(03-19-2013 07:33 PM)BusDriver Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 06:39 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 06:37 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  In my opinion the NCAA committee should just be ashamed of themselves and just come out and admit that they are shills for the big conferences to keep the small schools down. Teams with at-large bids:

Team / Record / RPI / Attendance
WVU / 17-13 / 55 / 2664
South Florida / 21-10 / 56 / 1456
Miami / 21-10 / 51 / 1463
Kansas / 17-13 / 58 / 2817

And you leave out:
Toledo / 27-3 / 46 / 4263

I mean they created the frickin' RPI to explain why they picked certain schools and then of course, they really don't use it, ya know, cause ... well it might keep a big school out. I know we played an easy schedule. I get that. But they can't prove that we can't play with the big schools, cause we haven't played them yet. Yet, these 4 schools have had their chance to play with the big teams, and have proven that they day-in and day-out, they can't. 13 losses just cannot qualify you for the tournament. It's ridiculous.

I think the NCAA should establish a minimum success criterion like the football bowl system does. If you don't win at least 2/3 of your games, you shouldn't get in. (And yes I know that Miami & SoFla would still qualify under that scenario, but still. It would be something.)

I agree with you. I love how they will say that UT didn't prove themselves against good teams. Well, neither did the teams you mentioned! All they proved was that they would NOT play with the good teams!

I would love to see the above stats, except, take out the attendance figures(as they mean nothing to the selection committee) and replace them with the Strength of Schedule. I bet you will then see what differentiates those teams from Toledo.

Guess what - SOS is already taken into account when calculating RPI. Opponents win% is 50% of RPI. It would have been one thing to take a team like Charlotte, but when they take 17-13 WVU & Kansas, that just shows their bias towards BC$ conferences.

(03-19-2013 07:37 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 07:33 PM)BusDriver Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 06:39 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 06:37 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  In my opinion the NCAA committee should just be ashamed of themselves and just come out and admit that they are shills for the big conferences to keep the small schools down. Teams with at-large bids:

Team / Record / RPI / Attendance
WVU / 17-13 / 55 / 2664
South Florida / 21-10 / 56 / 1456
Miami / 21-10 / 51 / 1463
Kansas / 17-13 / 58 / 2817

And you leave out:
Toledo / 27-3 / 46 / 4263

I mean they created the frickin' RPI to explain why they picked certain schools and then of course, they really don't use it, ya know, cause ... well it might keep a big school out. I know we played an easy schedule. I get that. But they can't prove that we can't play with the big schools, cause we haven't played them yet. Yet, these 4 schools have had their chance to play with the big teams, and have proven that they day-in and day-out, they can't. 13 losses just cannot qualify you for the tournament. It's ridiculous.

I think the NCAA should establish a minimum success criterion like the football bowl system does. If you don't win at least 2/3 of your games, you shouldn't get in. (And yes I know that Miami & SoFla would still qualify under that scenario, but still. It would be something.)

I agree with you. I love how they will say that UT didn't prove themselves against good teams. Well, neither did the teams you mentioned! All they proved was that they would NOT play with the good teams!

I would love to see the above stats, except, take out the attendance figures(as they mean nothing to the selection committee) and replace them with the Strength of Schedule. I bet you will then see what differentiates those teams from Toledo.

Guess what - SOS is already taken into account when calculating RPI. Opponents win% is 50% of RPI. It would have been one thing to take a team like Charlotte, but when they take 17-13 WVU & Kansas, that just shows their bias towards BC$ conferences.

Would it surprise you that Dru Hancock, Big 12 assoc. commissioner, was on the selection committee??????

(03-19-2013 06:20 AM)rockytop Wrote:  Coach Cullop is involved in scheduling. Schedules are prepared a year in advance, unlike football which go out for several years.

RED FLAG ALERT
Coach Cullop actually does the scheduling?
That is the problem right there.

The bigger schools would laugh at such a multi task.

Last season the NCAA made public their 1-pagers that the selection committees actually used, and the "nitty-gritty" report that was supposed to detail the things they focused on. For some reason, those are no where to be found this year. hmmm... But, some of the RPI sights have taken to try to duplicate the "nitty-gritty" report. Here's one from Warren Nolan.
http://warrennolan.com/basketballw/2013/nitty

Let's see,
Toledo has 3 positive checks, no negatives.
WVU 0 positives, 3 negatives.
Miami 0 positives, 3 negatives.
Kansas 0 positives, 4 negatives.

Note that although these 3 all had more top 50 wins (2,3,3) than Toledo (1), both WVU and KU each had a bad loss, while Toledo had none.

So again, it seems to me the NCAA ignored their own tools to keep big name schools in the tourney.

Ok, I'll shut up about this now, and focus on the WNIT. Go Lady Rockets!
So again, it appears that

(03-19-2013 09:08 PM)rocketpete Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 06:20 AM)rockytop Wrote:  Coach Cullop is involved in scheduling. Schedules are prepared a year in advance, unlike football which go out for several years.

RED FLAG ALERT
Coach Cullop actually does the scheduling?
That is the problem right there.

The bigger schools would laugh at such a multi task.

I believe most schools have their basketball coaching staff do the majority of their basketball scheduling.

(03-19-2013 10:02 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 09:08 PM)rocketpete Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 06:20 AM)rockytop Wrote:  Coach Cullop is involved in scheduling. Schedules are prepared a year in advance, unlike football which go out for several years.

RED FLAG ALERT
Coach Cullop actually does the scheduling?
That is the problem right there.

The bigger schools would laugh at such a multi task.

I believe most schools have their basketball coaching staff do the majority of their basketball scheduling.

It's not about the coach and/or the AD is doing the scheduling......It's that the person (coach/AD) from the other schools at the other end of the phone line says "NO!!!!!!". And you can't make them say "yes, please"........

(03-19-2013 10:31 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:02 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 09:08 PM)rocketpete Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 06:20 AM)rockytop Wrote:  Coach Cullop is involved in scheduling. Schedules are prepared a year in advance, unlike football which go out for several years.

RED FLAG ALERT
Coach Cullop actually does the scheduling?
That is the problem right there.

The bigger schools would laugh at such a multi task.

I believe most schools have their basketball coaching staff do the majority of their basketball scheduling.

It's not about the coach and/or the AD is doing the scheduling......It's that the person (coach/AD) from the other schools at the other end of the phone line says "NO!!!!!!". And you can't make them say "yes, please"........

If UT agreed to a 2-for-1 or just playing at a major conference opponent, then the response probably would have been, "Yes." Playing two home tournaments shows me that Coach Cullop didn't want to give up any home games. Replace either home tournament against joke opponents with two road games against legit teams and the the schedule would have been significantly better.