(03-18-2014 03:19 PM)BearcatScotty Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 01:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 01:41 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  All in all I don't think the league was treated unfairly.

My real complaint was putting 3 of the 4 AAC schools in the same region.

This is where the real problem lays, it was totally unfair to do this.

There are three B12 in the West.

(03-19-2014 05:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 05:09 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 05:04 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 04:16 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:32 PM)westwolf Wrote:  After Louisville leaves the AAC will be lucky to get 3 invites next year.

Memphis, Uconn, Cincinatti, and I think it's say to say at least one from Tulsa/Houston/Temple/SMU has a strong chance of getting a bid. Fyi Tulsa is in the tourney right now.

Yeah, but Tulsa's there via an auto bid by winning the conference tourney. No way they get there at large.

SMU probably has a good shot at a bid next year although they'd be wise to upgrade their OOC schedule. But I don't know why Houston and Temple are even in the conversation.

SMU is @NC State, @Indiana, Arkansas at home TCU

Plus they've got the #1 recruit in the nation with a strong shot at the #5. I think it's fairly safe to say they'll be in next year. Heck, if they vote the same way next year all the need to do play the tough opponents, not win the games.

TCU doesn't help. They played Arkansas this year, so that's no change. Virginia was on this hear's schedule and is far better than NC State. Two games vs Louisville are off the conference schedule, so it's going to take more than One game vs Indiana to make up for that.

The problem with SMU's schedule is not that it was void of top teams. It's the number of absolutely awful teams they faced with RPI's in the 200's and 300's. That's the part of the schedule that needs to be addressed.

I know all about their recruits, but they actually have to produce before you declare them stars. They wouldn't be the first "can't miss" prospects to miss as freshmen. And I guess you actually have to land Turner before talking about him taking you to the promised land.

I believe having a strong shot at a recruit is a good enough reason to talk about him..I seriously doubt these kids don't perform, LB is a heck of a coach, he'll get them to.

(03-19-2014 05:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 03:19 PM)BearcatScotty Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 01:45 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 01:41 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  All in all I don't think the league was treated unfairly.

My real complaint was putting 3 of the 4 AAC schools in the same region.

This is where the real problem lays, it was totally unfair to do this.

There are three B12 in the West.

There are 7 conferences that got at least 4 bids
Of those no more than 50% of any conference teams were in one region.

AAC- 75% of teams in West
Pac- 50% of teams in South
B.E- 50% teams East
B12- 42.8%
ACC- 33%
A-10- 33%
BIG- 33%

So no other conference was clustered to the extent of AAC.

(03-19-2014 07:08 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 05:26 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 05:09 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-19-2014 05:04 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 04:16 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Memphis, Uconn, Cincinatti, and I think it's say to say at least one from Tulsa/Houston/Temple/SMU has a strong chance of getting a bid. Fyi Tulsa is in the tourney right now.

Yeah, but Tulsa's there via an auto bid by winning the conference tourney. No way they get there at large.

SMU probably has a good shot at a bid next year although they'd be wise to upgrade their OOC schedule. But I don't know why Houston and Temple are even in the conversation.

SMU is @NC State, @Indiana, Arkansas at home TCU

Plus they've got the #1 recruit in the nation with a strong shot at the #5. I think it's fairly safe to say they'll be in next year. Heck, if they vote the same way next year all the need to do play the tough opponents, not win the games.

TCU doesn't help. They played Arkansas this year, so that's no change. Virginia was on this hear's schedule and is far better than NC State. Two games vs Louisville are off the conference schedule, so it's going to take more than One game vs Indiana to make up for that.

The problem with SMU's schedule is not that it was void of top teams. It's the number of absolutely awful teams they faced with RPI's in the 200's and 300's. That's the part of the schedule that needs to be addressed.

I know all about their recruits, but they actually have to produce before you declare them stars. They wouldn't be the first "can't miss" prospects to miss as freshmen. And I guess you actually have to land Turner before talking about him taking you to the promised land.

I believe having a strong shot at a recruit is a good enough reason to talk about him..I seriously doubt these kids don't perform, LB is a heck of a coach, he'll get them to.

I agree that having a strong shot at a recruit is a good reason to talk about HIM, bit not about your team's chances to get a tournament bid since he isn't even on the team yet and about half a dozen other school's also have a strong shot at him.

Everyone always doubts that the top kids won't perform, but there are always some that don't for a variety of reasons. In recent years, check out Steve Adams at Pitt, Ricky Ledo at Providence, Enes Kanter at Kentucky, and Josh Selby at Kansas.

Cincy going to help test this theory.

(03-20-2014 04:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cincy going to help test this theory.

