Anyone remember "Last 10" being important?

[revcort]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

 

[Backer cutter]

Yes I remember, not sure they still put any importance in it or not, but they should.

 

[mcwildcats04]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

I think it deserves a LOT of consideration. Is this no longer considered at all? I think this should absolutely be an important metric that factors into seeding. Who cares what you did all the way back in November (Evansville, Evansville, Evansville)?

 

[Ukbrassowtipin]

The criteria changes based on how duke is playing. Conference tournaments dont matter, until they play well in theirs

 

[Baller Cal]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

Good point and it's absolutely nuts that more weight isn't placed on the 2nd half of the season. All this time to look at past tournaments and the NET is the best they can come up with? The NCAA is incompetent (and biased) from top to bottom.

 

[Bkocats]

I just wish we could open with conference season, or do like football and schedule both in conference and OOC throughout the year
I’m tired of paying the penalty for the perception of the SEC being a weak basketball conference

 

[Bill Withers]

The criteria changes based on how duke is playing. Conference tournaments dont matter, until they play well in theirs

The constantly moving targets. And the whole NET ambiguity is perfect for it.

 

[Gassy_Knowls]

Yes I remember, not sure they still put any importance in it or not, but they should.

I don’t think it does anymore because the only thing that matters is how you’re playing 3 games into the season

 

[akaukswoosh]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

It should be but apparently is no longer.

 

[uky8unc5]

It WILL be considered.

I refuse to believe the Selection Committee is going to forfeit their credibility and recuse their responsibility by mirroring idiotic nonsensical screwed-up metrics.

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

I think it deserves a LOT of consideration. Is this no longer considered at all? I think this should absolutely be an important metric that factors into seeding. Who cares what you did all the way back in November (Evansville, Evansville, Evansville)?

“Remember Remember, Evansville in November”

 

[Lost In FL]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

Its not a consideration bc Duke has stunk during the last 10.

 

[bigbluelou]

It's pretty simple. Just figure out what will benefit Dook the most, then build (or tweak) the tool around it.

Bada bing, bada boom.

 

[bthaunert]

It’s been a couple years now that they did away with that. I always thought it was a good thing to consider. The one thing I always consider is if you put less emphasis on the Evansville loss, does that also mean you put less emphasis on the Michigan State win?

 

[JerseyCat84_rivals57050]

They are important. We’ve made our way back to most likely #5 or 6 ranking.

 

[TurnipDaBeet]

I dont trust or count on anything the committee says. It’s all phony balogna bulljive.

 

[MoneyMuntz]

Last 10 games is fairly arbitrary, but no doubt how a team has played on a recency basis should be heavily considered.

 

[hotelblue]

if you want more tourney “excitement” teams who are playing well at the end of the year are better picks to play well. you’d think. it definitely was a deciding factor in several snub conversations in the ‘00’s.

 

[uky8unc5]

If you put less emphasis on the Evansville loss, does that also mean you put less emphasis on the Michigan State win?

The answer is: YES.
Winning or Losing a single game in November should not influence March.

 

[Blue till I die]

Sagarin considers recency bias, that's why it's the most accurate matrix this year

That's why were 5 th right now

http://sagarin.com/sports/cbsend.htm

 

[BBBLazing]

I just wish we could open with conference season, or do like football and schedule both in conference and OOC throughout the year
I’m tired of paying the penalty for the perception of the SEC being a weak basketball conference

To fix this we have to play better out of conference opponents, and then not lose to the two weakest ooc teams we played.

 

[BBBLazing]

The answer is: YES.
Winning or Losing a single game in November should not influence March.

Playing devil's advocate, do you think that losing to probably the worst team in NCAA, or close to it, is in any way an indicator of whether the team that lost could be upset early in the tournament?

 

[Blueaz]

To fix this we have to play better out of conference opponents, and then not lose to the two weakest ooc teams we played.

Even if half of our bad wins moved up a quad. We would still be outside looking in for a two seed. According to the metrics.

