I think it is fair to say the ACC & A10 getting 6 teams in and SMU being left out was bogus. It helps to have two on the committe (ACC) to zero (AAC).

(03-31-2014 11:00 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Not one team from the SEC in the NIT made it past the 2nd round, so 3 bids was right

Apples and oranges, as some of teams in the NIT were probably better than many in the big show. It's like saying a golfer shouldn't be in the Masters because he lost the US Open anyway. Any given night anyone can win.

(03-31-2014 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Our three best programs got in and did well. Using the NIT as a measure of why more shouldn't have gotten in is about like saying an Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska or Texas should have beaten Little Team Tech in the Liberty Bowl. When programs that expect or desire to make the big tournament wind up in the little one many times (and to their dishonor) efforts flag while the underdog has every incentive to polish of a good year with a victory over a bigger name.

Although your theory is good in other years, it doesn't apply to this years NIT. The four teams the SEC lost to (SMU, La Tech, USM and Cal) all felt snubbed by the NCAA and were playing to get in the NCAA at the end of the season, not the NIT. I doubt those schools were underdogs against the SEC teams (maybe La Tech and USM were slight underdogs because they had to go on the road.)

(03-31-2014 12:05 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Our three best programs got in and did well. Using the NIT as a measure of why more shouldn't have gotten in is about like saying an Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska or Texas should have beaten Little Team Tech in the Liberty Bowl. When programs that expect or desire to make the big tournament wind up in the little one many times (and to their dishonor) efforts flag while the underdog has every incentive to polish of a good year with a victory over a bigger name.

Although your theory is good in other years, it doesn't apply to this years NIT. The four teams the SEC lost to (SMU, La Tech, USM and Cal) all felt snubbed by the NCAA and were playing to get in the NCAA at the end of the season, not the NIT. I doubt those schools were underdogs against the SEC teams (maybe La Tech and USM were slight underdogs because they had to go on the road.)

S.M.U. should have been in the NCAA tournament and were snubbed for those 6th and 7th slots of the ACC and Big 12. My broader point you didn't quote, no power conference deserves more than 4 and the vast majority only merit 3 slots. The tournament has 35 spots that go to the smallest conferences' champs and as political favors to larger conferences.

I think you can make an argument that SMU deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. They are in the NIT Final Four (but then, so are FSU and Clemson of the ACC).

As for how many teams a conference deserves - it just doesn't work that way. The NCAA selects individual teams, not conferences. That said, I still believe the SEC was the weakest of the P5 conferences as a whole (though Florida and Kentucky can obviously play with anybody).

(03-31-2014 10:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:21 AM)Hoodoyoubelongto Wrote:  I don't think anyone can argue that Wake's AD Mr. Wellman didn't do a strong job of seeding this tournament. We've got a 7 seed and an 8 seed in the Final Four, and given how UK played after their inexplicable loss to South Carolina I think they warranted a higher seed. Similarly, I think both Michigan State and Louisville were deserving of higher seeds --- no way should UK and Louisville have been a Sweet 16 game. That being said, while the SEC has vindicated itself by getting 2 of the 3 teams it got in all the way to the Final Four, and having the third team eliminated on a hotly contested call at the end of great game, I can't see that any of the other teams in the league really played their way off the bubble. Arkansas had a strong shot but blew it in the conference tournament by losing to Frank Martin's spoilerific Gamecocks. Similarly, Mizzou went .500 in league play and then, when they got to ATL, had to go to 2OTs to beat an unremarkable A&M team in its first game in SEC Tourney and then got annihilated by UF in the second. With the unbalanced, non-divisional scheduling I would think that some teams would have stepped up and just taken advantage of not having to play the stronger teams in the league twice (I am a UVA fan and we certainly benefited from not having to play Duke, Carolina or Syracuse twice this season in our ACC league schedule), but I just don't see anyone in the SEC who had that type of regular season besides UF, who amazingly didn't lose a league game in the regular season or conference tourney. I am sure UK would love add an asterisk to that by taking down the Gators next Monday night though!

I think what you meant to say was that nobody can argue that he did do a strong job seeding the tournament. Since seeding the tournament wasn't his job, I can agree with that in a way. The job of seeding the tournament belongs to an NCAA committee consisting of ten members, of which he was only one.

I would say that this year the committee did as good a job of seeding as any committee before them. There has never been a year when some fans didn't take strong exception to the seeding, and this was no exception. I can't remember a year when the task was as difficult as it was this year. For weeks pundits have been saying that there were dozens of teams that could win it all, and few clear favorites. And that's how things worked out.

