Thoughts on the NCAA Bracket

[TigerStripe]

We knew there would be some arguments as to which teams should have been included in the NCAA tournament and which ones should have been left out.

So, in your opinion, which team(s) should have been included in the field of 65 and which one(s) should have been left out??

Also do you agree with the way some of the teams are seeded?

Now make your case. Why or why not??




www.thecollegeendzone.com

[Lincoln Tower]

I think any argument made has to come with the caveat that putting together the field will make someone unhappy. Like the All Star games, there's always, always, always a derserving player/team that there just weren't enough spots for. Impossible to please everyone.

That said, I have 2 main arguments:
1.) Not enough love for the mid-majors.
2.) Too much weight on the conference tourneys.

1.) Drexel should have been in, and Appalachian State and Missouri State should have at least been in the discussion, if not in. When given a chance to beat the "high majors", they did so. Should they be penalized that they can only get games against quality opponents away from home? And when they beat these teams its still not enough. You shouldn't have to have 27 wins just to make the dance if you beat some high majors. Only 6 midmajor-at larges, which is the lowest in a while, and would have been lower had Nevada and Xavier not lost in their tourneys.

Also, you have first round games of ODU-Butler,Xavier-BYU and Creighton-Nevada. That's six of your better mid majors, but 3 of them will obviously be one and done. Someone will come up with the brilliant argument of, "Ya well, these three mid majors were so good and didn't even
win a tourney game." I would much rather see a, say, Xavier-MSU matchup, or a Villanova-BYU matchup. I know, due to the pod system, keeping away from conference matchups and keeping teams close to home you can't just arbitrarily switch 2 different 8 seeds and expect everything to work out (one of the reasons why seeding is so hard and the committee has such a tough job.) I would just like to see mid majors get their shot.

2.) Mostly, this could be titled, "How did Arkansas make it". I mean, I know the SIU win was nice, but they were 7-9 in the SEC West. If you had swapped them with South Carolina, and they had to Florida,Tennessee,Vandy, Kentucky and UGA home and home, I'd say going 7-9 is nothing to be ashamed of. It almost seemed that going 3-1 in the SEC tourney got them from not in the discussion to an at large bid. And with 2 wins over South Carolina and Mississippi State. The Vandy win was nice, but is that big a win. Again, they did also beat WVU and Oral Roberts and lost a tough one AT Texas, but then got beaten soundly by Missouri and Texas Tech. But Stan Heath is a good coach, when you consider they had a pretty good year after losing 2 studs from last years team.

Overall, Drexel for Arkansas is the only sub I'd be dieing to make. I think Stanford and Illinois could easily have been bumped for a Syracuse, Missouri State, Appy State or Kansas State, but I also understand how they have it to.

Side note:Jim Boeheim is losing it. It's going to "take him 10 years" to figure how they didn't get in. Hey, Jim, when you finish that, take another 10 and figure how in the h#ll you were a 5 seed last year.

[TigerStripe]

Nice, thorough assessment.



www.thecollegeendzone.com

[Scarlet Hayes]

I'm going to get a little nitpicky here. Just so ya know where I'm coming from, I'm not as emotionally invested in bball as I am in football. So, regarding OSU, this is about as objective as I can be.

We have this so-called perfect way of crowing a champion where a 27-5 UF and a 6 loss UNC are higher rated 1 seeds than a 3 loss OSU, coming off of 17 straight wins. I heard things like, "UF is the senior led defending champs that no one wants to play." That's fine, but last year was last year and this year is this year. Hate to burst some of your bubbles, but it seems like *OPINION* has crept into this holier than though way of crowning a champ.

Then you have UNC with 6 losses--or is it 8? Tradition rich program (admittedly much like OSU in football) getting the benefit of the doubt.

Was it RPI stuff, or did evil SUBJECTIVISM creep into these seedings? Hey, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. But when I hear Clark, Seth and friends telling us about a dangerous UF team "that's the defending champ that no one wants to play," I begin to wonder. 30-3 in the 3rd rated conf. tough loss to UNC, WITHOUT ODEN, on the road. One bad loss to UF at their place and a squeaker to Wiscy at their place. Put those credentials with UNC and they'd be a slam dunk number one number one seed. Agree? Disagree?

[Lincoln Tower]

I think alot of people were a little surprised at that. tOSU did look like it would be a #1 overall seed. But timing I think was the main thing.

The game didn't end until about 40 minutes before the pairings were announced (admittedly, it was over about halfway through the 2nd half). At what point do they have to have everything done? I think alot of people felt that if tOSU lost and either UF or UNC won then tOSU wouldn't be #1 overall. Florida and UNC had already won and the tOSU game was still going on. Was tOSU being seeded without knowing how the championship was going to end?

