. . . but Jay Bilas got it right.
These are not the 34 best at-large teams in America. Let’s stop pretending they are.
The Chair of the NCAA Selection Committee came right out on CBS and said they don’t consider RPI. Then, when asked why Arizona State was left out, he said their out-of-conference RPI was too high. Huh?
The Committee gives mid-majors WAY too much credit. It’s one thing to give every conference an automatic qualifier; it is something else entirely for an “objective” group to say that teams like South Alabama or St. Joe’s who did not win its conference tournament are better than Syracuse, Arizona State, or Virginia Tech.
Now, let’s not kid ourselves, this is still a MUCH better system than the BCS for college football. I’d rather gripe over #66, 67, 68 being left out rather than #3, 4, 5 . . .
March 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Frankly, I was just happy to see that the last at-large berth in the tournament went to Villanova, meaning the committee took into account the depth of quality play in the Big East this year.
Unlike in year’s past (*cough* Syracuse 2007 *cough*), this year’s snubs are merely difference of opinion. I’ll eliminate the Orange off the bat - 13 losses and a very up and down team made them a long shot at the Villanova slot even if they had dropped the Wildcats in the Big East tourney. I think only a BE Championship would’ve saved them.
Virginia Tech and Arizona State both failed to win 20 games, lost 12, and their out of conference slate of games was very weak. I don’t have a big problem with them not getting in, especially when most of the talking heads agreed a team like South Alabama probably deserved to get in.
All in all, only 6 at-large berths went to mid-major conferences, down from TWELVE in 2004. So, many many more bids are going to the major conferences like the Big East, who got 8 of their 16 teams in. I don’t think it’s a big deal this year - the committee did a pretty good job I think.
And yes, NCAA basketball’s postseason is light years ahead of it’s football “postseason”.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
What I don’t get is why 65 teams? Why not 68 and have four play ins?
And yes, Scott, its great to be able to complain about 65 vs 68 instead of playoffs vs bowls…
March 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I agree 100% with both posts. We’re talking about splitting hairs here, for sure, and better number 66 and 67 than #3 who has an actual claim to the National Championship.
I would also love to see 3 more play-in games. In essence, UNC has an unfair advantage by playing a “tired” team. Also, you could squeeze 3 more teams into the tournament without really “expanding” it. If you added Dayton, ASU, and V-Tech this year, it’s tough to really gripe about VCU or Syracuse.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Come to think of it, I would love to see the play in to be for a higher seed, and let some of the “bubble teams” take it.
So, instead of playing in for #16, let “Nova and V-tech play in for a 12 seed. That would get interesting real quick. I’d love to watch 4 of those on Wednesday!
March 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I think your point about adding 3 teams David/Cruiser is spot on - though, you end up taking 3 teams that woudl’ve gotten a 15 seed normally and move them to the 16 seed line in order to do that. I don’t think that ends up being a true injustice though.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Scott, right, but then you move everybody down one and it opens 3 more 12-seeds.