Pathetic

[DobbsRover2]

While I appreciate the outrage and need to hide behind conspiracy theories, I just point to what Geno said - if you're going to whine, why even show up?

Oh c'mon, no whining? That's no fun, and that's definitely not what what post-Selection-apocalyptic-world discussions are all about, even if you are fans of the #1 seeded team and have absolutely nothing to whine about. While I'm at it in whining mode, they really should have given much more attention to UConn and ignored all those other #1 seeds.

 

[Hope]

Wow.... Princeton

The acceptance rate at Princeton is 7.4% (2014). The acceptance rate at Can-tucky is 68.6%.

 

[Alydar]

The only good I can see in this is that UConn fans get Rutgers-Seton Hall and a possible Louisville-Kentucky as the undercard in Storrs and Albany.

But I'd love to see USF knock off an ACC 3 and an SEC 2. The downside would be a 4th game against USF.

 

[baggerbob]

Kentucky as a #2 ???

Tennessee without Harrison isn't a 2 seed, and Kentucky isn't close to being a 2 seed.

 

[geneticrex]

The acceptance rate at Princeton is 7.4% (2014). The acceptance rate at Can-tucky is 68.6%.

The acceptance rate to the university of "Main St." is 100%, yet somehow, my application was rejected post haste..

 

[arty155]

Do you really think people with agendas DON'T conspire???

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.” Adam Smith

 

[Buzzyboy]

I so agree. I do not understand the thinking of the committee members.

There was no thinking or worse still, there was a conspiracy to downgrade the AAC. There should be an investigation and something should come of this because either the level of incompetence is absurdly high or there is merit to attempts to degrade the AAC.

 

[DobbsRover2]

If I was a coach that would be valid. Play who is in front of you. I agree. But I'm not a coach. Two years ago I went to bridgeport and watched UConn play Cal and then Kentucky. I face the same thing this year. This makes 3 out of 4 years with Kentucky as the 2 in UConn's region. Both coached by males, being put up against each other? If you think that's mere coincidence I've got a bridge ....

For years I've heard the committee chair say that they are bound by their geographical policy in siting teams. 2008 being the most blatant. This year we had Tenn and Kentucky, and two sites, Albany and Spokane. By almost any measure the committee uses, RPI, SOS, head to head, etc. Tenn is the higher seed and should have been sent to the closer site. But in a strange twist, the committee abandoned the same principles it has been saying are sacrosanct for at least 15 years, and sent the LV's to Spokane. And ESPN has a chance to ask for an explanation and passes on it?

Yeah, give me a tinfoil hat.

Um, so where did the top seed play last year? You mean they couldn't find any place closer than Lincoln for the Huskies to go to?

This year the LVs are likely overjoyed to be heading west if they can win out at home. The Committee sticks to a rule one year, and half the fans cry it's an atrocity because the brackets aren't balanced. So then they say that well maybe the complainers have a point and next year we'll try to balance the brackets, so then the gripers are out complaining that the teams aren't going to the nearest site, and screw the competitiveness level.

Sound like the old Stealers Wheel lyric, "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, . . . ."

 

[Buzzyboy]

Do people really believe this is a conspiracy? What they should really do is cut down the number of teams. No more than 32 for sure, and even better if you cut it down to 20-24, basically make the first round a play in for the Sweet 16. I'd almost rather the last two teams standing play a best of 3 than watch the first and second rounds where teams are getting slaughtered by 60 or 70 points.

I think the first couple of rounds are rarely contested though didn't Stanford get beat as a Number 1 seed some years ago and Tennessee fared no better more recently. For some teams, making the NCAA is everything and even if the games aren't typically that competitive, it means everything that they get to experience it. I wouldn't want to take that away from some of these kids who bust their butt to make it. It's not entirely for your benefit and if you're not excited about the first couple of rounds, find something else to amuse yourself. Why deprive these kids from some enjoyment. For a kid to be able to say that in 2015 I played against the national champion Huskies in the NCAA tournament and scored against Breanna or Kia or Khia or Moriah or Morgan. That is a lifetime memory for some kid who worked hard to be the best she could be.

 

[Buzzyboy]

While I appreciate the outrage and need to hide behind conspiracy theories, I just point to what Geno said - if you're going to whine, why even show up?

Sometimes things need to be said and hopefully, the more outrage the better. Maybe something positive would come from it. There does seem to be ridiculous decisions that conspire to eliminate men basketball coaches by letting them eliminate each other, thus making the latter rounds primarily entirely female with only Geno maybe surviving. As has been mentioned, USF being in the same bracket as UConn despite the fact that they've played three times (and been the most competitive team UConn has played)????? On so many levels, that's totally idiotic. To not mention it would do a disservice to fair play and balance and LOGIC. I would take the whole committee and ban them from ever stepping on a basketball court again and only allow them to watch a women's college basketball again if they get a waiver from Geno.

 

[Alydar]

Um, so where did the top seed play last year? You mean they couldn't find any place closer than Lincoln for the Huskies to go to?

The Committee sticks to a rule one year, and half the fans cry it's an atrocity because the brackets aren't balanced. So then they say that well maybe the complainers have a point and next year we'll try to balance the brackets, so then the gripers are out complaining that the teams aren't going to the nearest site, and screw the competitiveness level.

Not accurate. The G-curve, or siting teams by nearness to the regions has been a consistent principle for at least 15 years, with the exception of last year when there were no regional sites. Remember, they put the S16 and E8 up for bid. Or do you think South Bend, Louisville, Lincoln and Stanford represented the 4 regions of the country. For the last 10 years predicting the regional assignment of the top 8 teams was simple as long as you knew their rankings. Until this year.

And as long as I'm being conspiratorial, here's a beaut. ESPN had Tenn in Albany until last week, when suddenly Creme had them in Spokane. ESPN suddenly started talking about how a Tenn-UConn rivalry was old news. The phrase used by Lobo was something like "that train left the station". My thinking is that that was a pile of BS. ESPN knows damn well that a Tenn-UConn game would be the biggest game around, but they know it would be a mismatch this year and if UConn blew the LV's out by 30+ the luster of the rivalry would disappear. But next year, when ESPN darling Diamond is playing, they can hype a game to the hilt. So ESPN made it clear to the NCAA, to whom they pay billions for basketball rights, that it would be better if they didn't send the LV's where the G-curve dictated they go.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Gate81]

while all of the above may sound unfair or too interesting, to me the biggest shocker was in the Men's bracket, keeping Duke a #1 after not even making the finals of the ACC tournament. AZ should have been one in the West and Wisconsin in Duke's region. That is bizarre. I guess for all these the real question is whether a little disappointment motivates you enough to go out and work even harder.

 

[Gate81]

Sometimes things need to be said and hopefully, the more outrage the better. Maybe something positive would come from it. There does seem to be ridiculous decisions that conspire to eliminate men basketball coaches by letting them eliminate each other, thus making the latter rounds primarily entirely female with only Geno maybe surviving. As has been mentioned, USF being in the same bracket as UConn despite the fact that they've played three times (and been the most competitive team UConn has played)????? On so many levels, that's totally idiotic. To not mention it would do a disservice to fair play and balance and LOGIC. I would take the whole committee and ban them from ever stepping on a basketball court again and only allow them to watch a women's college basketball again if they get a waiver from Geno.

OMG so how many female coaches are in the men's game in total? Really this is ludicrous.

 

[Gate81]

yes we all know that ESPN is always unbiased - not...though usually they favor UConn, one must admit...

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

Oregon State will beat TN in a rematch! IMHO!
TN will not make the Final 4 with Holly "I'll let the players call the plays" Warlick!

 

[triaddukefan]

while all of the above may sound unfair or too interesting, to me the biggest shocker was in the Men's bracket, keeping Duke a #1 after not even making the finals of the ACC tournament. AZ should have been one in the West and Wisconsin in Duke's region. That is bizarre. I guess for all these the real question is whether a little disappointment motivates you enough to go out and work even harder.

Not bizarre............ Duke beat more good teams than Arizona... point blank. Im looking at Zona's schedule now. Best wins.... Zaga.. at home.... SDSU... at home... and home and away victories vs UTAH. Losses to UNLV, OREGON STATE, and ARIZONA State. Compare that to Duke's best victories....... AT WISCONSIN... AT VIRGINIA... AT LOUISVILLE, AT UNC ... Michigan State..... UNC at home... Notre Dame at home. Losses to ND (twice), NC State, and Miami. Tell me what team has a better set of wins then that ? Definitely not Zona.... definitely not Wisconsin.

 

[Hoopz]

Kentucky as a #2 ???

Kentucky has a high RPI & SOS and have a good record against top 25 & top 50 teams. That's how they got a 2 seed.

 

[HoopsFan21]

I just can't believe how they put all the coaches that like to wear green in the Oklahoma City region. I mean WTF selection committee?

 

[southie]

I was kind of shocked with UK being the final #2 seed; but, they did have wins over Baylor and South Carolina.

