Left out

[uh_no]

I was surprised to see St. Mary's in the "Last 4 In." They went undefeated against all teams in their conference not named Gonzaga, whom the same Selection Committee respects enough to give an overall #1. And also, how did Cal sneak in as a 12-seed? One of the "Last 4 In" games is for an 11 seed, and one for a 13. The only way that could ever make sense would be if all 4 of the 12 seeds were automatic bids, but Cal is awkwardly wedged in there.

I'm not particularly upset about any team left out, but I think a lot of the seedings are bizarre. Villanova just barely crept off of the bubble and they get a 9? Come on.

There's only one overall #1, and it went to louisville.

Gonzaga just had a regular #1, and I believe it was the last #1 seed at that.

[Ichabod Drain]

Miami Heat left out as well... via Grantland:

•Surprisingly omitted from the top line of the NCAA Tournament were the Miami Heat, who won their 22nd consecutive game Sunday, beating the Toronto Raptors, 108-91. "Who needs this NCAA crap," Miami forward LeBron James said after the game, before teammate Shane Battier handed him an economic study on the long-term earning effects of college educations that he had co-authored during the offseason with Duke economics professor Arnaud Maurel.

[dukeofcalabash]

Maryland not even mentioned by CBS as being left out. LOL

They beat Duke twice, yet not even mentioned? What does that tell you about what "others" think of Duke?

[Cameron]

Baylor, USM, Alabama, UVA

Beyond that, I'm really torn between 'doesn't matter' and 'don't care'.
'That's interesting', comes to mind.

Same here.

Baylor lost 9 of its last 13 games. They absolutely sucked for the talent that was there. It's possible that it was the most underachieving team relative to talent in the past 25 years.

[WakeDevil]

Tennessee had as good a case as SM. VA and MD were rightly penalized for their non-conference schedules.

[Mal]

Same here.

Baylor lost 9 of its last 13 games. They absolutely sucked for the talent that was there. It's possible that it was the most underachieving team relative to talent in the past 25 years.

Multiple vintages of Rick Barnes and Paul Hewitt beg to differ.
....
UVa had bad losses, but also enough good wins to differentiate themselves from Middle Tennessee and others. The ACC wasn't circa early '90s, but it was stronger than the last four or five years in terms of depth, I would argue. An 11-7 team should be in. The combination of UVa being left out and Carolina and NCState getting 8/9 matchups is a clear indication of what people think of the conference right now, but I think it's overcompensating for the last couple years' performances. We need Miami to at least win a couple. If the Pack can pull a second round upset (and for some reason I feel like if they're up they can give the Hoosiers serious trouble), all will be right with our reputation. Heels have no chance against Kansas, if they even get that far.

Off the exact topic, but since people have been mentioning Maryland, I haven't taken the chance elsewhere to bemoan that we lost our last ever Maryland conference matchup, and they sucked. I hate that. We better come out p'ed off against Albany, and with a continuing chip on our shoulder against Creighton or Cinci or whoever it is the second round. If you had told me after Thanksgiving weekend that we'd lose our first round matchup in the ACC tourney with a healthy lineup, get a 2 seed, and a crummy one at that, and not even be the top seed from the conference, I wouldn't have believed it.

[uh_no]

Off the exact topic, but since people have been mentioning Maryland, I haven't taken the chance elsewhere to bemoan that we lost our last ever Maryland conference matchup, and they sucked. .

Are you predicting the future? Maryland will be in the ACC next year

[tommy]

I think the committee sent some very inconsistent, mixed messages. First of all, Bilas is correct when he says it isn't about who you scheduled and who you beat. Gonzaga had one win over the Top 25. Miami had 4 and Duke had 6. At the other end, teams like Middle Tennessee got in, and basically didn't beat anybody other than Ole Miss -- their only win over a tournament team.

On the other hand, it wasn't really about avoiding bad losses either. Yes, that explains why Virginia is out, but at the top end, Kansas has by far, and I mean by far, the worst loss of any of the top teams, that being to TCU. TCU is simply terrible. They also got creamed by non-tournament team Baylor, at home. All of Duke's five losses were either to tournament teams or bubble teams, and four of them were without Kelly. Nothing even approaching a TCU.

So is the committee really interested in closing out the season strong and winning your conference tournament? Well, winning theirs vaulted Louisville all the way up to the overall #1,a and Ohio State's winning theirs moved them from where most people had them as probably a 4, all the way up to a 2. But Miami winning theirs didn't mean jack. And Indiana retained their #1 despite not even making the finals of their conference tournament. And of course Duke losing early just tubed them. So do the conference tournaments mean anything or not?

