NCAA Committee Protects BC$ Teams

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I know, I know, this isn't exactly news, but I happen to feel this guy is right on about this.

http://www.buffalonews.com/394/story/302906.html


The most curious trend involving the NCAA men’s basketball tournament is not the declining number of mid-majors entered into the field. What’s disturbing, and more than a wee bit suspicious, is that for the second straight year the top mid-majors have been pitted against each other right out of the gate.

By the end of the first round, either Butler or South Alabama will have been ousted, Drake or Western Kentucky will take the fall, Gonzaga or Davidson will have been rubbed out of the picture. Kent State might advance and UNLV might advance but protections are in place to ensure it won’t be both. These match-ups greatly diminish the chances that there will be a repeat of two years ago, when mid-majors and sub-mid-majors feasted in the first round and, in some cases, well beyond.

[nwFL Griz]

I love this arguement. "We don't get enough teams/or higher seeds in the tourney..." Now it's playing each other.

Look if you want to get higher seeds, you're going to end up playing another mid-major, that's just the way it works.

You can't please everyone.

[813Jag]

I love this arguement. "We don't get enough teams/or higher seeds in the tourney..." Now it's playing each other.

Look if you want to get higher seeds, you're going to end up playing another mid-major, that's just the way it works.

You can't please everyone.
It's a catch 22, really who would have thought that 10 or 15 years ago. Teams like Bulter getting 5 seeds, sooner or later mid-majors would have to match up. Nobody cries if two BCS teams play in the first round. xconfusedx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I love this arguement. "We don't get enough teams/or higher seeds in the tourney..." Now it's playing each other.

Look if you want to get higher seeds, you're going to end up playing another mid-major, that's just the way it works.

You can't please everyone.

Oh, puh-lease.

This is better explained by clipping the AP Top 25 and showing you what is going on.

# 1.North Carolina #1 Overall Seed
# 2.Memphis (13) #1 Seed
# 3.UCLA (5) #1 Seed
# 4.Kansas (1) #1 Seed
# 5.Tennessee #2 Seed
# 6.Wisconsin #3 Seed
# 7.Texas #2 Seed
# 8.Georgetown #2 Seed
# 9.Duke #2 Seed
# 10.Stanford #3 Seed
# 11.Butler #7 Seed
# 12.Xavier #3 Seed
# 13.Louisville #3 Seed
# 14.Drake #5 Seed
# 15. Notre Dame #4 Seed

But wait, there's more. Take a look at the RPI of all the #12 seeds that could play Drake. Temple's RPI is 47. George Mason's is 61. Villanova is 51.

Western Kentucky? 39.

You're telling me the #14 team in the country deserves to play the top RPI 12 seed in the bracket? Why not have them play Villanova, or Temple?

[ISUMatt]

I love this arguement. "We don't get enough teams/or higher seeds in the tourney..." Now it's playing each other.

Look if you want to get higher seeds, you're going to end up playing another mid-major, that's just the way it works.

You can't please everyone.


Well maybe teams like Miami FL, Villanova, Oregon can travel and play a MVC team on the road...OH WAIT, THEY ARE AFRAID TO PLAY A ROADIE AT A MID-MAJOR!!!!

OKIE ST went to SIU last night for the NIT and with SIU missing their best guard, THEY STILL KILLED OKIE ST 69-53...thats why the high and might dont come to MVC land, they know they will get their asses handed to them!!!

And if you still dont believe BCS teams get preferential treatment, how do you describe 4 BCS teams getting #1 seeds in the NIT over a team like ISu and UMASS who were the 2nd and 3rd teams out of the NCAAs????

[Thunderstruck84]

1. Indiana vs Arkansas
2. Clemson vs Villanova
3. USC vs Kansas State
4. Mississippi State vs Oregon
5. Marquette vs Kentucky
6. Purdue vs Baylor
7. West Virginia vs Arizona

The committee is trying to eliminate all the major schools by pitting them against each other!

The catch 22 that people don't realize is that if the committee is pitting mid-majors against each other that also means it has to be pitting majors against each other.

I agree that Butler, Drake, and Western Kentucky are seeded too low but this arguement of pitting mid-major vs mid-major to get them out is ridiculous.

