Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="YKCornelius, post: 4570198, member: 9864"] Well....a ninety degree pivot from Charlie the night before Selection Sunday is certainly eyebrow-raising. Either he received some last-minute, inside skinny from backdoor contacts at the NCAA, or he is getting frazzled and coming apart. While Charlie is correct that the committee condensed their second top-16 reveal rationale into a manageable "What-Has-Changed-Since-The-First-Reveal-Two-Weeks-Prior" philosophy, he is incorrect to think the committee gave it disproportionate weight above other criteria (or worse, set aside all of the calculus that went into the first reveal). The what-have-you-done-lately adjustment wasn't a change in the committee's recipe, but rather, for all practical purposes, it was the only criteria they really had for tweaking the results of first reveal. How do we know this? Simple - if for the second reveal, the committee had [B]ONLY[/B] taken into account what had changed in the interim two weeks, UConn would have dropped out of the top-16 because their play over that time was pedestrian. The committee dropping UConn to a #2 was proof that they were still (correctly) applying a multi-faceted criteria assessment across the season, per their own guidelines. Compared to the two weeks between the first and second reveal, many teams played noticeably fewer games than others since 28 February (especially those who were one-and-done in their tourneys). Therefore, the evaluation data points over the last two weeks by the committee are not proportionate, which would suggest that their effect would be on the margins. Granted Iowa had a magical Big Ten tournament. However, a miracle buzzer-beater in the semi's, followed by a blow-out win against a jump-shooting team playing on tired legs a third straight day is hardly cause to jump the Hawkeyes over two #2 seeds (V.Tech and UConn) that also impressively won their tournaments. If the committee ends up placing Iowa into a #1 seed, then they are effectively weighting the tournament results over all other criteria. I don't think they will do that. Thinking that "recent trends" or "the image of the Hawkeyes" will sway an entire committee - to the point that it will have them rethink their decision process (not to mention set-aside their sweat-equity) that has been coordinated for months across multiple regional committees - seems both illogical and impractical. Charlie, relax, have a beer. It's been a whacky season for everybody. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach