Big East Proved NCAA Selection Committee “Wrong Again”

[Secure Dog]

All three teams in the Sweet 16. Six teams from Mountain West we are playing the only remaining team. Big 12 two teams left. Putrid SEC two teams left. ACC has showed up and the Big10 as well. None of that should allow the selection committee off the hook. Using a rating system that is easier to game than a toddler board game. They should be investigated and for certain those on the this years committee should be thanked for their service and shown the curb. As I said in January the NCAA is a biased organization. We are all those BY’ers who called me a conspiracy schmuck back then. Sitting on their hands from what I can tell.

 

[Chuck]

1, 2, and 3 seeds making it to the Sweet 16 is chalk. The Big East wasn't given the chance to prove the Committee wrong.

The Big 12 (and the SEC) proves the Committee wrong. They both got tons of teams in and underperformed their seedings. Every Big 12 loss (and win) was to a lower seeded team and every win.

The Mountain West is pretty in line with their seedings. The Mountain West gamed the system a bit, but I think the attack on them is a distraction from where the finger should really be pointed, and that's at the "football" conferences getting too many teams in, and seeded too high. That hurt the Big East. But the Big East holding serve doesn't hurt show them wrong also.

 

[Secure Dog]

1, 2, and 3 seeds making it to the Sweet 16 is chalk. The Big East wasn't given the chance to prove the Committee wrong.

The Big 12 (and the SEC) proves the Committee wrong. They both got tons of teams in and underperformed their seedings. Every Big 12 loss (and win) was to a lower seeded team and every win.

The Mountain West is pretty in line with their seedings. The Mountain West gamed the system a bit, but I think the attack on them is a distraction from where the finger should really be pointed, and that's at the "football" conferences getting too many teams in, and seeded too high. That hurt the Big East. But the Big East holding serve doesn't hurt show them wrong also.

Ok send your opinion to Danny I was pretty much quoting him. I understand the football connection. I also understand the Mountain West gamed the NET rankings so call it whatever you want and if you disagree but they were wrong and they are biased an opinion to the contrary puts you squarely on the incorrect side of the conversation.

 

[mrl2016]

1, 2, and 3 seeds making it to the Sweet 16 is chalk. The Big East wasn't given the chance to prove the Committee wrong.

The Big 12 (and the SEC) proves the Committee wrong. They both got tons of teams in and underperformed their seedings. Every Big 12 loss (and win) was to a lower seeded team and every win.

The Mountain West is pretty in line with their seedings. The Mountain West gamed the system a bit, but I think the attack on them is a distraction from where the finger should really be pointed, and that's at the "football" conferences getting too many teams in, and seeded too high. That hurt the Big East. But the Big East holding serve doesn't hurt show them wrong also.

Kentucky, Auburn winning was also chalk.

As was Baylor, Texas Tech, & BYU.

Nothing is free in the tournament. Committee getting SEC & B12 wrong inherently means they got the Big East wrong as we had stronger metrics across the board than both of those conferences.

 

[Fan1978]

1, 2, and 3 seeds making it to the Sweet 16 is chalk. The Big East wasn't given the chance to prove the Committee wrong.

The Big 12 (and the SEC) proves the Committee wrong. They both got tons of teams in and underperformed their seedings. Every Big 12 loss (and win) was to a lower seeded team and every win.

The Mountain West is pretty in line with their seedings. The Mountain West gamed the system a bit, but I think the attack on them is a distraction from where the finger should really be pointed, and that's at the "football" conferences getting too many teams in, and seeded too high. That hurt the Big East. But the Big East holding serve doesn't hurt show them wrong also.

Not much to talk about here. Chalk is doing what it is supposed to. Sec flopped. I would argue acc being overseeded across the board contributed to their success. I suspect unc will be the only acc to advance this round. If creighton wins should be 3 of final 8 and that would make a statement. Oregon is very good with healthy dante. Great win while shooting poorly

 

[Tyler2Rings]

I wouldn't say the Big Ten has "shown up" yet.

Wisconsin and Nebraska blown out in R1. MSU and Northwestern blown out in R2 (by 1 seeds at least).

Purdue and Illinois have looked the part. Looking forward to the S16 games

 

[Secure Dog]

I wouldn't say the Big Ten has "shown up" yet.

Wisconsin and Nebraska blown out in R1. MSU and Northwestern blown out in R2 (by 1 seeds at least).

Purdue and Illinois have looked the part. Looking forward to the S16 games

I am ok with that take. I was trying to remain as neutral as I could to make my main point that the NCAA selection committee is broken and more than likely a bit compromised because of football money and geography. Because of that the tournament is less competitive than it could be.

 

[uconnsouth]

The challenge is the powers that be (SEC, B1G, committee) are going to double down. They want the small schools & Big East gone, because in their mind, it eliminates risk of losing and makes their schools more money.

Very concerned for what the tournament will look like in 8-10 years

 

[aceboon]

So the 1/2/3 seeds that had clearly separated themselves from the rest of the conference reaching the Sweet 16 as favorites proved the selection committee got it wrong?

 

[Chuck]

Ok send your opinion to Danny I was pretty much quoting him. I understand the football connection. I also understand the Mountain West gamed the NET rankings so call it whatever you want and if you disagree but they were wrong and they are biased an opinion to the contrary puts you squarely on the incorrect side of the conversation.

Pretty juvenile response. Just pointing out what the seedings mean. I didn't say the Big East shouldn't have gotten more teams in, just that the 6-0 record doesn't prove that. I even said we weren't given the chance to prove them wrong... and that was deliberate (in my opinion).

It's part of Danny's job to make his argument. JC used to say some wild stuff too. Just because our coach that we love says something, doesn't mean it's gospel. Love the passion, but your response here is just weird babbling attack. I'm sure Danny would love to get an email from me with my opinion, just like I'm sure he's happy you're yelling at the internet.

 

[NJHusky]

The challenge is the powers that be (SEC, B1G, committee) are going to double down. They want the small schools & Big East gone, because in their mind, it eliminates risk of losing and makes their schools more money.

Very concerned for what the tournament will look like in 8-10 years

And you have an ncaa that is afraid of the P2.5, since their entire budgets is from the tournament

 

[bazz&boujee]

Maybe the Big East had 3 really good teams and a heap of garbage?

But really, Seton Hall would of made it without the unprecedented 4 bid thieves and Providence is a quality team sans Hopkins injury. When you’re as middling as St. John’s is you don’t get to complain. Don’t lose to terrible OOC opponents from conferences you say are so overrated.

Give it up already.

 

[Kolumbo]

1, 2, and 3 seeds making it to the Sweet 16 is chalk. The Big East wasn't given the chance to prove the Committee wrong.

The Big 12 (and the SEC) proves the Committee wrong. They both got tons of teams in and underperformed their seedings. Every Big 12 loss (and win) was to a lower seeded team and every win.

The Mountain West is pretty in line with their seedings. The Mountain West gamed the system a bit, but I think the attack on them is a distraction from where the finger should really be pointed, and that's at the "football" conferences getting too many teams in, and seeded too high. That hurt the Big East. But the Big East holding serve doesn't hurt show them wrong also.

Even if it is chalk, the odds are against all 3 making it through to the Sweet 16. They did it and proved that they are very high quality teams.

SJU lost to UConn 3 times, Marquette twice, and split with Creighton. 1-6 vs those three teams. The committee had to take into account that conference members are playing these three teams at least twice each and that the rest of the conference deserved another bid or two. It doesn't prove they would have won, because chalk would say they would lose, but it proves the conference deserved the bids.

Auburn, Kentucky, Baylor, Kansas - You are correct, the Big 12 and SEC could not hold serve.

 

[Tenspro2002]

ACC has greatly outperformed (8-1, 4 teams remaining -- 1, 4, 6, and 11 seeds; only Virginia embarrassed themselves, and they shouldn't have been in the field).

PAC-12 has outperformed (6-3, only #2 seed Arizona remains, but #7 WSU, #10 Colorado, and #11 Oregon all made the second round).

Big East has performed to expectations (6-0, #1, 2, and 3 seeds remaining).

Mountain West performed to expectations, maybe slightly below (4-5, #5 seed SDSU remains, everyone else was #7-11 seeds). The Mountain West may have been overrated by NET, but the Committee punished them for being outside the P5 in their seeding, unlike other conferences who gamed the system.

Big Ten performed close to expectations, maybe slightly below (6-4, #1 Purdue and #3 Illinois remain and look formidable, three 8-9 seeds went 2-1 in the first round, #5 Wisconsin was embarrassed).

Big XII was overrated (7-6, of 8 teams in the field, only #1 Houston and #2 ISU remain; #3 Baylor and #4 Kansas didn't make it; #7 Texas lost in the second round, #6 TTU and BYU were upset in the first round, #9 TCU lost too).

