Arizona State should not be in the tourney [Archive]

Hansel

March 16th, 2008, 09:04 PM

CatFan22

March 16th, 2008, 09:06 PM

RPI of 82, SOS of 77 and a record of 19-12 (9-10 in conference)

they lost 10 of their last 15

Yeah- they had some good wins- but when you play a lot of good teams you are bound to win a few, they also have several losses to ~100 rpi teams

I can't see why the talking heads love them

No kidding. MSU almost beat them early in the season, too.

mvemjsunpx

March 16th, 2008, 09:13 PM

RPI of 82, SOS of 77 and a record of 19-12 (9-10 in conference)

they lost 10 of their last 15

Yeah- they had some good wins- but when you play a lot of good teams you are bound to win a few, they also have several losses to ~100 rpi teams

I can't see why the talking heads love them

To be fair, I don't think the "talking heads" were arguing ASU should be in necessarily. There were just arguing that you can't include Arizona if you don't include ASU since ASU swept Arizona.

wkuhillhound

March 16th, 2008, 09:29 PM

To be fair, I don't think the "talking heads" were arguing ASU should be in necessarily. There were just arguing that you can't include Arizona if you don't include ASU since ASU swept Arizona.

Did Arizona have a losing conference record?

AZGrizFan

March 16th, 2008, 09:33 PM

Did Arizona have a losing conference record?

Uh......YEAH. Arizona got SWEPT by ASU AND OREGON.

If Arizona is in, (and a TEN SEED, for God's sake), there is no WAY ASU isn't in.

And even if UofA IS in, it's Directional Alabama I'm more pissed about as an at-large.

ASU beat Xavier, USC, Oregon, U of A and Stanford (ALL < 10 seeds). Yeah, their RPI sucked, but how are they supposed to know that the "tough" teams on their schedule this year turned out to SUCK (Illinois, LSU, Nebraska, etc).

Keep in mind, ASU was 2-16 in conference last year. This team is GOOD, and getting better. xcoffeex xcoffeex xcoffeex

wkuhillhound

March 16th, 2008, 09:44 PM

Uh......YEAH. Arizona got SWEPT by ASU AND OREGON.

If Arizona is in, (and a TEN SEED, for God's sake), there is no WAY ASU isn't in.

And even if UofA IS in, it's Directional Alabama I'm more pissed about as an at-large.

ASU beat Xavier, USC, Oregon, U of A and Stanford (ALL < 10 seeds). Yeah, their RPI sucked, but how are they supposed to know that the "tough" teams on their schedule this year turned out to SUCK (Illinois, LSU, Nebraska, etc).

Keep in mind, ASU was 2-16 in conference last year. This team is GOOD, and getting better. xcoffeex xcoffeex xcoffeex

I feel your pain. below .500 conference records do not deserve bids to the dance just because their conference is strong. the product gets diluted when that happens and it makes the conference look that much weaker.

Hansel

March 17th, 2008, 10:24 AM

Yeah, their RPI sucked, but how are they supposed to know that the "tough" teams on their schedule this year turned out to SUCK (Illinois, LSU, Nebraska, etc).

ASU went 1-2 against teams that apparently "SUCK"

another reason for them not to be in the tourney

AZGrizFan

March 17th, 2008, 10:49 AM

ASU went 1-2 against teams that apparently "SUCK"

another reason for them not to be in the tourney

And 9 of Villanova's 12 losses were by double digits. Yet they're in. I guess BAD losses against tougher teams is better, huh?

I have no problem with ASU not getting in. It's not getting in AND U of A AND Oregon getting in that chaps my arse. ASU was 5-7 against the Pac 10 teams that made the dance----U of A was 3-9, as well as 0-2 against ASU. That's TWELVE GAMES that you can directly compare the two, and ASU wins in every category. Also, Directional Alabama in, Villanova in, Kentucky in, etc., etc., etc.

U of A would have gotten in if it went 19-13 with ASU's schedule. ASU would NOT have gotten in even if it had gone 19-14 with U of A's schedule, strictly because of "tradition". THe same reason Kentucky is in.

The selection process is a joke and is more about the almighty dollar than anything else.

tribe_pride

March 17th, 2008, 11:03 AM

The selection process is a joke and is more about the almighty dollar than anything else.

Fans trying to make an argument that BCS schools should be in the tournament should not complaining about this.

AZGrizFan

March 17th, 2008, 11:09 AM

Fans trying to make an argument that BCS schools should be in the tournament should not complaining about this.

Not BCS schools. Just the best 34 at large teams out there. That's all I ask. xpeacex

nwFL Griz

March 17th, 2008, 06:24 PM

I'll agree the selection process sucks. I've always liked the idea of a tournament where only the conference tourney winners get in. But every conference would have a tourney and every conference member gets in their respective tourney.

It just seems more democratic. It would still take the same amount of time, and I imagine it would give a chance to all those mid-majors to actually have a chance to win the title.

JALMOND

March 18th, 2008, 12:01 AM

My point with Arizona State over Arizona is this...

