Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="visitingcock, post: 4556812, member: 6872"] No. It is not the “final word” and I do not assert that. However, the NCAA has designated it as the guide and the selection committee and fans should not completely disregard it, The committee’s second reveal dropped UConn too far below the “guide” in my opinion. In that, I am in agreement with UConn fans. Wins, losses and who you played SHOULD matter. I was stunned when Alexis Phillipou tweeted that the women’s committee doesn’t consider Quad records in seeding - [I]like[/I] [I]the[/I] [I]men’s[/I] [I]committee[/I]. UConn has played more Quad One teams than anybody and has a large number of Quad one wins over losses. In my opinion they deserve to be ranked above LSU who played few Quad One teams. No, the NET is not the be all end all. And no, I do not think the NET rankings of Tennessee or Texas or Oregon etc. are justifiable. I was merely arguing that Tennessee is among the top 68 teams and worthy of a bid ( though a very low seed) Speaking of bad NET rankings, look at Oklahoma. They are tied with Texas for the Big Ten title. They have the same number of conference wins and losses. They have more non-conference wins. Texas has a NET ranking of 11. Oklahoma is 40. Indeed, Iowa State, Oklahoma state, and Baylor are also ranked ahead of Oklahoma despite trailing them by two or more games in the conference. I’m on my phone and in my car right now. So this is not the end of my rant. I’ll do a much longer one after this weekend (probably a dedicated thread) about my dissatisfaction with both the NET algorithm and the committee’s abuse of discretion in staring from the use of it, Yes, UConn should be a 1 seed or, at worst, a two seed. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach