(03-18-2014 08:34 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 10:03 PM)gostangs Wrote:  seriously though - why would you treat this as anything other than we are pissed and big changes need to be made? Forget SMU for a second =- UL number 4 seed? Three of our four teams in the same zone? Obviously designed to knock ourselves out. THat has GOT to be called out, and if not by him then by whom? Sometimes it ok to be mad - this is well justified and i can't believe he is rolling over like a little girl.

I might have an even bigger beef with this than SMU getting left out. Pretty much kills the ability to maximize revenues.

The computerized draft is the reason why three American teams are in the east. Other than creating a master seed list the committee has nothing to do with the actual bracket. With the reduced restrictions on rematches and computer's strong geographic preferences we are going to see multiple teams in the same conference in the same region.

(03-18-2014 08:45 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:34 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 10:03 PM)gostangs Wrote:  seriously though - why would you treat this as anything other than we are pissed and big changes need to be made? Forget SMU for a second =- UL number 4 seed? Three of our four teams in the same zone? Obviously designed to knock ourselves out. THat has GOT to be called out, and if not by him then by whom? Sometimes it ok to be mad - this is well justified and i can't believe he is rolling over like a little girl.

I might have an even bigger beef with this than SMU getting left out. Pretty much kills the ability to maximize revenues.

The computerized draft is the reason why three American teams are in the east. Other than creating a master seed list the committee has nothing to do with the actual bracket. With the reduced restrictions on rematches and computer's strong geographic preferences we are going to see multiple teams in the same conference in the same region.

Then why isn't that pattern repeated by other conferences with multiple entries?

(03-17-2014 07:10 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  I know ppl hate on Aresco, but he's a great ambassador for the conference that understands exposure and talking points.

Problem is, he's all hot air. All hat and no cattle. He talks a big game but in the end, we have a $2.1m media deal, no AQ for major bowls, lousy minor bowls. In other words, he never delivers on the talk.

(03-18-2014 08:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:45 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:34 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 10:03 PM)gostangs Wrote:  seriously though - why would you treat this as anything other than we are pissed and big changes need to be made? Forget SMU for a second =- UL number 4 seed? Three of our four teams in the same zone? Obviously designed to knock ourselves out. THat has GOT to be called out, and if not by him then by whom? Sometimes it ok to be mad - this is well justified and i can't believe he is rolling over like a little girl.

I might have an even bigger beef with this than SMU getting left out. Pretty much kills the ability to maximize revenues.

The computerized draft is the reason why three American teams are in the east. Other than creating a master seed list the committee has nothing to do with the actual bracket. With the reduced restrictions on rematches and computer's strong geographic preferences we are going to see multiple teams in the same conference in the same region.

Then why isn't that pattern repeated by other conferences with multiple entries?

Well, the Big 12 has 3 teams in one region and 2 in another. 5 of their 6 teams are in two regions.

(03-18-2014 08:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:45 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:34 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 10:03 PM)gostangs Wrote:  seriously though - why would you treat this as anything other than we are pissed and big changes need to be made? Forget SMU for a second =- UL number 4 seed? Three of our four teams in the same zone? Obviously designed to knock ourselves out. THat has GOT to be called out, and if not by him then by whom? Sometimes it ok to be mad - this is well justified and i can't believe he is rolling over like a little girl.

I might have an even bigger beef with this than SMU getting left out. Pretty much kills the ability to maximize revenues.

The computerized draft is the reason why three American teams are in the east. Other than creating a master seed list the committee has nothing to do with the actual bracket. With the reduced restrictions on rematches and computer's strong geographic preferences we are going to see multiple teams in the same conference in the same region.

Then why isn't that pattern repeated by other conferences with multiple entries?

It was. Three Big XII teams are the west; however, two of their schools got placed there because they had last pick on the seed line.

Florida was top team so they take Orlando (South). The second team Arizona picks San Diego (West) and the process continues until the last team is placed in the bracket. There are certain restrictions based on rematch rules, BYU's no Sunday policy, and host schools not being able to play in their own city. There are other rules like making sure the top four seeds in the region are balanced that teams that got send out of their region last year don't get the same hardship.

