Here's the committee's official 1-68 rankings if you're curious
- Thread starter glidinghawk
- Start date
sportstalent
Well-Known Member
Some of those I really don't get, but we'll see how it all plays out.
glidinghawk
Well-Known Member
For some reason, the committee had a whole lot of love for St. Louis and UMass.
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
Yep.
mopkins
King Kong
That St Louis seed really doesn't make sense...at all.
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
And that would be me
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
i'm not going to do the work, but wonder where they rank in 'at large' selections. obviously one of the 'last men in' many of those below iowa are (i'm guessing) auto bids for winning their conference/conference tournaments.
What does an auto bid have to do with this, if anyone can produce a rule that says only at large teams play in the play in games then fine.
But the play in games are still being in the tourney so who cares if you won a conf tournament championship if you are crappy you should be playing in on Tuesday or Wednesday
Bigtenchamp
Well-Known Member
If the committee has Iowa ranked as 45 out of 68... don't see how you can argue that they aren't one of the 64 best. I mean its right there... clear as day.
Not that it really matters... but for all the passive aggressive crying pretty much clears that up.
Not that it really matters... but for all the passive aggressive crying pretty much clears that up.
I agree and it is bull sheet because you are going against your own seeding rules.
What would you be thinking if some team with a 14-15 record won its tourney championship in a weak conference and was in the tourney as the last - 68th seed of the Dance. And your team was like iowa or NC State etc with 23 wins in a tougher conference and you have to play in to get to the second round.
it is bs
ICHawk24
Well-Known Member
The 65th thru 68th seeds are all in play in games.
Educate yourself before you *****.
mopkins
King Kong
I understand that, but who sets the final four at-larges? The Selection Committee does. It's not a computer formula or any system following hard rules...its humans hand picking teams based on loose guidelines and their opinions. Therefore, I am suggesting that this year 4 teams from major conferences were hand picked to be the last 4 at larges so that the First Round games would get higher ratings.
2013 First Round at-larges: Middle Tennessee St/St Marys/La Salle/Boise St
2014 First Round at-larges: Iowa/Tennesee/Xavier/NC State
Is it really that unbelievable? March Madness is a billion dollar business partnership with CBS and its affiliates. Which group of teams listed above are going to get more ratings nationally?
83Hawk
Banned
And you would be wrong.
DenchyDave
Well-Known Member
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
what i simply meant was that i wasn't sure about the teams in the ranking after iowa. North Dakota State, for example, is ranked lower than iowa, but they are in the tourney, i believe, since they won their conference tournament. i am not going to go thru all the teams after iowa and figure out if they were 'at large' or 'auto bid'.
that being said, i'm sure iowa was the last team to make it in, or if not the last one of the final teams in. north carolina state and xavier being two below iowa - maybe more below (at large), not sure. had their not been this 'play-in game', then iowa in the NIT again.
the auto bids - they didn't make the rules, they just EARNED their way in by doing what they had to do to make it to the tourney. i'd much rather see that happen than a crappy team that just gets in an loses in the 1st round because of their conference/name.
Nationally, none of those teams will draw much in the ratings. The 2014 group is more recognizable in terms of their names. If ratings were a big deal to them you would think they wouldn't broadcast the games on TruTV, but CBS instead.
