Selection Sunday is pretty much upon us and I want you to think back: who were the most controversial at-large teams of all-time?

I'll start:

George Mason (2006)-The main beef was that the Patriots made it in over Hofstra, who swept the season series between them and had an at least as strong resumè. Mason was a decent but not very strong team, at least until they got in and proved to be one of the most memorable teams of all-time.

Utah State (2006)-Unlike Mason, they were a complete surprise selection not on the radar of bracketogists. They clearly had a worse resumè than schools like Missouri State and Hofstra.

Air Force (2006)-See Utah State.

Virginia Commonwealth (2011)-Likely the worst resumè of any team to ever make the field. They obviously proved they could compete like George Mason before them but didn't deserve the chance. (For the record, lots of teams that can win multiple NCAA Tournament games are left out each year but it doesn't mean they deserved to make it in. As a matter of fact, they rarely do).

Tulsa a few years ago I believe is the worst recent one.

I laugh when fans are arrogant enough to think “never mind this team proving itself by making the Final 4! they didn’t deserve the chance because I said so!” when the whole selection process is completely subjective and the only thing objective is how far into the tournament the team advanced. If someone advanced to the Final 4, they objectively disproved someone’s subjective opinion they didn’t deserve it. Objective results trump subjective nonsense every single time.

(03-13-2022 01:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Tulsa a few years ago I believe is the worst recent one.

Michigan State (13-15, #76) NET in, ahead of (#35) Memphis was truly appalling last March, especially considering that Memphis won the NIT championship, while MSU failed to win a NCAA game.

Again, there are teams each year that can make noise each year that are left out. It doesn't mean they deserved to make it. You think a school like Iona or VCU couldn't make it to the Sweet 16? They are definitely good enough to which I say so what, they don't deserve a bid.

(03-13-2022 01:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Tulsa a few years ago I believe is the worst recent one.

Tulsa’s AD was good friends with Selection Committee chair — I want to say was his assistant AD at some point. Never underestimate personal relationships. Also, Louisville was last team out last year when selection committee chair was...the Kentucky AD.

(03-13-2022 01:35 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Tulsa a few years ago I believe is the worst recent one.

Michigan State (13-15, #76) NET in, ahead of (#37) Memphis was truly appalling last March, especially considering that Memphis won the NIT championship, while MSU failed to win a NCAA game.

Last year is ******* meaningless. Asterisk year.

The NET is also utterly ******* meaningless. It's not a selection criteria at all whatsoever. It's a sorting mechanism.

And the NIT is even more meaningless last year than normal as a lot of teams that would normally have participated in it refused to do so.

(03-13-2022 01:35 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Tulsa a few years ago I believe is the worst recent one.

Michigan State (13-15, #76) NET in, ahead of (#37) Memphis was truly appalling last March, especially considering that Memphis won the NIT championship, while MSU failed to win a NCAA game.

NIT is meaningless and besides, wins and losses are irrelevant. Good teams lose games they should win and bad teams can rise up and go on a run. Lots of bad teams have won the NIT.

(03-13-2022 01:37 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Again, there are teams each year that can make noise each year that are left out. It doesn't mean they deserved to make it. You think a school like Iona or VCU couldn't make it to the Sweet 16? They are definitely good enough to which I say so what, they don't deserve a bid.

Again, it takes an incredibly heightened sense of self-importance to declare your opinion in a subjective selection process as some ultimate truth as to the whether the team “deserved” it, over the actual objective results of the team making it to the Final 4. Opinions are refutable — on the court results are not.

(03-13-2022 01:40 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:35 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Tulsa a few years ago I believe is the worst recent one.

Michigan State (13-15, #76) NET in, ahead of (#37) Memphis was truly appalling last March, especially considering that Memphis won the NIT championship, while MSU failed to win a NCAA game.

NIT is meaningless and besides, wins and losses are irrelevant. Good teams lose games they should win and bad teams can rise up and go on a run. Lots of bad teams have won the NIT.

There has never been a bad team that has won the NIT, let alone “lots”. Any NIT champion is already in the top 20% of teams in the country.

Subjectivity comes with realism unless you want to insult intelligence.

Your argument about objectivity is flawed as well. Just because you win a game doesn't mean you were a better team. I'm sure there's some cats on the street that could beat Lebron James in a game to 11 (apparently that actually happened). It doesn't mean they should be in the NBA, let alone that they would be among the all-time greats.

(03-13-2022 01:50 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:40 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:35 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Tulsa a few years ago I believe is the worst recent one.

Michigan State (13-15, #76) NET in, ahead of (#37) Memphis was truly appalling last March, especially considering that Memphis won the NIT championship, while MSU failed to win a NCAA game.

NIT is meaningless and besides, wins and losses are irrelevant. Good teams lose games they should win and bad teams can rise up and go on a run. Lots of bad teams have won the NIT.

There has never been a bad team that has won the NIT, let alone “lots”. Any NIT champion is already in the top 20% of teams in the country.

Okay fine, plenty of mediocre teams have won the NIT. Does that sound better?

They didn’t win a game. One game can be fluky. They won 5. There’s no refuting a Final 4 run as the team “didn’t deserve” it just because your opinion on a subjective process said so. If the team went to the Final 4, they proved the committee’s evaluation of how good they were correct. That’s realism — what actually happened, not one person’s interpretation of a resume.

Again, Kent State or Iona can win 5 games if selected tomorrow (I really mean that). But if selected they will not have deserved bids over other at-large contenders.

Your premise is flawed in that you can be selected for something you didn't deserve or overachieve.

NC State was not the best team in 1983 but no cares because they achieved the most. There's a difference between achieving the best and being the best. The best don't always achieve the best.

VCU was obviously a good team in 2011 but they didn't prove that beyond a shadow of doubt pre-Tournament. In other words, they didn't achieve it on the court... except to the selection committee for some reason.

IIRC, the 2006 Utah State and Air Force bids came with conference representation on the committee, but, also for previous snubs for each. I still remember the buzz about these two especially. Air Force in particular…left for dead by the talking heads…the surprise was quite something. And this was the same year MVC sent four teams, and Missouri State became one of the highest rated RPI snubs?

Yep, same year

Subjectivity is inclusive of biases, prejudices, and favoritism, lobbying, name recognition, media power, and inconsistently valuing certain measures over others.

According to the Bracket Matrix,

In 2016, Tulsa was chosen by 1 (ONE) out of 144 brackets submitted before the brackets were unveiled. What do 10 guys who are paid by NCAA schools and conferences know about Tulsa know about Tulsa that 144 guys (me included) that don't get a dime either way if Tulsa makes it or doesn't know about them?

Second worst ever was 2014 NC State, 3 out of 121. Tied for third was 2006 Utah State and Air Force with 1 of 23 each (a lot fewer brackets back then). Fifth was 2012 Iona with 7 of 115. Those five were chosen by less than 10% of brackets submitted.

On the other end were 2011 Virginia Tech, left out despite being chosen by 87 of 89 brackets, 2007 Syracuse, 29 of 30, 2019 TCU, 182 of 195, 2018 USC, 173 of 187, 2021 Louisville, 186 of 203, 2006 Missouri State, 21 of 23, 2015 Colorado State, 124 of 136, and 2011 Colorado, 81 of 89. Those eight were chosen by more than 90% of brackets submitted.

The George Mason-Hofstra snub by the 2006 Bracket Matrix was not controversial. 11 of 23 had George Mason. 13 of 23 had Hofstra. More had Hofstra but it wasn't cut and dry. It's possible some brackets had both or neither. I'm almost positive George Mason's AD was on the Selection Committee that year.

In 2011, VCU was chosen by 15 of 89 brackets, just 16.85%, definitely a controversial pick considering two teams that year chosen by over 90% of brackets, Virginia Tech and Colorado, were left out. You can all say VCU (and George Mason) made the Final Four. Who's to say Virginia Tech or Colorado wouldn't have in the same spot? And to use their NIT performance against them isn't fair, they won't have the same motivation (and I forget when they started seeding the NIT, maybe now when the "top" snubs get cupcakes in the first round they're guaranteed one win it might be fairer).

A lot of people like to use NCAAT performance to judge who belongs in the tournament and who doesn't. That's saying half the teams in the NCAA Tournament each year don't belong. Only an idiot can tell me Ohio State last year didn't belong in the tournament after the year they had. You can tell me the two First Four teams that lost did and have an argument (of course one lost to UCLA and there's no shame there).

And other people will jump on the "insert team" belongs or doesn't belong by themselves. The NCAA is required to choose 68 teams with 36 at large teams, no less, no more. Whether say Michigan belongs isn't just based on their resume, record, and NET ranking, it's their resume compared to the other at large candidates. The number of "worthy" NCAA at large teams is almost never going to be EXACTLY 36. They'll usually either be teams that "deserve" to make it but can't get in because there's not enough bids or not enough teams and a team you don't think deserves to get in gets in because well someone has to get in. And I can pick a set of 36 and it's almost impossible that anyone else on this board will agree with me on the exact same 36. That's what makes bracketology so fascinating. Last year the Bracket Matrix had 203 brackets and that numbers seems to grow every year without fail.

If you really want to say who belongs in the NCAAs and who doesn't, try to come up with your own NCAA field of 68 teams. Then when the real field comes out, you can slam the NCAA all you want. Don't be the guy that says 2018 Virginia didn't belong in the NCAA Tournament.

(03-13-2022 12:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Selection Sunday is pretty much upon us and I want you to think back: who were the most controversial at-large teams of all-time?

I'll start:

George Mason (2006)-The main beef was that the Patriots made it in over Hofstra, who swept the season series between them and had an at least as strong resumè. Mason was a decent but not very strong team, at least until they got in and proved to be one of the most memorable teams of all-time.

Utah State (2006)-Unlike Mason, they were a complete surprise selection not on the radar of bracketogists. They clearly had a worse resumè than schools like Missouri State and Hofstra.

Air Force (2006)-See Utah State.

Virginia Commonwealth (2011)-Likely the worst resumè of any team to ever make the field. They obviously proved they could compete like George Mason before them but didn't deserve the chance. (For the record, lots of teams that can win multiple NCAA Tournament games are left out each year but it doesn't mean they deserved to make it in. As a matter of fact, they rarely do).

Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

(03-13-2022 07:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.