As for games being played on Friday in direct competition with the men's games, who's bright idea was that? That won't help draw interest; TV ratings will be worse than years past.

 

[meyers7]

Sound like the old Stealers Wheel lyric, "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, . . . ."

Great song.

 

[uconnfan68]

yes we all know that ESPN is always unbiased - not...though usually they favor UConn, one must admit...

If they actually did favor UConn, as you suggest, we'd be in a P5 conference.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Not accurate. The G-curve, or siting teams by nearness to the regions has been a consistent principle for at least 15 years, with the exception of last year when there were no regional sites. Remember, they put the S16 and E8 up for bid. Or do you think South Bend, Louisville, Lincoln and Stanford represented the 4 regions of the country. For the last 10 years predicting the regional assignment of the top 8 teams was simple as long as you knew their rankings. Until this year.

And as long as I'm being conspiratorial, here's a beaut. ESPN had Tenn in Albany until last week, when suddenly Creme had them in Spokane. ESPN suddenly started talking about how a Tenn-UConn rivalry was old news. The phrase used by Lobo was something like "that train left the station". My thinking is that that was a pile of BS. ESPN knows damn well that a Tenn-UConn game would be the biggest game around, but they know it would be a mismatch this year and if UConn blew the LV's out by 30+ the luster of the rivalry would disappear. But next year, when ESPN darling Diamond is playing, they can hype a game to the hilt. So ESPN made it clear to the NCAA, to whom they pay billions for basketball rights, that it would be better if they didn't send the LV's where the G-curve dictated they go.

Just my opinion of course.

Okay, so then the G-rule was broken last year, for whatever reason. For many many years, the placing of the #1 seeds have not been usually much of a challenge, as the top seeds have often fallen into separate nearby sites pretty well, so it is the #2 seed pairings that have been more problematic. Occasionally the committee has stuck #1-#2 teams from the same conference together based on some S-curve or G-curve idea, but that has been roundly booed, so likely they will not do it again.

As to a theory of the G-curve guiding everything, obviously the committee hopes to use it as much as possible along with the S-curve, but they have also been willing to chuck it on occasion. Why did maybe the top team ever get sent out to Milwaukee in 2002 instead of trucking down to the 400 mile closer Raleigh? No G whiz there. In 2010, Duke was the top 2-seed and could have been sent to the nearest facility in Dayton with UConn but instead was allowed to travel further out to Memphis. Those aren't the exact same situation as with UTenn this year, but certainly the second one is very close.

Again, the committee has used many rules over the years to mix and match, and there's no huge reason for us to become conspiracy kitties.

 

[triaddukefan]

Okay, so then the G-rule was broken last year, for whatever reason. For many many years, the placing of the #1 seeds have not been usually much of a challenge, as the top seeds have often fallen into separate nearby sites pretty well, so it is the #2 seed pairings that have been more problematic. Occasionally the committee has stuck #1-#2 teams from the same conference together based on some S-curve or G-curve idea, but that has been roundly booed, so likely they will not do it again.

As to a theory of the G-curve guiding everything, obviously the committee hopes to use it as much as possible along with the S-curve, but they have also been willing to chuck it on occasion. Why did maybe the top team ever get sent out to Milwaukee in 2002 instead of trucking down to the 400 mile closer Raleigh? No G whiz there. In 2010, Duke was the top 2-seed and could have been sent to the nearest facility in Dayton with UConn but instead was allowed to travel further out to Memphis. Those aren't the exact same situation as with UTenn this year, but certainly the second one is very close.

Again, the committee has used many rules over the years to mix and match, and there's no huge reason for us to become conspiracy kitties.

They made the right choice in 2002...... if they would have sent #1 Duke elsewhere instead of 20 minutes from their campus..... Raleigh would have never bid again to host a regional.

 

[DobbsRover2]

They made the right choice in 2002. if they would have sent #1 Duke elsewhere instead of 20 minutes from their campus..... Raleigh would have never bid again to host a regional.

We'll forgive the Dukies for that one, since we know the Huskies would not have been welcome in Raleigh anyways. It ended up working out okay for UConn in 2002 even though Milwaukee and then San Antonio for the FF was a longer haul combo than usual for the team. Obviously 2007 in Fresno was a lot worse, with worse results too.

 

[cabbie191]

We'll forgive the Dukies for that one, since we know the Huskies would not have been welcome in Raleigh anyways. It ended up working out okay for UConn in 2002 even though Milwaukee and then San Antonio for the FF was a longer haul combo than usual for the team. Obviously 2007 in Fresno was a lot worse, with worse results too.

I, for one, was delighted they were sent to Milwaukee!