wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:51 pm
MoralTerpitude wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:26 pm
Homer wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 6:05 pm
Gobigred wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 5:46 pm
Notre Dame's wins over Duke were devalued when the committee drilled down to see what underpinned Duke's seemingly too-high RPI. They found Duke had three losses against RPI 21+ teams. Look closely. That's part of an important selection criterion. The committee didn't make that criterion up. As a result, buh bye Duke. Therefore, buh bye ND's two best wins.
But I think the concern (at least, the reasonable, non-whiny version) is that that's exactly what the committee did with Notre Dame. Which would
not be following the criteria.
The criteria say "when considering Team X for selection, value their win over Team Y according to Team Y's RPI ranking." That's not at all the same thing as "value their win over Team Y according to your independent assessment of Team Y applying all the selection criteria, as you would when considering Team Y for selection."
More broadly, I think something that's maybe getting lost with people splitting into opposing camps on this is that it's entirely possible to think the decision to leave Duke out was perfectly reasonable and consistent with the criteria, while finding the decision on Notre Dame iffy at best. That's basically my view: the committee got it right with Duke, then seemingly got sucked into some sort of weird circular reasoning where they treated their decision on Duke as dictating what to do with ND, and came out with a decision that doesn't make a ton of logical sense.
This is exactly the conclusion I came to.
it makes exactly zero sense. which is what you get as the committee ties itself into knots explaining contradictory reasoning. not the 1st time, it's time honored.
harvard is in, then nd should be in in any logical world. discarding duke wins is asinine.
they seriously would be bettter off saying "that's who we chose". it'll change now again year to year and no one will know what's up ahead of time, so why bother?
Believe wgdsr is saying the committee shouldn’t have devalued ND’s two wins over Duke, and should have given them full value as two wins against RPI #7.
Here’s the thing, though. I think Duke’s RPI versus their quality of wins and losses is an extreme outlier, which I think led the committee to essentially ignore their RPI when considering Notre Dame’s wins over them. It is certainly not inline with the committee’s stated criteria… however I have a really hard time considering it unjust that the committee devalued them so much.
Has there been a team in the last ten years that had a pre-NCAA tournament top-10 rpi, with three bad losses, and no wins against teams above #9?