What about the old "did you challenge yourself" meme? Miami and Duke had way, way stronger overall SOS than Gonzaga, and definintely stronger than Indiana too. Even more importantly, supposedly, is non-conference SOS, as that is within your control. Duke and Miami, again, are miles ahead of all four teams that got a #1 seed.

You look at all this, and it just seems that the "criteria" are extremely malleable. Some seem to apply one year but not the next. Others seem to apply when considering teams for #1 seeds, but not for the issue of who gets in off the bubble, or vice-versa. Gonzaga tore through a weak conference and is the (semi) fresh-faced darling, but they didn't beat any truly top teams this year. At all. By all the metrics that they've said are important, and especially when you factor in injuries, the committee got this wrong. So I don't think they use those metrics except when it's convenient to use them to reach a desired result. A lot of this I think they're just kinda making up as they go along.

[Wander]

I think the committee sent some very inconsistent, mixed messages.

I completely disagree. The committee has a pretty consistent set of criteria, and when Bilas and company complain otherwise for the sole purpose of filling up air time, they're almost always guilty of isolating one factor and not looking at the big picture.

Kansas was punished for its loss to TCU - they probably had a good case for #1 overall otherwise. And they lost to Baylor on the road, not at home.

Middle Tennessee was the single last team let into the field. So when people are complaining about them, keep this perspective in mind: everyone is just complaining that the committee ranked them 50th out of 347 Division 1 teams instead of 51st out of 347 Division 1 teams. And that's supposed to be outrageous? Come on.

If the committee is so inconsistent, then why is it so easy to predict the vast majority of the teams (sometimes, like this year, ALL of the teams) that get into the field every single year?

[crimsonandblue]

I completely disagree. The committee has a pretty consistent set of criteria, and when Bilas and company complain otherwise for the sole purpose of filling up air time, they're almost always guilty of isolating one factor and not looking at the big picture.

Kansas was punished for its loss to TCU - they probably had a good case for #1 overall otherwise. And they lost to Baylor on the road, not at home.

Middle Tennessee was the single last team let into the field. So when people are complaining about them, keep this perspective in mind: everyone is just complaining that the committee ranked them 50th out of 347 Division 1 teams instead of 51st out of 347 Division 1 teams. And that's supposed to be outrageous? Come on.

If the committee is so inconsistent, then why is it so easy to predict the vast majority of the teams (sometimes, like this year, ALL of the teams) that get into the field every single year?

I think it's a sad state of affairs if Kansas really did have a case for the number 1 overall. That said, if the complaint is about 1 seeds, I think the committee clearly looked at body of work and then focused on some combination of conference tourney performance and good true road wins. Miami and Duke may raise their hands and argue that UNC was a good road win, and I'd agree, but based on seed, it looks like the committee didn't think a great deal of the Heels.

[Mal]

Are you predicting the future? Maryland will be in the ACC next year

D'oh! Nevermind. Was thinking about the new additions coming in and conflating with all the ruckus about them and Rutgers going B1G. In that case, I'd like to beat them thrice next season, if possible. Don't know if we get them twice in conference play or not, so it may be as little as one more opportunity to paste the Terps.

[sagegrouse]

I think it's a sad state of affairs if Kansas really did have a case for the number 1 overall. That said, if the complaint is about 1 seeds, I think the committee clearly looked at body of work and then focused on some combination of conference tourney performance and good true road wins. Miami and Duke may raise their hands and argue that UNC was a good road win, and I'd agree, but based on seed, it looks like the committee didn't think a great deal of the Heels.

I hope we understand that these are manufactured controversies ... by human nature itself. There is intense interest in the tournament, but no games have been played. What else is there to talk about? So, people will talk about seeds, regional venues, and who's in and who's out. Re the last: I mean, if you can't be clearly one of the 50 best teams in America, what is your chance of winning the NCAA's -- or even a region?**

It may be life-and-death for the coach who's team is left out, but I seriously doubt that winning a #13 seed will save the career of a guy at a high-profile basketball program. Turgeon and Bennett are doping just fine at Md and UVa without sneaking into the NCAA bracket.

But, one benefit of the "first four" games is that they start immediately, causing us to change the topic of conversation.

sagegrouse
** Yeah, I know: Butler, VCU and Geo. Mason won regions -- but I believe they were automatic qualifiers

[ChillinDuke]

I completely disagree. The committee has a pretty consistent set of criteria, and when Bilas and company complain otherwise for the sole purpose of filling up air time, they're almost always guilty of isolating one factor and not looking at the big picture.

