PDA

View Full Version : Left out



OldPhiKap
03-17-2013, 06:33 PM
Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland. Feel bad for UVa.

1 24 90
03-17-2013, 06:36 PM
Maryland not even mentioned by CBS as being left out. LOL

throatybeard
03-17-2013, 06:36 PM
Last four in: La Salle, Boise State, Saint Mary's, MTSU.

JBDuke
03-17-2013, 06:36 PM
However, I'm LOVING that Kentucky will be in the NIT this year.

Furniture
03-17-2013, 06:36 PM
Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland. Feel bad for UVa.

Yes, this is a good reminder for the doom and gloomers that ths could be much worse. Some great basketball coming up.

hurleyfor3
03-17-2013, 06:37 PM
Don't feel bad for anyone. Try beating Boston College, you jerks.

I don't sense a whole lot of controversy at the bottom of the bracket this year. Middle Tennessee got in, but that was about it. Minnesota was pretty much a lock. That is some weird seeding with the Pac-12, however.

Danke Shane
03-17-2013, 06:49 PM
Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland. Feel bad for UVa.

I don't feel bad. Those kids got to rush the court at Virginia and Maryland when they beat Duke. Clearly they already knew that was going to be the highlight of their season, so I don't think they should feel let down at all.

rthomas
03-17-2013, 06:51 PM
Last four in: La Salle, Boise State, Saint Mary's, MTSU.

No way these are better than Virginia or Maryland.

vick
03-17-2013, 06:54 PM
I don't feel bad. Those kids got to rush the court at Virginia and Maryland when they beat Duke. Clearly they already knew that was going to be the highlight of their season, so I don't think they should feel let down at all.

Why shouldn't a team feel let down because their fans rushed the court? That doesn't make any sense.

theAlaskanBear
03-17-2013, 06:55 PM
I feel bad for Virginia, I think they were unfairly left out. They finished 4th in the ACC at 11-7, you have sub-500 b1g team Illinois, teams like St Mary and Middle Tennessee who played joke schedules.

Also, Miami deserves a 1 seed. Dominated the ACC regular season, won the tournament.

OldPhiKap
03-17-2013, 06:59 PM
I feel bad for Virginia, I think they were unfairly left out. They finished 4th in the ACC at 11-7, you have sub-500 b1g team Illinois, teams like St Mary and Middle Tennessee who played joke schedules.

Also, Miami deserves a 1 seed. Dominated the ACC regular season, won the tournament.

Agree with this fully.

ACC not shown much respect. Hell, the Heels are treated as if in the thirties.

pfrduke
03-17-2013, 07:02 PM
I feel bad for Virginia, I think they were unfairly left out. They finished 4th in the ACC at 11-7, you have sub-500 b1g team Illinois, teams like St Mary and Middle Tennessee who played joke schedules.

Virginia also played a joke schedule outside the ACC. And they lost to three of those jokers (George Mason, ODU, Delaware). They couldn't win away from home. Virginia didn't really get wronged (even if I think they might be better than some or all of the teams you mentioned).

mgtr
03-17-2013, 07:02 PM
But isn't the message for power conference teams who were left out always "You needed to play a tougher non-conference schedule?"

mcdukie
03-17-2013, 07:03 PM
The committee sent two messages: 1). They didn't really respect the ACC. 2) Play a tougher non-conference schedule. Maryland's non-conference was very weak outside of Kentucky.

MCFinARL
03-17-2013, 07:05 PM
I feel bad for Virginia, I think they were unfairly left out. They finished 4th in the ACC at 11-7, you have sub-500 b1g team Illinois, teams like St Mary and Middle Tennessee who played joke schedules.

Also, Miami deserves a 1 seed. Dominated the ACC regular season, won the tournament.

But in both cases there are things that the seeding committee cares about that the teams did not accomplish. In Virginia's case, their out of conference schedule was very weak because they were upset in the first round of their early season tournament. And they did lose to 3 (count 'em, three) teams from the Colonial Athletic Association, including Old Dominion, which won 7 (that is not a typo) games all season.

In Miami's case, the argument is a little different, because it depends on what you weigh most highly. Based on recent performance (excepting Wake loss), Miami looks very strong. But they also have bad early losses, including one to Florida Gulf Coast (admittedly a tournament team, but still not one a #1 seed wants to lose to). Compared to Kansas, maybe; compared to the other #1 seeds, I think the committee's decision was clearly supportable.

Gewebe14
03-17-2013, 07:09 PM
Agree with this fully.

ACC not shown much respect. Hell, the Heels are treated as if in the thirties.

unc has ZERO high quality wins. NC State at home is probably their best. They just mostly avoided bad losses.

Ky-Dukie
03-17-2013, 07:09 PM
I love the fact that uk got left out !!

throatybeard
03-17-2013, 07:10 PM
unc has ZERO high quality wins. NC State at home is probably their best. They just mostly avoided bad losses.

UNLV was a good win, although that was in Chapel Hill too.

davekay1971
03-17-2013, 07:15 PM
unc has ZERO high quality wins. NC State at home is probably their best. They just mostly avoided bad losses.

UNC has been very predictable in the 2nd half of the season. They beat everybody that they should beat, but could not get over the hump to beat any top 25 teams. I think UNC has a very good shot at beating Villanova, but very little chance of beating KU, given their performance so far this season. UNC played the best I've seen them play all year today, and they just couldn't get over the top.

theAlaskanBear
03-17-2013, 07:24 PM
But isn't the message for power conference teams who were left out always "You needed to play a tougher non-conference schedule?"

But how do you account for Boise State, St Mary's, Middle Tennessee -- not only did they not play good schedules when they did play good teams they lost. I agree that Maryland with a sub-500 ACC didn't deserve it, but Virginia finished 11-7 and 4th in ACC. Who did NC State beat, who did UNC beat that make them so much better tournament teams than UVA?

MarkD83
03-17-2013, 07:25 PM
The committee sent two messages: 1). They didn't really respect the ACC. 2) Play a tougher non-conference schedule. Maryland's non-conference was very weak outside of Kentucky.

Louisville is a #1 seed
Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Notre Dame all in the tournament.

That means 8 ACC teams are in......:)

Saratoga2
03-17-2013, 07:32 PM
But how do you account for Boise State, St Mary's, Middle Tennessee -- not only did they not play good schedules when they did play good teams they lost. I agree that Maryland with a sub-500 ACC didn't deserve it, but Virginia finished 11-7 and 4th in ACC. Who did NC State beat, who did UNC beat that make them so much better tournament teams than UVA?

It remains for Miami, Duke, UNC and NC State to hold up the ACC reputation. Next year the league will be stronger and we should get 6 or 7 in.

Sixthman
03-17-2013, 07:43 PM
It remains for Miami, Duke, UNC and NC State to hold up the ACC reputation. Next year the league will be stronger and we should get 6 or 7 in.

Duke is number one in RPI. Duke beat big east champ, big ten champ and acc champ. Why, since there is a broad consensus that Miami is better than Duke, is Miami not a number one?

Wander
03-17-2013, 07:44 PM
Good for the committee. I honestly don't see how Maryland is even in the discussion. How is a team that finishes 9-11 in the ACC while doing absolutely nothing out of conference even CLOSE to the tournament?

Virginia is closer, but you can't be outraged over a team that has those awful losses getting left out.

Wander
03-17-2013, 07:59 PM
No way these are better than Virginia or Maryland.

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you seen Boise State or La Salle or Middle Tennessee State play?

Again, I'll set aside Virginia for now. But how can anyone think Maryland is better or more deserving than any of these teams? They're one of the easier cases that people are talking about: very obviously out. They have no argument whatsoever. The only reason we're even talking about them is because we're fans of a team that recently lost to them.

CoachJ10
03-17-2013, 08:00 PM
Good for the committee. I honestly don't see how Maryland is even in the discussion. How is a team that finishes 9-11 in the ACC while doing absolutely nothing out of conference even CLOSE to the tournament?

Virginia is closer, but you can't be outraged over a team that has those awful losses getting left out.

