NCAA Tournament Selection Committee Talk

I think the committee did a great job this year, at least, much better than previous seasons.

There were a few injustices, though, and Utah State's exclusion from the tournament is #1 on that list. They are probably the only team I think the committee was wrong about not extending an invite. I would have kept out BYU (who finished 2 games back in the WAC and didn't win the conference tournament, and who Utah St. beat) or Richmond (pretty surprised that 10-6 in the A-10 can get you in, that's 5th best).

Lehigh landing in the play-in game was an obvious blunder. This won't get much talk, but it's so clear-cut it's hard to argue. Alabama St. was just 11-7 in conference play and 16-14 overall. Lehigh won the Patriot League regular season and conference tournament to finish 20-10, and had an RPI ranking 16 spots better. They also had both a better RPI and record than TX San Antonio (16-12). But this is just a small part of the problem of the play-in game, which should have been between the two last at-large teams in (Air Force and Richmond?).

The bottom-half of the East Rutherford regional was overwhelmingly stacked. Remember the talk about how the committe was ranking the number one seeds, so that the best plays the play-in game winner, and the top two are on opposite sides of the tournament? Well, here in East Rutherford is the best #2 seed in the tournament, Oklahoma St. Oh, also here in East Rutherford is the best #3 seed in the tournament, Pittsburgh. You think Pitt has a hard road? Take a look at their possible second round game against Wisconsin, at Milwaukee.

Why are they playing Wisconsin in the second round? The Big Ten tournament and regular season champion were both slapped with poor seeds. Wisconsin as a 6 is a joke, and being in that tough bracket just makes it worse. There is no reason why Florida (or Illinois, for that matter) should have a better seed than them. Illinois also had a tough draw with their 5 seed, but that doesn't compare to Wisconsin's injustice.

Why the disrespect for Wisconsin? One reason is that the NCAA committee expressed time constraints as a problem, and the Big Ten championship game was late Sunday. But if the Big Ten's conference tournament isn't looked at heavily, why does Maryland vault up to a 4 seed for their ACC tournament championship? The answer: they beat Duke earlier in the day than Wisconsin played. This problem needs to be fixed, and all conference tournaments need to be regarded equally. Oklahoma State had a strong case for a number one seed after dismissing Texas in their conference finals, but the committee admitted they didn't have the time necessary to argue that.

That about wraps up my comments on Selection Sunday. It seems long, but when you consider my only changes would have been bumping up Wisconsin, moving Pitt to another region, and giving a bid to Utah State and adjusting the teams in the play-in game, it seems the committee did a great job.

 

I honestly don't think they did that good of a job, Pittsburgh is the team that got screwed the most. A 3rd seed? are you kidding me? they should of been a lock for the 2nd seed but in the end one shot decided them from contending for a number 1 to the 3rd seed? thats sad and wrong

How Maryland was given a 4th seed I don't knowm they have been playing much better basketball and won the ACC tourament but how do you go from a bubble team to a 4th seed in a space of a week.

Wisconsin got little respect again, they should of been higher than the Terps. Kansas to me are a little overrated, seems many are rating them so high because of their well found name. To me, they are not that good of a team nor should they of been a 4 seed.

Because of their season record I guess Saint Joseph's did deserve a number 1 seed even though their schedule was very weak. I see them lasting 1 or 2 rounds at best.

Good to see Uconn with at least a number 2 seed, who knows where they could of ended up had they lost in the big east final. They are still my team to go all the way.

 

I agree with you, on basically all counts.

But who would you have taken a 2 seed away from, to give it to Pitt? Gonzaga? Mississippi St.?

 

either one of them.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Fast Luck:</div><div class="quote_post">I agree with you, on basically all counts.

But who would you have taken a 2 seed away from, to give it to Pitt? Gonzaga? Mississippi St.?</div>

I would drop down Mississippi state, they have a good team and beaten some top ranked teams but Pitti have had a great year, getting a new coach and losing Knight they still havn't missed a beat. Were one shot away from winning the big east title, their defense is amazing, you get nothing easy under the basket. Gonzaga deserve a number 2 seed, they have been impressive all the way through with only 2 losses. Can't leave them out.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AllNet:</div><div class="quote_post"> Gonzaga deserve a number 2 seed, they have been impressive all the way through with only 2 losses. Can't leave them out.</div>They play in a VERY weak conference and barely got back Santa Clara by one in the WCC Tournament semifinals. But I guess you can't fault them for that.<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AllNet:</div><div class="quote_post">There were a few injustices, though, and Utah State's exclusion from the tournament is #1 on that list. They are probably the only team I think the committee was wrong about not extending an invite. I would have kept out BYU (who finished 2 games back in the WAC and didn't win the conference tournament, and who Utah St. beat) or Richmond (pretty surprised that 10-6 in the A-10 can get you in, that's 5th best).</div> I heard on the radio today that they put BYU in instead of Utah State because BYU got screwed last year. Still makes no sense to me. Didn't Utah State finish the season ranked #22 or am I mistaken?

 

Utah State was #25 in the polls at the end of the season. They got massively screwed. How does a top 25 team not make it into the NCAA Tourney. It's a bunch of crap I think. On other things, I think St. Joes did deserve a #1 seed. They may have only beaten one top 25 team, but, the fact that they went undefeated in the regular season and didn't lose til the A-10 tourney is impressive. Pitt I think deserved at least a 2 seed. But, so did Mississippi State and Gonzaga in my opinion. So, it would have been hard to take it from either of those two teams. The Wisconsin thing, yea, they got screwed. What I don't understand is how Illinois managed a higher seed than them and they lost to them in the Big 10 championship game. That's what I think is bull. Maryland going from a bubble team to a 4 seed I do understand slightly. Look at who they beat. The top 3 seeds in the ACC tourney. That's an impressive feat if you ask me. And, beating Duke was also very impressive. So, I understand that if you look at it that way. Well, those are my thoughts on this for now.

 

I would have also given Pitt the 2 over Mississippi St., and not Gonzaga, but I think that would have gotten a lot of complaints too. So while I agree that's what they should have done, I don't think there's really any 2/3 seed thing they could have done that wouldn't draw any criticism.

And there's no way St. Joe's should be a 3 seed!! 1 loss and RPI of like 3. A three seed? You've got to be joking.