Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Biggest snubs
Author Message
DavidSt Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,474
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 76
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Biggest snubs
Single digit lost.
UTA 25-8
Bakersfield State 22-9
Grand Canyon 22-9
Belmont 22-6 (they have a better record than Vanderbilt for a Nashville team)
Monmouth 27-6
Akron 26-8
Ohio U.26-8
VCU 26-8
Illinois State 27-6
UNC-Ashville 23-9
Iona 25-9
College of Charleston 25-9
Oakland 24-8
Valparaiso 24-8
UNC-Greensboro 25-9

Some big names that have a winning record not going.
Sam Houston State 21-13
North Dakota State 19-11
Georgia State 20-12
BYU 22-11
LIU 20-12
Houston 21-10
UCF 21-11
Memphis 19-13
Richmond 20-12
George Mason 20-13
California 21-12
Utah 20-11
Colorado 19-11
Colorado State 23-11
Syracuse 18-14
Eastern Washington 22-11
Georgia 19-14
Alabama 19-14
Ole Miss. 20-13
Boise State 19-11
Fresno State 20-12
Cal.-Irvine 21-10
Towson 20-13
La. Tech 23-10
Old Dominion 19-12
Rice 22-11
Marshall 20-15
Wright State 22-12


You have a lot of schools with a good record. and some of them have gone far in the tournament in the past. Maybe these good basketball schools might want to think of going to another conference for a multi-bid? VCU could go to the AAC and might get in.
03-13-2017 05:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,312
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Biggest snubs
(03-12-2017 10:01 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  That's a shame if true. There was room for both Rhode Island and Illinois State. No need for a team below .500 in-conference with a 228 SOS out-of-conference.

Yeah, and I'm not certain the committee wouldn't have dipped for Iowa or Cal. Rhodey comes off like the St. Joe's team from UConn's title run: analysts think the work is strong enough getting to the final, and AQ frosting. Then, you see the seeding.

I really think you have some egos in that room now. You set up four mid-majors to take each other out and then hand them to the SEC and PAC champs why (and they lined up a repeat of Wichita-UK in Indianapolis AGAIN)? Meanwhile, if you thought both Vandy and Northwestern have no business in this, guess what? **** you! One gets to play a second game guaranteed!

Very political and very deliberate. This isn't a great year, and I think there are only five or six serious teams here, but this is getting out of hand. Bad seeding and subjectively picking through RPI to justify one but neglect another...I don't think those on the committee watch the sport at all.
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017 08:15 AM by The Cutter of Bish.)
03-13-2017 05:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Love and Honor Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,938
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Miami, MACtion
Location: Tampa, Florida
Post: #23
RE: Biggest snubs
(03-12-2017 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Vandy got the *9 seed so the network could get a nice market share in Nashville and Chicago, plus the Big 10 / SEC thing. That's the way the whole thing is organized. The seeds are for market pairings, not for quality of wins or the season's work.

It's no different for the 4 team CFP. They look at regions of the country that could possibly be involved in watching if certain teams play. The advertising dollars are based on that. That's why the committee's seeds always flip flop at the last session.

Where there is money to be made by the corporate entities involved you will find the under belly of NCAA complicity. They both like a buck. The NCAA bankrolls about 70 million a year to endowment out of this tournament. Their holdings now are approaching 1 billion. But hey, I'm sure they are the champion of fairness in the governance of "amateur athletics."

However, to most during the year if you point out the corners of corruption into which the average fan may peer, you get labeled as a conspiracy nut.

Enjoy the first two rounds. Those are usually the only ones I watch!

BTW: If the SEC had 7 worthy schools we still wouldn't get but about 4 or 5 bids. We just don't tune in for basketball. So.....we aren't worth the extra slots.

At least college basketball teams control their own destiny through the conference tournaments. What chance do any college football teams outside of the P5 have? Both are rigged systems, just in different ways.
03-13-2017 06:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,722
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 504
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #24
RE: Biggest snubs
(03-12-2017 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Vandy got the *9 seed so the network could get a nice market share in Nashville and Chicago, plus the Big 10 / SEC thing. That's the way the whole thing is organized. The seeds are for market pairings, not for quality of wins or the season's work.

It's no different for the 4 team CFP. They look at regions of the country that could possibly be involved in watching if certain teams play. The advertising dollars are based on that. That's why the committee's seeds always flip flop at the last session.

Where there is money to be made by the corporate entities involved you will find the under belly of NCAA complicity. They both like a buck. The NCAA bankrolls about 70 million a year to endowment out of this tournament. Their holdings now are approaching 1 billion. But hey, I'm sure they are the champion of fairness in the governance of "amateur athletics."

