Other than cash - why would a school want that seeding? How is it decided? The 16 spots are easy, they take the lowest rated RPI's - how do they decide which two schools will be singled out? Two of the 11/12 seeds don't get the play in and two do? Why not have all 4 12 seeds play in?
(03-15-2011 08:05 PM)stebo Wrote: [ -> ]Other than cash - why would a school want that seeding? How is it decided? The 16 spots are easy, they take the lowest rated RPI's - how do they decide which two schools will be singled out? Two of the 11/12 seeds don't get the play in and two do? Why not have all 4 12 seeds play in?
The last 4 teams selected for at-larges play in them. In years past, they'd be out of the tournament... So they don't have much room to complain about it. If they don't want that seeding, they can go NIT or stay home.
This was a comprise . it was determined there were going to 4 games involving 8 teams. The bcs confereces wanted all 8 teams to be the lowest rpi teams. (which would have made all 8 teams the champs of small conferences.)
The small conferences wanted all play in games to be at large invites.
With the logic that a conference champ should not be in a play in game.
The comprimise was 4 teams would be the lowest RPI
and the other 4 would be the lowest rated at large leams
(03-15-2011 08:31 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote: [ -> ]This was a comprise . it was determined there were going to 4 games involving 8 teams. The bcs confereces wanted all 8 teams to be the lowest rpi teams. (which would have made all 8 teams the champs of small conferences.)
The small conferences wanted all play in games to be at large invites.
With the logic that a conference champ should not be in a play in game.
The comprimise was 4 teams would be the lowest RPI
and the other 4 would be the lowest rated at large leams
Obviously a product of a committee.
Like the old adage, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.