Big East Proved NCAA Selection Committee “Wrong Again”

[Mr. Wonderful]

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

This is correct

 

[nelsonmuntz]

A lot of the MWC and P5 bubble teams sucked, and there is no defending that. St. John’s and Providence should have been invited.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

While you can debate that PC and St John's were more deserving than a couple of the schools that landed the final at large bids, it is still an argument and either side of the argument will have holes.

I still cannot see how they left out Seton Hall, who finished 13-7 in a conference where their conference schedule included six games against schools that the committee saw fit to seed One, two and three and all of their non conference losses were against power conference schools.

I may be making too much of this but there are a couple of comments that have been circulating recently should be very concerning to all of us (I'll paraphrase as I don't remember the exact workding). The first was in response to Seton Hall's exclusion "No team that won 13 games in a power conference was excluded". The second was "Creighton has been very strong for a mid major school recently".

I don't (yet) see it as a concerted effort, but there are some out there (some of whom are in a position of power) who view this as a mid-major conference that may have a couple of schools that are beyond mid-major.

 

[auror]

I still cannot see how they left out Seton Hall, who finished 13-7 in a conference where their conference schedule included six games against schools that the committee saw fit to seed One, two and three and all of their non conference losses were against power conference schools.

They lost to #85 USC on neutral by 8, #55 Iowa by 13 on neutral, at #15 Baylor by 18, and the killer #101 Rutgers by 7 at home. Those are terrible power conference losses for a bubble team.

But they still would have been in if there were a normal number of bid thieves.

 

[uconnfan68]

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

Strike first and outlaw SEC and B1G from the NCAA tournaments in all sports. The NCAA doesn’t control anything in football, so they lose nothing there. The ruckus from those schools about their other sports might help change things.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

They lost to #85 USC on neutral by 8, #55 Iowa by 13 on neutral, at #15 Baylor by 18, and the killer #101 Rutgers by 7 at home. Those are terrible power conference losses for a bubble team.

But they still would have been in if there were a normal number of bid thieves.

What happens if their four non-conference losses are compared to the non-conference losses of the last few at-large bids in this year's tournament?

 

[NJHusky]

Strike first and outlaw SEC and B1G from the NCAA tournaments in all sports. The NCAA doesn’t control anything in football, so they lose nothing there. The ruckus from those schools about their other sports might help change things.

I don’t understand why we need the ncaa to run march madness. They have zero input and get zero money from cfp. Take the tournament out if their hands too. That’s a lot more money to basketball schools and prob changes conference dynamics

 

[RC111]

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.

I'd like to see all the non-football (and non power football) teams break away and keep all the March Madness money. I realize that's ridiculous, but I'd rather watch a dynamic tournament pulling from 300 "mid major" schools than the same 60 P2/3 schools playing every year

Giving teams like Virginia an in over Indiana State is going to kill this tournament. And by the time the powers that be realize it, it'll be too late.

 

[navery12]

What happens if their four non-conference losses are compared to the non-conference losses of the last few at-large bids in this year's tournament?

Colorado State's only loss was to #20 St Mary's at home by 3. Virginia to #76 Memphis neutral by 24 and #18 Wisconsin neutral by 23. Colorado to #80 Florida State neutral by 6 and #32 Colorado State away by 5. Boise State to #23 Clemson away by 17, #56 Virginia Tech neutral by 7, #66 Butler neutral by 14, #39 Washington State neutral by 5. So Boise State is the only one close to Seton Hall

 

[RichCTBB]

The committee has been called out by pretty much everyone in the public forum. Does anyone think they will react to the criticism next March?

 

[upstater]

They lost to #85 USC on neutral by 8, #55 Iowa by 13 on neutral, at #15 Baylor by 18, and the killer #101 Rutgers by 7 at home. Those are terrible power conference losses for a bubble team.

But they still would have been in if there were a normal number of bid thieves.

But who are they up against? Compare their season to Boise State which made it in.

This is what gets me. If the committee says both or even more of these teams are iffy, split the difference in the middle.

Give the MWC 5 teams and the BE 4 teams.

This is a money thing.

 

[upstater]

Colorado State's only loss was to #20 St Mary's at home by 3. Virginia to #76 Memphis neutral by 24 and #18 Wisconsin neutral by 23. Colorado to #80 Florida State neutral by 6 and #32 Colorado State away by 5. Boise State to #23 Clemson away by 17, #56 Virginia Tech neutral by 7, #66 Butler neutral by 14, #39 Washington State neutral by 5. So Boise State is the only one close to Seton Hall

But Boise State plays in a weak league and racks up wins against weak opponents.

Beating UConn and Creighton should count for something.

And do I even need to bring up how OOC is suddenly relevant this year when UConn went undefeated in OOC play last year and was somehow dropped from a 2 seed to a 4 seed?

 

[navery12]

But Boise State plays in a weak league and racks up wins against weak opponents.

Beating UConn and Creighton should count for something.

And do I even need to bring up how OOC is suddenly relevant this year when UConn went undefeated in OOC play last year and was somehow dropped from a 2 seed to a 4 seed?

I didn't say any of that. He asked how the bubble teams' OOC performance were compared to Seton Hall and I posted it

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

I really don't understand how Connecticut, Marquette and Creighton beating teams the Committee thought they should beat proves that Seton Hall and St. Johns deserved to be in more than UVA and Boise St, but hey, if our coach said it I guess normal rules of logic can't be applied. (And that's not to say you can't make a case that they did deserve to be in. Only that it will take Creighton and Marquette doing BETTER than they were expected to do before your argument means anything.)