2006 it was ground into my head (mercilessly I might add) that it does not matter how strong your nonconference schedule is, you lose head to head and you're going to stay home. If you are unable to get "up" for your in state rivals twice in a season, there is no reason you should get in over them.

The committee is just like the DMV---They are human, they make mistakes and they never admit to them.

Marcus Garvey

March 18th, 2008, 12:07 AM

In the Republic this morning, they made a comment about ASU: "It's not who you beat, it's who you schedule." Well, not really.
ASU had a fairly cupcake schedule. Quite frankly, they don't finish with 19 wins if they played Arizona's schedule, and thus wouldn't even be in consideration for an at-large bid.
Herb Sendek has done a fantastic job. It's his second season in Tempe and they were a bubble team. How many people were willing to put money on that 2 years ago?
So they didn't get in this year? Big deal. Did UofA deserve it? No, I don't think so either, but the formulas the comittee uses favored them much more. It's the way of things in college basketball: The power schools play each other in non-conf. games for TV, because the networks know that Memphis-Arizona has a lot more appeal than Michigan St.-Arizona St. So a team like Arizona only needs to win "enough" non-conf. games.

Oh, the selection comittee has said again and again, they do not look at conference records, only overall records.

dbackjon

March 18th, 2008, 08:05 AM

Oh, the selection comittee has said again and again, they do not look at conference records, only overall records.

Which to me is one of the biggest flaws in their "logic". If you can't even finish .500 in your conference, and don't win the auto-bid, you have no business in a national championship.

813Jag

March 18th, 2008, 08:49 AM

nwFL Griz

March 18th, 2008, 09:21 AM

Which to me is one of the biggest flaws in their "logic". If you can't even finish .500 in your conference, and don't win the auto-bid, you have no business in a national championship.

Except for the fact that being .500 in the big east or pac-10, for example, is equal to or better than, winning the conference in most of the mid-major conferences. Which is something that alot of small school fans need to wrap their head around.

Marcus Garvey

March 18th, 2008, 11:15 AM

Which to me is one of the biggest flaws in their "logic". If you can't even finish .500 in your conference, and don't win the auto-bid, you have no business in a national championship.

Say a team goes 20-9. 7-9 in conference, 13-0 out of it. Those 13 wins are all against Top 50 RPI teams. No way a team like that gets let out, particularly if there are couple of top 10 teams among those 13 wins.

The point of ignoring the conference schedule is that, conference play is irrelevant. It's a team's entire body of work that matters.

wkuhillhound

March 18th, 2008, 03:17 PM

Say a team goes 20-9. 7-9 in conference, 13-0 out of it. Those 13 wins are all against Top 50 RPI teams. No way a team like that gets let out, particularly if there are couple of top 10 teams among those 13 wins.

The point of ignoring the conference schedule is that, conference play is irrelevant. It's a team's entire body of work that matters.

If that is the case then why does the big school play the "lower" profile school as part of their non-conference than playing the Butlers, Gonzagas, and so forth. If they are so big, bad, and better then prove on the court, then being a bunch of sissies and afraid of playing them. e.g. Louisville not playing WKU when Rick Pitino became coach after Denny Crum retired. He knew that WKU beat them at Louisville, but dodged the fact of playing WKU the next year. Man up Louisville and take your loss, or would it? We will never know b/c the Cards dodged WKU intentionally. Truth be told.

If they don't take conference records in consideration then don't claim that their 7 - 9 record in the Big East translates to a better record in a mid-major conference. You can't have both ways.

Marcus Garvey

March 18th, 2008, 03:34 PM

If that is the case then why does the big school play the "lower" profile school as part of their non-conference than playing the Butlers, Gonzagas, and so forth. If they are so big, bad, and better then prove on the court, then being a bunch of sissies and afraid of playing them. e.g. Louisville not playing WKU when Rick Pitino became coach after Denny Crum retired. He knew that WKU beat them at Louisville, but dodged the fact of playing WKU the next year. Man up Louisville and take your loss, or would it? We will never know b/c the Cards dodged WKU intentionally. Truth be told.

If they don't take conference records in consideration then don't claim that their 7 - 9 record in the Big East translates to a better record in a mid-major conference. You can't have both ways.

xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx
What is that non-sensical rant? I'm serious, what are you trying to say? It looks like you started down on one point, then jumped to another, then yet another in one long run-on sentence. Can you reiterate what you mean?
(Tip: Use bullets to specify each point of your argument) xthumbsupx

Lehigh Football Nation

March 18th, 2008, 03:45 PM

Dayton. There, I said it.

wkuhillhound

March 18th, 2008, 05:38 PM

xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx
What is that non-sensical rant? I'm serious, what are you trying to say? It looks like you started down on one point, then jumped to another, then yet another in one long run-on sentence. Can you reiterate what you mean?
(Tip: Use bullets to specify each point of your argument) xthumbsupx

I thought the the e.g. separated it but ok.

I was saying that teams from the Big 6 conference shouldn't load up on lower profile schools to inflate their win totals and then don't play Mid-Majors in the "fear" of a L to lower their seed in the tournament. Man up and play, it will only benefit you in the long run. You will eventualy have to play one in the NCAA Tournament anyway.

Just because they are 7 - 9 in the Pac-10 or any other Big 6 conference so they can get a pass and make the tournament anyway. Below .500 conference records in the NCAA Tournament is rewarding mediocrity unless they win their conference tournament. Truth be told.

The example I was given was the situation between U of L and WKU. The previous year WKU beat U of L in Freedom Hall and was scheduled to go to Bowling Green next year. That didn't happen b/c Rick Pitino chose to break the contract and WKU sued and won the case.

Marcus Garvey

March 18th, 2008, 06:14 PM

I thought the the e.g. separated it but ok.

I was saying that teams from the Big 6 conference shouldn't load up on lower profile schools to inflate their win totals and then don't play Mid-Majors in the "fear" of a L to lower their seed in the tournament. Man up and play, it will only benefit you in the long run. You will eventualy have to play one in the NCAA Tournament anyway.

Just because they are 7 - 9 in the Pac-10 or any other Big 6 conference so they can get a pass and make the tournament anyway. Below .500 conference records in the NCAA Tournament is rewarding mediocrity unless they win their conference tournament. Truth be told.

The example I was given was the situation between U of L and WKU. The previous year WKU beat U of L in Freedom Hall and was scheduled to go to Bowling Green next year. That didn't happen b/c Rick Pitino chose to break the contract and WKU sued and won the case.

You're absolutely right. That's why it so hard for teams from the lower conferences like the A-10, WCC and MVC to be consistently ranked. Memphis reminds me of those UNLV teams in the 80's/early 90's. They play in a *****ty conference, but are good enough to schedule the good teams, to get on TV. Win a few of those, you recruit better players and soon you start playing more good teams on TV getting even better players and winning even more, thus scheduling even more good teams on TV, etc...

I just don't see what this has to do with the thread title.

wkuhillhound

March 18th, 2008, 07:35 PM

dbackjon

March 18th, 2008, 09:47 PM

Except for the fact that being .500 in the big east or pac-10, for example, is equal to or better than, winning the conference in most of the mid-major conferences. Which is something that alot of small school fans need to wrap their head around.

Then they wouldn't be competing for a bid - the champ of a mid-major is in already. And other than the bottom few conferences, I would challenge that assertation.

Say a team goes 20-9. 7-9 in conference, 13-0 out of it. Those 13 wins are all against Top 50 RPI teams. No way a team like that gets let out, particularly if there are couple of top 10 teams among those 13 wins.

The point of ignoring the conference schedule is that, conference play is irrelevant. It's a team's entire body of work that matters.

Then why even have conference play, if it is irrelevant? And if a team can go 13-0 against top 50 RPI teams in non-conference (not that any team has ever come close to even SCHEDULING something like that, let alone doing it), then the chances of them going 7-9 in any conference is slim to none.

Eyes of Old Main

March 18th, 2008, 10:18 PM

Marcus Garvey

March 18th, 2008, 10:19 PM

Then they wouldn't be competing for a bid - the champ of a mid-major is in already. And other than the bottom few conferences, I would challenge that assertation.

Then why even have conference play, if it is irrelevant? And if a team can go 13-0 against top 50 RPI teams in non-conference (not that any team has ever come close to even SCHEDULING something like that, let alone doing it), then the chances of them going 7-9 in any conference is slim to none.

It is irrelevant for at-large bids. Conference record is relevent for Conference Tourney seedings only (or the title in the case of the Ivy). Once the conferences have put in their automatic qualifiers, then the comittee looks at a teams "Complete body of work" for the season. If you want to make conference records relevant, then we may as well have a quota on how many teams each conference can put in or better yet, have more "automatic qualifiers" for 2nd and 3rd place teams.

Marcus Garvey

March 18th, 2008, 10:21 PM

Herb Sucks. Go Pack.

Even though NC State's season was a huge disappointment, I'm glad that Sendek wasn't on the sideline. Just wait a few years an then the ASU fans will learn that what they experienced this year is as good as it gets with Herb.

A sentiment shared only by NC State fans. Name a coach who has won in Raleigh without cheating?

AZBison

March 19th, 2008, 03:15 AM

Herb Sucks. Go Pack.

Even though NC State's season was a huge disappointment, I'm glad that Sendek wasn't on the sideline. Just wait a few years an then the ASU fans will learn that what they experienced this year is as good as it gets with Herb.

no offense, well maybe a little, I think it is a lot easier to recruit at ASU than NC State.

Another point I'd like to address is the OCC of ASU. There were a lot of crappy teams on their schedule this year. The very first game ASU played this year was in the Maui tourney and they started 4 freshman. With such a young team it is understandable that they didn't want to have too many tough OOC games especially when they went 2-16 in conference last year. The whole first half of the season is in no way indicative of the quality of the team. In addition the better to good teams on the OOC schedule all seemed to have a bad year. The fact is ASU finished 5th in the Pac 10, ahead of Oregon and Arizona, both of whom are going dancing.