Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 86

Thread: Burst Bubbles

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Devilsfan View Post
    Someone on the commitee has it in for Seth imo. Did he sleep with someone's daughter (I doubt it), does someone hate his beliefs (not possible in 2011), did he once fire someone's son (I also doubt that)? Makes you wonder.
    The ESPN analysts - including Digger, Jay Bilas, Hubert Davis, Dick Vitale - on Bracketology (yes, a very entertaining segment!) were railing on about the "outrageous" and "indefensible" VCU selection over VPI and Col. And Seth G. was quoted in a statement that was VERY biting, repeatedly insinuating that "someone on that committee obviously had an agenda... and it didn't include Va Tech." Jay Bilas had the best line of the night: "You know, we talk every year about these (bubble) teams and whether or not they pass the 'eye test.' Well this one (VCU over VPI) doesn't even pass the laugh test!" (to loud chuckles around the analyst table) Ouch!

    I actually usually defend the committee b/c I feel that (1) they are often being asked to split hairs with very similar team resumes, (2) very often complainers only gripe about their team's omission, w/o saying at the same time who should have simultaneously been left out - it is, after all, a zero-sum-gain - and (3) it really doesn't matter much to the overall tournament outcome if they get the 68th or 69th teams rightly allocated. But I have to say that they really seem to have done a piss-poor job this year, with at least a couple pretty undeserving teams getting in (and even getting surprising seedings) while a couple teams that virtually everybody had in, such as Va Tech, were omitted. I also have issues with several hard-to-justify seedings.... Arrrgh.

    Anybody know if there were ANY ACC representatives on the committee this year? I know that the chairman was from OSU - the AD, I think.
    -BDBD

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    Bilas refers to inclusion of UAB and VCU as "indefensible." In biggest put-down of all: "People often say a team doesn't pass the eye test. This doesn't pass the laugh test."
    Yah, you have to hand it to Bilas and even Vitale.

    They were both en fuego today.

    Poor Allen, when VaTech got left out of the dance, must have felt like getting smacked in the face with a baskeball.

    While standing out of bands.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Virginia Beach
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Yes, Bilas did a great job hammering the committee. Unfortunately, the couple of "journalists" (Nantz/Kellogg and then what's-his-name Smith on ESPN) who actually got a chance to question the Chair of the Committee completely wimped out and did not ask any tough follow up questions. His answers were vanilla and totally uninformative. His response to each "why not this team" or "why not that team" was essentially "because they didn't get enough votes."

    Would've been great to see Bilas or someone else just go after Smith when he gives an answer like that. You know, something like, "Duh. We get that Gene. Of course they're out because they didn't get enough votes. What the public would like to know is WHY they didn't get enough votes. What factors led the committee to invite this team (like VCU) and not this other team (like VT or Colorado). What specifically did VCU do better this year than those other two teams?" Never happens.
    Excellent post. Tougher questions ought to have been asked of Gene Smith.

    When questionable (read, ludicrous) choices are made like VCU and UAB over Colorado and VT (sorry, but I believe VT should have been selected this year) the TSC chairman needs to defend them with something more than the load of weak sauce that was dribbled out onto the airwaves this past Sunday.

    If the questioning of Gene Smith had been sufficiently brisk, maybe it would have served to encourage future TSCs to think about sticking to the stated selection guidelines. It might even have done something to push the NCAA to think about trying to make the selection process a bit more consistent.

    If, as Jay Bilas said at one point during Bracketology, the TSC was making its choices with the idea that a school the size of Colorado was doing what it should be doing with the record it had, while a mid major with a challenging out of conference schedule was doing heavier lifting, okay. But that is not what happened.

    Who did VCU beat? UCLA at a neutral site. ODU at ODU (who VCU lost to in the CAA tournament). And George Mason in the CAA tournament. UAB did not even finish second in its conference and beat nobody in the RPI top 50. Odd. Very, very odd.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham-- 2 miles from Cameron, baby!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chitowndevil View Post
    EDIT: Pretty unsatisfying interview with the Selection Committee Chair on CBS. How the heck do you factor in "style of play" when deciding who should be in? I think Bob Knight has a point when he says few, if any, of these guys on the committee have any real, specific basketball expertise and should not be basing their selections on opinions about teams they watced on TV. Ken Pomeroy made this point recently in his blog as well- people talk about committee members being at games as a good thing but it is not necessarily good.
    Perhaps they're saying that VT's thuggish play in their final game (that was clearly visible to anyone who wasn't a chokie fan or ACC referee) is what earned them their annual ticket on the sidelines.

  5. #45
    Ouch. No NIT soup for md either. Their bowl is empty.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by alteran View Post
    Perhaps they're saying that VT's thuggish play in their final game (that was clearly visible to anyone who wasn't a chokie fan or ACC referee) is what earned them their annual ticket on the sidelines.
    This. And kudos to the committee for doing it.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Just seeing this thread. No at large will ever be worse than Air Force. That said...