The #2 overall team Kansas (per the selection committee) lost to a team that is 343rd in points per game and is #234 in the RPI. So bad losses do happen.

I do think that the committee slighted the ACC again. I hope the new slew of ACC coaches takes this as a challenge and regains some pride and works for the top-to-bottom competitiveness that the ACC historically is known for.

freshmanjs
03-17-2013, 08:35 PM
Why, since there is a broad consensus that Miami is better than Duke, is Miami not a number one?

because Miami was overall #5 and Duke was #6.

ChicagoCrazy84
03-17-2013, 08:58 PM
The committee sent two messages: 1). They didn't really respect the ACC. 2) Play a tougher non-conference schedule. Maryland's non-conference was very weak outside of Kentucky.


I think the bigger message they sent was "don't lose games you shouldn't!"

Virginia lost to a HORRIBLE ODU team and George Mason and Delaware. Maryland although beating Duke twice followed one of those W's up with an egg against BC. They also lost to a bad FSU team twice and Georgia Tech. Kentucky took a few bad hits after Noel went down. Any team that got left out has no one to blame but themselves so I don't feel bad for anyone.

OldSchool
03-17-2013, 09:08 PM
TV viewers all over Maryland and Kentucky breathlessly tuned in to the NIT selection show! If they happen to meet, I'm rooting for the D-League team over our stalker.

rsvman
03-17-2013, 09:23 PM
No way these are better than Virginia or Maryland.

In the first place, it's never been about putting the best teams in.

Secondly, I think St. Mary's would have a pretty good chance of beating either UVA or Maryland. Their starting point guard is smart, good, and experienced. He even has Olympic basketball experience. The rest of the team isn't half-bad, either.

BD80
03-17-2013, 09:28 PM
Louisville is a #1 seed
Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Notre Dame all in the tournament.

That means 8 ACC teams are in......:)

Sad that expansion doubles our tourney presence. But does show that the ACC chose well in expanding.

Reilly
03-17-2013, 09:46 PM
per srs at s-r:

st mary's - 25
uva - 39
mtsu - 48
md - 49
boise - 54
lasalle - 56

per sagarin predictor:

st mary's -28
uva - 35
mtsu - 44
md - 49
lasalle - 57
boise 63

uh_no
03-17-2013, 10:13 PM
per srs at s-r:

st mary's - 25
uva - 39
mtsu - 48
md - 49
boise - 54
lasalle - 56

per sagarin predictor:

st mary's -28
uva - 35
mtsu - 44
md - 49
lasalle - 57
boise 63

GMU L 63-59
DEL L 59-53
ODU L 63-61

you put that up OOC, and you better win your conference if you want a shot at the tournament....

Cameron
03-17-2013, 11:30 PM
Note to Maryland: Going 2-28 and only beating Duke is not enough to get into the tournament. If you want to be elite, try bringing it every night and not just against Duke in the "prime time," you losers.

I think it should also be noted that Seth Greenberg was left out of the tourney for the sixth straight year.

Potato
03-17-2013, 11:39 PM
LaSalle, Boise and MTSU had 4 top 50 wins combined. Virginia had 6 themselves

1999ballboy
03-18-2013, 02:04 AM
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.

throatybeard
03-18-2013, 02:15 AM
I was surprised to see St. Mary's in the "Last 4 In." They went undefeated against all teams in their conference apart 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.

You're right. I think we need to stop assuming this process makes any sense.

This is why we're so lucky that Duke is usually in the clear. Think about the difference between losing six games and nine. Six, you might be a top-16 seed. Nine, you're scrambling to get in at all. The difference there could be three or four possessions over the course of a season.

I always laugh when people talk about "a sweet 16 team" versus "an elite eight team" versus "a final four team." As if these are stoneclad categories. The 1992 Duke team was a couple inches from being "an elite eight team." Likewise the 1990 team.

Basketball is a game with a fairly small margin for error. We've put so much emphasis on these three games with Maryland and Virginia, but they were all really close.

brevity
03-18-2013, 03:18 AM
I couldn't find an online NIT bracket contest anywhere. Does anyone know any colleagues at Kentucky or Maryland who are willing to set up one?

