Big East Proved NCAA Selection Committee “Wrong Again”

[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.

 

[navery12]

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.

Let me know when you stop moving the goal posts and I'll continue this discussion. It's very hard to refute your points when you aren't even sure what you're arguing yet

 

[auror]

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.

San Diego State has been a ranked team pretty much all season and 5 seeds are top 20 teams.

It is much harder to beat a top 25 team in the road than a top 5-10 team at home. Significantly so.

 

[August_West]

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.

Seton Hall shot themselves in the foot in the OOC. No doubt about it. Its why they were even considered for the bubble. But this snub really sticks in my craw because it is pure disrespect for the BigEast as a conference rather than being a garden variety bubble team in bubble team out snub. St. Johns and Providence fit that latter category. I'm fine with them in, I'm fine with them out.

Im not a conspiracy guy, but that one has me frothing. I don't like what it portends for the league as a whole.

 

[upstater]

Let me know when you stop moving the goal posts and I'll continue this discussion. It's very hard to refute your points when you aren't even sure what you're arguing yet

I'm 100% sure you just don't like the answers

Wins over top opponents should mean something.
Seton Hall didn't lose to Butler like Boise St did.
The Big East is simply a tougher conference than the MW.

If you don't like my criteria, how in the world do you like the committee's?

They go from telling us the OOC is not very relevant to emphasizing it.

 

[Travelman6]

Let's at least see what happens in the sweet 16. One close loss and 2 in the e8 and at least one in the final four should be expected. I'd even say 2 in the e8 and one ff team is needed before we can say that.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Just. Keep. Winning

Save this chat for later.

 

[superjohn]

Seton Hall shot themselves in the foot in the OOC. No doubt about it. Its why they were even considered for the bubble. But this snub really sticks in my craw because it is pure disrespect for the BigEast as a conference rather than being a garden variety bubble team in bubble team out snub. St. Johns and Providence fit that latter category. I'm fine with them in, I'm fine with them out.

Im not a conspiracy guy, but that one has me frothing. I don't like what it portends for the league as a whole.

It's ridiculous going 13-7 in the second best league with the #1 overall team, a #2 seed, and #3 seed and you get left out. I don't buy into the conspiracy though, it would have merit if they went with all Big 10 and SEC teams but the Mountain West has 6 teams in and nobody cares about the Mountain West.

Val assured us the committee told them they will look at Net going forward so we should be good. Lolz.

 

[upstater]

San Diego State has been a ranked team pretty much all season and 5 seeds are top 20 teams.

It is much harder to beat a top 25 team in the road than a top 5-10 team at home. Significantly so.

The committee doesn't know what it's doing.

It's nonsensical to point to the committee's seeding as evidence that their seeding is correct. They pretty much proved last year that their seeding (which diverged from the polls quite a bit) was bad.

Do I think it's harder to beat SD St. on the road than Marquette at home? No, of course not.

 

[navery12]

I'm 100% sure you just don't like the answers

Wins over top opponents should mean something.
Seton Hall didn't lose to Butler like Boise St did.
The Big East is simply a tougher conference than the MW.

If you don't like my criteria, how in the world do you like the committee's?

They go from telling us the OOC is not very relevant to emphasizing it.

You're just posting a bunch of nonsense. I think your criteria is garbage as is the committee's. Right now your criteria appears to be ignore all of the Big East teams' warts because go Big East.

You're just choosing what numbers matter and what numbers don't, and it changes from post to post depending on what argument you've changed to at that second. And what you posted as I type this is a perfect example. San Diego State is a top 25 team in every metric, was ranked multiple times throughout the season, including at the end. Yet upstater says they're actually not a top team so I should believe that.

But since you want answers, here you go

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

This is irrelevant, San Diego State is not an unranked team

The entire in conference schedule for Seton Hall was tougher.

Completely irrelevant since we're talking about OOC losses

The MWC is a weak conference overall.

It is worse than the Big East, sure. But this is really just showing your ignorance about college basketball outside of the Big East

 

[auror]

Do I think it's harder to beat SD St. on the road than Marquette at home? No, of course not.

Well, you're wrong by every known metric.

SDSU isn't top 25 only by the committee. Also AP Poll (people) and basically every computer metric (KenPom, Torvik, EvanMiya, etc,).

Beating SDSU on road in WAB based on Torvik ranks would be worth +0.73 wins above bubble and Marquette at home +0.57.

Beating us at home is +0.79, so there are some home wins worth more than a road SDSU win, but by and large a top 25 road win is the hardest thing to win in college basketball.

There's a reason all three of our losses were on the road. And all four of Purdue's and Houston's losses were away from home.

So either you're undervaluing Sweet Sixteen SDSU who was in the national championship game last year or winning on the road. Neither is correct.