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

If it wasn't clear from my earlier post, so you're not confused, you still sound like a conspiracy schmuck. Of course the NCAA is biased, because every organization is biased because organizations are run by people who -- guess what -- all have biases. But the Big East teams left out were all at the margins where reasonable minds could differ on their inclusion or exclusion.

 

[auror]

But who are they up against? Compare their season to Boise State which made it in.

This is what gets me. If the committee says both or even more of these teams are iffy, split the difference in the middle.

Give the MWC 5 teams and the BE 4 teams.

This is a money thing.

Boise's losses are better on the whole and they had 2 less. Losing a home game to a team outside the top 100 is BAD. Boise swept SDSU and winning at their place is as good as beating Marquette at home. So better top end UConn win vs better overall resume. It's splitting hairs and committee went a different direction but they were ranked within a couple.

Why would putting in another MWC be a money thing?

 

[August_West]

If it wasn't clear from my earlier post, so you're not confused, you still sound like a conspiracy schmuck. Of course the NCAA is biased, because every organization is biased because organizations are run by people who -- guess what -- all have biases. But the Big East teams left out were all at the margins where reasonable minds could differ on their inclusion or exclusion.

I agree with everything. Except: Seton Hall. There is no way that a team 13-7 in conference with wins over a 1 seed and a 2 seed can be left out of the tournament against ANY team who you want to put on the comparison line with them.

 

[upstater]

Boise's losses are better on the whole and they had 2 less. Losing a home game to a team outside the top 100 is BAD. Boise swept SDSU and winning at their place is as good as beating Marquette at home. So better top end UConn win vs better overall resume. It's splitting hairs and committee went a different direction but they were ranked within a couple.

Why would putting in another MWC be a money thing?

Again, you're overvaluing the quality of their conference schedule.

I have no idea how you came up with beating SD is better than being Marquette. Marquette is a 2 seed.

I was referring to NCAA units when I mentioned money

 

[upstater]

If it wasn't clear from my earlier post, so you're not confused, you still sound like a conspiracy schmuck. Of course the NCAA is biased, because every organization is biased because organizations are run by people who -- guess what -- all have biases. But the Big East teams left out were all at the margins where reasonable minds could differ on their inclusion or exclusion.

If it was within reason and they were comparable, they still let a bunch of the MWC in and left out ALL the BE bubble teams. It was 6 MWC to 3 BE teams.

There was only 1 MWC team in the top 25 when the seeds were made.

 

[navery12]

Again, you're overvaluing the quality of their conference schedule.

I have no idea how you came up with beating SD is better than being Marquette. Marquette is a 2 seed.

I was referring to NCAA units when I mentioned money

Because beating the #17 team on the road is more difficult than beating the #13 team at home. It is very hard to win conference road games

 

[businesslawyer]

I agree with everything. Except: Seton Hall. There is no way that a team 13-7 in conference with wins over a 1 seed and a 2 seed can be left out of the tournament against ANY team who you want to put on the comparison line with them.

I absolutely had them in. But for reasons I don’t their computer rankings were low, and below the other bubble Big East teams. But I would have had them in on 13-7 and no terrible OOC losses alone.

 

[upstater]

Because beating the #17 team on the road is more difficult than beating the #13 team at home. It is very hard to win conference road games

Marquette is a 2 seed, SD is a 5. SD wasn't even in the top 25 when they seeded. And you leave out beating UConn. Home or away that's a big deal.

Again, this is a new emphasis on the OOC that didn't exist t all last year.

If you know your criteria are all screwed up (and they are or else Mich St or Virginia don't get in over Indiana St) then the proper thing to do is insure some balance between conferences.

6 MWC and 3 BE is a colossal failure

 

[navery12]

Marquette is a 2 seed, SD is a 5. SD wasn't even in the top 25 when they seeded. And you leave out beating UConn. Home or away that's a big deal.

Again, this is a new emphasis on the OOC that didn't exist t all last year.

If you know your criteria are all screwed up (and they are or else Mich St or Virginia don't get in over Indiana St) then the proper thing to do is insure some balance between conferences.

6 MWC and 3 BE is a colossal failure

Then we can use those numbers if you'd like. Beating a 5 seed on the road is more impressive than beating a 2 seed at home

Nobody is denying that beating UConn is a good win for Seton Hall. Unfortunately it doesn't make up for the fact that a lot of their other metrics are very mediocre and they had some very bad losses

 

[superjohn]

Then we can use those numbers if you'd like. Beating a 5 seed on the road is more impressive than beating a 2 seed at home

Nobody is denying that beating UConn is a good win for Seton Hall. Unfortunately it doesn't make up for the fact that a lot of their other metrics are very mediocre and they had some very bad losses

The NCAA tournament committee chair discredited Seton Hall's win over UConn.

 

[upstater]

Then we can use those numbers if you'd like. Beating a 5 seed on the road is more impressive than beating a 2 seed at home

Nobody is denying that beating UConn is a good win for Seton Hall. Unfortunately it doesn't make up for the fact that a lot of their other metrics are very mediocre and they had some very bad losses

Beating a top 10 team at home is more impressive than beating a non-ranked team on the road.

The entire in conference schedule for Seton Hall was tougher.

The MWC is a weak conference overall.