SEC was badly overrated (5-6, #2 Tennessee and #4 Bama remain, and #9 A&M won a game, but #3 UK, #4 Auburn were upset in the first round, #6 SC, #7 Florida, #9 MSU lost too).

 

[gtcam]

Ok send your opinion to Danny I was pretty much quoting him. I understand the football connection. I also understand the Mountain West gamed the NET rankings so call it whatever you want and if you disagree but they were wrong and they are biased an opinion to the contrary puts you squarely on the incorrect side of the conversation.

If you are quoting him then do it with quotation marks and attribute

Need to give up the whining over the selection. In the end, highly likely that the NBE only deserved the 3 teams. Other NBE teams need to win some quality OOC games and take care of business in conference. I highly doubt that SH, SJs, Prov could beat Auburn, Kentucky, Baylor or Kansas in a best of 3 series.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

ACC has greatly outperformed (8-1, 4 teams remaining -- 1, 4, 6, and 11 seeds; only Virginia embarrassed themselves, and they shouldn't have been in the field).

PAC-12 has outperformed (6-3, only #2 seed Arizona remains, but #7 WSU, #10 Colorado, and #11 Oregon all made the second round).

Big East has performed to expectations (6-0, #1, 2, and 3 seeds remaining).

Mountain West performed to expectations, maybe slightly below (4-5, #5 seed SDSU remains, everyone else was #7-11 seeds). The Mountain West may have been overrated by NET, but the Committee punished them for being outside the P5 in their seeding, unlike other conferences who gamed the system.

Big Ten performed close to expectations, maybe slightly below (6-4, #1 Purdue and #3 Illinois remain and look formidable, three 8-9 seeds went 2-1 in the first round, #5 Wisconsin was embarrassed).

Big XII was overrated (7-6, of 8 teams in the field, only #1 Houston and #2 ISU remain; #3 Baylor and #4 Kansas didn't make it; #7 Texas lost in the second round, #6 TTU and BYU were upset in the first round, #9 TCU lost too).

SEC was badly overrated (5-6, #2 Tennessee and #4 Bama remain, and #9 A&M won a game, but #3 UK, #4 Auburn were upset in the first round, #6 SC, #7 Florida, #9 MSU lost too).

The "well they performed according to expectations based on seed" argument is silly, especially when used to justify the most poorly selected field since the field went to 64 teams. Historically, the 8/9 games are tossups, and 7/10, 6/11 and 5/12 favor the high seed by 60%, 63% and 64% respectively. Favorites, but not overwhelming. The SEC, Big 12 and MWC had problems no matter where they were seeded. A lot of these bubble teams from those conferences got their bids because of all their Q1/Q2 wins, which were based on inflated NET ratings. A case can be made that some of the remaining teams, like Alabama, got their high seeds and easy path to the Sweet 16, because of inflated NET ratings.

St. Johns and Providence deserved to go over some of these mediocre teams, and that cost the Big East millions.

 

[August_West]

Mountain West performed to expectations, maybe slightly below (4-5, #5 seed SDSU remains, everyone else was #7-11 seeds). The Mountain West may have been overrated by NET, but the Committee punished them for being outside the P5 in their seeding, unlike other conferences who gamed the system.

So MWC cant have it both ways. If they were punished and seeded too low, then they didn't perform to expectations.

If they performed to expectations, then they were seeded just right.

 

[Tenspro2002]

The "well they performed according to expectations based on seed" argument is silly, especially when used to justify the most poorly selected field since the field went to 64 teams. Historically, the 8/9 games are tossups, and 7/10, 6/11 and 5/12 favor the high seed by 60%, 63% and 64% respectively. Favorites, but not overwhelming. The SEC, Big 12 and MWC had problems no matter where they were seeded. A lot of these bubble teams from those conferences got their bids because of all their Q1/Q2 wins, which were based on inflated NET ratings. A case can be made that some of the remaining teams, like Alabama, got their high seeds and easy path to the Sweet 16, because of inflated NET ratings.

St. Johns and Providence deserved to go over some of these mediocre teams, and that cost the Big East millions.

Yes, if I didn't have a full time job I would calculate the "expected wins" for each seed in comparison to their actual performance.

The conclusion isn't going to be wildly different. The SEC and Big XII have been a joke, the MWC slightly below expectations and were already penalized in seed lines by the Committee.

The Big East has been good (6-0 is expected based on a binary favored/underdog calculus, but yes, you'd probably "expect" about 5 wins, so an overperformance).