You could criticize the committee for underseeding UConn, since they made it to the Final Four. But then you'd have to criticize virtually every ranking metric, since none of them would have predicted the Huskies to get to the Sweet Sixteen. In my view, there were five seeding "anomalies" - that is, where actual seed was significantly higher or lower than power rankings would have suggested. These were George Washington, Oklahoma State and Texas, which seemed overrated, and New Mexico and Kentucky which appeared underrated. All five of these schools were seeded between #7 and #9.

In retrospect, the only real anomaly would seem to be Kentucky, which for much of the season performed as inconsistently as the #8 seed they were given. The committee had to guess which Kentucky team would show up, and they guessed wrong.

Many Louisville fans felt their team deserved a higher seed. But their RPI said they should be seeded fifth, and they were actually seeded fourth. Their complaint was probably founded more in the fact that they had to face Kentucky in the Sweet Sixteen. But if Kentucky had been given a #1 seed based on their potential instead of their record, they would have met in the same round anyway.

Bottom line, the SEC got what they earned, and the tournament isn't about conferences. It's about teams.

Your post got me curious. I looked up ESPN's RPI. The only school to be seeded more than 3 spots higher than their RPI would indicate was Kansas St. They were a 9 instead of a 12. There were 3 schools 3 or more lower:
NDSU 9 by RPI, 12 by NCAA
UNM 4 by RPI, 7 by NCAA (#15 RPI, so anything lower than 7 would be disservice)
UK 4 by RPI, 8 by NCAA (#16 RPI, 8 was obviously too low)

Of the teams getting 2 or more higher, the Big 12 had 5 of the 8 (oddly enough, by contrast, the top 2 teams-ISU and KU-were both 1 lower than their seed by RPI). OU, OSU, BU and UT were all seeded 2 higher than their RPI. KSU lost to underseeded #8 UK. OU lost to North Dakota St. who was apparently too low. OSU beat #8 Gonzaga before losing to #1 AZ. Baylor beat a #11 and #3 before losing to a #2. Texas beat a #10 before losing to a #7. So they did pretty much what was expected.
The other 3-Iowa was a 13 by RPI, 11 by NCAA and lost to a #11; St. Louis was a 7 by RPI, 5 by NCAA, squeaked by a 12 and lost to a 4; and UVA (the only one of the 8 not in the Iowa to Texas Great Plains corridor) was a 3 by RPI, 1 by NCAA, and beat a 16 and 8 before losing to a 4.

Other schools seeded 2 lower than RPI by NCAA:
VCU 3 vs 5
Gonzaga 6 vs 8
BYU 8 vs 10

There's a pattern there. The 6 schools 2 or more lower were UK, VCU and 4 western schools not in P5 conferences.

(03-31-2014 11:40 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:25 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 08:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Was the SEC underrated in basketball by a selection committee that only permitted 3 schools from this conference to participate in the tournament? I think it was when considering 2 of only 3 of its participants will play in the final 4. Moreover, I think certain conferences were given too many spots. Consequently, there needs to be changes that allows for better balance in the tournament in my opinion. I’m curious to know what changes members here would make to add more balance to the tournament….

ul-one of the worst years I remember, but the SEC overall was sorry this year. Georgia finished tied for 2nd despite Wofford being their big win ooc (they lost to all 6 decent teams they played). Florida is ranked #1. UK was underseeded, but was preseason #1. Tennessee beat another #11, an overseeded #6 and a #14. All the SEC teams washed out in the 2nd round in the NIT and CBI.

Now seeding really didn't make sense. They underseeded the AAC because they had low RPIs. Yet UK had a #19 RPI and they seeded them a #8. These committees aren't above paybacks & favoritism, although with the money involved, the men's committee isn't as bad as the women's. Maybe they wanted to make it hard for Calipari and hard for Wichita St. It certainly seems that way. Louisville, UK and Wichita St. in the same part of the bracket? 3 of last year's final 4 in the same region?

In my opinion, at least one more SEC school should have been included while a B12 or A10 school should have been excluded....

The SEC obviously had 2 of the best teams, but beyond Tennessee I don't see a 4th team deserving of a bid.

May as well argue that the ACC deserved a 3rd BCS bid because FSU won the national championship and Clemson won the Orange Bowl... it just doesn't work that way (and neither does basketball).

Actually a few teams with 20+ wins might have made it, had the NCAA Tourney not allowed teams with losing records to be awarded bids. Sorry but that's just wrong. I would guess also that the Big XII didn't deserve seven bids either. The arguments made against a fourth SEC bid can be made for just about every conference.

