Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
They have fell in love with the illusion of the mid major.
boy does the NCAA need to wake up on this tourney and its seedings.
- Thread starter Bigtenchamp
- Start date
HawkeyeShane
Well-Known Member
Well, in fairness...the SEC made a stink about things right before they got bounced out of the NIT...
I made this point straight from the announcement show the Hawks got Fd and when they jump on our bandwagon and kiss our butts next year this years slight will still be remembered.
clicheusername3
Banned
I agree FGCU should have been at least a 13 seed.
Just to be clear: Iowa's out of conf sched was TOO TOUGH! THe MWC played 14 D-2 schools (they don't count against RPI) and was ranked higher as a conf in RPI. If Iowa replaced just a couple of their bad D-1 schools with worse D-2 schools, they'd be dancing.
I agree with this, for sure.
Would give the committee a D- on this year's bracket. Too many overseeded teams, and too many teams that shouldn't have sniffed the tourney.
EMik21
Well-Known Member
The A10, outside of LaSalle will be one and done's. St. Louis looked lost yesterday and couldn't handle Oregon's changing of D's or big men who can handle the ball. VCU was throttled by Michigan. Butler is going to the Big East, but a tough team as they always have been under Brad Stevens. A10 should be behind Big East and ACC in power rankings, ahead of Big 12 and MWC as far as RPI goes.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Butler was tough under the coach before Stevens, too. I forget his name.
sportstalent
Well-Known Member
Yeah and all the other ones that actually built the program and weren't along for the ride to Nat'l COY, have another one.
sportstalent
Well-Known Member
Common sense failed this year, but as I have stated over and over. This committee had their agenda on how they were going to judge teams. It happens every year and some years are like this. The ultimate fail of this selection committee was to judge teams on two factors: 1. RPI and 2. Road wins.
What the committee failed to recognize was how the RPI was worked over by teams and a lot of these guys are AD's, kinda hard to figure how they missed that one. What I didn't like was how the chairman said teams won on the road, so winning on the road is awful conferences makes a team better than losing some tough road games in a good conference? Do not buy it whatsoever.
I didn't like how the talk going into Sunday was no No.1 has ever finished there and not gotten a No. 1 seed, or no team that has won 28 games has been left out.
Where are Gonzaga/MTSU on this Sunday? I didn't like how the committee rewarded teams by having one BIG win like Oklahoma beating Kansas, but then they lost to TCU after that. UCLA's best win OOC was Missouri and they got a 6-seed out of the average Pac 12. Where are both of those teams on this Sunday? The committee did not take injuries into account either as Oregon would have been a higher seed if that were the case and the Pukies may have replaced Gonzaga as a 1-seed.
Everything about this selection year seemed to be almost backwards. I am not going to say Iowa got screwed in anyway because I think they failed to live up to the agenda set forth, it doesn't mean I agree with it either. There is no good way to judge teams, but this year the committee took the high road and it ultimately has led to some awful games and a lot of argument against the RPI (see: MWC).
I am a huge advocate for the little guys, but more when they deserve to be in, not because of what two metrics say they should be when there are multiple examples that those metrics fail.
