Purdue starting to show up as a 4 seed in some brackets. Also Alabama is probably a solid 3 right now. Theyâre 8th in WAB and the committee has indicated they care more about that than a teamâs own NET ranking.
2 Likes
The question with Bama is do they get knocked a seed line as unofficial consideration for Bediako.
5 Likes
It would be surprising/disappointing if the committee simply did nothing with regards to Bediako. Heâs an ineligible player that played a meaningful role in a handful of conference games.
2 Likes
The Bediako impact is pretty minimal, the only game of note really is 1 away win against a bad Auburn team that does still count as Q1 who they went and beat again without Bediako.
They have 2 Q1 losses with Bediako and 2 Q2 wins so really the resume isnât much better because of him. If the committee tries to punish them just for having Bediako, then the NCAA would be sued probably given how the TRO was written.
1 Like
NCAA actually already spoke on this, heâs just being seen as another available player meaning it will be treated as someone thatâs not available rather than games forfeited: NCAA clarifies how Alabama, Charles Bediako will be handled at March Madness mock seeding - Yahoo Sports .
Not their star player with so few games played and theyâre 20-6 without himâŚthe committeeâs not going to do anything there.
1 Like
Eh, thatâs why I said âknock a seed lineâ and âunofficialâ. If theyâre borderline 3/4, how you going to prove intent if theyâre the first #4 instead of the last #3? A couple of spots on the S curve will never be actionable. Plus I would think you would also have to show some sort of damage, and there isnât any material damage that comes from a difference in a seed line or so.
3 Likes
I would also like to see what the committee does with Gonzaga and Braden Huff? He is their second best player, been out since mid January, with no timeline to return this year. They are 11-2 since, with that terrible Portland loss and @St Marys. Just feels like his lack of availability should knock them down to a 4.
1 Like
What would they sue for? A TRO stopping the tourney to straighten out their seed? Obviously not happening. There are no measurable damages either. If I am the NCAA I drop them to a 5 seed just to show other teams not to play an ineligible player. There is absolutely nothing Bama could do about it but complain. This is one case the NCAA could stand on principle and have it hold up.
1 Like
Iâm not a lawyer but I mean if the NCAA wants smoke they could go for it but this was the language of the TRO - âHe also ruled that the NCAA is ârestrained from threatening, imposing, attempting to impose, suggesting or implying any penalties or sanctionsâ against Bediako, Alabama, its coaches or players.â
Now as @StLouHoo said, if itâs done under the table yea not much can be said or done about it but if the NCAA was like âWe bumped Alabama because of Bediakoâ it seems like they would be inviting a lawsuitâŚand theyâve been getting cooked in court recently (in decisions and in legal fees) so I doubt they want to end up in court yet again.
Pretty good quick snapshot of what the Committee has to weigh in seeding us vs peers:
12 Likes
The language of the TRO is irrelevant. It was temporary and has now been superseded in court. Bama/Bediako would easily lose if they were to try to sue.
Itâs not surprising that the committee isnât publicly saying âweâre going to punish Bamaâ but when they say theyâll use their âusual player availability criteriaâ that could influence what they do with Bediako.
Now Bama has played pretty well since Bediako was ruled ineligible so I bet the impact will be somewhat muted, but I still expect them to be seeded 1 line below expectations.
1 Like
To be honest, if those were blind, I would have gone us and TT. Bama 3rd. Purdue and Zaga should be 4s, no question. Certainly tough calls. I imagine, in the Cmte room, BIG and SEC schedules will carry a lot of weight w regard to seeding.
4 Likes
Legal nerd alert! Thereâs a really interesting (and unresolved, at least under federal law) question whether that TRO can prevent the NCAA from punishing Alabama even after it expires (or is vacated). See the Stevens concurrence and Marshall dissent in Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982). Maybe NCAA doesnât want to test that, but thereâs a pretty good argument that the TRO doesnât give permanent immunity to Alabama. (The answer might be different under Alabama law or maybe the TRO has some language that tries to circumvent this problem.)
6 Likes
My point has always been (even when the TRO was still active): adjusting seeding does not constitute a âpunishment.â I think Bama would have an EXTREMELY difficult time in court trying to prove they were being explicitly punished for Bediakoâs participation. A dozen teams are âmis-seededâ every tournament. There are a number of variables that go into how teams are seeded. If Bama was underseeded by 1-2 lines, it would be impossible to say that it was only because of Bediako.
1 Like
The playerâs impact was limited in the 5 games he played. Any punishment of Alabama by dropping them a seed line only punishes their opponents who would face an under seeded team thatâs stronger than who they wouldâve faced otherwise.
Why make the 5 that might have to face Bama wish they were a 6 that might face a team that Bama dropped behind?
1 Like
I want to point out that the committee has been hammering the idea that record based metrics are going to be REALLY important: strength of record, WAB, etc. In those we are excelling. In predictive analytics, we are closer to a 4/5.
Pending the ACCT results, where we land will tell us a lot about how much the committee did end up valuing SOR and WAB.
8 Likes
They also have cared a lot about strong wins against the best teams in recent years as far as seeding goes. While our SOR and WAB are great, we have zero top wins. We also have a super low NCSOS so itâll be interesting to see what wins out
Iâve said for weeks that with the record metrics saying weâre a 3 and the computer predictive models saying weâre a 5, the committee will split the difference and make us a 4.
Obviously pending conference tournament outcomes both for us and our seeding peers.
5 Likes
Idk how much (if at all) the committee will knock the Louisville game for Brown not playing but depending on how they handle that, @ #14 in net is a top win. Plus 2 other Q1AsâŚhope that OSU can Crack top 25 NET or Texas can slip back into the top 40 to get it back to 4.
1 Like
The âagainst top 5 seedsâ designation feels a little flimsy to me. To my knowledge, that is not a metric they examine. They will look at Q1A which we look pretty good in.
Think weâre ultimately a 4 unless we make or win ACCT final though. I do hope we can muster enough support to not have to go west coast though.
3 Likes