Vanderbilt in over USF or RU? What a joke

[doggydaddy]

Vanderbilt losses in the first round.

Coming into the tourney they were 18-12 and 7-9 in the SEC.

They had lost 9 of their last 11 games and their last 4.

Was anyone surprised they made it 10-12 and their last 5?

Terrible job by the committee.

 

[EricLA]

Totally agree but the committee was completely enamored with a very very average SEC. South Carolina as a 1 seed with L'ville as a 3 seed? Total joke IMHO as well. I"m rooting for every single SEC team to lose right out the gate...

aTm as a 3 seed and L'ville as a 3 seed? Yikes. Maryland as a 4 seed and Kentucky as a 3 seed? Just some mystifying decisions to go along with snubbing RU and USF.

 

[ThisJustIn]

RU * USF advanced - the Bulls escaped North Carolina by A&T by 6, the Knights over the Blue Hens by 4 - in the WNIT - not yet ready to declare both of them "better" than Vandy.

I'm intrigued to see how Stetson will fare in the WNIT. I'd rather they had gotten a bid...

 

[triaddukefan]

RU USF advanced - the Bulls escaped North Carolina by A&T by 6, the Knights over the Blue Hens by 4 - in the WNIT - not yet ready to declare both of them "better" than Vandy.

I'm intrigued to see how Stetson will fare in the WNIT. I'd rather they had gotten a bid...

Ah crap.... I was rooting for the Aggies.

 

[ndmb]

Vanderbilt losses in the first round.

Coming into the tourney they were 18-12 and 7-9 in the SEC.

They had lost 9 of their last 11 games and their last 4.

Was anyone surprised they made it 10-12 and their last 5?

Terrible job by the committee.

If you don't think they were good enough to make the tournament, why'd you pick them over ASU?

 

[DobbsRover2]

KY may be ready to turn it on for yet another extended tourney run, and the SEC will go 2-1 today. But tomorrow it will be interesting to see how the SEC will hold up. GA always seems to do better when you don't expect anything from them like this year, and LSU somehow got a #7 seed and a cushy Baton Rouge setting over a GTech team that would have been the favorite otherwise. Strange seedings and some time-honored selection traditions were swept aside to shovel the losing conference-record SEC teams into the tourney, but we'll have to see how it turns out. At least Vandy did a nice thing and dropped out of the tourney before we had to see ESPN start posting stories about the FF-home-team's inspired run to get to Nashville.

 

[doggydaddy]

If you don't think they were good enough to make the tournament, why'd you pick them over ASU?

They were due???
I thought ASU sucked more?
I figured the committee wasn't totally incompetent?
I sneezed and hit the wrong key?

Jeeze......did you really look up who I picked to try to embarrass me?

 

[Blueballer]

Vanderbilt losses in the first round.

Coming into the tourney they were 18-12 and 7-9 in the SEC.

They had lost 9 of their last 11 games and their last 4.

Was anyone surprised they made it 10-12 and their last 5?

Terrible job by the committee.

Same thing with Georgia. No business being there.

 

[ndmb]

They were due???
I thought ASU sucked more?
I figured the committee wasn't totally incompetent?
I sneezed and hit the wrong key?

Jeeze.did you really look up who I picked to try to embarrass me?

I was feeling kind of bad that my bracket didn't make it past the second game and was looking at other brackets that fell into the same trap. Amongst others, I saw your name.

Obviously, you didn't feel that strongly that Vandy sucked if you picked them over another at-large team. At least, before they lost.

 

[doggydaddy]

I was feeling kind of bad that my bracket didn't make it past the second game and was looking at other brackets that fell into the same trap. Amongst others, I saw your name.

Obviously, you didn't feel that strongly that Vandy sucked if you picked them over another at-large team. At least, before they lost.

No, I really did. I rushed to finish my bracket and wasn't thinking.

 

[jdubct]

What would USF and Rutgers be ranked if they were selected to the tournament? I'd guess 10th or lower. Would they even be expected to win a first round game? Probably not.

 

[pinotbear]

What would USF and Rutgers be ranked if they were selected to the tournament? I'd guess 10th or lower. Would they even be expected to win a first round game? Probably not.