This is one of my concerns.... A SEC (or any) "bubble team" is not given a spot because of a team like Cal Poly has an auto bid with a 13-19 record. Moreover, there is no way the B12 should have gotten seven spots and the A10 six. Furthermore, Nebraska at 19-12 should have switched places with SMU…..

Based on the RPI, the last teams in were #54 Iowa and #55 North Carolina St.

Teams left out:
#32 Southern Miss (beat Tol NIT 1st, @MO NIT 2nd, lost @MN NIT 3rd)
#38 Toledo (lost at So. Miss in NIT 1st round)
#47 Missouri (tied for 6th in SEC)
#50 Minnesota (behind IA in conference-split 2 games w/IA)
#52 Florida St. (tied with NCSU in conference-lost to NCSU and MN)
#53 SMU

Seems like the NIT didn't want So Miss or Toledo to advance too far.

(03-31-2014 12:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think you can make an argument that SMU deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. They are in the NIT Final Four (but then, so are FSU and Clemson of the ACC).

As for how many teams a conference deserves - it just doesn't work that way. The NCAA selects individual teams, not conferences. That said, I still believe the SEC was the weakest of the P5 conferences as a whole (though Florida and Kentucky can obviously play with anybody).

You can make an argument that a team deserved to be in the NCAA because they made the Final Four of the NIT. But it wouldn't be a logical argument. Somebody has to make that Final Four, no matter how strong or weak they may be. Just like 32 teams have to lose in the first round of the NCAA. That's just how tournaments work.

No committee can fairly rank the schools that fall near the bubble. Their decisions will always be arbitrary. That's why I tend toward having a cap on the number of teams from a single conference. Pick some arbitrary method - number of teams, percentage of teams (to account for differences in conference size), or some other method. Maybe some conferences get more slots than others based on historical performance. Once you've picked your method, let the conferences themselves rank the schools in their own conference, and those who make the cut go to the tourney.

That means that some years, a qualified team will be left out, and a less qualified one will get in. How's that different from every other year?

(03-31-2014 12:39 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 11:40 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:25 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  ul-one of the worst years I remember, but the SEC overall was sorry this year. Georgia finished tied for 2nd despite Wofford being their big win ooc (they lost to all 6 decent teams they played). Florida is ranked #1. UK was underseeded, but was preseason #1. Tennessee beat another #11, an overseeded #6 and a #14. All the SEC teams washed out in the 2nd round in the NIT and CBI.

Now seeding really didn't make sense. They underseeded the AAC because they had low RPIs. Yet UK had a #19 RPI and they seeded them a #8. These committees aren't above paybacks & favoritism, although with the money involved, the men's committee isn't as bad as the women's. Maybe they wanted to make it hard for Calipari and hard for Wichita St. It certainly seems that way. Louisville, UK and Wichita St. in the same part of the bracket? 3 of last year's final 4 in the same region?

In my opinion, at least one more SEC school should have been included while a B12 or A10 school should have been excluded....

The SEC obviously had 2 of the best teams, but beyond Tennessee I don't see a 4th team deserving of a bid.

May as well argue that the ACC deserved a 3rd BCS bid because FSU won the national championship and Clemson won the Orange Bowl... it just doesn't work that way (and neither does basketball).

Actually a few teams with 20+ wins might have made it, had the NCAA Tourney not allowed teams with losing records to be awarded bids. Sorry but that's just wrong. I would guess also that the Big XII didn't deserve seven bids either. The arguments made against a fourth SEC bid can be made for just about every conference.

This is one of my concerns.... A SEC (or any) "bubble team" is not given a spot because of a team like Cal Poly has an auto bid with a 13-19 record. Moreover, there is no way the B12 should have gotten seven spots and the A10 six. Furthermore, Nebraska at 19-12 should have switched places with SMU…..

Its about teams not conferences. What about Arkansas or Missouri makes you think they should have been in?
Baylor was 6th place in Big 12 @9-9. OOC they beat Kentucky, Dayton and Colorado and only lost to Syracuse. Oklahoma St. was 8th, but I think they gave them a break because 7 of their losses were in one streak and they finished strong.

(03-31-2014 12:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think you can make an argument that SMU deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. They are in the NIT Final Four (but then, so are FSU and Clemson of the ACC).

As for how many teams a conference deserves - it just doesn't work that way. The NCAA selects individual teams, not conferences. That said, I still believe the SEC was the weakest of the P5 conferences as a whole (though Florida and Kentucky can obviously play with anybody).

