(03-21-2015 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  UCLA is first team to advance to Sweet 16. I guess the selection committee got the last laugh.

Yup, a ******* riot. Jump off a cliff.

No they got in because TV heads dictated it.

What the AAC needs to do is to build DEPTH in its ranks. TV heads will tolerate a few more AAC teams if the conference is more attractive front-to-back. Unfortunately, there are a few ADs that need to go if that your goal.

(03-21-2015 06:25 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Winning or losing in the tournament doesn't justify whether you deserved to be in the tournament. You either deserved to be in or you didn't. What comes after doesn't change that.

This would make sense if before the tourney determination of deserving was an exact science. But since it's nowhere near that, retrospective reappraisal leveraging tournament results is entirely valid.

(03-21-2015 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 06:25 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Winning or losing in the tournament doesn't justify whether you deserved to be in the tournament. You either deserved to be in or you didn't. What comes after doesn't change that.

This would make sense if before the tourney determination of deserving was an exact science. But since it's nowhere near that, retrospective reappraisal leveraging tournament results is entirely valid.

You are right. Baylor definitely didn't belong in the tournament. Neither did Iowa State. Seriously? Saying "they were given this, so we should just let their results post gift determine whether that gift was correct" is asinine. I understand the path to that sentiment...it is a very well trod path followed with the combination of best intentions and laziness. And to try and give the same committee that has Dayton playing 1 true and 2 practical home games as an 11th seed any credit is just throwing gas on that fire. But people will do it, and they will let that logic lead them away from raising those questions forcefully after the event concludes, and then they are shocked when that same situation occurs again because last time....gasp...no one did anything about it.

(03-21-2015 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 06:25 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Winning or losing in the tournament doesn't justify whether you deserved to be in the tournament. You either deserved to be in or you didn't. What comes after doesn't change that.

This would make sense if before the tourney determination of deserving was an exact science. But since it's nowhere near that, retrospective reappraisal leveraging tournament results is entirely valid.

The fact that 13-15 seeds, teams who otherwise wouldn't make the Dance without an auto-bid, win games over some of the best teams from throughout the season prove that anyone can win games in the Dance once they're in.

But let's let Quo have his view, I don't think it's that off base, though still faulty logic imo.

Remember, everyone does have that right to have their own personal view...but no one has the right to expect it not to be ridiculed if it is idiotic.

His view isn't idiotic, certainly winning while in the tournament can justify a bid. We're just rebutting that anyone can win once they get in, as evidenced by UAB, a middle-of-the-pack team C-USA team two weeks ago that suddenly found itself with a chance to be in Sweet 16 after beating arguably the best team in the Big 12.

(03-21-2015 07:56 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  His view isn't idiotic, certain winning while in the tournament can justify a bid. We're just rebutting that anyone can win once they get in, as evidenced by UAB, a middle-of-the-pack team C-USA team two weeks ago that suddenly found itself with a chance to be in Sweet 16 after being arguably the best team in the Big 12.

Someone should say something about how on any given day or something...how sports bring out special performances from average people...and how a team with one purpose can overcome a collection of individuals...someone really should say things like that.

Looks like there's a solid possibility UCLA will play the Zags in the Sweet 16, I wonder if Adam Morrison will show up and give a face of agony if the Zags lose again.

Meanwhile, Georgetown gets bounced.

Are you surprised?

(03-21-2015 09:50 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Meanwhile, Georgetown gets bounced.

They like to talk a big game, but play it? No chance of that ever happening.

(03-21-2015 07:45 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 06:25 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Winning or losing in the tournament doesn't justify whether you deserved to be in the tournament. You either deserved to be in or you didn't. What comes after doesn't change that.

This would make sense if before the tourney determination of deserving was an exact science. But since it's nowhere near that, retrospective reappraisal leveraging tournament results is entirely valid.

The fact that 13-15 seeds, teams who otherwise wouldn't make the Dance without an auto-bid, win games over some of the best teams from throughout the season prove that anyone can win games in the Dance once they're in.

But let's let Quo have his view, I don't think it's that off base, though still faulty logic imo.

It would only be faulty logic if pre-tourney determination was an exact science. But since it isn't, it would be faulty logic NOT to consider using tourney results to reappraise who merited getting in.

Is it always valid to do this? No. But it is also invalid to summarily declare that it is never valid, as you seem to think. Let me explain:

Sure, sometimes a pre-tourney record obviously means a team didn't belong and nothing they do in the tourney can change that. I mean, there is no reasonable standard of inclusion by which my Bulls deserved to be in. So in their case, even if they got in and won the whole thing, they still didn't deserve to be in.

Likewise, a team like Duke obviously merited inclusion, and even if they lost by 30 to a 16th seed first round that would remain true.

But in borderline\bubble cases? When it comes to bubble teams, the inexact nature of selection SURELY means it makes sense to look at tourney results.

Before the tourney UCLA, by just about all rating systems, was a bubble team. You could make a reasonable case for them getting in or not getting in. So in their case, it is totally valid to use tourney results to reevaluate their worthiness.

And they have proven worthy. Just like, e.g., Ohio State did in the football playoffs.

(03-21-2015 07:35 PM)Puckhead48E Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 07:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 06:25 PM)Shrack Wrote:  Winning or losing in the tournament doesn't justify whether you deserved to be in the tournament. You either deserved to be in or you didn't. What comes after doesn't change that.

This would make sense if before the tourney determination of deserving was an exact science. But since it's nowhere near that, retrospective reappraisal leveraging tournament results is entirely valid.

You are right. Baylor definitely didn't belong in the tournament. Neither did Iowa State. Seriously?

It is extremely faulty logic to conclude that my position implies that any team that loses first round did not deserve to make the field. Bizarro logic, really.