However, to most during the year if you point out the corners of corruption into which the average fan may peer, you get labeled as a conspiracy nut.

Enjoy the first two rounds. Those are usually the only ones I watch!

BTW: If the SEC had 7 worthy schools we still wouldn't get but about 4 or 5 bids. We just don't tune in for basketball. So.....we aren't worth the extra slots.

Mick Cronin said that publicly, and thus...........

Of all of the Top 6 Seeds lines UC is the only one playing 3 time zones from home. 6th seed with an RPI of #12. Win and you probably get UCLA in Sacramento.
03-13-2017 07:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,312
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Biggest snubs
(03-12-2017 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  However, to most during the year if you point out the corners of corruption into which the average fan may peer, you get labeled as a conspiracy nut.

You get trolled by a few, that's for sure. You just have to stand your ground.

I butt heads with a few on here, and, I would feel the same as others do about this tournament, but it really is going downhill. And harder to explain.

We're told RPI matters, but we don't see both schools and seeding aligning to that. We're told a season's work matters, but, you can win a conference, boast respectable numbers, and play in a consolation tournament whereas others stumble aimlessly through a season and get rewarded for what really is one part of one (or just winning a good game or two here and there in a season hemmed into mediocrity).

This isn't a great year, but snubs are snubs. And when you put a bracket together that clearly favors a cluster of conferences, it takes away everything from the whole experience. It just leaves a bad taste in the mouth when you take one school ahead of another and the logic just doesn't jive.

I'll also say, and I shouldn't feel this way, but, I almost understand those years where the Mountain West or WAC got a gift bid, or BYU found their way in when they didn't belong...when you see this kind of self-serving by a committee dominated by major conference representation, what choice do you have? They don't look past themselves...why should others?
03-13-2017 08:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,624
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 416
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #26
RE: Biggest snubs
My biggest surprises:

1) No real snubs. Usually, I am outraged that some team X didn't make the dance, but not this time. Sure, you can make an argument for a few, like Cuse and Illinois State, but you can also easily make an argument against them. E.g., I saw the ESPN talking heads this weekend saying Syracuse would get in but I didn't believe it, IMO they had to do some damage in the ACC tournament to make it and they bombed out.

2) Duke as the overall national #8? Duke has the most talent and now they are healthy. IMO, they are as likely to win the national title as anyone, and they just won the ACC tournament. They should have been the top #2 seed. Villanova got screwed by having Duke in their region.

3) Wichita State as a #10 seed? This is a 30-win team that played a decent schedule. Should have been a 5 or 6 seed. Dayton got screwed having to face them early.

4) SMU as a #6? That's disrespect to the AAC. Very good team all year long. This team will beat Baylor and make the Sweet 16 before losing to Duke. Should have been a #4 seed.

One last point: The committee did UNC a favor by making them a #1 seed, but then slammed them with the toughest region. Their region includes UCLA and Kentucky, two teams fully capable of winning the national title, no other region has 3 true title contenders. Brutal stuff. It means UNC will almost surely play a Final-4 level opponent in the regional final.
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2017 10:39 AM by quo vadis.)
03-13-2017 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,312
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 45
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Biggest snubs
(03-13-2017 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My biggest surprises:

1) No real snubs. Usually, I am outraged that some team X didn't make the dance, but not this time. Sure, you can make an argument for a few, like Cuse and Illinois State, but you can also easily make an argument against them. E.g., I saw the ESPN talking heads this weekend saying Syracuse would get in but I didn't believe it, IMO they had to do some damage in the ACC tournament to make it and they bombed out.

Kansas State wasn't even a .500 team in their conference. Xavier, Wake and Oklahoma State were merely .500. Even if you don't think well of Illinois State or Monmouth, they won their conferences outright. And, you have Cal and Iowa with better conference records sitting out. I really think this is because the bubble was so weak, and the work of some mid-majors very clearly questionable. Still, how do you reward some of these guys? How aren't all four of those schools the ones playing in? Why subject USC and Providence to it?

Quote:2) Duke as the overall national #8? Duke has the most talent and now they are healthy. IMO, they are as likely to win the national title as anyone, and they just won the ACC tournament. They should have been the top #2 seed. Villanova got screwed by having Duke in their region.

But, but, but...if they play, they'll be in the Garden! Nevermind Duke took the ACC across the East River.

To me, the ACC protection is alive and well, even without Greensboro, and with Duke and USC in SC. Duke, UNC, FSU, Louisville...what do you know...very friendly territory when they start their journeys.