(03-18-2014 09:26 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:55 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:45 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:34 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 10:03 PM)gostangs Wrote:  seriously though - why would you treat this as anything other than we are pissed and big changes need to be made? Forget SMU for a second =- UL number 4 seed? Three of our four teams in the same zone? Obviously designed to knock ourselves out. THat has GOT to be called out, and if not by him then by whom? Sometimes it ok to be mad - this is well justified and i can't believe he is rolling over like a little girl.

I might have an even bigger beef with this than SMU getting left out. Pretty much kills the ability to maximize revenues.

The computerized draft is the reason why three American teams are in the east. Other than creating a master seed list the committee has nothing to do with the actual bracket. With the reduced restrictions on rematches and computer's strong geographic preferences we are going to see multiple teams in the same conference in the same region.

Then why isn't that pattern repeated by other conferences with multiple entries?

It was. Three Big XII teams are the west; however, two of their schools got placed there because they had last pick on the seed line.

Florida was top team so they take Orlando (South). The second team Arizona picks San Diego (West) and the process continues until the last team is placed in the bracket. There are certain restrictions based on rematch rules, BYU's no Sunday policy, and host schools not being able to play in their own city. There are other rules like making sure the top four seeds in the region are balanced that teams that got send out of their region last year don't get the same hardship.

.....which isn't a problem when 7 out of 10 schools from a football first conference get selected.

(03-17-2014 10:51 PM)gostangs Wrote:  he is supposed to say that he finds the decisions of the selection committee outrageous, that UL should be no worse than a 2 seed, ACC teams should be spread out in at least three geographic areas and SMU should be in. He should say coming to that combination when there was no AAC representative on the committee leaves the committee open for criticism of being unfair - to the point of corruption. Obviously it was a money grab by the ACC. The system needs to change - so that the top 10 ranked basketball conferences have a member each - and any changes in conference affiliations that would alter that would lead to new members being added such that there was always representation by those minimum number of conferences.

Not just mad, but really mad? Should have have stomped his feet?

It is hard for me to understand why SMU was left out. I have seen teams with worse schedules get in.

(03-18-2014 09:40 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  It is hard for me to understand why SMU was left out. I have seen teams with worse schedules get in.

One of the drawbacks to conference tournaments at the end of the season is the worse team in the conference, can win the end of season tournament and gain access. We did that back in '93 and went to the NCAAs with a losing record. A lot of secondary teams from 1 bid leagues gained access.

But to me there's no excuse the committee can come up with where a Top 25 team with an RPI of 53, 2 wins over UConn and wins against Memphis/Cincy shouldn't make the tournament. My bet is that had SMU beaten Houston winning at least one in the conference tournament, the Stangs would have made the NCAAs.

(03-18-2014 10:16 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 09:40 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  It is hard for me to understand why SMU was left out. I have seen teams with worse schedules get in.

One of the drawbacks to conference tournaments at the end of the season is the worse team in the conference, can win the end of season tournament and gain access. We did that back in '93 and went to the NCAAs with a losing record. A lot of secondary teams from 1 bid leagues gained access.

But to me there's no excuse the committee can come up with where a Top 25 team with an RPI of 53, 2 wins over UConn and wins against Memphis/Cincy shouldn't make the tournament. My bet is that had SMU beaten Houston winning at least one in the conference tournament, the Stangs would have made the NCAAs.

Beating Houston wouldn't have changed the game that much for SMU because if they don't beat Louisville the narrative doesn't change. They still would have lacked multiple marquee wins away from home and their non-conference schedule still would stink. Their RPI would have been higher which would have helped. I am not sure people realize how much of anchor a non-conference schedule can be.

(03-18-2014 09:40 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  It is hard for me to understand why SMU was left out. I have seen teams with worse schedules get in.

SMU should've been in over several teams, especially NC state. Ron Wellman, head of the committee and Wake Forest AD took care of the ACC, simple as that. I have seen several interviews with him and he comes off as incompetent as hell. This committee did a terrible job, all sports media jocks are saying it. I have been listening to talk radio the past couple days are they all have ripped this committee saying they were clueless. How does Louisville get a 4 seed? Maybe a 2 but a 4? They are currently #5 in the polls. How does that equate to the 4 seed in the tourney? Cincy should have been a better seed as well.

