In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 157
Online now 111 Record: 5583 (1/22/2012)
Loudest board in the nation, per capita
Buy and sell your Duck tickets here.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Today proves that the RPI is all that matters. Down the line teams are seeded by RPI. This process is as big of farce as the BCS. Zero transparency, zero accountability.
Terrible idea. No one would schedule any challenging games if that were the case.
My biggest issue is with how heavily non-conference results factor into the selection process. That's how Arizona can coast through the Pac-12 and get a good seed, and a team like Miami gets screwed out of a one because they weren't healthy during non-conference play. Oregon was hurt by this as well...
Trog - seems to be plenty of transparency.
the site is available 247 and details everything.
Whether or not this is the best measure is another argument. The RPI appears to be much more transparent than the BCS computers that do not disclose formulas.
You call that "plenty of transparency"? Are you for real? For starters I'm talking about the selection process, nobody has any idea what goes on behind closed doors, and when the chairman of the committee comes out and tell us that they had Oregon as an 11 seed BEFORE BEATING UCLA, there is a serious issue. And as far as the RPI is concerned, what is the formula? WHY is it regarded as the end all be all of judging college basketball?
Oregon beats UNLV and they get a 5 seed and we get a 12. UCLA and Arizona seeded higher.
I guess you should just play every name team you can and it doesn't matter who wins.
The RPI is very transparent. It's right there if you look at it. As for the committee behind closed doors, obviously that's not transparent.
It is easy to launch into the committee. But if the selection committee is using the RPI rating system, and apparently weighting schedule heavily and losses to lower rated teams, Oregon was appropriately seeded in the 11 - 12 range. Kentucky didn't even make the tournament. I suspect the Pac 12 representative was fine with lowering Oregon from an 11 to a 12 seed, to keep Oregon out west, playing in San Jose.
In addition to picking the teams and seeding them, the committee attempts to put together match ups that will increase media attention and make the tournament interesting.
I don't necessarily agree with the 12 seeding, however, I'm not going to lose any sleep or bitch about it as doing so accomplishes nothing.
its all about RPI and its a fraud - the key to scheduling is avoiding the botton 300 teams - u have to load up on a lot of WCC/MW/Horizon types -
Oregon had a couple of very bad losses that must have influenced the committee: a 52-76 loss to a Stanford team that didn't make the dance, and 53-76 to Colorado when conference seeding was on the line. Losing twice to California(12th seed), and twice to Colorado(10th seed) didn't help.
The problem is there's no consistency. If it was all about RPI then how does UCLA get a 6 seed? Arizona is 15 in the RPI and they got a 6 seed. Based on the RPI they would get a 4 seed. Look at Belmont they're 19th in the RPI and they get an 11 seed. The problem is there's no rhyme or reason to how they seed these teams. The committee spends way too much time worrying about the top 1 & 2 seeds and not enough time on the rest of the seeds. These committees are a joke. Remember 4 or 5 years ago when the women's soccer team was ranked in the top 15 and ended up second in the conference and didn't even get an invite to the tournament yet the third and fourth teams in the conference did? There's no accountability for what these committees do.
I have no problem with where Oregon was seeded or how the selection committee does things. Like you said, RPI is a big part of seeding but they also have to balance out the regions which can prove to more difficult than you think. Oregon made their own bed towards the end of the season so we have no one to blame but ourselves for where we are seeded. Beating a UCLA team without their big man doesn't do much for me and doesn't sound like it did much for the comittee either.
With that being said, we seem to have our mojo back and think we may get a couple wins if our guard play is strong.
Follow me because I may just win the internet one day.
By winning the conference tournament? 3-0 to end the season means nothing? Beating UCLA means nothing, but going 5-4 without Artis is held against us? Until the humans are held accountable this kind of failure will just keep happening. Every single one of them should be known to the public along with how they "voted". When people are allowed to act anonymously and without accountability, they will act in their own self interest.
Plus UO is ranked 25th in the AP. 25 divided by 4 is 6.25 or a 6/7 seed. Oregon got shafted, plain and simple. It's impossible to defend the selection committee here.
Haha....finishing the season 8-5 is probably the single factor limiting our ranking. And yes, beating UCLA means next to nothing as a non-tourney team in Washington took us to OT and could have knocked us out of the tourney all together. Now we're pissed becuase we won 2 games after that and aren't an 8 seed? And yes, going 5-4 will be held against you regardless of injuries -- you should know that as a common fan -- and losing by 20 to a non-tournament team is probably weighing fairly heavy as bad losses are looked at as well. There nothing for them to be accountable for here. Could we be ranked higher? Sure. But whether we are an 8 or a 12 we still have to beat good teams in the tournament to advance so why get bent out of shape about it?
This post was edited by Bowerz101 13 months ago
If Washington beats us in the first round of the Pac-12 tourney, we would probably not even be in the tourney. Just think about that. How you close out the season the last 6 weeks is looked at closely when seeding.
We're going to have to beat 1's and 2's if we want to win it all either way so I don't see this being a huge deal.
Stolen from GoDucksScott on eDuck
Final AP rank vs seed
1- Gonzaga - 1 seed
2- Louisville - 1 seed
3- Kansas - 1 seed
4- Indiana - 1 seed
5- Miami - 2 seed
6- Duke - 2 seed
7- Ohio St - 2 seed
8- Georgetown - 2 seed
9- Michigan St - 3 seed
10- Michigan - 4 seed
10- New Mexico - 3 seed
12- Kansas St - 4 seed
13- St Louis - 4 seed
14- Florida - 3 seed
15- Marquette - 3 seed
16- Syracuse - 4 seed
17- Oklahoma St - 5 seed
18- Wisconsin - 5 seed
19- Memphis - 6 seed
20- Pitt - 8 seed
21- Arizona - 6 seed
22- Creighton - 7 seed
23- Notre Dame - 7 seed
24- UCLA - 6 seed
25- Oregon - 12 seed
26- VCU - 5 seed
27- N Carolina - 8 seed
28- UNLV - 5 seed
29- Butler - 6 seed
The 2 teams ranked around us in the final AP poll have a COMBINED seed better than ours...WTF!!!
This post was edited by Trogdor420 13 months ago
This is a very damning piece of evidence against the selection committee.
Again...we have to beat everyone anyway, but screw the NCAA and their bogus little committee.
Don't lose to Stanford and Colorado by 20 and I'm sure we are much higher. Our games were borderline unwatchable until the last two. We were literally a loss to Washington to not even making it. Be glad we pulled it together when we did and quit trying so hard to complain about everything.
omfg, get this. RPI doesn't count games vs non D1 teams. In other words, PLAYING NON D1 TEAMS CANNOT HURT YOUR SOS!
The MWC as a whole only played 37 teams with an RPI lower than 200. BUT they played FOURTEEN NON D1 teams, and NONE of those 14 games count in their RPI SOS. If the RPI IGNORES the 2 worst teams Oregon played, like it did for 2/3 of the MWC, OUR SOS IMPROVES ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE PLACES!!
THIS is how the mid major teams are gaming the system, and nobody seems to care because the big bad power conferences always have the upper hand, right? WRONG.
You keep stating that we almost lost to washington, but we didn't , its a win, so that part is irrelevant. I understand the rest of our losses, but other teams lost as well.
yes we have to beat every team anyways, but that doesnt mean all this isn't bs.
As far as the argument that we finished poorly goes, we went 8-4 in our last 12 games. If you look at the RPI rankings on ESPN, quite a few of the teams in the 25-50 range, and even a decent number in the top 25, went 6-6, 7-5, or 8-4 in their last 12 games (with losses to bad teams), and did not seem to be punished for the way they finished. Colorado lost to Utah, Oregon St., and Arizona St., and they still managed a 10 seed.
You should not try defending what cannot be defended -- the numbers correlating ranking and seeding are damning; we are so far outside the standard deviation it is incomprehensible. Yes, we played several poor games, but virtually every team above us and below us did as well. Utah was the only "bad loss" as defined by the bracketologists, most of the other teams around us had at least 3 or 4. In two of the mentioned "unsightly" losses, we lost to two NCAA tourney teams by only one point. In the meantime,
* We beat a 5 seed
* We beat one 6 seed once (only time played) and another 6 seed twice.
* We beat a decent if not great Doog team (with as much talent as the Ducks) three times
* Finished tied for second in a power conference
* Won the Pac-12 tournament
* Finished in the Top 25 in both major polls.
What did the coaches and sportswriters see that the committee did not? Hard to know, but it is obvious that the Committee ignored the Pac 12 tournament and lifted their ears and eyes only because they has to give out an automatic bid.
It is over and done with now, but do not give those idiots a free pass.
I wasn't emphasizing that we almost lost as much as I am saying we wouldn't even be in the tourney IF we lost so why are people crying about a 12 seed and we only had two mediocre wins after the fact?
This is circular, though.
We're a 12 seed because if we'd lost to UW, we wouldn't have made the tourney.
Why wouldn't we have made the tourney? Because we barely made it in as a 12 seed WITH the win.
I think Oregon deserved to make the tournament irrespective of whether we beat UW or not. Of course, the committee probably would have disagreed, and since I don't get a vote then the Ducks wouldn't be in the Dance.
BUT... since I disagree with them, I don't think that your argument holds much water here, man.
This post was edited by Ed O 13 months ago
HAHA. Talk about contradicting yourself. First you say that beating UCLA without their big man doesn't do much for you or the committee, then you say that regardless of Artis being out that you have to do better than 5-4. So your saying that if the opponent has an injury, the win is discounted, but if your team has an injury a loss is not. Great logic there pal.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports