FWIW

[CJHawkeyes]

I found enough information on the web that allowed me to produce a fair, but imperfect, approximation of how my ranking system would impact the NCAA tournament. List belowe are teh 65 teams' seeds under my system with their actual seed listed to the right of their name. Have at it.



1 Ohio State 1
1 Memphis 2
1 UCLA 2
1 Kansas 1
2 North Carolina 1
2 Wisconsin 2
2 Florida 1
2 Pittsburgh 3
3 Georgetown 2
3 UNLV 7
3 Southern Illinois 4
3 Nevada 7
4 Texas A&M 3
4 Maryland 4
4 Davidson 13
4 Oregon 3
5 Butler 5
5 VCU 11
5 Duke 6
5 Marquette 8
6 Arizona 8
6 Tennessee 5
6 BYU 8
6 Winthrop 11
7 Washington St 3
7 Kentucky 8
7 Notre Dame 6
7 Villanova 9
8 Xavier 9
8 Texas 4
8 Old Dominion 12
8 Louisville 6
9 Michigan St 9
9 Creighton 10
9 Illinois 12
9 Holy Cross 13
10 TAMUCC 15
10 Southern California 5
10 Boston College 7
10 Gonzaga 10
11 New Mexico St 13
11 Virginia Tech 5
11 Purdue 9
11 Indiana 7
12 George Washington 11
12 Long Beach 12
12 Vanderbilt 6
12 Arkansas 12
13 Virginia 4
13 Georgia Tech 10
13 Texas Tech 10
13 Pennsylvania 14
14 Wright St 14
14 Albany 13
14 Oral Roberts 14
14 Stanford 11
15 Belmont 15
15 Niagara 16
15 Central Connecticut 16
15 MiamiOhio 14
16 North Texas 15
16 Eastern Kentucky 16
16 Weber St 15
16 Jackson St 16
16 Florida A&M 16

[Bucky]

I found enough information on the web that allowed me to produce a fair, but imperfect, approximation of how my ranking system would impact the NCAA tournament. List belowe are teh 65 teams' seeds under my system with their actual seed listed to the right of their name. Have at it.



1 Ohio State 1
1 Memphis 2
1 UCLA 2
1 Kansas 1
2 North Carolina 1
2 Wisconsin 2
2 Florida 1
2 Pittsburgh 3
3 Georgetown 2
3 UNLV 7
3 Southern Illinois 4
3 Nevada 7
4 Texas A&M 3
4 Maryland 4
4 Davidson 13
4 Oregon 3
5 Butler 5
5 VCU 11
5 Duke 6
5 Marquette 8
6 Arizona 8
6 Tennessee 5
6 BYU 8
6 Winthrop 11
7 Washington St 3
7 Kentucky 8
7 Notre Dame 6
7 Villanova 9
8 Xavier 9
8 Texas 4
8 Old Dominion 12
8 Louisville 6
9 Michigan St 9
9 Creighton 10
9 Illinois 12
9 Holy Cross 13
10 TAMUCC 15
10 Southern California 5
10 Boston College 7
10 Gonzaga 10
11 New Mexico St 13
11 Virginia Tech 5
11 Purdue 9
11 Indiana 7
12 George Washington 11
12 Long Beach 12
12 Vanderbilt 6
12 Arkansas 12
13 Virginia 4
13 Georgia Tech 10
13 Texas Tech 10
13 Pennsylvania 14
14 Wright St 14
14 Albany 13
14 Oral Roberts 14
14 Stanford 11
15 Belmont 15
15 Niagara 16
15 Central Connecticut 16
15 MiamiOhio 14
16 North Texas 15
16 Eastern Kentucky 16
16 Weber St 15
16 Jackson St 16
16 Florida A&M 16



I think we need more computers in college sports!!

[CJHawkeyes]

I knew I could count on you to respond. Even more "shocking" is the fact that you made a critical comment and did nothing to back it up. Also funny is that you continue to be one of those fans that thinks computers actually play a role.

That said, the approximation would have placed nine different teams into the NCAA tournament. While I certainly can accept opposition to rules I favor, I do not understand your objection to rules altogether. Do the handful of seedings that greatly differ make it better that at-large qualifiers and seedings are arbitrary?

College basketball, like football, is too enamored with the name on the uniform which why far too many people dismiss results produced by objective rules when those results do not match their subjective perceptions. Based on the results I posted, 38 teams are within one place of actual seeding, 44 within two, 50 within three, and 57 within four. The eight that differ by five or more all involve mid-majors moving up and majors going down. The average difference in seeding is plus or minus two. Why is that bad?