One analyst on the radio said the committee must have only had one conference tournament on in the room, the ACC tournament, bc they obviously didn't watch any of the other tournaments. What a joke.

I was getting tired of the politics and money grabbing in college football due to the "conference hierarchy" bull s**t that has gotten even worse in this new era of the self proclaimed "Power 5". Now those conferences are bringing this stuff into college hoop as well.

It appears that what conferences like the ACC and guys like Coach K want, they get. Look at the war of words between Coach K (who was dissing the A-10) and Shaka Smart in this article. Guys like Coach K enable all of this conference p*ss match stuff to take the spotlight (which amounts to favoritism based merely on a conference's past history instead this years ACTUAL results).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...tournament

I have never seen a bigger hypocrite than Coach K. When the ACC stole BC, Miami, and VT from the old Big East and then came back for Cuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame, Coach K gushed about how great it was for the ACC and how they are now the strongest conference in basketball. However, when the Big Ten grabbed Maryland from the ACC, Coach K whined about how unfair it was and how expansion is "ruining college athletics." Well, Coach K, you can't have it both ways. Either you are a hypocrite or just not very smart.

(03-17-2014 06:58 PM)EZ rider Wrote:  **** little aresco. He should have had the foresight to get some representation on the selection committee.

Just goes to show your utter lack of knowledge when it comes to NCAA basketball. I'm not shocked... you guys had 1 good year and you think you guys are contenders for the national title.

Aresco has nothing to do with the committee... they are appointed by the NCAA for a set period of years. No matter how much lobbying Aresco could have done, the AAC would have been limited in representation. Last year's head of the committee was at Xavier when he was appointed and finished as the AD at Georgia Tech. The conference commissioners don't set the "representation." That simple.

(03-18-2014 10:52 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  I was getting tired of the politics and money grabbing in college football due to the "conference hierarchy" bull s**t that has gotten even worse in this new era of the self proclaimed "Power 5". Now those conferences are bringing this stuff into college hoop as well.

It appears that what conferences like the ACC and guys like Coach K want, they get. Look at the war of words between Coach K (who was dissing the A-10) and Shaka Smart in this article. Guys like Coach K enable all of this conference p*ss match stuff to take the spotlight (which amounts to favoritism based merely on a conference's past history instead this years ACTUAL results).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...tournament

I have never seen a bigger hypocrite than Coach K. When the ACC stole BC, Miami, and VT from the old Big East and then came back for Cuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame, Coach K gushed about how great it was for the ACC and how they are now the strongest conference in basketball. However, when the Big Ten grabbed Maryland from the ACC, Coach K whined about how unfair it was and how expansion is "ruining college athletics." Well, Coach K, you can't have it both ways. Either you are a hypocrite or just not very smart.

I could be wrong, but I think I heard that this year had more at-large bids from small conferences than ever before. I don't think Coach K is getting his message across in any way considering the success of VCU, Butler, George Mason, Wichita State, etc., in recent years. I think many of the people are tired of hearing about how the 8th place finisher in the ACC or old Big East got screwed.

(03-18-2014 10:21 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 10:16 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 09:40 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  It is hard for me to understand why SMU was left out. I have seen teams with worse schedules get in.

One of the drawbacks to conference tournaments at the end of the season is the worse team in the conference, can win the end of season tournament and gain access. We did that back in '93 and went to the NCAAs with a losing record. A lot of secondary teams from 1 bid leagues gained access.

But to me there's no excuse the committee can come up with where a Top 25 team with an RPI of 53, 2 wins over UConn and wins against Memphis/Cincy shouldn't make the tournament. My bet is that had SMU beaten Houston winning at least one in the conference tournament, the Stangs would have made the NCAAs.

Beating Houston wouldn't have changed the game that much for SMU because if they don't beat Louisville the narrative doesn't change. They still would have lacked multiple marquee wins away from home and their non-conference schedule still would stink.

