Seriously Buffalo gets the #13 seed and they call them the Bills!
They have an RPI of like 30. They get matched with one of the hottest teams in the country on the west coast on Thursday. Horrible matchup.

Why do expect respect for a single bid conference?

(03-11-2018 05:32 PM)OSUFALCON Wrote:  Seriously Buffalo gets the #13 seed and they call them the Bills!
They have an RPI of like 30. They get matched with one of the hottest teams in the country on the west coast on Thursday. Horrible matchup.

The NCAA won't tell you about their conspiracy to favor all of the big money conferences and teams. We all know it's true.

We are seeing more and more of it in the regular season also. They limit the chances of mid-majors getting quality wins over big-name teams with fewer games at the mid-major arenas and the big boys hand picking their opponents and avoiding possible losses against teams consider to be inferior. The perceived division between mid-major and high major is growing.

College athletics are all about money. And the money comes from high-profile programs. Therefore, they get to control everything.

Hoping the Big Ten goes up in flames.

[/quote]

Hoping the Big Ten goes up in flames.
[/quote]

Explain

Interestingly enough, the MAC tourney probably determined the first team in and out. The director said it was Syracuse and Notre Dame respectively, had UB (lost to Cuse) lost to Toledo or Ball State went further in Cleveland (to make Notre Dame's loss look better) they may have switched.

Arizona is probably a top 3 team talent wise. I saw the pairing with Buffalo and thought the Selection Committee is making sure the MAC is one and done.

It’s a perpetual cycle.

The more we lose in the dance, the more we get bad matchups.
The more we get bad matchups, the more we lose.
Repeat.

(03-11-2018 06:51 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  It’s a perpetual cycle.

The more we lose in the dance, the more we get bad matchups.
The more we get bad matchups, the more we lose.
Repeat.

Just read where all the No. 12 seeds .... ALL OF THEM ... had worse RPI, played in worse leagues (RPI) and had worse SOS ... than Buffalo.

SOMEBODY HAS SOME 'SPLAININ TO DO

(03-11-2018 07:15 PM)cleveland Wrote:  [quote='Motown Bronco' pid='15162339' dateline='1520812304']


SOMEBODY HAS SOME 'SPLAININ TO DO

Good luck getting that explanation

(03-11-2018 07:34 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:15 PM)cleveland Wrote:  [quote='Motown Bronco' pid='15162339' dateline='1520812304']


SOMEBODY HAS SOME 'SPLAININ TO DO

Good luck getting that explanation

Look at quality wins. It’s the primary determination. UB has zero top 50 wins. Show me a 12 seed who has no top 50 wins. Some have wins over top 25 teams. You have to show you can beat tournament quality teams. What’s UB’s record vs. teams in the field?

(03-11-2018 08:21 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:34 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:15 PM)cleveland Wrote:  [quote='Motown Bronco' pid='15162339' dateline='1520812304']


SOMEBODY HAS SOME 'SPLAININ TO DO

Good luck getting that explanation

Look at quality wins. It’s the primary determination. UB has zero top 50 wins. Show me a 12 seed who has no top 50 wins. Some have wins over top 25 teams. You have to show you can beat tournament quality teams. What’s UB’s record vs. teams in the field?

By nature of playing in a single-bid conference, none of the conference teams that make up the bulk of UB’s sked are going to be in the field. While a mid-pack ACC school like Syracuse of course is going to win a few when their league is full of teams given a bid. The question has always been, is the disparity in bids legitimate or systemic (and getting worse).

Case in point is Okla. St. They were left out and have EIGHT top 50 wins.
Mid-major programs especially have to show they can beat quality teams when they get the chance. If you don’t beat any, you really can’t complain about your seeding. The major question is ALWAYS “who did you beat?” What level of team have you proved you can beat?

Think inertia is part of it as well. The A10 was way down this year and we still got 3 teams in.

Inertia? You think St Bonaventure didn’t deserve a bid? I think they did on their own merits, not because of their conference. Solid non-conference record—10-2 including a double digit win over Buffalo, and a win at Syracuse. Second in the conference, I think it’s a solid at-large based on their own record. Really doesn’t have anything to do with conference affiliation except that it gave them a shot at a win over a ranked URI, which they delivered.

(03-11-2018 08:21 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:34 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 07:15 PM)cleveland Wrote:  [quote='Motown Bronco' pid='15162339' dateline='1520812304']


SOMEBODY HAS SOME 'SPLAININ TO DO

Good luck getting that explanation

Look at quality wins. It’s the primary determination. UB has zero top 50 wins. Show me a 12 seed who has no top 50 wins. Some have wins over top 25 teams. You have to show you can beat tournament quality teams. What’s UB’s record vs. teams in the field?

Bingo. This is a entire MAC problem actually. The league does not get quality wins.

UB is probably about right at 13. s dakota st beat them and they are a 12, the 11 seeds st bona venture and syracuse both beat them. ub didn't beat anyone who made the field. so, even though they dominated average to weak teams and had some close road/neutral losses to tourney teams, you can't seed them above the teams that beat them. and new mexico st does play in a weak league but they can ball. beat a #6 seed. loyola is a #11 and they won at florida. buffalo looks like the toughest #13 and arizona probably feels like they win the pac12 reg season and tourney and only get a 4 seed and have to play a veteran guard rich reg season and tourney champ of a top mid major league in boise. and, if they survive, get red hot kentucky next. it's like the ncaa is letting sean miller and all the exposed crooked coaches and teams still play, but jamming them up. how do you explain USC to the NIT? middle tenn st is good. wasn't that the point of the play-in game. to give teams that didn't have the opportunities the chance to show their worth. i also thought st bonaventure was better than a 11 seed.

(03-11-2018 09:57 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Think inertia is part of it as well. The A10 was way down this year and we still got 3 teams in.

It would have been only 2 if not for Davidson win in final over RI.

I have less of a problem with the 13 seed for UB as I do with Arizona as a 4. They look more like a 2 or 3 and are playing great basketball at the wrong time for UB. It’s a very tough draw. Out of the last 3 draws UB has had (#5 WVU, #3 Miami, #4 Arizona) this one feels like far and away the toughest to win even with UB’s best NCAA tournament roster.

The committee used to be clear about their stressing the importance of the last 10 games. That has changed in the last several years as they said yesterday that they factor the whole schedule equally. It doesn’t matter how well or poorly a team is playing at the end of the seaso as much as what the overall record is. Arizona has a few questionable losses, seven total losses, and is ranked 15th. It’s really hard to justify a higher seed than 4th, though I totally agree that they are underseeded based on how they’ve looked in the last couple of weeks. Bad luck for whichever 13 seed got them, compounded for the Bills/Bulls by Davidson stealing a bid and slotting in at a 12 seed. Before that, most folks have UB as a 12 vs. Ohio St or Gonzaga etc.

The Bills lost to NIU. That should be an immediate 16 seed.