At Large: 34 Best Teams?

[pfrduke]

Moreover, which early season tournament refused to let St Mary's, a returning NCAAT team from last year, play in it? Was it:

the Great Alaska Shootout, which included Butler, Western Kentucky and Gonzaga?

the Chicago Invitational Challenge, which included Dayton, Northern Iowa, Mercer, Texas Southern and Bethune-Cookman?

the Coaches vs. Cancer tournament, which included So Illinois, Arkansas Monticello, Northeastern, IUPUI, Michigan Tech, Miami (Ohio), Weber State, Prairie View A&M, Georgia Southern, Houston and Presbyterian?

the South Padre Island tournament, which included UNC Wilmington, NCCU, TAMUCC, Jackson St, Kent St and Tulsa?

Oh yeah. I forgot, tournament organizers passed over returning a NCAAT team with a bona fide star and Olympian for the likes of NCCU, Presbyterian and Bethune-Cookman.

St. Mary's actually got itself in a good early season tourney and then totally screwed the pooch, so to speak. They played in the same tourney Wake did, but lost to UTEP in the first round. Had they beaten UTEP, they would have had a second round matchup with Wake, and then a game against either Arizona State or Baylor. But they lost, and played Cal St. Fullerton and Providence instead. The UTEP game proved to be a really costly loss.

St. Mary's was a very good basketball team with Mills healthy. But regardless of his health, their resume stank. They had as many wins against NCAA tournament teams (2 - Utah St. and Morgan St., neither of which were likely to get in without an auto-bid) as they did against non-D1 teams (Seattle U and Vanguard). They beat 1 more legit bubble team (SDSU) and one pretty good, kind-of-bubble team (Providence). They only even played one other NCAA team (Gonzaga) and went 0-3. That is not the profile of a tournament team.

[BD80]

I like the "body of work" approach by the selection committee. This will encourage schools to schedule more aggressively, and may lead to more events like the Big 10 / ACC challenge. That event benefited both conferences greatly (Md, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin are all 10 seeds or lower and might have missed the tourney but for the addition to the resume). If the committee were to place more of an emphasis on tough road games, maybe it would be more "fair" to the mid-majors.

I like the idea of having tough, meaningful games in December. As it is, it feels like there is the pre-season with exhibition-like games through January, and then the conference schedule. The body of work standard makes the regular season count and will discourage schools from scheduling patsies or relying on a weak conference schedule to get 20+ wins. I would like more real games in November and December.

[Rogue]

"Body of Work" was the catch phrase this year.. in the past it's been RPI, how you finish the last 12 games etc..
When a mid major ( Drexel 2007 ) goes out and playes the schedule that the "committee " suggest,, more games against better opponents, they did. They went 23-8 with road wins at Villinova, Syracuse and Creighton in that bracket buster thingie.. their RBI was something like 35.. So they did what was asked, but Stanford at 18-12 still got the bid.

I like body of work as long as it means the same thing every year. Maryland beat Wake UNC and Mich State,, GREAT WINS.. but here's the glitch,, they get a dozen plus chances a year to play those type games,, many right here in the ACC.. a mid major gets maybe two good shots at a BCS and zero chance of error. They can't have an off game like we did against Clempson or the talking heads will blather, they got killed by XYZ.. Maryland isn't punished for losing to Morgan St. but a mid major would be.

Who are the Mid Majors ?? Is Dayton ? Is Gonzaga ? ( look at those two's basketball budgets and tell me how Morgan St gets to the gym lol.. ) BYU isn't from a BCS conference, but I don't think they are a mid major.. Many fans say Butler was the only mid major who didn't win their own tourney and got a bid .. Xavier a mid major ? We know Stephen Austin is,, but what makes a mid major,, any school not from a BCS conference ?
I think we all know one when we see one

Remember when unc-ch went up to Williamsburg to play William & Mary and lost.. all the great one liners it made.. "yeah did ya hear William and Mary beat carolina,, and William didn't even play in the second half"
College of Charleston over Ga Tech,, and now,, Crimens coaches ,, yup, College of Charleston..

[dukie8]

So RPS, do you still think that Arizona was a bad choice?

[SoCalDukeFan]

So RPS, do you still think that Arizona was a bad choice?

I do think it was a very bad choice.

The fact that they beat Utah and then got an easy game against a 13 seed does not change anything.

They have good players but did not earn the spot.

SoCal

[DevilGrad]

So RPS, do you still think that Arizona was a bad choice?

Absolutely. If a team with three potential NBA prospects and all of Arizona's structural advantages can't manage to avoid 13 regular season losses, they should hone their concentration level in the NIT rather than get a second chance to avoid underachieving. Arizona's selection rendered the regular season meaningless.

As noted above, the tournament committee moves the goalposts every year, and the only consistency to its work is that the number of mid-major at-larges declines.

If we're going to "take the best 34," "take teams with a chance to win," or "use the eyeball test," they may as well just throw out records entirely and let Bilas and a bunch of NBA scouts pick the field while using program budgets as a tie-breaker.

[El_Diablo]

I want to know why a team that is supposedly one of the "best 34" ends up with a #12 seed. If a team is in the top 34, I think it should get an #8 or #9 seed at worst. As a #12 seed, Arizona has at least 44 teams in the tournament who are better seeded.

Utah (#5) got kind of screwed by getting matched up with a top-34 team in the #12 slot.