It's crazy how many analysts picked Harvard to win. If they all knew Harvard was a good team and "much better than your average 12 seed," then why would they be seeded like that? Wouldn't it make more sense to seed them appropriately?

Something just seems off or fishy about this whole seeding fiasco. If everyone's picking UL or MSU to go all the way, then why aren't they seeded in the #1 position? Maybe I'm ignorant to how this works..

(03-20-2014 04:48 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 04:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cincy going to help test this theory.

It's crazy how many analysts picked Harvard to win. If they all knew Harvard was a good team and "much better than your average 12 seed," then why would they be seeded like that? Wouldn't it make more sense to seed them appropriately?

Something just seems off or fishy about this whole seeding fiasco. If everyone's picking UL or MSU to go all the way, then why aren't they seeded in the #1 position? Maybe I'm ignorant to how this works..

It seems like the committee only looked at the hard numbers. I think the eye test was completely disregarded.

(03-17-2014 10:35 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  4 teams from one conference and 3 of them are in the same region...? That's suspect IMO.

THIS is the screw job, and it has to be intentional. The seeding is debatable, but putting three of four in one bracket is breaking the committee's own rules about seeding. And it's not like the AAC got so many teams into the tourney that it was unavoidable.

(03-20-2014 04:48 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 04:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cincy going to help test this theory.

It's crazy how many analysts picked Harvard to win. If they all knew Harvard was a good team and "much better than your average 12 seed," then why would they be seeded like that? Wouldn't it make more sense to seed them appropriately?

Harvard was seeded appropriately. They beat no teams who made the NCAA tournament (before today, obviously); their best wins were over two NIT teams (BU and Green Bay).

Look at the resumes of the last several at-large teams in the field. IMO, even the four at-large teams in the First Four would be favored against Harvard.

Some people picked Harvard in their bracket because (a) people like to pick at least one 4, 5, or 6 seed to be upset, and (b) Harvard pulled off an upset in last year's tournament (over New Mexico) so why not pick them again.

(For the record, I didn't pick Harvard today. But I did pick Dayton.)

(03-20-2014 05:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 04:48 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 04:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Cincy going to help test this theory.

It's crazy how many analysts picked Harvard to win. If they all knew Harvard was a good team and "much better than your average 12 seed," then why would they be seeded like that? Wouldn't it make more sense to seed them appropriately?

Harvard was seeded appropriately. They beat no teams who made the NCAA tournament (before today, obviously); their best wins were over two NIT teams (BU and Green Bay).

Look at the resumes of the last several at-large teams in the field. IMO, even the four at-large teams in the First Four would be favored against Harvard.

Some people picked Harvard in their bracket because (a) people like to pick at least one 4, 5, or 6 seed to be upset, and (b) Harvard pulled off an upset in last year's tournament (over New Mexico) so why not pick them again.

(For the record, I didn't pick Harvard today. But I did pick Dayton.)

I know I just heard Harvard, Harvard, Harvard all over the place since the seed was announced. Maybe it was just the best chance at an upset out of the match ups, but even then people would have to think Harvard was better than they were given credit for, or else why would they be the upset match up?

(03-20-2014 05:30 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 10:35 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  4 teams from one conference and 3 of them are in the same region...? That's suspect IMO.

THIS is the screw job, and it has to be intentional. The seeding is debatable, but putting three of four in one bracket is breaking the committee's own rules about seeding. And it's not like the AAC got so many teams into the tourney that it was unavoidable.

No, it isn't. The NCAA changed the rules to make sure that only the top 4 seeds are separated by region, only if they're in the Top 16 of the seed list, and they also are allowing teams from the same conference to meet as early as the 3rd round. They're doing this to keep teams as close to their "home" region as much as possible.

And in any event, AFAIU, nothing came of it, since it was Memphis and UC that could have met in the Sweet 16 ... Memphis and UConn being on opposite sides of the Eastern bracket.

(03-20-2014 07:13 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 05:30 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 10:35 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  4 teams from one conference and 3 of them are in the same region...? That's suspect IMO.

THIS is the screw job, and it has to be intentional. The seeding is debatable, but putting three of four in one bracket is breaking the committee's own rules about seeding. And it's not like the AAC got so many teams into the tourney that it was unavoidable.

No, it isn't. The NCAA changed the rules to make sure that only the top 4 seeds are separated by region, only if they're in the Top 16 of the seed list, and they also are allowing teams from the same conference to meet as early as the 3rd round. They're doing this to keep teams as close to their "home" region as much as possible.

And yet, regions have nothing to do with where the games are played. Isn't Buffalo in the west this year?

They try to balance the regions, so its reasonably easy to separate the teams from the same conference.