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….

Can you name 1 other SEC team that deserved a bid?

Tenn. had a great tourny this year, but the problem with the sec is outside of 2 teams no one else can field a respectable team on a regular basis

(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.

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?

(03-31-2014 08:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Tenn. had a great tourny this year, but the problem with the sec is outside of 2 teams no one else can field a respectable team on a regular basis

Overstating the case. Its only been that way the last 4 or 5 years.

(03-31-2014 09:06 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 08:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Tenn. had a great tourny this year, but the problem with the sec is outside of 2 teams no one else can field a respectable team on a regular basis

Overstating the case. Its only been that way the last 4 or 5 years.

and there's your problem......

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!

(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.

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....

(03-31-2014 08:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  Tenn. had a great tourny this year, but the problem with the sec is outside of 2 teams no one else can field a respectable team on a regular basis

TENN was assigned a play-in game and demonstrated that it was underrated....

(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….

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.

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).

(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!

We will never know because the schools were never given a chance while a school like Cal Poly was allowed to particpate with a ridiculous record in a weak conference.....

(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….

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.

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).

....so the B12 deserved seven and the A10 six?

The top 4 out, according to the NIT, were SMU, Minnesota, Florida St. and St. John's. St. John's lost in the first round. Minnesota and FSU clearly had inferior resumes to other teams in their conference who were among the last few in. SMU is the only one who might have a good argument.

[/quote]

....so the B12 deserved seven and the A10 six?
[/quote]

THIS. Of course not...

(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.

Not one team from the SEC in the NIT made it past the 2nd round, so 3 bids was right

(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

While performance in another tournament is not the only measuring stick; it is this year as the NIT had 4 SEC teams seeded and none did much

UT had a nice run, but that happens when things fall right or when ACC teams are overseeded. I am actually shocked by UK's performance, and though I hate to say it Cal is a heck of a package. His record in this tourney since 2006 is topped by almost no-one.

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.

The issue here is outside of the best basketball conference's top 4 schools and the weaker basketball conference's top 2 schools and the middle of the road basketball conference's top 3 schools who else deserves a bid? Clint Eastwood's line is appropriate here, "Deserve has nothing to do with it."

At that point it is about the disbursement of NCAA money and those 5th and 6th selections are more about politics than any of the others.

Did the SEC deserve a 4th bid or a 5th? No. Did anyone else really deserve a 4th or 5th bid? No. And the tournament play proves that as surely as it does for the SEC or any other conference. The best basketball conference this year top to bottom was the Big 10 and nobody else was even close. They deserved 4 bids and those 4 advanced fairly well. Did the ACC deserve 6? They placed 1 in the sweet sixteen. Virginia was clearly the most solid basketball team put forth by the ACC. To say the Atlantic 10 didn't deserve 6 bids and not mention the ACC is hypocrisy too. The Big 12 placed 6 as well. Iowa State was clearly worthy and Kansas was as well. Did they deserve to have more in than the SEC? Did the ACC deserve 3 more slots than the SEC? That is where this whole thing gets debatable.

You say it is based on individual teams. Fine. But just as most of you howl and moan with how the SEC is ranked higher in the preseason in football than anyone else the same shoe fits the ACC in basketball and yet they remain there year after year without having produced any stunning results consistently for a decade. At least the SEC football record is a bit more deserving. It's hard for our teams to climb an RPI based upon the opinion of the nations basketball sportswriters and computer programs when most of them are biased to the North and Atlantic Coast. The Big 12 was an anomaly this year because they had some impressive early season OOC wins that bumped them up. Most years they suffer a similar, but not as severe fate as the SEC in regards to number of teams in the tournament.

The truth is right now the Big 10 deserves 4, the Big East, A10, AAC, Big 12, ACC, SEC, and PAC deserve 3. So even if you gave the MAC, CUSA, Mountain West, and Sunbelt 2 each you now have 33 teams out of a 64 team field. My point is when you have 31 more schools, or with the play in games now 35 that probably don't deserve to be in the tournament you are a going to have a hard time convincing me that any of the SEC schools that finish with 20 plus wins and a .500 record in conference play don't deserve consideration for one of those 35 undeserved spots.

The final 35 selections are merely about inclusion of the smallest conference's champion and politics and that's about all.

(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.