This article says it all.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/i...XOr#page=1

Very interesting,so it comes down to money, disgusting.

When I saw UCLA come up (and not even in a play-in), I thought for a split second that UCONN still had an at-large chance.

This tourney selection was absolutely disgusting. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.

As true a blog as I've ever seen posted. Both Temple and CSU got screwed. Indiana had almost as bad a resume with their horrible finish.

Sad. The greatest tournament in the US is being disgraced.

Yet another "screw the world, we got robbed" thread.

Now watch them go to the Final Four, that's the way these things usually go with a team most feel shouldn't have gotten in.

Everything is done ($$$) under the table now a days. .. Perhaps the AAC should do the same.

It is really hard to watch NCAA games outside of UCF games for me. The whole system is a scam.

Was the UCLA AD on the selection committee like the LSU AD for both to politic both in the tournament. Pathetic?

I've been studying the game-by-game results for Temple and UCLA, and it defies belief that anyone could seriously, honestly claim that UCLA has the better team. I don't know what the Selection Committee's real agenda was, but Temple is the better team and it's not even close.

I hope the media will scrutinize this very closely over the next few days. There's something fishy about it.

(03-16-2015 10:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I've been studying the game-by-game results for Temple and UCLA, and it defies belief that anyone could seriously, honestly claim that UCLA has the better team. I don't know what the Selection Committee's real agenda was, but Temple is the better team and it's not even close.

I hope the media will scrutinize this very closely over the next few days. There's something fishy about it.

Sadly, the scrutinizing will end by the first play-in game tomorrow. That's usually how it goes these days.

Need a big supporter or two to buy some good commercial time to congratulate the committee for bringing in suboptimal teams, wish those screwed by the committee luck in the NIT. Would be entertaining if nothing else.

(03-16-2015 10:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I've been studying the game-by-game results for Temple and UCLA, and it defies belief that anyone could seriously, honestly claim that UCLA has the better team. I don't know what the Selection Committee's real agenda was, but Temple is the better team and it's not even close.

I hope the media will scrutinize this very closely over the next few days. There's something fishy about it.

$$$ and power.

(03-16-2015 10:25 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I've been studying the game-by-game results for Temple and UCLA, and it defies belief that anyone could seriously, honestly claim that UCLA has the better team. I don't know what the Selection Committee's real agenda was, but Temple is the better team and it's not even close.

I hope the media will scrutinize this very closely over the next few days. There's something fishy about it.

Putting names in the tournament it seems that have some cache, blue bloods, that can pull fan interest, shouldn't work that way but it is, it seems.

Tournament is worth Billions of $$$ to the NCAA...and the NCAA knows they have to keep their network partners happy...and that generally means making sure huge/major/popular programs get in as many times as they can.

This is not a charity...its now a Billion $$ TV Show...so decisions like this will always be made...and yes, it sucks for Temple, as they deserved to get in...but deserving doesn't matter in college sports.

Let's not overreact because if the above post were true, the committee would not have given virtually undeserved bids to VCU and George Mason that turned into Final Four runs. It's just that this committee had a stronger leaning toward power conference teams this year.

(03-16-2015 08:05 PM)taximan1 Wrote:  This article says it all.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/i...XOr#page=1

lol. They "passed the eye test" when they lost to Arizona.

UCLA's inclusion was one of the worst at large picks of all time. Honestly they shouldn't have even been a 1 seed in the NIT. Travesty and I don't get the whole money angle. The NCAAs bring in money hand over fist so it is just a stupid reason. Honestly they should change how the committee works. Either every conference should be represented (Part of the reason the AAC has gotten hosed the last couple years because there is nobody in the room to make happy) or better yet, toss the committee and let guys like Jerry Palm, Lunardi, Decourcey, etc who don't have the bias pick the brackets. Doubt it will ever happen, but it seems that having a guy on the committee always leads to a little shadiness.

One good thing about UCLA I look forward to seeing as I am a dirty old man

(03-17-2015 09:54 AM)BigDawg Wrote:  UCLA's inclusion was one of the worst at large picks of all time. Honestly they shouldn't have even been a 1 seed in the NIT. Travesty and I don't get the whole money angle. The NCAAs bring in money hand over fist so it is just a stupid reason. Honestly they should change how the committee works. Either every conference should be represented (Part of the reason the AAC has gotten hosed the last couple years because there is nobody in the room to make happy) or better yet, toss the committee and let guys like Jerry Palm, Lunardi, Decourcey, etc who don't have the bias pick the brackets. Doubt it will ever happen, but it seems that having a guy on the committee always leads to a little shadiness.

I say this every year, who is on the committee determines who gets in at the end the of the bracket. It also determines what rating or metric is used to select teams. UCLA was 41 in Kenpom's rating and in the top 50 in the Sagarin. Colorado State and Temple were much lower in both those metrics. I think ESPN radio reported that no team left out of the tournament would be favored against any of the at-large selections. Using Kenpom and Sagarin type ratings usually favors power conference teams; however, it really is the annual debate between best teams or best resumes. The RPI is really a flawed metric anyway and the committee has been moving away from it over the years. That being said UCLA had an awful resume compared to the first four out.