1. UNC vs Mount St. Mary's
2. Notre Dame vs George Mason
3. Washington St vs Winthrop
4. Oklahoma vs St. Joes
5. Louisville vs Boise St
6. Tennessee vs American
7. Kansas vs Portland St
8. Vanderbilt vs Siena
9. Wisconsin vs UC-Fullerton
10. Georgetown vs UMBC
11. Memphis vs UT-Arlington
12. Michigan St vs Temple
13. Pittsburgh vs Oral Roberts
14. Stanford vs Cornell
15. Miami (FL) vs St Mary's
16. Texas vs Austin Peay
17. UCLA vs MVSU
18. BYU vs Texas A&M
19. UConn vs San Diego
20. Xavier vs Georgia
21. Duke vs Belmont

21 of 32 games are major vs mid-major
7 of 32 games are major vs major
4 of 32 games are mid-major vs mid-major
xrulesx

[wkuhillhound]

1. Indiana vs Arkansas
2. Clemson vs Villanova
3. USC vs Kansas State
4. Mississippi State vs Oregon
5. Marquette vs Kentucky
6. Purdue vs Baylor
7. West Virginia vs Arizona

The committee is trying to eliminate all the major schools by pitting them against each other!

The catch 22 that people don't realize is that if the committee is pitting mid-majors against each other that also means it has to be pitting majors against each other.

I agree that Butler, Drake, and Western Kentucky are seeded too low but this arguement of pitting mid-major vs mid-major to get them out is ridiculous.

1. UNC vs Mount St. Mary's
2. Notre Dame vs George Mason
3. Washington St vs Winthrop
4. Oklahoma vs St. Joes
5. Louisville vs Boise St
6. Tennessee vs American
7. Kansas vs Portland St
8. Vanderbilt vs Siena
9. Wisconsin vs UC-Fullerton
10. Georgetown vs UMBC
11. Memphis vs UT-Arlington
12. Michigan St vs Temple
13. Pittsburgh vs Oral Roberts
14. Stanford vs Cornell
15. Miami (FL) vs St Mary's
16. Texas vs Austin Peay
17. UCLA vs MVSU
18. BYU vs Texas A&M
19. UConn vs San Diego
20. Xavier vs Georgia
21. Duke vs Belmont

21 of 32 games are major vs mid-major
7 of 32 games are major vs major
4 of 32 games are mid-major vs mid-major
xrulesx

That argument doesn't work either b/c of the sheer fact that they are way more from the Big 6 that get at-large bids. That is expected. With the declining number of mid-major at-large bids pitting them against each other should be much less likely.

[Thunderstruck84]

Well maybe teams like Miami FL, Villanova, Oregon can travel and play a MVC team on the road...OH WAIT, THEY ARE AFRAID TO PLAY A ROADIE AT A MID-MAJOR!!!!

OKIE ST went to SIU last night for the NIT and with SIU missing their best guard, THEY STILL KILLED OKIE ST 69-53...thats why the high and might dont come to MVC land, they know they will get their asses handed to them!!!

And if you still dont believe BCS teams get preferential treatment, how do you describe 4 BCS teams getting #1 seeds in the NIT over a team like ISu and UMASS who were the 2nd and 3rd teams out of the NCAAs????
$$$$$$$$$$$$ The almighty dollar $$$$$$$$$$$$

I don't disagree with you that ISU and UMass deserved top seeds over schools like Syracuse and Ohio State but a lot more money is going to be made through ticket sales, concessions, etc. to play a NIT regional final at the Carrier Dome in Syracuse (cap 33,000) than at Rebird Arena (10,200).

It sucks that it works that way but there's no changing it.

[ISUMatt]

God forbid in the Committees eyes a mid-major like George Mason can get to the Final 4 again

[Marcus Garvey]

Oh, puh-lease.

This is better explained by clipping the AP Top 25 and showing you what is going on.