    - VCU is unconsionable. Just a horrible selection.

    - Georgia over Alabama is close to the height of stupidity

    - UAB and USC over Virginia Tech and Colorado is pretty bad too.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Quote Originally Posted by -bdbd View Post
    The ESPN analysts - including Digger, Jay Bilas, Hubert Davis, Dick Vitale - on Bracketology (yes, a very entertaining segment!) were railing on about the "outrageous" and "indefensible" VCU selection over VPI and Col. And Seth G. was quoted in a statement that was VERY biting, repeatedly insinuating that "someone on that committee obviously had an agenda... and it didn't include Va Tech." Jay Bilas had the best line of the night: "You know, we talk every year about these (bubble) teams and whether or not they pass the 'eye test.' Well this one (VCU over VPI) doesn't even pass the laugh test!" (to loud chuckles around the analyst table) Ouch!

    I actually usually defend the committee b/c I feel that (1) they are often being asked to split hairs with very similar team resumes, (2) very often complainers only gripe about their team's omission, w/o saying at the same time who should have simultaneously been left out - it is, after all, a zero-sum-gain - and (3) it really doesn't matter much to the overall tournament outcome if they get the 68th or 69th teams rightly allocated. But I have to say that they really seem to have done a piss-poor job this year, with at least a couple pretty undeserving teams getting in (and even getting surprising seedings) while a couple teams that virtually everybody had in, such as Va Tech, were omitted. I also have issues with several hard-to-justify seedings.... Arrrgh.

    Anybody know if there were ANY ACC representatives on the committee this year? I know that the chairman was from OSU - the AD, I think.
    Wake's athletic director is on the committee.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 24 90 View Post
    Wake's athletic director is on the committee.
    Isn't Joe Alleva as well?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by -bdbd View Post
    Anybody know if there were ANY ACC representatives on the committee this year? I know that the chairman was from OSU - the AD, I think.
    Wake's AD.

    Edit: Sorry for the redundancy -- didn't see that others responded prior to submitting.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Annandale, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Devilsfan View Post
    ... does someone hate his beliefs (not possible in 2011), ...
    I would respectfully disagree with that assessment, but I honestly think it's more likely they just don't like the ACC.
    The Gordog

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by -bdbd View Post
    And Seth G. was quoted in a statement that was VERY biting, repeatedly insinuating that "someone on that committee obviously had an agenda... and it didn't include Va Tech."
    Here's the quote you're talking about:
    “Just disappointed. You almost wonder if someone in that room has their own agenda and that agenda doesn’t include Virginia Tech. Just plain and simple. I totally wonder it, if someone in that room has an agenda. The explanation was so inconsistent with the result that it was almost mind-boggling. I guess they even brought up our non-conference schedule. Kansas State, Purdue, Oklahoma State, UNLV, Penn State, St. Bonaventure that was supposed to be big and Mississippi State that was projected to win the SEC. I’d say that’s a pretty significant slate and challenge. So they must not have looked at it very closely. But I guess they did. I feel for these kids. Doesn’t take away from what we accomplished this year ... but it’s extremely disheartening. You would hate to think that politics would be involved, but it makes you wonder.”
    Greenberg had a bit more to say before cutting short his presser and leaving. I get that they got snubbed, probably unfairly, but his whole conspiracy theory angle is nonsense. Colorado had a much stronger argument for getting hosed and their coach went on ESPN and while disappointed, didn't resort to any "everyone is out to get us" rhetoric. I thought, unlike Seth, he handled himself with class, but let's be honest here, a lot of the problems we have here with Va Tech's players attitudes start with their coach. No doubt does Va Tech have an argument, but if you're trying to be a leader and a teacher, you're sending the wrong message to your kids when you blame your own failings on conspiracies and on others. The fact is that if Va Tech doesn't drop two home games after beating us then I'm sure they're in, so at the end of the day, they put themselves in the position to possibly not get in by failing to take care of their own business. That's a tough pill to swallow, but sometimes the best lesson you can teach others is how to handle disappointment with class. This was an opportunity for Seth to teach just that, but instead, he chose to point fingers at everyone except for himself.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil07 View Post
    Here's the quote you're talking about:


    Greenberg had a bit more to say before cutting short his presser and leaving. I get that they got snubbed, probably unfairly, but his whole conspiracy theory angle is nonsense. Colorado had a much stronger argument for getting hosed and their coach went on ESPN and while disappointed, didn't resort to any "everyone is out to get us" rhetoric. I thought, unlike Seth, he handled himself with class, but let's be honest here, a lot of the problems we have here with Va Tech's players attitudes start with their coach. No doubt does Va Tech have an argument, but if you're trying to be a leader and a teacher, you're sending the wrong message to your kids when you blame your own failings on conspiracies and on others. The fact is that if Va Tech doesn't drop two home games after beating us then I'm sure they're in, so at the end of the day, they put themselves in the position to possibly not get in by failing to take care of their own business. That's a tough pill to swallow, but sometimes the best lesson you can teach others is how to handle disappointment with class. This was an opportunity for Seth to teach just that, but instead, he chose to point fingers at everyone except for himself.
    That's always VT's mantra - "us against the world."

    Cliche', but it works for them... I guess.

    Could they have been in? Sure. But honestly, only the win over Duke really gave any credence to their year. They didn't beat anyone of significance out of conference. And they lost to some pretty bad teams.

    Lost to UVA twice
    Lost to BC twice
    Lost to GT

    Then they lost to the following NCAA teams:
    UNLV
    KSU
    Purdue

    The only tournament bound teams they beat were Duke, FSU (2x) and Penn St

    The resume was spotty at best... and definitely not better than Colorado's.

    What Seth needs to realize is, if you don't want to be on the bubble, win games. They were in games against Purdue and UNC. Win one or both of those, they're in. And the losses to the bottom dwellers in the ACC were what killed them. Win both against UVA and split against BC, they're in.

    Oh, and throw in the thuggery they always play with and the constant whining and prodding of the committee (yea, smart move there, Seth) and they will never get the benefit of the doubt when the call is that close.

  14. #54

    I have a problem with the analysts

    I wanted to hear more discussion of the tournament not the teams not in the tournament or who should not be in the tournament.

    The Committee made some mistakes. Play On.

    SoCal

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC

    Why is no one talking about how Penn St got in?

    I have a problem with PSU getting in, especially as a 10 seed.

    Their only quality wins came in conference.

    - A slumping Mich State at PSU
    - Illinois at PSU
    - Wisconsin twice... one of those wins setting college bball back 50 years

    They lost to VT and Maryland, who we all know were either bubble teams or out entirely... and both not in the tourny.

    Their final record was 19-14..... Their RPI was 39, but that's mostly due to the Big 10 being overrated outside of OSU IMO. (#2 strength of schedule? please)

    I think them being in is more egregious than VCU being in.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    I wanted to hear more discussion of the tournament not the teams not in the tournament or who should not be in the tournament.

    The Committee made some mistakes. Play On.

    SoCal
    That's what the next few days are for. The first 1-2 hours after the brackets come out are always about who's in, who's out, and why.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Perhaps the ACC's recent horrible Tourney performances - outside Duke and UNC - had something to do with the Committee's decisions.

    Let's hope FSU and Clemson can hold their own this year.

    -jk

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA

    for what it's worth

    VT lost to UVa twice. And they lost to Georgia Tech. They nearly lost to Florida State in the ACC. Plus, didn't they have a weak schedule out of conference?

    Maybe we should question why the Big East gets 11 teams in. 11! And I agree with Penn State - scoring 36 points in a win seems pretty ugly to me.

    ramdevil

  19. #59
    While I get everyone's disdain for Seth Greenberg and VT, I think it's pretty forgivable that he would voice his displeasure loudly this year. The analogy to Colorado and their coach's reaction doesn't wash for me - let's see what Colorado's coach says in a presser three years from now when his team is one of the first 3 teams left out of 4 consecutive tourneys. Whatever the criteria at the bottom of the selection pool is, and it seems to generally change every year, it never seems to line up with the relative strengths on Virginia Tech's resume compared to the other teams in similar position each year. My recollection is hazy, but I'm pretty sure that's 2 of the last 4 years where Hokie fans justifiably feel screwed, and in the other 2 they're justifiably disappointed that a bubble that could have gone either way burst in their face. That's got to be really frustrating.

    That said, it's probably doubly frustrating this year since it was supposed to be the case that they were going to push up against the big boys in the conference this year and cruise into a 4-6 seed in the big dance. So, the disappointment of getting hosed off the bubble combined with the disappointment that this team was supposed to be so much better than it was has to lead to some recriminations against Greenberg. He may have crescendoed in Blacksburg.

  20. #60
    How does USC get ranked ahead of Clemson and VA Tech?

    In non-conference they beat Texas and Tennessee (very impressive) but lost to Rider, Bradley and Texas Christian (who went 2-16 in the Mountain West). They also lost to Kansas by 2 which I guess is impressive but still, it's a loss.

    They went 10-8 in a Pac-10 that isn't really all that good. They split with Arizona, Washington and UCLA. But they also lost to Oregon (twice), Oregon St. and Washington St.

    Is that really better than VA Tech? Who's worst loss is Virginia or GA Tech. They have no stinkers like the 3 awful non-conference losses put up by USC. And if you want to count close losses.... they lost to Purdue in OT and UNC by 3 at UNC.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •