Duke is a 6? (lost 3 in a row, below .500 in conference)
Stanford is in? (lost 7 of last 11, only 18 total wins)
BC a 7? (lost 5 of last 7, only 2 wins against ranked teams)
Syracuse is out? (won 6 of last nine including G’Town, 22 wins, 10-6 in Big East)
Louisville a 6? (won 11 of last 14, 12-4 in Big East)
The NCAA selection committee once again showed that they simply look at RPI and don’t actually . . . you know . . . WATCH the games.
March 11th, 2007
You know, it’s not the first time that Syracuse hasn’t made the big dance, but this is the first time it’s happened that I’m crushed about it. I feel like I just got punched in the stomach because I’ve been reading and expecting to be where Stanford is, an 11 seed. I’m not going to make a case for my Orange – what’s the point?
However, this really has sucked the enthusiasm I had for the tournament right out of me. I’m sure once the games tip off, I’ll be interested and maybe my brackets will be better for once, but I had plans to buy the NCAA package on DirecTV since I am going to be home with Ben’s birth around then. No way that happens now – I’ll do with whatever CBS decides to show and save my $70.
The closest thing I can count to a rooting interest is pulling for the Hoyas to win it all. Yeah, a Syracuse alum rooting for Georgetown. Jesus. Oh, and Stanford to get their ass kicked roundly.
March 11th, 2007
I missed another joke: Arkansas.
Well, this really does suck.
Go G’Town, ND, L’Ville, Nova, Pitt, and Marguette!!!
Scott, I’ll see you and your Orange at MSG for the NIT. Maybe a Cuse/PC Final?
March 12th, 2007
I’d love to see that and I hope Jimmy gets the kids up for the NIT. If you’re going to try to look at some good coming out of this snub, perhaps it’ll have a lasting effect on guys like Devendorf and Rautins and Harris that you need to come with your A-game all the time.
Go out and win the NIT guys – I’ll be watchin’.
March 12th, 2007
‘Cuse got hosed. Big time. That’s the only major disagreement I have with what the Committee did/didn’t do. They were easily better – IMO – than Stanford, Arkansas, and ODU – and probably Purdue.
I could nit-pick around seedings and matchups (don’t rest an argument on BC, Louisville or Duke – I can easily counter all Mike jots down here), but the committee has a pretty hard job, and I think they did a fairly good job, generally-speaking.
But riddle-me this: If UF is the #1 OVERALL seed, how the heck do they get put in the MIDWEST Region? Sure, the first two games are close to home (in the new pod system), but their regionals could be against Wisconsin or Notre Dame – much more “Mid-Western” than Florida!
March 12th, 2007
Well, I WILL nit-pick seedings. If I ran this thing (and let’s all thank God I don’t), FWIW these would be my 1-12 seeds (13-16 are auto-seeds) with their actual BS seed to the right:
1. Florida 1
Ohio State 1
Georgetown 2
North Carolina 1
2. Kansas 1
UCLA 2
Pitt 3
Wisconsin 2
3. Memphis 2
Oregon 3
Maryland 4
Texas 4
4. TXAM 3
Washington St 3
Louisville 6
Virginia 4
5. V-Tech 5
Notre Dame 6
USC 5
Tennessee 5
6. S Illinois 4
Villanova 9
Marquette 8
Vanderbilt 6
7. Butler 5
Arizona 8
Indiana 7
Michigan St 9
8. Duke 6
Nevada 7
Kentucky 8
Gonzaga 10
9. UNLV 7
BC 7
BYU 8
Texas Tech 10
10. Purdue 9
Georgia Tech 10
Syracuse NR
Creighton 10
11. VCU 11
GWU 11
Winthrop 11
Drexel NR
12. Xavier 9
ODU 12
Illinois 12
Long Beach 12
March 12th, 2007
I presume you are aware, that the Selection Committee has the ability and discretion – once they’ve chosen the 65-team field and seeded them 1-65 – to move any team one seeding line up or down so that the bracketing works out (i.e. keeps conference teams apart, doesn’t give any worse seeds a home-court advantage, strives for regional parity, etc.) it’s explained here: http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/story/9183455
With that in mind, by your list, here are the seedings you have fundamental problem with – those that are off by more than one place:
Louisville as a 6 (should be a 4)
So. Illinois as a 4 (should be a 6)
Villanova at 9 (should be a 6)
Marquette at 8 (should be a 6)
Butler at 5 (should be a 7)
Michigan St at 9 (should be a 7)
Duke at 6 (should be an
Gonzaga at 10 (should be an
UNLV at 7 (should be a 9)
BC at 7 (should be a 9)
Xavier at 9 (should be a 12)
So, that’s 11 out of 65 with which you have a problem. 83% agreement, within the margins – that sounds pretty close in my book! 3 of your under-seeds are Big East teams, while your two ACC teams are over-seeded – there’s a shocker! Another shocker is that you didn’t agree with the Committee on ANY of the BE seeds, thinking they’d under-seeded ALL SIX of them. Home conference bias, perhaps? I guess we all have them.
You also think the Committee over-seeded all the mid-majors, especially SoIll, Butler, UNLV and Xavier. I sense another bias theme. Gonzaga bucks the trend, tho – why do they get a pass? They won a crappy league, have an RPI of 60, two losses outside the top-100 (Loyola and St. Mary’s). Not sure why they deserve a bump-up.
And of those 11, you only have two, Xavier and Villanova, off by 3 spots. Villanova lost to Xavier. Explain that one to me. They also lost to tourney non-invitees Drexel and DePaul. At home. In addition, to WVU and Cuse. Do you think that’s 6-seed worthy? Or are you basing your call on Nova’s high RPI and SOS, now? You can’t have it both ways — take a second look at the body of work of Nova and Duke. They’re almost identical. Nearly identical records (overall & conference), RPI, SOS… About the only difference I see is Duke has 3 more top-50 wins (and one less loss), and has a significantly higher non-con SOS (10 vs 46). Now tell me why Duke should be an 8, while Nova is a 6?
March 12th, 2007
FWIW, those stoopid
faces should be “8_)”.
March 12th, 2007
Borg, I base my rankings on the smell test…I heard Lunardi on the radio today and he specifically said that the selection team specifically bases bids based on what teams have “already accomplished” and NOT who is the better team.
If that is the case, then the committee got it about right, except Cuse.
I just have a problem (much like the BCS) with something calling itself a “championship” tournament when it is not merit-based i.e. the 65 (or 34) BEST teams, not the 65 or 34 most DESERVING teams.
Also, just to be clear, I bumped UP Maryland, so I wasn’t completely bashing the ACC…
March 12th, 2007
Scott – yep, you guys got robbbed. Didn’t like it when I heard about it, don’t like it now. I think Wilbon made an excellent case for y’all in the paper today… and I sure as hell hope he’s right in the rest of that piece too
HOYA! SAXA!