PDA

View Full Version : This seems weird to me.



TopDawg
3/12/2007, 04:05 PM
Butler
AP: 21
ESPN/USA Today: 19
NCAA Seed: 5

Winthrop
AP: 22
ESPN/USA Today: 21
NCAA Seed: 11

Combined number of teams between them in the polls: 1
Number of teams seeded between them in the tournament: At least 20

poke4christ
3/12/2007, 04:23 PM
Everything the committi did for this tourney is screwed up. They showed the Big 12 very little respect. Kansas should have been the number 1 over all, yet they barely landed a 1 according to them. A&M didn't get a 3 (though likely because of OSU), and KSU got hosed big time. Instead they brought in Arkansas and Stanford? The big 12 6 teams in post season tourneys all together. KSU should have made the NCAA and Mizz should have made the NIT. Was hoping for OU, but wasn't expecting it.

TopDawg
3/12/2007, 04:43 PM
I realize it's easier to understand quantum physics than NCAA logic, but still...that one has me baffled.

Scott D
3/12/2007, 09:33 PM
I realize it's easier to understand quantum physics than NCAA logic, but still...that one has me baffled.

pretty simple actually. the selection committee had roughly 90 minutes to do the seeding (while at least two games were going on) so that CBS could have their pretty little Selection Show at 6pm Eastern. (Selections began around 4:15pm Eastern). Basically CBS screwed everyone, and if anything this is an argument for the selection show to either take place at 8pm Eastern on Sunday, or leave it until 6pm Monday. The only other thing they could do would be have all conference tournaments end on Saturday at the latest. But taking less than 2 hours to do the seedings is more ridiculous than any argument people have against the BCS.

tommieharris91
3/13/2007, 12:00 AM
I disagree with all of you. Guys, the NCAA basketball selection process (or any process which involves a few NCAA-types people getting together to create a postseason tournament) is a much better thing than the BCS. KSU's fault was that they really didn't play anybody outside of conference play. Yes, I know that they beat an overrated USC team, but they didn't play anybody. Playing the unbalanced schedule in the North didn't help either. Their SOS was near 100, and they had like 10 losses against it. Ohh, and ATM did get a 3. Also, Kansas' RPI of 11 is the reason of not giving them the overall #1.

In the case of Butler vs. Winthrop, I will first say that the media has (or should have) no bearing on seeding or computer numbers whatsoever. Butler had some great wins out of conference and rode those to their rankings in both the computers and media polls. Winthrop is riding a long winning streak against the likes of Radford, Charleston Southern, and UNC-Ashville. Butler has beaten Notre Dame, Indiana, and Tennessee in their Non-Con.

Butler:
RPI: 27
SOS: 108

Winthrop:
RPI: 70
SOS: 270

All this said, I have some real problems with Stanford making it in. 12 losses, 6-8 vs teams that made the tournament, RPI 63, losing to Air Force by 34 at home, losing by 16 to Santa Clara at home. Many, many lopsided blowouts against them, 1st round loss in their conference tourney to USC. Syracuse really should replace them.

TopDawg
3/13/2007, 12:16 AM
In the case of Butler vs. Winthrop, I will first say that the media has (or should have) no bearing on seeding or computer numbers whatsoever. Butler had some great wins out of conference and rode those to their rankings in both the computers and media polls. Winthrop is riding a long winning streak against the likes of Radford, Charleston Southern, and UNC-Ashville. Butler has beaten Notre Dame, Indiana, and Tennessee in their Non-Con.

Butler:
RPI: 27
SOS: 108

Winthrop:
RPI: 70
SOS: 270

Good points. It's still weird that they are separated by only one spot in the polls buy at least 20 in the tourney. Maybe I should've said "I realize it's easier to understand quantum physics than NCAA or poll rankings logic, but still...that one has me baffled."

Scott D
3/13/2007, 12:00 PM
I disagree with all of you. Guys, the NCAA basketball selection process (or any process which involves a few NCAA-types people getting together to create a postseason tournament) is a much better thing than the BCS. KSU's fault was that they really didn't play anybody outside of conference play. Yes, I know that they beat an overrated USC team, but they didn't play anybody. Playing the unbalanced schedule in the North didn't help either. Their SOS was near 100, and they had like 10 losses against it. Ohh, and ATM did get a 3. Also, Kansas' RPI of 11 is the reason of not giving them the overall #1.

All this said, I have some real problems with Stanford making it in. 12 losses, 6-8 vs teams that made the tournament, RPI 63, losing to Air Force by 34 at home, losing by 16 to Santa Clara at home. Many, many lopsided blowouts against them, 1st round loss in their conference tourney to USC. Syracuse really should replace them.

What does it matter, as long as CBS keeps forcing a deadline, you aren't going to see a more careful selection process like in the past.

NormanPride
3/13/2007, 01:32 PM
Maybe the NCAA should tell CBS to stick it? I mean, seriously. I think some of these organizations have the worst contract negotiators ever.

Frozen Sooner
3/13/2007, 01:36 PM
Telling the company that pays you a couple billion a year to "stick it" isn't really what's considered "good contract negotiation."

colleyvillesooner
3/13/2007, 01:56 PM
heh

Scott D
3/13/2007, 03:40 PM
Telling the company that pays you a couple billion a year to "stick it" isn't really what's considered "good contract negotiation."

which would be why it'd be easier to screw with the later season schedules and postseason tournaments for conferences to leave that entire Sunday open for the selection process starting in the morning, and not at 4pm when the brackets are going to be made public on a big show at 6pm.