# 1.North Carolina #1 Overall Seed
# 2.Memphis (13) #1 Seed
# 3.UCLA (5) #1 Seed
# 4.Kansas (1) #1 Seed
# 5.Tennessee #2 Seed
# 6.Wisconsin #3 Seed
# 7.Texas #2 Seed
# 8.Georgetown #2 Seed
# 9.Duke #2 Seed
# 10.Stanford #3 Seed
# 11.Butler #7 Seed
# 12.Xavier #3 Seed
# 13.Louisville #3 Seed
# 14.Drake #5 Seed
# 15. Notre Dame #4 Seed

But wait, there's more. Take a look at the RPI of all the #12 seeds that could play Drake. Temple's RPI is 47. George Mason's is 61. Villanova is 51.

Western Kentucky? 39.

You're telling me the #14 team in the country deserves to play the top RPI 12 seed in the bracket? Why not have them play Villanova, or Temple?

The AP rankings are irrelevant for seeding. They use formulas such as strength of schedule and RPI to determine the seedings. The polls are simply opinions of sports writers.

[Thunderstruck84]

That argument doesn't work either b/c of the sheer fact that they are way more from the Big 6 that get at-large bids. That is expected. With the declining number of mid-major at-large bids pitting them against each other should be much less likely.
Even though mid-majors are getting less at-larges there are still plenty of them in the tournement. 25 AQs will never change plus the 6 at larges is 31 of the 65 teams. When you're talking about half the field there will always be teams from that half facing each other. 10 of the 31 mid-majors are facing each other and 14 of the 34 majors are facing each other. No matter how you look at it, it's an even distribution.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The AP rankings are irrelevant for seeding. They use formulas such as strength of schedule and RPI to determine the seedings. The polls are simply opinions of sports writers.

This is an irrelevant argument, at least this year, when you look at RPIs:

1.Tennessee (#2 seed)
2.North Carolina (#1 overall seed)
3.Memphis (#1 seed)
4.UCLA (#1 seed)
5.Kansas (#1 seed)
6.Texas (#2 seed)
7.Duke (#2 seed)
8.Georgetown (#2 seed)
9.Xavier (#3 seed)
10.Drake (#5 seed)
11.Wisconsin (#3 seed)
12.Vanderbilt (#4 seed)
13.Louisville (#3 seed)
14.Stanford (#3 seed)
15.Pittsburgh (#4 seed)
16.Michigan St. (#5 seed)
17.Butler (#7 seed)
18. UConn (#4 seed)
19. Clemson (#5 seed)
20. Marquette (#6 seed)

Washington State, the other #4 seed, sits at #22 in the RPI.

SoS sounds like a good criteria, considering that Drake's SoS is 68th... until you consider that Kansas' SoS is 50, Wisconsin's is 61 and Stanford's is 56th. It didn't hurt Stanford (getting a #3 seed over Pitt, Vandy, Drake) or Wisconsin (over Drake) or Kansas (over Tennessee, Texas, and G'Town).

Basically, there is no statistical reason to push the mid-majors into lower seedings and into matchups against each other. Only $$ reasons.

[nwFL Griz]

This is an irrelevant argument, at least this year, when you look at RPIs:

1.Tennessee (#2 seed)
2.North Carolina (#1 overall seed)
3.Memphis (#1 seed)
4.UCLA (#1 seed)
5.Kansas (#1 seed)
6.Texas (#2 seed)
7.Duke (#2 seed)
8.Georgetown (#2 seed)
9.Xavier (#3 seed)
10.Drake (#5 seed)
11.Wisconsin (#3 seed)
12.Vanderbilt (#4 seed)
13.Louisville (#3 seed)
14.Stanford (#3 seed)
15.Pittsburgh (#4 seed)
16.Michigan St. (#5 seed)
17.Butler (#7 seed)
18. UConn (#4 seed)
19. Clemson (#5 seed)
20. Marquette (#6 seed)

Washington State, the other #4 seed, sits at #22 in the RPI.

SoS sounds like a good criteria, considering that Drake's SoS is 68th... until you consider that Kansas' SoS is 50, Wisconsin's is 61 and Stanford's is 56th. It didn't hurt Stanford (getting a #3 seed over Pitt, Vandy, Drake) or Wisconsin (over Drake) or Kansas (over Tennessee, Texas, and G'Town).

Basically, there is no statistical reason to push the mid-majors into lower seedings and into matchups against each other. Only $$ reasons.

