I won't beat the dead horse with another long post about my thoughts, but a lot would have changed in Cincy D3 last year, mainly putting seeds 2-5 in a worse position given how placement is done today.
Martin RPI
- Thread starter Hback
- Start date
BINGO! What you will not have now is a coach inflating his own seed with a vote or reducing another teams seed to help himself or his conference with a vote.
Bracket placement is not changing.
Agree!
But...if RPI was used for seeding last year in Cincy D3 the bracket would have looked drastically different than it did because the best team in ohio would have gone up after 6 teams had already gone up, as opposed to going up first where they belonged.
As you said the #1 seed is earned. A great team that only wins 11 games and loses 8 has not "earned" the #1 seed. The Buckeyes can be the most talented team in college football but if they end up losing 3 games they will not have earned a #1 seed. There is a difference between being the best and earning the best spot in my eyes.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
I think the #2 seed should come with benefits too but I've seen teams avoid the #1 seed and stack the bottom half of the bracket. When the #2-#7 drop to the bottom half and the #1's best competition is the #8 seed until the district final, something is wrong.@spirit454 will be shocked to hear I disagree with this post!
In my mind the beauty of the coaches seeding and placing is you earn the #1 seed from your peers and then get to chart out your most advantageous path through the tournament. The lower you go in seeding the less options you have. Most coaches in Cincy/Dayton talk before the seed meeting so they know where other top teams are planning on going on the bracket. Earning the #1 seed has clear rewards. Different strokes for different folks though!
Earned the seed through their performance and respect gained from voting coaches, not just wins and losses.
@Yappi difference of opinions and no right or wrong....I often see the scenario you lay out and I prefer that. I like that the #6 is able to choose to go with 2-5 if they think they could beat them instead of in with the #1 who they know they are a big underdog against.
By that reasoning schools should schedule a bunch of weak teams to pad their record (which a lot do) instead of playing against the best and coming out with some losses?
OhioBBLines
New member
You understand some coaches do not want the bye though? They want to play an easy game first to have their kids get their legs under them and used to tourney play.
You can still do that - but with the Martin RPI, you will be penalized a bit by it. Similar to football. You can schedule a bunch of small schools or teams that will go 2-8 and you finish 10-0 but you may be the 7 seed in the region.
This happens with coaches voting. With the RPI it filters out the value of weak teams and the strength of the schedule and drop those teams only searching for wins.
Let's all agree that no system we currently have is perfect, but winning games against a tough schedule should carry more value then winning games against a weak schedule OR playing a tough schedule and losing.
Richmond Heights in D4 is a good example I think. Played the toughest schedule in all D4 and won over 80% of their games. They earned their seeding spot.
My comment was in reference to Taft.....who at 11-8 would have been the 7th seed in the SW District....which would have been absurd. The coaches obviously understood that and voted accordingly. Taft played the 3rd toughest schedule in the state in D3
Right, but you're penalized much more by scheduling a tough schedule and losing some of those games.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
I understand that. And if it was about what individual coaches wanted, that would be fine. But I am more concerned about the overall health of the sport. A #1 playing the #12 and #11 seeds just shouldn't happen in the first two rounds.
I would never want the NCAA to go to this format.
Please tell me you understand there are over 200 D3 schools that are affected by seeding and a system is not being designed to place Taft at the top even if they play poorly during the regular season.
Hypothetical question: what Would have happened had Taft been seeded as an 11-8 team? Would they have suddenly lost to Anna who played the #7 seed? Would they have lost to Lewistown had their seeding been different? Had they been the 7th seed would they have not made it to regionals?
The reward is your experience and being ready for a tournament run. No penalty.
I love our back and forth on this, but you continue to avoid the main points.
Point 1 - any "ranking" system that has the clear best team in Ohio as 7th in their own sectional (40-something in Ohio) is unreliable. IMO rankings/seedings should be in order of the best teams, regardless of records.
Point 2 - the mis-seeding of Taft would not have changed their tournament trajectory, but would have changed many other teams. The way SWOH does it now the coaches have some control over who their potential match-ups are in the tnmt barring upsets. If Taft went up 7th, 1-6 loses that ability bc they don't know where the best team is going. Georgetown had a great run which may have never happened if Taft liked their bracket early.
Also, Taft didn't play poorly as their record may indicate. They competed extremely well against one of the toughest schedules in the state which is why everyone knew they were by far the best team in this region. Further evidence that emphasis on record is a poor way to rank teams.
1. A point of reality is that a team cannot go 11-8 on their season and be the "clear best team in Ohio. Your ranking was in your corner of the state. And this is about developing a statewide system. You keep forgetting that. There were teams that played tougher schedules and did better.
2. The accurate seeding of an 11-8 team would have had the same result for them if they go on a 8 game wining streak in post season. With coaches still placing themselves on a bracket and we all know they discuss placement before the meeting, so the coaches with the options to avoid a bracket would still be there. Coaches would still have some control over potential matchups. Coaches KNOW where others are going. Specially the ones they are concerned about. Maybe someone other than Georgetown deserved a run but G-town got it last year.
I would suggest that Taft keep doing what they are doing and at the end of the season they will be playing their best basketball and will have a chance to make it to the Final Four. Even if they are a 6th seed.
1. Taft was unequivocally the best D3 team in SWOH and a favorite to win state last year at 11-8 and everyone knew it including the coaches who unanimously voted them the #1 seed.
2. We agree, the mis-seeding of Taft would not have hurt them but it may have made CHCA the team to make the run instead of Gtown. So it would have drastically changed the brackets.
Completely agree with Taft continuing to do what they do.
1. I feel like I'm beating my head when I repeatedly tell you this is a statewide discussion for all divisions and D3(Taft) in SWOH is 5% of it.
2. Why are you against CHCA having a good tourney run? Every year someone will have a good run that a single placement of a team could alter. It's always a what if?
They absolutely should and my guess is they will. Even if it gets them a 6th seed and the win lots of tournament games.
1. Right now the discussion is by district, as NWOH has adopted it and nobody else has
2. I'm not against CHCA making the run, or anyone else, only point was that the bracket would have looked completely different if Taft was mis-seeded
1. No, the NWAD has already decided to use it this season to see how it goes. The discussion is about using a statewide system for tournament seeding.
2. The bracket would look different every time if seeding was changed. Someone will always make a run.
The only fact is the NW is using it, which we agree on. The whole state looking at it is conjecture.
Both true
It’s a fact that the discussion is about finding a system for the entire state. That’s a fact and your belief doesn’t change that.
Time will tell, fact remains that NW has adopted it and SW hasn't even talked about it.
Incorrect again. I have already spoken with a Cincy area AD and 2 Dayton area coaches who have said they have been talked to just to get opinions.
@spirit454 I heard from a SWOH coach last week and he said they received an email from the NWDAB secretary telling them they are using the RPI this year and telling them they are doing it across the state to see if it can be used in the future. It also says they want to do the pilot to see how closely it compares to actually seeding at the end of the year. Two thoughts:
1. Why is the NWDAB pushing this so hard? The secretary even offered to input scores for people if they send them to him. Sounds like he REALLY wants this to happen in other districts for some odd reason. You would think, if there was support from OHSBCA and OHSAA, a request for a pilot would come from them, not the secretary of the NWDAB.
2. I think this is GREAT and follows everything I have said in this thread. If they can tweak it to match reality, I'm all for using it. They recognize the seeding by coaches is the most accurate and they want to match that closely. Good for them!
1. Why is the NWDAB pushing this so hard? The secretary even offered to input scores for people if they send them to him. Sounds like he REALLY wants this to happen in other districts for some odd reason. You would think, if there was support from OHSBCA and OHSAA, a request for a pilot would come from them, not the secretary of the NWDAB.
2. I think this is GREAT and follows everything I have said in this thread. If they can tweak it to match reality, I'm all for using it. They recognize the seeding by coaches is the most accurate and they want to match that closely. Good for them!
I think I have tried many times to get you to understand this. The district directors all across the state have been talking about this and most, if not all of those directors see a valuable use for the RPI. This was done at the state level. The Coach's Assoc Pres is in the NWD and talked to some fellow coaches much closer and the word got out and it was discussed further. It was decided by NW coaches to give it a try.
The discussion is how far off is it and IF it can be tweaked to factor extremes. (Taft winning only 11 games) It has also been said that the ranking will be more accurate with set teams for district sites. Which is not what the SWO district does at this time.
Only question is why did this come from the NWDAB rather than district reps. An email from district 15/16 presidents to their coaches would carry more weight down here than something from NWDAB.
"Extreme" - the best team in the state playing a loaded schedule against teams much bigger than them where they won't win the majority of their games. That situation happens every season here to some extent where teams schedule tough, lose games and are seeded above teams with a better record.
The email was sent to ADs all over the state from the NWDAB Secretary. This was an information only email and was a suggestion from Cbus to keep everyone in loop. District presidents were already aware of it.
it’s obvious you are aTaft fan and will never understand unless Taft gets the #1 seed. So let’s just agree that a system that works the best may not be perfect and move on. The fact the all district reps support the idea says something.