 

[Blueaz]

Playing devil's advocate, do you think that losing to probably the worst team in NCAA, or close to it, is in any way an indicator of whether the team that lost could be upset early in the tournament?

Ask UVA

 

[nssdigitalchumps]

To fix this we have to play better out of conference opponents, and then not lose to the two weakest ooc teams we played.

like Louisville and MSU? I wish we played them this year...

 

[ColonelCat_rivals376764]

Let's just play the games and see where the chips fall.

 

[hotelblue]

Even if half of our bad wins moved up a quad. We would still be outside looking in for a two seed. According to the metrics.

luckily there’s a human net waiting that probably couldn’t explain the metrics themselves. that should be a good sign.

 

[uky8unc5]

Playing devil's advocate, do you think that losing to probably the worst team in NCAA, or close to it, is in any way an indicator of whether the team that lost could be upset early in the tournament?

Fair question. Yes, it is a factor to consider.
BUT it is totally erased IF you consider mitigating facts:
...Nov 10
...One-and-Done reload + Freshman dependent
...Missing EJ (and 2 sick starters)
...Jan/Feb clearly different team
...Win SEC Title + Conf Tournament (IF we do)

In other words, the Selection Committee either should disband and leave things to Computers OR DO THEIR JOB.

 

[Baller Cal]

like Louisville and MSU? I wish we played them this year...

Exactly. We should have played Dayton's OOC schedule (Kansas and Georgia). That's why they're on the 1 line! smh

 

[rick64]

That’s what pisses Cal off. Every year it’s something different. One year it’s the last 10 games, next year it’s OOC wins, next year RPI, blah blah blah.

 

[CatOfDaVille]

I honestly think they did away with the recency factor because of Gonzaga and other mid majors. It was hurting their metrics because their conference opponents are so weak.

 

[bigblueinsanity_rivals250340]

The criteria changes based on how duke is playing. Conference tournaments dont matter, until they play well in theirs

This. It's all just a bunch of loose ideas they apply to justify whatever outcome they want, including Duke getting a cakewalk

 

[TheOtherGreatOne]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

They can't do that this year duke has lost 3 of their last 10 games all losses to unranked teams. If they did that last 10 games junk how in the world could they give dike I mean duke a 1 seed ?

 

[OHIO COLONEL]

If they don't factor in how a team is playing going into the tournament...why don't they quit wasting time and just seed by the preseason rankings?

 

[The_Answer1313_rivals]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

Being completely honest, although it was criteria years back.......I never really found much evidence they really used it.

Whenever they talk about seeding it's always who did u beat. It's never well this team beat them in November and this team beat them in February so that one is more important.

It's always been resume based and I'm not entirely sure when they consider all of the factors that just ever played much a role.

I'm not entirely sure it should either. I think it adds complexity and you have a bunch of humans already having to deal with seeding teams and bracketing.

For example you can't just be like well Team A went 7-3 down the stretch and Team B went 3-7. But then you have to consider schedules, where the games were played etc etc. And you have to do this for all teams.

Plus one would assume if a team does poorly in their last 10, that's already accounted for in the resumes to begin with. Same with a hot win streak.

 

[Aike]

It hasn’t been used for a long time. I think it should be considered. I suspect it isn’t considered because they would rather reward teams who return a lot of seniors and play well early, while possibly punishing the one and done type teams who gel late.

 

[Jamal Mercer]

That was a bit of criteria that actually made sense.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

Been thinking about this very subject for a few weeks now. It’s that old moving target the NCAA uses. They move that target as much as they can. Always to our detriment.

 

[kl40504_rivals]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

It depends on the team. If it is Duke it is the 10 you won.

 

[Poetax]

I can remember several years ago that one of the criteria that was considered important in seeding was performance over the last 10 games of the season. It was attempting to measure which teams are performing well as the season is ending. I certainly wouldn't consider that the most important factor to consider, but I do believe it deserves some consideration. What do you all think?

If we looked back we would probably see that some ACC teams had it rough early but came on strong at the end and the NCAA said the last 10 games were extremely important for seeding. They might have been using the "Carolina Way or Dook way" back then as a method.