Kansas was punished for its loss to TCU - they probably had a good case for #1 overall otherwise. And they lost to Baylor on the road, not at home.

Middle Tennessee was the single last team let into the field. So when people are complaining about them, keep this perspective in mind: everyone is just complaining that the committee ranked them 50th out of 347 Division 1 teams instead of 51st out of 347 Division 1 teams. And that's supposed to be outrageous? Come on.

If the committee is so inconsistent, then why is it so easy to predict the vast majority of the teams (sometimes, like this year, ALL of the teams) that get into the field every single year?

Because after you account for 31 automatic qualifiers, the rest of the Top-25, and a few other clear shoe-ins, there simply aren't that many teams to be wrong on.

All things considered, picking the vast majority of teams that get into the field is not a very difficult task.

- Chillin

[1 24 90]

I hope we understand that these are manufactured controversies ... by human nature itself. There is intense interest in the tournament, but no games have been played. What else is there to talk about? So, people will talk about seeds, regional venues, and who's in and who's out. Re the last: I mean, if you can't be clearly one of the 50 best teams in America, what is your chance of winning the NCAA's -- or even a region?**

It may be life-and-death for the coach who's team is left out, but I seriously doubt that winning a #13 seed will save the career of a guy at a high-profile basketball program. Turgeon and Bennett are doping just fine at Md and UVa without sneaking into the NCAA bracket.

But, one benefit of the "first four" games is that they start immediately, causing us to change the topic of conversation.

sagegrouse
** Yeah, I know: Butler, VCU and Geo. Mason won regions -- but I believe they were automatic qualifiers

You may be surprised but VCU & George Mason were both at large selections the year they went to the Final Four - I believe Butler was an AQ both times.

[tommy]

I completely disagree. The committee has a pretty consistent set of criteria, and when Bilas and company complain otherwise for the sole purpose of filling up air time, they're almost always guilty of isolating one factor and not looking at the big picture.

OK. So what do you believe those criteria to be, and how were they applied to -- just to take one of several situations that raise eyebrows -- the decision to seed Gonzaga over both Miami and Duke?

I think it's a sad state of affairs if Kansas really did have a case for the number 1 overall. That said, if the complaint is about 1 seeds, I think the committee clearly looked at body of work and then focused on some combination of conference tourney performance and good true road wins. Miami and Duke may raise their hands and argue that UNC was a good road win, and I'd agree, but based on seed, it looks like the committee didn't think a great deal of the Heels.

That's fine if that's what they did. My issue (and I think Jay Bilas' as well) is that's not what they SAID they were going to do. Those aren't the criteria they have said they would be using, or have used in the past. If you are going to have certain criteria, you should make your decisions based on those criteria, not change the criteria or ignore them if you don't like what the results would be if you applied them.

[brevity]

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but the Selection Committee is so very, very lazy. A bunch of university and conference bigwigs spend several days in a hotel conference room ruminating over something that could be done by unpaid interns in a couple of hours on Sunday afternoon. You can imagine how this goes: stumble into the conference room late, gossip over the enormous breakfast spread, talk about a few teams, order lunch, watch a few afternoon games, take a nap, re-assemble for the nighttime games, discuss into after hours, then repeat.

Most years you can assemble a plausible list of 68 teams by Thursday, or whenever most of the non-BCS conference tournaments are complete. Then you compile a short list of expendables, depending on any bubble teams or gatecrashers still playing.

Seeding is the only hard part of the job, and a lot of it can be done by Saturday night. You move a few things around, depending on what happens Sunday. (There's a reason both Wisconsin and Ohio State are out West. That way the other 3 regions can be fixed while those teams are still playing.) You look over your results and make sure a few unwritten guidelines are followed:

1. BYU doesn't play Sunday.
2. Last year's Final Four teams cannot return to this year's Final Four.
3. The lower seed does not have a massive geographic advantage.

Seeing as how #1 and #3 have been overlooked in the past, I'm not sure they even check their work.

Now, as to seeding Gonzaga over Miami... it's a better story. They had already made up their mind that Gonzaga was a 1 seed after the WCC Tournament. So set them aside and ask: which of Duke, Indiana, Louisville, Kansas, or Miami get the other 1 seeds? Louisville and Kansas won out. Duke lost early. So then it's between Indiana and Miami, and we'll stick them both in the East and give the edge to Indiana based on perceived Big Ten superiority. It's not hard.

