Talking Heads' Fallacy

[Mike Radigan]

During the post selection telecast, Jim Nantz and Billy Packer were plain rude to Craig Littlepage. But additionally, their argument was bogus even if it was predicated on past performance. They argued that the ACC, for example, has gone further in the tournament and has won more tournaments than the MVC. And because of that, a team like Maryland should beat out a team like BU for a birth in the tournament. The fallacy with that is if you compare seeds the ACC hasn’t fared any better. BU didn’t knock Duke out of a tournament selection, they knocked out Maryland. Since when has an ACC 13 seed made the Final 4 let alone won the title? And that is what the selection is, who should get in with a 13 seed. The committee felt BU was a better 13, not a 1, than Maryland.

Now for a few facts about this season comparing the MVC to only the conferences rated ahead of them.

MVC vs Big East 2-3
MVC vs Big 10 3-3
MVC vs ACC 0-0
MVC vs SEC 1-0
MVC vs Big 12 1-3

MVC vs all of the above 7 – 9
Sites MVC 6 home 8 away 2 neutral
MVC avg points per game from above games 67.6875 vs 68.8125

I'm a BU fan, but I hope the Valley can stick together and root for all our teams. In addition to what I wrote above, the infamous Dooky V predicted Wichita State would get upset. Get an attitude, Panthers, and kick some tail.

[Newsbreaker]

Actually, the fallacy is that past success is never an accurate predictor of future victory. Yes, Maryland (thanks to higher seeds/better teams) in the PAST have been more successful. That does not, however, equate to a single point on the scoreboard the next time they are in.

[UNIAlum95]

Actually, the fallacy is that past success is never an accurate predictor of future victory. Yes, Maryland (thanks to higher seeds/better teams) in the PAST have been more successful. That does not, however, equate to a single point on the scoreboard the next time they are in.

I loved Packer's suggestion that the smaller conferences must "prove" themselves over a five year period to be considered for multiple births in the tourney. What they really want is a BCS selection for the NCAA tournament. They would be happier seeing Penn State vs Kansas State in the dance then WSU vs Bucknell.

BTW - Mr Nantz, your statement of "I'll have to respectively disagree" regarding the selection of "mid-major" schools over the so-called "power conference schools" was said without ANY respect for Craig Littlepage and the selection committee. He deserves a public apology for your little tantrum in front of a national audience.

[Matt Trump]

Packer is notorius for selection day outbursts. Didn't he get into it with the St. Joe's coach 2 years ago????

[UNIAlum95]

Packer is notorius for selection day outbursts. Didn't he get into it with the St. Joe's coach 2 years ago????

Nice memory. I had forgotten about that.

[panther2317]

Packer is a good basketball guy...problem is he calls ACC games all year long and is a Wake Forest grad...so he's really got no idea what goes on outside of the ACC year in and year out. His assertion that 'small schools' must prove their worth over a 5-10 year period is incredibly dense...doesn't he realize that the kids playing for teams NOW were 8-12 years old 10 years ago and probably weren't fans of the teams they play for (pointed out by my best friend's wife)? Many of the coaches weren't coaching their current teams that long ago either.

Guys like Packer want this to be a 34 at-large bid BCS conference tournament. He's ok with 'small schools' getting in that win their conference tournament, but he believes that the best 34 at-large teams every year reside in the BCS conferences. He'd been waiting for weeks for the Valley tirade...I guarantee it. And he still looked like an ass doing it. He talks about the # of wins, but he failed to mention that many of those ACC teams were scheduled #1 or #2...that's 2 guaranteed wins per team each year. What he needed to compare (to make it apples to apples) is the record of any ACC team seeded in the double-digits the last 5 years vs. the Valley.

[tcondon]

Over the past 5 years that Packer and Nance were talking about, here are the final at large bids by seed:

2005
UNI (11)--lost in 1st Round (0-1)
Iowa (10)--lost in 1st Round (0-1)
NC State (10)--Advanced to Sweet 16 (2-1)
UAB (11)--Advanced to 2nd Round (1-1)
UCLA (11)--Lost in 1st Round (0-1)
St. Mary's (10)--Lost in 1st Round (0-1)

The final 3 major conference teams went 2-3, the non BCS conferences went 1-3. Not a huge difference.

2004
Richmond (11)--Lost in first round (0-1)
Air Force (11)--Lost in first round (0-1)
BYU (12)--Lost in first round (0-1)
UTEP (13)--Lost in first round (0-1)
South Carolina (10)--Lost in 1st round (0-1)
Louisville (10)--Lost in first round (0-1).

Everybody sucked, BCS conferences 0-1, the others were 0-5.

2003
Butler (12)--Advanced to Sweet 16 (2-1)
BYU (12)--Lost in 1st Round (0-1)
Southern Illinois (11)--Lost in 1st Round (0-1)
Arizona State (10)--Advanced to 2nd round (1-1)
Auburn (10)--Advanced to Sweet 16 (2-1)
Colorado (10)--Lost in 1st round (0-1)
Alabama (10)--Lost in 1st round (0-1)

Auburn helped lead the BCS conferences to a 3-4 mark in the tournament for the final 4 at large canidates from the big conferences. Butler took the little guys to a 2-3 record.

2002
Southern Illinois (11)--Advanced to the Sweet 16 (2-1)
Boston College (11)--Lost in first round (0-1)
Utah (12)--Lost in first round (0-1)
Missouri (12)--Advanced to Elite 8 (3-1)
Wyoming (11)--Advanced to 2nd round (1-1)
Pepperdine (10)--Lost in first round (0-1)
Michigan State (10)--Lost in first round (0-1)

Missouri lead the BCS conferences to a 3-3 record, while the smaller conferences went 3-4.

2001
Oklahoma State (11)--Lost in round 1 (0-1)
BYU (12)--Lost in first round (0-1)
Xavier (11)--Lost in first round (0-1)
Providence (10)--Lost in first round (0-1)
Georgetown (10)--Advanced to Sweet 16 (2-1)
Creighton (10)--Lost in first round (0-1)

2-3 for the Big Boys, 0-3 for the little guys.

What I have learned from all of this is that the final at large teams usually suck. Missouri made a nice run, and that is it. Fans, commentators and everybody else just needs to relax about these final bids. They really don't matter when it comes to the NCAA Tournament. For every Butler and Southern Illinois, you have a BYU that has gone 0-3 in their last 3 at large births. For every Missouri, you have an Iowa that gets pounded in the first round.

14 teams from the BCS conferences received the final bids, 18 from non BCS conferences.

* 5 of the 14 teams from BCS conferences won a game in the NCAA Tournament (35.7%).

* 4 of the 18 teams from non-BCS conferences won a game in the NCAA Tournament (22.2%).

[UNIAlum95]

TC, that is good stuff. Nice to see the actual numbers behind the BS. I still think Nantz owes the selection committee an apology this weekend.

[Panthers to the Bone]

How many of these teams played #1 or #2 seeds in the second round, and how many beat those #1 or #2 seeds.

[tcondon]

How many of these teams played #1 or #2 seeds in the second round, and how many beat those #1 or #2 seeds.

Of the teams that advanced to the Sweet 16:

2005 NC State beat #7 Charlotte and #2 UConn

2003 Butler beat #5 Mississippi St. and #4 Louisville

2003 Auburn beat #7 St. Joe's and #2 Wake Forest

2002 Southern Illinois beat #6 Texas Tech & #3 Georgia

2002 Missouri beat #5 Miami (FL), #4 Ohio State & #8 UCLA

2001 Georgetown beat #7 Arkansas & #15 Hampton

[HoyaAG]

While I certainly think the MVC deserved four bids and I wouldn't have been angry at a fifth, and while I agree Nantz was attacking the wrong selections (why attack the MVC when Air Force got in?), I have to ask three things:

1. Do you really think Littlepage isn't an idiot? This is one of the worst seeded tourneys I've seen; it looks like the worst since 2000. His explanations for who got in and who didn't were not only illogical, but inconsistent, almost as if he was trying to justify subjective impressions with facts.

(And for the record, I think they underseeded both our teams. Poor Ohio State).

2. Are you really upset that the MVC got four bids? Being a bit greedy, aren't we?

3. Missouri State may or may not have gotten screwed. Your fixation on the RPI is misplaced. It is a throwaway stat to begin with and the committee does not live or die by it.

The committee left out major conference teams that played no one in non-conference. Why should MSU get in? They played one Top 50 RPI team non-conference and lost. (Though the UW-M game was a point in their favor).

You guys played LSU, Iowa and Iowa St. And went 2-1! That's a great resume. MSU's looks hollow and it looks held up by wins in conference where rvialries and familiarity can breed upset.

Southern Illinois took the automatic bid and took MSU's bid as the MVC team who gets in without beating anyone non-conference.

I guess I'm not sure what the furor is over. Or rather, I understand the furor, but it isn't like it is cut and dry that MSU was guaranteed a bid. The MVC is a good conference, and got four. Seems reasonable. Cincy got screwed as well, and they are in the BE -- so it isn't a small conference thing. It's just a bad job by the committee.

[pantherfan4ever]

First of all, I do think there were quite a few teams that got in that i was very surprised about, and there were some that didnt get in that i was surprised about.. i think MSU was as worthy as air force and utah state, but im not mad that they didnt get in considering i think cinci should probably be in over any of the above listed teams and they got snubbed too. none of these teams played good non-conference teams so if we look at purely conference schedules i have to go with cinci in the BE...

What i am very frustrated with is how those 2 ripped into the chair about the records of major conference teams in the tourny compared to the midmajor records.. they CAN'T be compared because the major teams that racked up ALL those wins were teams seeded very high and played 12-16 seeded teams...

When they were "trying to make their point" to the committee chair, they totally forgot to mention that the Mid-Major conference teams that get into the tourny are almost ALWAYS playing seeds in the single digits, where as the major conference teams are almost always the high seeds playing against the 12-16 seeds. This makes a HUGE difference in our tourny records (Like UNI played Wisconsin and Georgia Tech the last 2 years and played them both to 5 points and both those teams were among the best in the county and were seeded much higher than us..) Let UNI, Bradley, SIU, CU, MSU, and WS play against 12-16 seeds and I gurentee our records would not be that much different than the big confereneces.. yes, we do not have any contenders where they do, but our records overall would not be that far apart. They tried to compare win totals for teams in the major conferences that were 1-5 seeds to mids that got 12-16 seeds... that just can't be compared.

[Matt Trump]

While I certainly think the MVC deserved four bids and I wouldn't have been angry at a fifth, and while I agree Nantz was attacking the wrong selections (why attack the MVC when Air Force got in?), I have to ask three things:

1. Do you really think Littlepage isn't an idiot? This is one of the worst seeded tourneys I've seen; it looks like the worst since 2000. His explanations for who got in and who didn't were not only illogical, but inconsistent, almost as if he was trying to justify subjective impressions with facts.

(And for the record, I think they underseeded both our teams. Poor Ohio State).

2. Are you really upset that the MVC got four bids? Being a bit greedy, aren't we?

3. Missouri State may or may not have gotten screwed. Your fixation on the RPI is misplaced. It is a throwaway stat to begin with and the committee does not live or die by it.

The committee left out major conference teams that played no one in non-conference. Why should MSU get in? They played one Top 50 RPI team non-conference and lost. (Though the UW-M game was a point in their favor).

You guys played LSU, Iowa and Iowa St. And went 2-1! That's a great resume. MSU's looks hollow and it looks held up by wins in conference where rvialries and familiarity can breed upset.

Southern Illinois took the automatic bid and took MSU's bid as the MVC team who gets in without beating anyone non-conference.

I guess I'm not sure what the furor is over. Or rather, I understand the furor, but it isn't like it is cut and dry that MSU was guaranteed a bid. The MVC is a good conference, and got four. Seems reasonable. Cincy got screwed as well, and they are in the BE -- so it isn't a small conference thing. It's just a bad job by the committee.

I think most people agree with what you are saying. What people are upset about is the bashing that the national media is doing to the Valley. The teams that made it were worthy, and these attacks on the conference are not.

[HoyaAG]

Agree, Reed.

Frankly, we're all very happy to watch Gary Williams froth at the mouth. Maybe you should try beating Clemson next time, Gary!

[Cobra 23]

I was just hoping that Maryland and Missouri St. would get matched up on the same bracket in the NIT, but instead it would be a finals matchup. That would be great if Maryland lost to Creighton and Missouri St. beat Cincy to play in the finals.