Everyone acts like it is a mystery why Brooks got the 2 and Burak at 4. Brooks had no head to head net losses in the matrix. That is huge, it accounts for 25% of the scoring in each matrix matchup (It is one of the most cut and dry seeding factors). Most of the other top guys had bad unanswered losses, and or lack of quality wins. That also means that in most matrix match ups he probably had a favorable common opponent record, another 10% and he placed 1st in his conference another 10% against most guys. I saw this coming a mile away.
Burak was hurt by his lack of quality wins 20% of the seeding criteria. I think this is what pushed Pfarr over him. Now if this is what the matrix pumped out I think it could have been totally understandable for the committee to move Burak over Pfarr, if he was close enough in matrix points to allow it. But do we think a committee that consisted of the head coaches of Mizzu and tOSU, 2 teams that I am sure think they have a shot at the title, are going to make a big stink about Burak being the 4 when that means most likely if forces Iowa vs PSU in the semis and gives the Mizzu guy an easier route to the finals?
What bugs me about Flos breakdown of the seedings is they bitch but don't actually dive into the reason why the person was seeded where they were. They are just mad that they don't match up with their biased rankings, and don't suggest tweaks that could improve the system.
Why don't they dive into why a Brooks is 2 or Avery 3. Instead of just saying it is stupid. He is 2 because it is advantageous to not have a loss on your record that you don't also have a win over the guy. Avery is 3 because he has a high win % (10%), he placed high last year and is being ranked high still in coaches poll (15%). He only had 1 head to head loss and he may have still beat that guy (zz) in the matrix matchup on the strength of other criteria. I am not saying that these are 100% right but I can say for sure they are as good as any criteria Pyles is using at 184.
- Did they ever release the last coaches poll? This is a pretty big deal. It is 15% of the seeding critria and for sure ends up being the difference in many of the matrix matchups. They never even mentioned this
- Did they release the last RPI? What the f is the RPI and how is it calculated
- common opponents - What does this mean? is it your winning % vs your matrix opponents winning % common opponents? we don't know.
- Conference placing? Is this only used when you are in the same conference? or if you place 1st at the EIWA you get 10% in the matrix over a guy that places 2nd in the B1G?
- Quality wins? Were they weighted? If so how were they weighted? did 2 wins over the same quality guy count or just 1 of them?
Is there some logical way that losses could be factored in more? Or are they getting counted enough with win %, Head to Head, Common Opp, Coaches polls, Conference placing...
I actually think the matrix did a pretty good job. I trust it a hell of a lot more than a biased cpyles ranking or coaches poll.
I think if we dug into the actual matrix weighted criteria and were able to run some different scenarios with different weights and criteria we could get a very good system.