You just don't understand the whole 'body of work' thing right? It's not just one or two stats. It's RPI, it's SOS, it's quality wins, it's road wins, it's last 12 played, etc.....

If you want to keep believing the conspiracy that it's a systematic thing to keep the little guy down, so be it. The fact remains that the teams seeded higher are better teams. Might the little guy win a game against them every now and then? Sure, but don't count on it happening all the time.

That being said, to really start getting the respect YOU want for the smaller teams, they are going to have to win a national title or two. So good luck.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

I know, I know, this isn't exactly news, but I happen to feel this guy is right on about this.

http://www.buffalonews.com/394/story/302906.html

Indeed this selection and seeding problem continues. In 2006, George Washington was in the top 10 in both polls with a solid RPI. Yet, they were an 8 seed playing #9 UNCW. GW was in line to get a 3 seed with a 4 seed at worst. Yet, they got an 8.

This year you have obvious choices like Butler. Butler is ranked #10 and #11 in the polls and a #17 RPI. Those poll rankings and RPI should have put them in line for a 3 or 4 seed. In a pure RPI model, they would be the top 5 seed. Yet Butler gets a 7 seed, playing Davidson, with the winner to get Tennessee, who almost secured a #1 seed. Even Davidson at a #10 seed is a farce.

There are many obvious problems with the selection. The fact that Arizona St., who lost 10 of their final 15 games, were even considered is a joke.

The NCAA and the selection committee needs to create a real system. A system that is used during the regular season to gauge ratings and project for the tournament. The selection process needs to be almost automated where an RPI type model is used as the starting point along with an S-curve with the committee to play a MINOR role such as weighing the differences between the last say, #4 seed versus the top #5 seed.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You just don't understand the whole 'body of work' thing right? It's not just one or two stats. It's RPI, it's SOS, it's quality wins, it's road wins, it's last 12 played, etc.....

If you want to keep believing the conspiracy that it's a systematic thing to keep the little guy down, so be it. The fact remains that the teams seeded higher are better teams. Might the little guy win a game against them every now and then? Sure, but don't count on it happening all the time.

That being said, to really start getting the respect YOU want for the smaller teams, they are going to have to win a national title or two. So good luck.

I could come up with a host more statistics. How about a Drake's 6-1 record versus the RPI top 50? And Butler's 4-1 record? Please, feel free to check the records of any of the other non-#1 seeds against that.

Drake is 9-3 in their last 12 games. Butler? Try 11-1. And it's not like the other "BCS" teams are all that much better.

When I look at the statistics and I look at the seedings I DO see a conspiracy to keep the little guy down. Personally, I don't think any objective look at the statistics can prove otherwise.

[nwFL Griz]

I could come up with a host more statistics. How about a Drake's 6-1 record versus the RPI top 50? And Butler's 4-1 record? Please, feel free to check the records of any of the other non-#1 seeds against that.

Drake is 9-3 in their last 12 games. Butler? Try 11-1. And it's not like the other "BCS" teams are all that much better.

When I look at the statistics and I look at the seedings I DO see a conspiracy to keep the little guy down. Personally, I don't think any objective look at the statistics can prove otherwise.

Fine.....I conceed.

The best part about this......these teams will get to prove their stuff on the court. (I know, some of them against each other.)

[ISUMatt]

3 of Drakes 6-1 top 50 RPI is courtesy of Illinois State University

[Thunderstruck84]

Fine.....I conceed.

The best part about this......these teams will get to prove their stuff on the court. (I know, some of them against each other.)
Actually I think they should just come up with some computer formula that uses astrology and and the square root of pi to determine who the 2 top teams are and give them both a buttload of cash to play in a one and done national title game. Honestly, does anyone other than North Carolina and UCLA have a real shot at the title anyway, and the regular season is so devalued and boring with this stupid playoff thingy.

Oh yeah, and give Memphis, Kansas, Tennessee, and Duke their bit of the pie by giving them $10M each to play some glorified consolation game that some corporate sponsor can buy naming rights too.

Why even play these games with teams who have no shot at the title, they're meaningless and unneccessary, playoffs are for DII and NAIA.