DUKIE V(A)
03-18-2013, 08:37 AM
I couldn't find an online NIT bracket contest anywhere. Does anyone know any colleagues at Kentucky or Maryland who are willing to set up one?


Don't know about a bracket contest (LOL) but here is a link to the bracket...UVA and Kentucky are 1 Seeds and UMD is a 2.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/ncaa-tournament/brackets/viewable_nit

captmojo
03-18-2013, 09:03 AM
Baylor, USM, Alabama, UVA

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

uh_no
03-18-2013, 09:39 AM
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
03-18-2013, 09:50 AM
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
03-18-2013, 09:52 AM
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
03-18-2013, 09:54 AM
Baylor, USM, Alabama, UVA

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

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
03-18-2013, 10:57 AM
Tennessee had as good a case as SM. VA and MD were rightly penalized for their non-conference schedules.

Mal
03-18-2013, 11:05 AM
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
03-18-2013, 11:14 AM
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
03-18-2013, 12:09 PM
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
03-18-2013, 12:43 PM
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
03-18-2013, 01:47 PM
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
03-18-2013, 02:10 PM
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
03-18-2013, 02:21 PM
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
03-18-2013, 02:24 PM
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
03-18-2013, 03:48 PM
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
03-18-2013, 04:17 PM
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
03-18-2013, 04:37 PM
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
03-18-2013, 04:43 PM
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
03-18-2013, 04:45 PM
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
03-18-2013, 05:11 PM
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
03-18-2013, 05:33 PM
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.

wilko
03-18-2013, 06:19 PM
They beat Duke twice, yet not even mentioned? What does that tell you about what "others" think of Duke?

Tells me a couple of things actually.
1) Terps cant play a good game against anyone not named Duke.. (Duquesne University would be sweating them, just on principle)
2) IF the Terps HAD made the tourney, they would have been in our bracket. Guaranteed
3) Of the ACC teams that beat us - Only Miami & State made the tourney (both splits). They are in other brackets all together. I like that!

crimsonandblue
03-18-2013, 09:40 PM
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

I'm not entirely sure of your point. St. Mary's is barely in the tourney, but they do have good wins against BYU and Creighton. Teams like St. Mary's play the schedule they can, to a certain extent. Often, that means they won't get at-large bids for just the reasons you outline above; they can't get games they can win against good, but not great competition. But this year, while they didn't have great wins, they frickin' pounded the teams they were able to beat. Kind of a mini-Florida scenario.

My hope is that St. Mary's is in because of a growing trend to using better analytical tools (e.g., they're kenpom 22) and they pass something of the eye-test and have a good win or two and didn't lose any true stinkers.

ChillinDuke
03-18-2013, 11:32 PM
I'm not entirely sure of your point. St. Mary's is barely in the tourney, but they do have good wins against BYU and Creighton. Teams like St. Mary's play the schedule they can, to a certain extent. Often, that means they won't get at-large bids for just the reasons you outline above; they can't get games they can win against good, but not great competition. But this year, while they didn't have great wins, they frickin' pounded the teams they were able to beat. Kind of a mini-Florida scenario.

My hope is that St. Mary's is in because of a growing trend to using better analytical tools (e.g., they're kenpom 22) and they pass something of the eye-test and have a good win or two and didn't lose any true stinkers.

What you say is true. And I completely agree with the analytical tools point.

My previous point is that the line of thinking that says schedule tough and win wasn't true in this case. Maybe it never was a relevant line of thinking? I don't know. But I had certainly thought it was going into Selection Sunday.

Who did St. Mary's schedule tough? And who did they beat? Creighton is a good win. Beyond that, if you start to stretch a bit, it's BYU (in conference). But BYU's not even a tourney team. Wasn't even in the discussion. Harvard (1 pt win at home)? Yale? Georgia Tech (they lost)? Hardly a gauntlet by any measuring stick.

So I do wonder if the take on a team like St. Mary's was more that they just didn't lose many games they shouldn't have. Perhaps it was a function of this year and some of the weirdness we've been seeing all over. But team's like UVA, Alabama, etc beat way more good teams. UVA, as has been spoken about many times at this point, beat Duke, UNC, NC State, Wisconsin, and near tourney teams MD x2 and Tennessee. That is a lot more than Creighton and BYU x2. Seems to me that it was the lack of losses that spoke loudest in St. Mary's case.

I understand that St. Mary's barely made it in, but there were instances of this elsewhere. Really look no further than the #1 line with Gonzaga to see a similar parallel. Other examples could be drawn as well.

The point is - should you schedule hard hoping to beat some big boys and the losses can be overlooked if limited in number? Or should you schedule easier and just not lose? Which is it?

- Chillin

bedeviled
03-18-2013, 11:57 PM
Who did St. Mary's schedule tough? And who did they beat? Creighton is a good win.Moreover, I believe that Creighton wasn't even scheduled by St.Mary's. I think that was a "Bracket Buster" game thrust upon them by their conference and ESPN.

tommy
03-19-2013, 02:21 AM
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.

Method? I wish I knew how to upload video clips from movies and put em right in the post, but I don't. So this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdNsltQXTVU&list=HL1363673625&feature=mh_lolz) to it will have to suffice.

throatybeard
03-19-2013, 03:06 AM
I have a huge impulse to rename this thread Left Below in honor of The Simpsons' parody of Left Behind. But self-control is the watchword.

Kentucky was...


I'm still mad at Breen for quitting the board...

crimsonandblue
03-19-2013, 11:07 AM
Method? I wish I knew how to upload video clips from movies and put em right in the post, but I don't. So this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdNsltQXTVU&list=HL1363673625&feature=mh_lolz) to it will have to suffice.

Yes, yes. The horror. The horror.

I thought it was Mark Emmert with the heart of darkness.

I kid. It's not like anyone truly wants to defend the NCAA.

Mal
03-19-2013, 12:38 PM
2) IF the Terps HAD made the tourney, they would have been in our bracket. Guaranteed
3) Of the ACC teams that beat us - Only Miami & State made the tourney (both splits). They are in other brackets all together. I like that!

I'd be fine with this, actually, as playing any ACC team that had previously beaten us would mean we've reached the final 8. I'll take our chances with revenge on the line to reach the Final Four against any conference opponent any time, over an unknown, probably better seeded, non-ACC opponent.

Wilko's post brings up the issue that will dominate the bracket-setting starting in a couple years: with so many gigantic conferences, you're going to have multiple conferences with 6, 7, 8 or even more teams in the field. So setting the brackets is going to be primarily a process of moving around the 5-12 seeds to avoid intraconference matchups for as deep into the tournament as possible.

toooskies
03-19-2013, 12:46 PM
St. Mary's has a phenomenal statistical profile, though. #30 RPI, #22 KenPom, #37 BPI. Average ranking: 29.67. That's a team you absolutely have to include in the tournament, by all "objective" statistical measures.

Middle Tennessee #28/#32/#45. Avg: 35.00. Also need them in.

La Salle #40/#57/#54. Avg: 50.33.
Boise St. #44/#49/#44. Avg: 45.67.

As opposed to Virginia's #74/#27/#48. Avg: 49.67. At best, close with La Salle and Boise St. If you throw out KenPom (and if you're on the selection committee, you're probably only comfortable with ESPN-approved advanced metrics), UVA looks a lot worse than those bubble teams. And they lost to a 5-25 Old Dominion team!

But the other way to look at UVA is obviously important. They were 4-8 in games decided by six points or less. If they go 6-6 (as expected), they're in. If they don't schedule ODU, they're probably in (just playing them probably hurt UVA's RPI, let alone losing to them). Although there was no reason not to schedule ODU -- they were a top 100 team last year according to KenPom and top 50 in 2010 and 2011, and generally competitive each year for the past decade.

OldSchool
03-19-2013, 08:02 PM
Okay, I'm flipping around on ESPN and come across what I guess is a high school game, judging by the size of the gym. Maybe 4A. I suppose it must be a playoff game given the time of year and because the small gym is absolutely packed.

Anyway, a school called R. Morris is beating a team with "Kentucky" on their uniforms. Is there a Kentucky high school somewhere?