It wouldn't have had to change much, because the difference between last in and first out is probably extremely small.

A win over Houston would have changed the narrative in two important ways. First, they wouldn't have the albatross of the 3 game losing streak to end the season, which kills the eyeball test. And, they wouldn't have an awful loss to a #153 RPI Houston around their neck either, they'd have a loss to mighty Louisville, much more defensible.

IMO, that would have been more than enough to eek them by NC State. My gut was that all SMU needed to make the field was beat Houston in that opening round, though we'll never know for sure.

I agree with quo. And if you think about it in those terms, we (SMU) would only have ourselves to blame.

Now, if we had beaten UH and still got shafted...then I would state that an ACC conspiracy was a definite.

(03-17-2014 07:11 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 06:39 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bloomberg forgot UConn... Again... Cue the Husky outrage in 5...4...3...2...

Too long to watch but...

UConn fans generally take it as an omen when we're not considered an AAC school.

I watched 30 for 30...they don't consider you a BE school, apparently.

(03-18-2014 10:16 AM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 09:40 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  It is hard for me to understand why SMU was left out. I have seen teams with worse schedules get in.

One of the drawbacks to conference tournaments at the end of the season is the worse team in the conference, can win the end of season tournament and gain access. We did that back in '93 and went to the NCAAs with a losing record. A lot of secondary teams from 1 bid leagues gained access.

But to me there's no excuse the committee can come up with where a Top 25 team with an RPI of 53, 2 wins over UConn and wins against Memphis/Cincy shouldn't make the tournament. My bet is that had SMU beaten Houston winning at least one in the conference tournament, the Stangs would have made the NCAAs.

I keep seeing that, where is SMU ranked in the Top25?

(03-18-2014 11:29 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 07:11 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 06:39 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Bloomberg forgot UConn... Again... Cue the Husky outrage in 5...4...3...2...

Too long to watch but...

UConn fans generally take it as an omen when we're not considered an AAC school.

I watched 30 for 30...they don't consider you a BE school, apparently.

It's understandable that a Georgetown fan who directed it wante dto pretend post-1988 never happened.

As for the AAC and they who must not be named, the reasoning isn't clear.... yet.

(03-18-2014 10:58 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 10:52 AM)UConnHusky Wrote:  I was getting tired of the politics and money grabbing in college football due to the "conference hierarchy" bull s**t that has gotten even worse in this new era of the self proclaimed "Power 5". Now those conferences are bringing this stuff into college hoop as well.

It appears that what conferences like the ACC and guys like Coach K want, they get. Look at the war of words between Coach K (who was dissing the A-10) and Shaka Smart in this article. Guys like Coach K enable all of this conference p*ss match stuff to take the spotlight (which amounts to favoritism based merely on a conference's past history instead this years ACTUAL results).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...tournament

I have never seen a bigger hypocrite than Coach K. When the ACC stole BC, Miami, and VT from the old Big East and then came back for Cuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame, Coach K gushed about how great it was for the ACC and how they are now the strongest conference in basketball. However, when the Big Ten grabbed Maryland from the ACC, Coach K whined about how unfair it was and how expansion is "ruining college athletics." Well, Coach K, you can't have it both ways. Either you are a hypocrite or just not very smart.

I could be wrong, but I think I heard that this year had more at-large bids from small conferences than ever before. I don't think Coach K is getting his message across in any way considering the success of VCU, Butler, George Mason, Wichita State, etc., in recent years. I think many of the people are tired of hearing about how the 8th place finisher in the ACC or old Big East got screwed.

I am not saying that some of the "little guys" weren't given more of a chance this year. However, when you look at the exclusion of SMU coupled with the placing of 3 of the 4 AAC teams in the same region, it smells a little fishy. Having the AAC only get 4 teams in instead of 5 and then maximizing the possibility of having as few AAC teams as possible advance to advanced tournament rounds does seem like an attempt to weaken the image of the AAC. These conference total numbers (numbers of teams from a particular conference who made the tourney, number of teams from a particular conference that made the Sweet 16/Elite 8) are thrown around ad nauseam by the media. Don't believe for a second that it wasn't deliberate.