** Yeah, I know: Butler, VCU and Geo. Mason won regions -- but I believe they were automatic qualifiers

You may be surprised but VCU & George Mason were both at large selections the year they went to the Final Four - I believe Butler was an AQ both times.

Well, Jay Bilas was surprised with VCU as an at-large selection. I think the George Mason choice also got some negative feedback from... Billy Packer? So hard to sort through his Big Book of Basketball Grievances.

[crimsonandblue]

OK. So what do you believe those criteria to be, and how were they applied to -- just to take one of several situations that raise eyebrows -- the decision to seed Gonzaga over both Miami and Duke?




That's fine if that's what they did. My issue (and I think Jay Bilas' as well) is that's not what they SAID they were going to do. Those aren't the criteria they have said they would be using, or have used in the past. If you are going to have certain criteria, you should make your decisions based on those criteria, not change the criteria or ignore them if you don't like what the results would be if you applied them.

What criteria do you think they supplanted? They still seem to clearly use RPI as a grouping tool and then use some bastardized form of eye test/how you're playing lately/nitty gritty evaluation of your resume. I'm not going to ever pretend that the NCAA, in any regard, has a cohesive approach, but this year's method doesn't seem too ridiculous.

[sagegrouse]

You may be surprised but VCU & George Mason were both at large selections the year they went to the Final Four - I believe Butler was an AQ both times.

Thanks. -- sage

[ChillinDuke]

What criteria do you think they supplanted? They still seem to clearly use RPI as a grouping tool and then use some bastardized form of eye test/how you're playing lately/nitty gritty evaluation of your resume. I'm not going to ever pretend that the NCAA, in any regard, has a cohesive approach, but this year's method doesn't seem too ridiculous.

I'll start out by saying I have paid very little attention to this debate in years past and so don't have much historical perspective on the matter.

But regarding the "who you played/who you beat" versus the "who you lost to" perspective (as Jay Bilas argued it), I think Jay (and thus Tommy above) are coming from the viewpoint that the committee didn't seem to go by the old meme "who you played/who you beat". That is the perceived criteria they supplanted. Because if they went by the "who you played/who you beat" criteria (think of it as "schedule hard and win") then a team like St. Mary's has little business being in the NCAAT.

So let's try it.

Q: St. Mary's, who'd you play and who'd you beat?
A: Team (RPI rank)

Utah State (108)
Eastern Washington (319)
Drexel (206)
Cal Poly (165)
Drake (146)
Jackson State (309)
Pacific (103)
Rhode Island (201)
Yale (200)
Harvard (94)
Loyola Marymount x2 (208)
San Francisco x2 (166)
BYU x2 (65)
Portland x2 (231)
San Diego x3 (160)
Pepperdine x3 (207)
Santa Clara x2 (97)
Creighton (25)

By that metric I can't possibly see how St. Mary's is in the tourney. They beat Creighton. Then what? They took two from a down BYU team? That's really it as far as I'm concerned.

So, I think Jay would argue (and maybe Tommy, although I'll leave that to him) that the who-you-played-and-beat criteria was supplanted this go around. Now if the question is really whether that was ever a real criteria in the selection process to begin with, well then that's a different topic. But by that criteria, I don't see St. Mary's getting in.

It's much clearer to me that they got in because they didn't lose to anyone other than Gonzaga x3, @ Northern Iowa (RPI #80), GA Tech (148), and Pacific (103, who they later beat), the last two of which were on a neutral court.

More succinctly, their 6 losses are tolerable. But their 27 wins are pretty weak.

- Chillin

[Wander]

OK. So what do you believe those criteria to be, and how were they applied to -- just to take one of several situations that raise eyebrows -- the decision to seed Gonzaga over both Miami and Duke?

Wins are good. Losses are bad. Wins are better the stronger the opponent, and losses are worse the weaker the opponent. Road games are harder than neutral games which are harder than home games.

The ACC is better than the WCC, but Miami didn't only lose to the good ACC teams. Georgia Tech and Wake Forest are basically average-level WCC teams. Gonzaga didn't lose to any of them. Miami did. Miami has four losses that are significantly worse than either of Gonzaga's two losses.

Miami does have better wins overall, but not by as much - and Gonzaga does have the best true road win (at Oklahoma State).

In other words, Miami has better wins than Gonzaga, Gonzaga has better/fewer losses than Miami, but the margin of the wins is less than the margin of the losses. It makes perfect sense to me to have Gonzaga ahead of Miami.