Also, I flipped around some more and see Maryland playing Niagara in the Comcast center. But there are practically no spectators there - when they pan out, the seats are nearly empty. I can only assume someone told the students the wrong date for the game?

roywhite
03-19-2013, 08:11 PM
Okay, I'm flipping around on ESPN and come across what I guess is a high school game, judging by the size of the gym. Maybe 4A. I suppose it must be a playoff game given the time of year and because the small gym is absolutely packed.

Anyway, a school called R. Morris is beating a team with "Kentucky" on their uniforms. Is there a Kentucky high school somewhere?



Haven't watched the telecast, but I see the game is being played in Moon Township, PA (small town a bit west of Pittsuburgh, near the airport).

Perhaps the announcers have already mentioned it, but Moon Township is known for producing at least one famous person -- John Calipari.

OldSchool
03-19-2013, 08:17 PM
Haven't watched the telecast, but I see the game is being played in Moon Township, PA (small town a bit west of Pittsuburgh, near the airport).

Perhaps the announcers have already mentioned it, but Moon Township is known for producing at least one famous person -- John Calipari.

So far the best player for the "Kentucky" team is a short white kid, #5. I hope he gets a scholarship to play college ball somewhere, because he has a lot of grit.

-bdbd
03-19-2013, 09:11 PM
Anybody know why KY was left out of the tournament??
We now know the answer.

At least according to this KY Fan call-in show we now know that it was the fault of LIBERAL SOCIALISM/OBAMA/DEMOCRATS.

Silly me - I guess I really hadn't thought about it enough...
I was thinking - obviously erroneously - that it might have had something to do with Nerlens Noel's injury. D'oh! Silly me!
:rolleyes:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5BE4Pd941Y

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ktlincoln/kentucky-fan-blames-liberal-socialism-for-uk-missing-the-tou

uh_no
03-19-2013, 10:18 PM
Anybody know why KY was left out of the tournament??
We now know the answer.

At least according to this KY Fan call-in show we now know that it was the fault of LIBERAL SOCIALISM/OBAMA/DEMOCRATS.

Silly me - I guess I really hadn't thought about it enough...
I was thinking - obviously erroneously - that it might have had something to do with Nerlens Noel's injury. D'oh! Silly me!
:rolleyes:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5BE4Pd941Y

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ktlincoln/kentucky-fan-blames-liberal-socialism-for-uk-missing-the-tou

Well they really proved the doubters wrong tonight!

FerryFor50
03-19-2013, 10:24 PM
Well they really proved the doubters wrong tonight!

Everyone knows Robert Morris is a secret Muslim.

devildeac
03-19-2013, 10:41 PM
Okay, I'm flipping around on ESPN and come across what I guess is a high school game, judging by the size of the gym. Maybe 4A. I suppose it must be a playoff game given the time of year and because the small gym is absolutely packed.

Anyway, a school called R. Morris is beating a team with "Kentucky" on their uniforms. Is there a Kentucky high school somewhere?

Also, I flipped around some more and see Maryland playing Niagara in the Comcast center. But there are practically no spectators there - when they pan out, the seats are nearly empty. I can only assume someone told the students the wrong date for the game?

And I'll wager that the limited number of students attending did NOT have f*#k Niagara on their t-shirts:rolleyes:.

throatybeard
03-20-2013, 02:06 AM
I've seen a real dearth of Kentucky-directed Schadenfreude on FaceBook tonight. I don't know whether to be disappointed, or pleased at our maturity.

dukeofcalabash
03-20-2013, 07:07 AM
Tells me a couple of things actually.
1) Terps cant play a good game against anyone not named Duke.. (Duquesne University would be sweating them, just on principle)
2) IF the Terps HAD made the tourney, they would have been in our bracket. Guaranteed
3) Of the ACC teams that beat us - Only Miami & State made the tourney (both splits). They are in other brackets all together. I like that!

Good points .... about Maryland, but nothing about what the committee thinks about Duke. I hope the team realizes more about how they are seen away from our Duke glasses and gets a chip on their shoulder.