You are right it just doesn't work that way. It works based upon RPI which is about as reliable as Sagarin is in football which is NOT reliable and is biased, and upon a committee the members of which represent conferences and therefore have an agenda.

(03-31-2014 12:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:39 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 11:40 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:25 AM)Underdog Wrote:  In my opinion, at least one more SEC school should have been included while a B12 or A10 school should have been excluded....

The SEC obviously had 2 of the best teams, but beyond Tennessee I don't see a 4th team deserving of a bid.

May as well argue that the ACC deserved a 3rd BCS bid because FSU won the national championship and Clemson won the Orange Bowl... it just doesn't work that way (and neither does basketball).

Actually a few teams with 20+ wins might have made it, had the NCAA Tourney not allowed teams with losing records to be awarded bids. Sorry but that's just wrong. I would guess also that the Big XII didn't deserve seven bids either. The arguments made against a fourth SEC bid can be made for just about every conference.

This is one of my concerns.... A SEC (or any) "bubble team" is not given a spot because of a team like Cal Poly has an auto bid with a 13-19 record. Moreover, there is no way the B12 should have gotten seven spots and the A10 six. Furthermore, Nebraska at 19-12 should have switched places with SMU…..

Its about teams not conferences. What about Arkansas or Missouri makes you think they should have been in?
Baylor was 6th place in Big 12 @9-9. OOC they beat Kentucky, Dayton and Colorado and only lost to Syracuse. Oklahoma St. was 8th, but I think they gave them a break because 7 of their losses were in one streak and they finished strong.

Not totally true.... The more schools your conference has in the tournament, the odds of the conference making more $$$ increases. I know you disagree, but 70% of B12 schools making it in is too high of a ratio to me......

(03-31-2014 12:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think you can make an argument that SMU deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. They are in the NIT Final Four (but then, so are FSU and Clemson of the ACC).

As for how many teams a conference deserves - it just doesn't work that way. The NCAA selects individual teams, not conferences. That said, I still believe the SEC was the weakest of the P5 conferences as a whole (though Florida and Kentucky can obviously play with anybody).

You are right it just doesn't work that way. It works based upon RPI which is about as reliable as Sagarin is in football which is NOT reliable and is biased, and upon a committee the members of which represent conferences and therefore have an agenda.

There's nothing biased about the RPI. Its not a black box like some of the football computer formulas. You just don't like the results.

Now the RPI can be gamed. The MWC has figured that out and is sharing it with members. Other schools are doing it. Not sure exactly how they do it, but it looks like you schedule a bunch of weak teams at home to stack up wins and a certain number of strong teams to pick up SOS.

(03-31-2014 01:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:39 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 11:40 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 09:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The SEC obviously had 2 of the best teams, but beyond Tennessee I don't see a 4th team deserving of a bid.

May as well argue that the ACC deserved a 3rd BCS bid because FSU won the national championship and Clemson won the Orange Bowl... it just doesn't work that way (and neither does basketball).

Actually a few teams with 20+ wins might have made it, had the NCAA Tourney not allowed teams with losing records to be awarded bids. Sorry but that's just wrong. I would guess also that the Big XII didn't deserve seven bids either. The arguments made against a fourth SEC bid can be made for just about every conference.

This is one of my concerns.... A SEC (or any) "bubble team" is not given a spot because of a team like Cal Poly has an auto bid with a 13-19 record. Moreover, there is no way the B12 should have gotten seven spots and the A10 six. Furthermore, Nebraska at 19-12 should have switched places with SMU…..

Its about teams not conferences. What about Arkansas or Missouri makes you think they should have been in?
Baylor was 6th place in Big 12 @9-9. OOC they beat Kentucky, Dayton and Colorado and only lost to Syracuse. Oklahoma St. was 8th, but I think they gave them a break because 7 of their losses were in one streak and they finished strong.

Not totally true.... The more schools your conference has in the tournament, the odds of the conference making more $$$ increases. I know you disagree, but 70% of B12 schools making it in is too high of a ratio to me......

What does that have to do with other schools getting in? They deserved it more than any teams left out (with the possible exception of SMU).

Personally, I liked it better at 48 teams. You didn't get any middle of pack teams in from any conference.

(03-31-2014 01:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 01:00 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:39 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 11:40 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Actually a few teams with 20+ wins might have made it, had the NCAA Tourney not allowed teams with losing records to be awarded bids. Sorry but that's just wrong. I would guess also that the Big XII didn't deserve seven bids either. The arguments made against a fourth SEC bid can be made for just about every conference.

This is one of my concerns.... A SEC (or any) "bubble team" is not given a spot because of a team like Cal Poly has an auto bid with a 13-19 record. Moreover, there is no way the B12 should have gotten seven spots and the A10 six. Furthermore, Nebraska at 19-12 should have switched places with SMU…..

Its about teams not conferences. What about Arkansas or Missouri makes you think they should have been in?
Baylor was 6th place in Big 12 @9-9. OOC they beat Kentucky, Dayton and Colorado and only lost to Syracuse. Oklahoma St. was 8th, but I think they gave them a break because 7 of their losses were in one streak and they finished strong.

Not totally true.... The more schools your conference has in the tournament, the odds of the conference making more $$$ increases. I know you disagree, but 70% of B12 schools making it in is too high of a ratio to me......

What does that have to do with other schools getting in? They deserved it more than any teams left out (with the possible exception of SMU).

Personally, I liked it better at 48 teams. You didn't get any middle of pack teams in from any conference.

Do you really believe that 70% of the schools in your conference deserved to be in and that’s balanced?

(03-31-2014 01:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  Personally, I liked it better at 48 teams. You didn't get any middle of pack teams in from any conference.

And, of course, the more and more teams in the tournament, the less and less meaningful the NIT becomes ... though nowadays recalling when the NIT was meaningful is revealing that your an old geezer.

One more expansion and the NIT is wiped out ... say they expanded the first round to two locations, taking 32 conference champions, 32 at large bids and then the sixteen best remaining schools from the best regular season schools left out on each conference ladder, so sixteen first round games. From there you'd just shut down the NIT and the CBI and CIT would be the post-season exhibition game tournaments.

(03-31-2014 12:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 12:05 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Our three best programs got in and did well. Using the NIT as a measure of why more shouldn't have gotten in is about like saying an Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska or Texas should have beaten Little Team Tech in the Liberty Bowl. When programs that expect or desire to make the big tournament wind up in the little one many times (and to their dishonor) efforts flag while the underdog has every incentive to polish of a good year with a victory over a bigger name.

Although your theory is good in other years, it doesn't apply to this years NIT. The four teams the SEC lost to (SMU, La Tech, USM and Cal) all felt snubbed by the NCAA and were playing to get in the NCAA at the end of the season, not the NIT. I doubt those schools were underdogs against the SEC teams (maybe La Tech and USM were slight underdogs because they had to go on the road.)

S.M.U. should have been in the NCAA tournament and were snubbed for those 6th and 7th slots of the ACC and Big 12. My broader point you didn't quote, no power conference deserves more than 4 and the vast majority only merit 3 slots. The tournament has 35 spots that go to the smallest conferences' champs and as political favors to larger conferences.

Substitute SMU for UT and you probably see the same end result, SMU playing UMich. in the S16.

(03-31-2014 12:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think you can make an argument that SMU deserved to be in the NCAA tournament. They are in the NIT Final Four (but then, so are FSU and Clemson of the ACC).

As for how many teams a ft conference deserves - it just doesn't work that way. The NCAA selects individual teams, not conferences. That said, I still believe the SEC was the weakest of the P5 conferences as a whole (though Florida and Kentucky can obviously play with anybody).

SMU was ranked in the Top 25 and had multiple wins vs top 25 teams, and only games. Sorry but FSU and Clemson have no comparison.

(03-31-2014 08:56 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  Can you name 1 other SEC team that deserved a bid?

Arkansas. We should have gotten in over Nebraska.

(03-31-2014 09:04 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 08:54 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Was the SEC underrated in basketball by a selection committee that only permitted 3 schools from this conference to participate in the tournament? I think it was when considering 2 of only 3 of its participants will play in the final 4. Moreover, I think certain conferences were given too many spots. Consequently, there needs to be changes that allows for better balance in the tournament in my opinion. I’m curious to know what changes members here would make to add more balance to the tournament….

None.

Seeding was awful-one of the worst years I remember, but the SEC overall was sorry this year. Georgia finished tied for 2nd despite Wofford being their big win ooc (they lost to all 6 decent teams they played). Florida is ranked #1. UK was underseeded, but was preseason #1. Tennessee beat another #11, an overseeded #6 and a #14. All the SEC teams washed out in the 2nd round in the NIT and CBI.

That doesn't mean much. Motivations vary widely in those events. Some schools are excited to be in them, others are crestfallen and go through the motions. They are for also-rans, after all.