seed/ Team / Record / RPI / Attendance
11/ WVU / 17-13 / 55 / 2664
10/ South Florida / 21-10 / 56 / 1456
10/Miami / 21-10 / 51 / 1463
12/Kansas / 17-13 / 58 / 2817

And you leave out:
Toledo / 27-3 / 46 / 4263

Look at midmajors:
11/Green Bay/ 27-2/ 22 RPI/
5/Deleware / 29-3 / 21 RPI/
7/ Dayton/ 27-2/ 14 RPI

NO CONSISTENCY
Btw CMU an 11 seed. Great season.

17-13 Kansas, and 17-13 WVU have proved that they can NOT play with the good teams.

Worst snub ever!

UB's coach agrees

Felisha Legette-Jack‏@UBCoachJack
Toledo earned the right to be in the Tourney! I am hopeful that our MAC Conference is looking into why they are not! 27-3.

https://twitter.com/UBCoachJack

To be honest, I normally don't give a crap about the women's tournament, but, yeah, that is pretty outrageous.

#11 Central Michigan plays #6 Oklahoma in Columbus on Saturday at 11 on ESPN2. Go Chips. Likely matchup up with #3 UCLA next up on their way to Sweet 16.

17-13 teams get at large bids, 27-3 Toledo does not. All 3 losses were to #11 seed CMU and #7 seed Dayton. Toledo, I think, had only 1 top 100 rpi victory (CMU) so that has to be what was used against them.

(03-18-2013 08:27 PM)DICK Wrote:  #11 Central Michigan plays #6 Oklahoma in Columbus on Saturday at 11 on ESPN2. Go Chips. Likely matchup up with #3 UCLA next up on their way to Sweet 16.

17-13 teams get at large bids, 27-3 Toledo does not. All 3 losses were to #11 seed CMU and #7 seed Dayton. Toledo, I think, had only 1 top 100 rpi victory (CMU) so that has to be what was used against them.

Also 11 point win at Marquette, and 10 point win on a neutral floor vs. Charlotte. Both top 70 RPI.

Play the schedule delt. Not their fault UW-Mill, St. Boneventure, EMU, and Georgia State were tourney teams a year ago and happened to be under .500 this season.

5 seniors on this team. The MAC is very sophmore and junior heavy. Had a great chance to do something special

27-3 is 27-3, the favoritism for brand names > the best teams has to stop.

(03-19-2013 10:52 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  27-3 is 27-3, the favoritism for brand names > the best teams has to stop.

Would like to see the MAC, UT and even the State of OH make a bigger deal out of this.

That is really bad! I don't understand this process. Eliminate the selection committee, put in a formula so people can see the target. I don't know how they could be left out other than the selection committee helping their fellow conference schools out.

(03-19-2013 12:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:52 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  27-3 is 27-3, the favoritism for brand names > the best teams has to stop.

Would like to see the MAC, UT and even the State of OH make a bigger deal out of this.

Agreed. They should have a "No 19 or less win team gets in before a 25 win team" rule period. It created some equity in football and needs to be applied to the Big Dance.

What I don't understand is why they 'punish' UT for a weak SOS by not selecting them, when your SOS is already taken into account in your RPI (opponent win% is 50% of you RPI). We had an RPI of 46 with a weak schedule; that's where our punishment is, having a 46 RPI. Then the committee goes on to reward BC$ conf teams (WVU & Kansas @ 17-13) because they played a better schedule. But they couldn't beat the better teams! That's why they have 13 losses! If they had such a hard schedule, and therefore are such a superior team than UT (according to the selection committee), why did they end up with 13 losses?!? I bet if UT had played UConn, ND, Baylor, & Stanford, and lost all 4 of those games and finished 23-7 instead of 27-3, there would have been ZERO talk about UT getting an at-large bid. But Kansas and WVU plays those type of teams and losses (13 times!), and they get rewarded for losing. Makes ZERO sense.

Who are the best teams WVU and Kansas beat vs. the best teams UT beat? That is often a committee argument on the men's side, more so than number of wins or RPI (which really has been less of a determining factor in the last few years.)

Toledo 1-3 vs. top 50.
WVU 3-11 vs. top 50.
Kansas 3-10 vs. top 50.

Anyone beat a current top 25 team?

(03-19-2013 01:38 PM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 10:52 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  27-3 is 27-3, the favoritism for brand names > the best teams has to stop.

Would like to see the MAC, UT and even the State of OH make a bigger deal out of this.

Agreed. They should have a "No 19 or less win team gets in before a 25 win team" rule period. It created some equity in football and needs to be applied to the Big Dance.

(03-19-2013 01:08 PM)zipsfan Wrote:  That is really bad! I don't understand this process. Eliminate the selection committee, put in a formula so people can see the target.

Yes, I've been saying this for 20+ years. Establish the selection criteria before the season, and make it stick. That way everyone is playing by the same rules.

Same thing for football (and I advocate for a playoff there too).

The selection committee can stick around to create the brackets.

There is no formula to determine who the best teams are. With 340+ teams, there are just massive variables that make each season from another, especially when you are trying to distinguish the last 3-4 teams out of about 10. That's always been the problem. Many have tried to devise a formula and there are a number of them out there, but I don't know that anyone finds any of them perfectly satisfactory, hence the human element at the end to make the final call. There are plenty of big conference schools howling about MTSU making the men's field.

I really don't know enough about the women's teams to have an opinion on who should be in the field.

I heard from a reliable source a couple of days BEFORE
the selections for the NCAA tournament that Toledo
would NOT get a bid. The reason given was that UT
had a soft OOC schedule. Even so, UT had good in
conference wins over BGSU, Akron and even CMU.

(03-19-2013 08:02 PM)ratfink Wrote:  I heard from a reliable source a couple of days BEFORE
the selections for the NCAA tournament that Toledo
would NOT get a bid. The reason given was that UT
had a soft OOC schedule. Even so, UT had good in
conference wins over BGSU, Akron and even CMU.

That's because no one of name value would come to Toledo...(top 20 attendance and solid program wasn't exactly following the cupcake formula)

As pissed as I am about not getting into the tournament, and also how the Rockets got screwed out by laughable BCS programs, once a "mid-major" team takes the opportunity to advance out of their own hands, they have no one to blame but themselves.

27-3 and they aren't in?

What a ripoff.

(03-19-2013 04:39 PM)axeme Wrote:  There is no formula to determine who the best teams are.

So?

Doesn't have to be perfect. Just has to be fair.