Quote:3) Wichita State as a #10 seed? This is a 30-win team that played a decent schedule. Should have been a 5 or 6 seed. Dayton got screwed having to face them early.

And they could line up against Kentucky in Indianapolis. Like they did when Wichita was a 1-seed and KY that 8/9 year. It was garbage then. It's garbage now.

The seeding for all four of those 7/10's are questionable. If you're going to follow RPI to justify some of these seedings, how are VCU and Dayton where they are? SMC? SMU and Cincy? Wichita might be the only one that actually fits in that cluster, but, again, see above.
03-13-2017 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 3,876
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 117
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #28
RE: Biggest snubs
(03-13-2017 05:17 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Single digit lost.
UTA 25-8
Bakersfield State 22-9
Grand Canyon 22-9
Belmont 22-6 (they have a better record than Vanderbilt for a Nashville team)
Monmouth 27-6
Akron 26-8
Ohio U.26-8
VCU 26-8
Illinois State 27-6
UNC-Ashville 23-9
Iona 25-9
College of Charleston 25-9
Oakland 24-8
Valparaiso 24-8
UNC-Greensboro 25-9

Some big names that have a winning record not going.
Sam Houston State 21-13
North Dakota State 19-11
Georgia State 20-12
BYU 22-11
LIU 20-12
Houston 21-10
UCF 21-11
Memphis 19-13
Richmond 20-12
George Mason 20-13
California 21-12
Utah 20-11
Colorado 19-11
Colorado State 23-11
Syracuse 18-14
Eastern Washington 22-11
Georgia 19-14
Alabama 19-14
Ole Miss. 20-13
Boise State 19-11
Fresno State 20-12
Cal.-Irvine 21-10
Towson 20-13
La. Tech 23-10
Old Dominion 19-12
Rice 22-11
Marshall 20-15
Wright State 22-12


You have a lot of schools with a good record. and some of them have gone far in the tournament in the past. Maybe these good basketball schools might want to think of going to another conference for a multi-bid? VCU could go to the AAC and might get in.

VCU is in.
03-13-2017 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 3,876
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 117
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #29
RE: Biggest snubs
(03-13-2017 09:07 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-13-2017 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  My biggest surprises:

1) No real snubs. Usually, I am outraged that some team X didn't make the dance, but not this time. Sure, you can make an argument for a few, like Cuse and Illinois State, but you can also easily make an argument against them. E.g., I saw the ESPN talking heads this weekend saying Syracuse would get in but I didn't believe it, IMO they had to do some damage in the ACC tournament to make it and they bombed out.

Kansas State wasn't even a .500 team in their conference. Xavier, Wake and Oklahoma State were merely .500. Even if you don't think well of Illinois State or Monmouth, they won their conferences outright. And, you have Cal and Iowa with better conference records sitting out. I really think this is because the bubble was so weak, and the work of some mid-majors very clearly questionable. Still, how do you reward some of these guys? How aren't all four of those schools the ones playing in? Why subject USC and Providence to it?

Quote:2) Duke as the overall national #8? Duke has the most talent and now they are healthy. IMO, they are as likely to win the national title as anyone, and they just won the ACC tournament. They should have been the top #2 seed. Villanova got screwed by having Duke in their region.

But, but, but...if they play, they'll be in the Garden! Nevermind Duke took the ACC across the East River.

To me, the ACC protection is alive and well, even without Greensboro, and with Duke and USC in SC. Duke, UNC, FSU, Louisville...what do you know...very friendly territory when they start their journeys.

Quote:3) Wichita State as a #10 seed? This is a 30-win team that played a decent schedule. Should have been a 5 or 6 seed. Dayton got screwed having to face them early.

And they could line up against Kentucky in Indianapolis. Like they did when Wichita was a 1-seed and KY that 8/9 year. It was garbage then. It's garbage now.

The seeding for all four of those 7/10's are questionable. If you're going to follow RPI to justify some of these seedings, how are VCU and Dayton where they are? SMC? SMU and Cincy? Wichita might be the only one that actually fits in that cluster, but, again, see above.

I wouldn't say FSU was favored: they play an underseeded FGCU in Orlando.
03-13-2017 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,920
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 153
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Biggest snubs
(03-12-2017 10:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Vandy got the *9 seed so the network could get a nice market share in Nashville and Chicago, plus the Big 10 / SEC thing. That's the way the whole thing is organized. The seeds are for market pairings, not for quality of wins or the season's work.

Devil's advocate:

1) why shouldn't it work that way, TV pays for the thing!

2) all that really matters is that they get the actual contenders for the national championship right.
03-13-2017 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.