[dukie8]

Absolutely. If a team with three potential NBA prospects and all of Arizona's structural advantages can't manage to avoid 13 regular season losses, they should hone their concentration level in the NIT rather than get a second chance to avoid underachieving. Arizona's selection rendered the regular season meaningless.

As noted above, the tournament committee moves the goalposts every year, and the only consistency to its work is that the number of mid-major at-larges declines.

If we're going to "take the best 34," "take teams with a chance to win," or "use the eyeball test," they may as well just throw out records entirely and let Bilas and a bunch of NBA scouts pick the field while using program budgets as a tie-breaker.

What goalposts were moved this year? It has been the best 34 at large for as long as i can remember. The Committee has emphasized OOC games and road wins lately but it's not like 5 years ago the Committee wasn't looking for the best 34 teams. If not Arizona, which team left out should have received a bid? You can I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. all you want about Arizona but there were no other teams even remotely close to Arizona.

They could have had less than 13 losses but they scheduled very aggressively OOC. In addition to the above teams, they also played texas a&m, unlv and UAB. Compare that to the horrible OOC schedules St Mary's and Creighton played.

[dukie8]

I want to know why a team that is supposedly one of the "best 34" ends up with a #12 seed. If a team is in the top 34, I think it should get an #8 or #9 seed at worst. As a #12 seed, Arizona has at least 44 teams in the tournament who are better seeded.

Utah (#5) got kind of screwed by getting matched up with a top-34 team in the #12 slot.

Why do you arbitrarily think that an at large team should get an 8 or 9 seed? The Committee ranks all 65 teams from 1 to 65 and your seed is where you lie in that ranking (unless the Committee has to move a team up or down a line to account for other factors). The last couple of teams in always are going to be around 12 seeds because there always are going to be around 16 auto bids to lesser conferences that will fill out the 13-16 seeds. That may change a little from year to year depending on the number of at large bids that go the lesser conferences in addition to their auto bids (eg, Butler). Arizona was not deemed to be a top 34 team (you are ignoring all of the auto bids that were ranked higher (eg, Duke)).

[CDu]

I want to know why a team that is supposedly one of the "best 34" ends up with a #12 seed. If a team is in the top 34, I think it should get an #8 or #9 seed at worst. As a #12 seed, Arizona has at least 44 teams in the tournament who are better seeded.

Utah (#5) got kind of screwed by getting matched up with a top-34 team in the #12 slot.

The answer is simple. The "Best 34" doesn't mean the best 34 teams overall. It means the best 34 teams that did not win a conference tournament (thus getting an automatic bid). Many of those 44 teams ahead of Zona (Louisville, Duke, Memphis, Missouri, Gonzaga, Utah, Purdue, Siena, USC, VCU, Temple, Utah St) got in via the automatic bid. Two of the 12 seeds (WKU and UNI) were also auto bids. So Arizona didnt' have to be among the 34 best teams. Same applies to Wisconsin. Wisconsin and Arizona were considered, according to the committee, to be the 33rd and 34th best AT-LARGE teams, and somewhere between 45th and 48th overall (depending upon where you rate WKU and UNI).

[Saratoga2]

"Body of Work" was the catch phrase this year.. in the past it's been RPI, how you finish the last 12 games etc..
When a mid major ( Drexel 2007 ) goes out and playes the schedule that the "committee " suggest,, more games against better opponents, they did. They went 23-8 with road wins at Villinova, Syracuse and Creighton in that bracket buster thingie.. their RBI was something like 35.. So they did what was asked, but Stanford at 18-12 still got the bid.

I like body of work as long as it means the same thing every year. Maryland beat Wake UNC and Mich State,, GREAT WINS.. but here's the glitch,, they get a dozen plus chances a year to play those type games,, many right here in the ACC.. a mid major gets maybe two good shots at a BCS and zero chance of error. They can't have an off game like we did against Clempson or the talking heads will blather, they got killed by XYZ.. Maryland isn't punished for losing to Morgan St. but a mid major would be.

Who are the Mid Majors ?? Is Dayton ? Is Gonzaga ? ( look at those two's basketball budgets and tell me how Morgan St gets to the gym lol.. ) BYU isn't from a BCS conference, but I don't think they are a mid major.. Many fans say Butler was the only mid major who didn't win their own tourney and got a bid .. Xavier a mid major ? We know Stephen Austin is,, but what makes a mid major,, any school not from a BCS conference ?
I think we all know one when we see one

Remember when unc-ch went up to Williamsburg to play William & Mary and lost.. all the great one liners it made.. "yeah did ya hear William and Mary beat carolina,, and William didn't even play in the second half"
College of Charleston over Ga Tech,, and now,, Crimens coaches ,, yup, College of Charleston..

When you look at the sweet 16, you have to be impressed with the job done by the selection committee.

Midwest 1-12, 2-3
West 1-5, 2-3
East 1-4, 2-3
South 1-4, 2-3

So, the committee picked the first 3 in each division correctly, and had two 4's correctly. A 5 is a pretty close pick in the West and only Arizona in the Midwest is a longshot, but they do have 3 excellent players. With Wake Forest and Florida St. no upholding their potential, the ACC looks weaker than I thought.

[El_Diablo]

Thanks dukie8 and CDu--I realized my oversight after I posted, in that some of those auto-bids bump the at-large bids down.

I feel the only team left out with a legitimate claim was St. Mary's, but I understand why they were left out. Hopefully they have learned from this and will schedule a couple games against better teams next year.