I don't anybody's arguing that either USF or Rugsters would be highly-seeded, nor that they would become a sweet-16 underdog darling. Fact is, in the women's tournament historically, the seeding holds awfully true in the first round.

I think it's more a matter of merit, and, frankly, appreciation/recognition for a good season. Are the Vandys/Georgias really any better than the USF or RU's? Is the 6th, 7th or 8th-best team from a strong conference any better than the 3rd or 4th best from a lesser conference, particularly if the aforementioned big-conference team closes out the regular season playing like carp? And, if there isn't much of a discernible difference, does the selection committee show a knee-jerk bias, preferring the big-conference also-rans? Obviously, these sort of questions are hard to figure, and have been discussed ad nauseum - but, I would opine that a team like USF would be a heckuva lot more excited, energized and grateful about being that 10-seed than a team like Vandy, particularly the way they performed today.

 

[UcMiami]

What also amazed me was the 8 seed for Vandy and the gift of putting them in a first round match-up with another team on a hot streak to end the year - ASU had a lovely 2-6 record in their last eight, a whole game better than Vandy coming in on a 1-7 role - of course they got the nine seed.
Now lets see how the other hot team out the SEC does tomorrow - LSU of the identical 1-7 end of year drive for an NCAA bid.

 

[Blueballer]

What also amazed me was the 8 seed for Vandy and the gift of putting them in a first round match-up with another team on a hot streak to end the year - ASU had a lovely 2-6 record in their last eight, a whole game better than Vandy coming in on a 1-7 role - of course they got the nine seed.
Now lets see how the other hot team out the SEC does tomorrow - LSU of the identical 1-7 end of year drive for an NCAA bid.

Georgia didn't exactly have a stellar 2nd half either. 8-10 since the beginning of the year. Also, they lost to Rutgers this season.

 

[Forty_four]

No, I really did. I rushed to finish my bracket and wasn't thinking.

Excuses!

 

[DobbsRover2]

They were due???
I thought ASU sucked more?
I figured the committee wasn't totally incompetent?
I sneezed and hit the wrong key?

Jeeze.did you really look up who I picked to try to embarrass me?

You know there are stalkers on this board who monitor you're every pick. So tell me, why did you pick over Baylor over Louisville a year ago? Don't you have any ouija board skills?

 

[Geno-ista]

USF got it royally- with everyone healthy at the end of the season- they were very dangerous- as Louisville found out. And Rutgers was just ranked 24th???? I don't get it.

 

[HoopsFan21]

I don't anybody's arguing that either USF or Rugsters would be highly-seeded, nor that they would become a sweet-16 underdog darling. Fact is, in the women's tournament historically, the seeding holds awfully true in the first round.

I think it's more a matter of merit, and, frankly, appreciation/recognition for a good season. Are the Vandys/Georgias really any better than the USF or RU's? Is the 6th, 7th or 8th-best team from a strong conference any better than the 3rd or 4th best from a lesser conference, particularly if the aforementioned big-conference team closes out the regular season playing like carp? And, if there isn't much of a discernible difference, does the selection committee show a knee-jerk bias, preferring the big-conference also-rans? Obviously, these sort of questions are hard to figure, and have been discussed ad nauseum - but, I would opine that a team like USF would be a heckuva lot more excited, energized and grateful about being that 10-seed than a team like Vandy, particularly the way they performed today.

You raise some good points. The thing is, the AAC is considered a mid-major, so it won't get the respect we expect it to.

 

[UcMiami]

You raise some good points. The thing is, the AAC is considered a mid-major, so it won't get the respect we expect it to.

I think to a certain degree it comes down to making a new rule ... if you can't play .500 ball in your own conference you are automatically disqualified from the dance. I add a second one - if you can't go 3-5 in your last eight (basically the last month) you are disqualified.
I remember selection shows where those kinds of discussions were used to explain teams not getting in - and it made sense. I don't care how strong a league you play in, if you can't win half of the league games you play you are not a good team nor NCAA worthy.
ON Edit - These rules only would apply for 'at large' bids - if some team went 4-12 in conference but won the tournament ... more power to them - they proved they can play a single elimination format.

 

[Icebear]

Sorry, but I want those conference tournament qualifiers in. Having the opportunity to go to the dance and play teams that likely would never schedule them is huge for these teams. Rutgers and USF had the schedule to get in if they won a game or two more. These teams we are talking about would not get in even with 25 wins.

If and when the women's game has the depth to have a 13 then a 14 then a 15 pull an upset then WCBB will have arrived. Think what it meant for Ball State to beat TN or for Harvard to beat Stanford years ago. It was almost like Mercer beating Duke on the men's side.

Plus consider the dynamic within a lesser conference when a favored team loses their bid to the dance because they didn't take care of business. Next time maybe they do a better job taking care of business so that they get the reward of going to the dance.

Do I want better first round games, sure, but I do think there are more incentives and rewards for teams to grow WCBB programs this way and soon enough we are down to the teams with the game for the NC.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I think to a certain degree it comes down to making a new rule ... if you can't play .500 ball in your own conference you are automatically disqualified from the dance. I add a second one - if you can't go 3-5 in your last eight (basically the last month) you are disqualified.
I remember selection shows where those kinds of discussions were used to explain teams not getting in - and it made sense. I don't care how strong a league you play in, if you can't win half of the league games you play you are not a good team nor NCAA worthy.
ON Edit - These rules only would apply for 'at large' bids - if some team went 4-12 in conference but won the tournament ... more power to them - they proved they can play a single elimination format.

And again, it's not a punishment to strip a team like Vandy of a chance to go one-and-done in the NCAAs when they could probably get some wins with likely home settings for and maybe some fan interest for a few games in the NIT. That's the kind of head-clearing experience that some of these late season floppers need to get prepared for next year. For the disappointed mid majors that's also the case, but they at least have the chance for a memorable miracle upset if they are selected to the NCAAs. And how many of the middling P5 team fans are going to be excited enough about their #10 or #11 seed team (Vandy getting a #8 seed was just moronic) to travel halfway across the country to watch them play, or even tune in for the game?

The committee wantonly shredded many of the old selection criteria to make this year's placements. But as they say, there's always next year, and maybe in 2015 a 5-5 Last 10 record will be pretty much the minimum criteria for a tourney seed instead of 2-8. But if LSU wins its game in Baton Rouge, maybe next year's minimum will be 1-9.

 

[Geno-ista]

IB- I love the automatic qualifiers as well- how many are there each yr? It is a big part of what makes the Tmt great. It's just that USF was a really really Gd team at the end of the year. Other than ND and us, they could have played with most teams. They had key injuries early. I have to believe there was somebody they could have made the case to go in over.

 

[Boxerpups4me]

Vanderbilt losses in the first round.

Coming into the tourney they were 18-12 and 7-9 in the SEC.

They had lost 9 of their last 11 games and their last 4.

Was anyone surprised they made it 10-12 and their last 5?

Terrible job by the committee.

Vanderbilt losses in the first round.

Coming into the tourney they were 18-12 and 7-9 in the SEC.

They had lost 9 of their last 11 games and their last 4.

Was anyone surprised they made it 10-12 and their last 5?

Terrible job by the committee.

A lot of people seem to be upset with the committee's selections. There is an easy solution here and that's to have a 8 team play in game, just like the men have. For example, you could have had 2 games for a 16 seed play in and 2 other games for lower seed play in. You could have had hampton and USF play a play in game for the 11 seed. Or, Vandy and Rutgers for an 12 seed play in game. Just a thought..

 

[ndmb]

You know there are stalkers on this board who monitor you're every pick. So tell me, why did you pick over Baylor over Louisville a year ago? Don't you have any ouija board skills?

You know I'm actual person that you just called a stalker, right? My name is Nick.

FWIW, picking a team to win an NCAA game over another at-large bid (especially given that it's a 9 seed, not an 11 seed) is incompatible with a belief that the committee is incompetent for giving said team an at-large bid.

 

[ndmb]

No, I really did. I rushed to finish my bracket and wasn't thinking.

OK, that's fair, and not to always be a contrarian, but couldn't many of your arguments apply to Florida, who squeaked out an 8-8 SEC record, also didn't finish strongly, but beat a Dayton team that had a much better win loss record, but no marquee wins? Or LSU, who had a losing SEC record, only 1 game in their tourney, but beat a Georgia Tech team that went 9-7 in a stronger ACC?