 

[AllHusky]

All three teams in the Sweet 16. Six teams from Mountain West we are playing the only remaining team. Big 12 two teams left. Putrid SEC two teams left. ACC has showed up and the Big10 as well. None of that should allow the selection committee off the hook. Using a rating system that is easier to game than a toddler board game. They should be investigated and for certain those on the this years committee should be thanked for their service and shown the curb. As I said in January the NCAA is a biased organization. We are all those BY’ers who called me a conspiracy schmuck back then. Sitting on their hands from what I can tell.

Saying the NCAA is Biased and corrupt, is about as big an understatement as “The Titanics maiden voyage was a rough one.”

 

[Dibbie]

I’d rather be 6-0, than 6-3 or 7-3, which would have been the result if those middling teams got bids.

The money factor is a bit overblown. A few million divided by 11 teams spread out over six years ends up being a decimal point on the P&L.

 

[Karmacop]

Here's Lunardi's take on ESPN:

"Big East media shills have been even more obnoxious than their ACC counterparts, which is really saying something. UConn, Marquette and Creighton -- all seeded to be exactly where they are -- have nothing to do with Seton Hall, St. John's or Providence missing the tournament. The reality is, thanks to the unprecedented volume of bid stealers at the end of Champ Week, we had what amounted to a 31-team at-large pool (instead of 36 or, more accurately, the 34 or 35 spots we'd have with an average number of conference tourney upsets). The Big East would have gotten at least two and maybe three of the slots that vanished. There's no conspiracy here, just bad math and bad luck. Follow the lead of your classy commissioner and get over it. Sometimes things don't work out. (Just ask Kent State.)"

Joe Lunardi: Sweet 16 thoughts, and the awful taste Kentucky left us with

The selection committee appears to have gotten the top 10 teams in the tournament exactly right. That's how far you have to go down to get to Kentucky.

www.espn.com

 

[upstater]

Maybe the Big East had 3 really good teams and a heap of garbage?

But really, Seton Hall would of made it without the unprecedented 4 bid thieves and Providence is a quality team sans Hopkins injury. When you’re as middling as St. John’s is you don’t get to complain. Don’t lose to terrible OOC opponents from conferences you say are so overrated.

Give it up already.

You mean like Boise State?

Losses to Butler, Virginia Tech, only win of note is an underwhelming St Mary's team?

Sorry, you're wrong.

Leaving out Seton Hall and St. John's for these weak MWC teams was just not defensible at all.

 

[upstater]

Here's Lunardi's take on ESPN:

"Big East media shills have been even more obnoxious than their ACC counterparts, which is really saying something. UConn, Marquette and Creighton -- all seeded to be exactly where they are -- have nothing to do with Seton Hall, St. John's or Providence missing the tournament. The reality is, thanks to the unprecedented volume of bid stealers at the end of Champ Week, we had what amounted to a 31-team at-large pool (instead of 36 or, more accurately, the 34 or 35 spots we'd have with an average number of conference tourney upsets). The Big East would have gotten at least two and maybe three of the slots that vanished. There's no conspiracy here, just bad math and bad luck. Follow the lead of your classy commissioner and get over it. Sometimes things don't work out. (Just ask Kent State.)"

Joe Lunardi: Sweet 16 thoughts, and the awful taste Kentucky left us with

The selection committee appears to have gotten the top 10 teams in the tournament exactly right. That's how far you have to go down to get to Kentucky.

www.espn.com

Does Lunardi address the MWC getting 6 teams?

I mean, Boise St? How did they deserve it over Seton Hall?

 

[upstater]

I’d rather be 6-0, than 6-3 or 7-3, which would have been the result if those middling teams got bids.

The money factor is a bit overblown. A few million divided by 11 teams spread out over six years ends up being a decimal point on the P&L.

You're underestimating the money.

Each unit is worth $2m. If SD State loses, the MWC is going to get $20m with only one team advancing to the S16, and only 2 teams advancing to the round of 32.

Meanwhile, even if UConn goes all the way and wins everything, the BE will earn about the same amount.

7-3 would be $8m more for BE teams divided by 11.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yes, if I didn't have a full time job I would calculate the "expected wins" for each seed in comparison to their actual performance.

The conclusion isn't going to be wildly different. The SEC and Big XII have been a joke, the MWC slightly below expectations and were already penalized in seed lines by the Committee.

The Big East has been good (6-0 is expected based on a binary favored/underdog calculus, but yes, you'd probably "expect" about 5 wins, so an overperformance).

By the “performed according to seed” logic, why not give DePaul a 10 seed, then when they lose by 30, say “well they performed according to their seed” to justify inviting them?