big 12 tourney shows up, we better bring our game.
 
The problem starts with so much emphasis on nonconference records. Whether looking at the RPI, or head to head matchups, or a deck of Tarot Cards, whatever happened in November (when many of the top matchups between conferences take place) is a long time ago in terms of basketball.

So yes, the current method earns conferences that did well FOUR months ago an edge in getting invites to the NCAA, and the resulting seeding in the NIT is just a reflection of the same OLD NEWS bias.

How do you fix it? You can't. Any method, from head to head to computer generated statistics cannot overcome the time difference between nonconference and conference play. And conference play in leagues already measured doesn't change anything!

This is how a team like Iowa, which was doing damn well late in the season, was found to be wanting and I knew it would be before the season started when I said this would be a year we'd wish we could go back and play the season again. And I'm no genius. It's just obvious a young team is going to improve more than teams with tons of seniors who are already playing at peak level right out of the gate!

So, it can't be fixed. Nothing would be a perfect solution. But the system of selection could be improved. The NCAA insists on taking every game whether it be in November or February and looking at them as equal. We know they are not. The, "What have you done lately" thing has to find it's way into the Selection Committee. Perhaps the last ten games? I think that should carry some weight.
 
TCU is a tough match up and Jamie Dixon is a very good coach. This is going to be a very tough game for the Hawks, imo. If the Hawks manage to win, I think they make it to MSG and the finals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kceasthawk
Looking beyond this game, which I know isn't a given, would we play the winner of the Illinois State bracket in the semis or do they reseed?
 
DanL53 said:
The problem starts with so much emphasis on nonconference records. Whether looking at the RPI, or head to head matchups, or a deck of Tarot Cards, whatever happened in November (when many of the top matchups between conferences take place) is a long time ago in terms of basketball.

So yes, the current method earns conferences that did well FOUR months ago an edge in getting invites to the NCAA, and the resulting seeding in the NIT is just a reflection of the same OLD NEWS bias.

How do you fix it? You can't. Any method, from head to head to computer generated statistics cannot overcome the time difference between nonconference and conference play. And conference play in leagues already measured doesn't change anything!

This is how a team like Iowa, which was doing damn well late in the season, was found to be wanting and I knew it would be before the season started when I said this would be a year we'd wish we could go back and play the season again. And I'm no genius. It's just obvious a young team is going to improve more than teams with tons of seniors who are already playing at peak level right out of the gate!

So, it can't be fixed. Nothing would be a perfect solution. But the system of selection could be improved. The NCAA insists on taking every game whether it be in November or February and looking at them as equal. We know they are not. The, "What have you done lately" thing has to find it's way into the Selection Committee. Perhaps the last ten games? I think that should carry some weight.
Click to expand...

I think you said what I was trying to say earlier a bit better. I do tend to write in run-on sentences at times. Sometimes moreso when I'm a bit tired. I think that the RPI amplifies this problem, as it magnifies this problem in having intersectional matchups amplifying how conferences are measured against each other primarily based on how they do against each other from early in the season.

Could there be some more intersectional matchups later in the year, which might be a way to establish later season strength versus earlier season strength? Probably not to the degree needed to get a real measurement, and without disrupting the emphasis on conference play and positioning within the conference that happens when conference teams just play each other later in the year, which arguably shouldn't be deemphasized then either.

Perhaps the RPI system can be adjusted so that the heavy emphasis on intersectional measurements doesn't overemphasize those games by having a time coefficient multiply against earlier games that happen later in the year. Perhaps at the beginning of the year this variable is 1.0, and at the end of the year, these game results get multiplied by something going up to 1.5 or something else that could be tweaked to see if it would give more proper strength measurements and ratings to those teams that finish strongly. Perhaps go through this season and apply this kind of measurement post-season to all of the teams, and see if by doing so, it reflects more how well the teams did in postseason to see if this rationale would make sense in updating the RPI system some. Conferences then would also want to balance out their schedules so that tough teams playing each other don't necessarily occur in one part of the year versus the other and not artificially give higher RPIs to one team or another within their conference. I think for the most part, within the conference they do this fairly, but a measurement system like this would want to make sure that certain teams aren't penalized with only tough matchups at the end of the year versus the beginning of the year as well to ensure that their revised RPI isn't as adversely affected too.
 
iahawks10 said:
Night Court was a television show that aired for 9 years
From (1984-1992). It aired on NBC and was
Set in a Manhattan municipal courtroom during
the night shift. It received several Emmy awards
and nominations during the course of the series.
It runs in syndication on the Laff Network.
Click to expand...
Lute, is that you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iahawks10
El Simbolo said:
Looking like maybe the defacto NIT championship was played in IC Sunday
Click to expand...

Certainly TCU is now one of the top two seeded teams left in the tourney. The other just beating the Illini tonight.

Now add some more blocks:

#4 Monmouth loses to #5 Ole Miss
#4 Colorado State loses to #8 Cal Bakersfield

#5 Charleston loses to #4 Colorado State
#5 Ole Miss loses to #6 Georgia Tech
#5 Colorado loses to #4 UCF
#5 Fresno State loses to #4 TCU

#6 Boise State loses to #2 Illinois
#6 Richmond loses to #4 TCU
 
Last edited:
iahawks10 said:
Night Court was a television show that aired for 9 years
From (1984-1992). It aired on NBC and was
Set in a Manhattan municipal courtroom during
the night shift. It received several Emmy awards
and nominations during the course of the series.
It runs in syndication on the Laff Network.
Click to expand...
Well done sir....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A

Top 25 Polls & NET (2/17)

Replies
0
Views
302
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Men's Top 25 Polls & NET (2/3)

Replies
0
Views
269
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Men's Top 25 Polls & NET (2/10)

Replies
0
Views
292
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Men's Top 25 Polls & NET (1/27)

Replies
0
Views
267
Iowa Men's Basketball
Alum-Ni
A
A

Men's Top 25 Polls & NET (1/13)

Replies
2
Views
901
Iowa Men's Basketball
GeorgePeeples
G
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back