I think this has to change. I mean, had the Kansas-Texas game gone into another OT, it might've still been going on at 6 et. Kansas was in between 1 and ad a 2, while Texas was in between a 3 or a 4. This game had to affect those 2 rankings. Play every game earlier, or announce them later, so that you have some time to have every game.

Having said that, Memphis is the weakest #2 (1-2 vs RPI top 50), and the #3 (Texas A@M) and #4 (Virginia) are struggling, so it's not a terrible draw.

[Bucky]

My biggest problem with the selections, and I have had this problem forever, is how they pick what bracket the early round locations are in.

For instance:
The Midwest is in New Orleans and Spokane, WA
The West is in Columbus, Buffalo and Chicago
The South is in Columbus
The East is in Spokane and Sacramento

It wouldn't take much thought to place each location closer to the right "geographical" bracket.

I understand not everyone can be satisfied, but there are plenty of small schools with diehard fan bases. Some of these schools get the the big dance once every 10 years, but so often they are rewarded with a tournament game over 2,000 miles away from their school even though they might be a Midwest school playing in a Midwest bracket.





It probably isn't an issue to the NCAA because in most locations they 1st and 2nd rounds sell out well before anybody knows who is playing where. Most won't care, but when you have a school like Miami, OH, who is in the "Midwest" bracket and is playing in Spokane WA, it means a lot to a dedicated fan base which rarely sees the NCAA tournament.

[H.I.]

stanford's rpi is 66 and shouldn't be in. missouri state had an rpi in the low 20's last year and they didn't get in. baffling when the tournament has 65 spots and your rpi can fall outside of that and still get a bid. arkansas also should be sitting at home. once again, missouri state has a higher rpi than arkansas and sits home once again.

wright state got the shaft with a 14 seed. they won the horizon's #1 seed over butler, defeated butler twice, one of them coming in the horizon championship game, and got a 14 seed while butler received a 5 seed. crazy.

[JamesHowell]

I am confused as to why UF is in the Midwest and tOSU is in the South; logic says it would be better for both if they were swapped.

[HellYeahHokie]

I don't see how Maryland gets a 4th seed. They finished 5th in the ACC, and lost to the last place team in the ACC tourney. I guess they were given some credit for having a late season run, however if late season success rewards a team, shouldn't late season failure hurt you? If that's the case Duke shouldn't be a #6 seed.

It's inconsistant. Maryland can't earn a #4 seed at the same time Duke gets a #6 seed. Maryland should be no higher than a 5, and Duke should be no higher than an 8 or 9.

[CJHawkeyes]

Here's an original idea: OBJECTIVE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The subjective nature of the selection and seeding process has as much integrity as college football polls. That is, to say, none. SH is correct to point out the absurdity of Florida's #1 overall seed based on the stated reasons. Similar arguments are made to justify other seedings and qualifiers. The chairman even said while on ESPN, that a different committee could and would likely choose different teams and seedings. Who makes the playoffs and where they are seeded should not be a crapshoot.

[Doc]

I thought Ohio State had a great shot at being the #1 overall seed but can understand why Florida and UNC would be rated above them because when the teams played, Ohio State lost to both. At the same time, the team UNC played is not the same Ohio State team today; Greg Oden didn't play in that game and Hansbrough dominated as a result. Florida did play Ohio State with Oden but he was not in basketball shape and playing with a severe handicap due to his wrist injury. Again, the Ohio State team today is light years ahead of where they were in December. Ohio State also played both teams on the road. You might say that shouldn't make that big of a difference but OSU was 16-0 in Columbus this year.

But taking it a step farther I think it's interesting to look at what Ohio State has done since there last lost, a 72-69 loss at Wisconsin. Since that game the Buckeyes are 18-0, they are 8-0 against teams in the NCAA field and have avenged the Wisconsin loss twice; including a 17 point win in the Big Ten Championship game.

Over the same span, UNC is 13-5 with a 7-4 record against NCAA teams while Florida is 14-3 with a 5-2 record against NCAA teams. Ohio State also has the #1 RPI rating. Again, OSU lost to both teams and I suppose that should be the determining factor but its obvious to me that over the last two months Ohio State has played as well as any in the country.

Having said that, I think OSU got a great draw...better than UNC got. So I like their chances of getting to the final four. It should be a great 3 weeks!

[EvilVodka]

FSU should have been in

[HellYeahHokie]

Ohio State is a #1 seed. Is there really any issue between #1a, #1b, #1c, and #1d?

[Doc]

Of ranking the 4 #1 seeds. In theory, the top #1 seed gets to play the weakest #2 while the 4th #1 seed has to play the best #2 seed. So you tell me...would you rather face the prospects of playing Wisconsin in the Regional Final (the 4th #2 seed) or UCLA in the Regional Final (the 1st #2 seed)...I bet I know who Kansas would rather play.

As for OSU, I already said I think they got a pretty good draw...I'm not so sure that UNC should have got Memphia as a #2 seed as opposed to Georgetown but I won't complain about that.

[Bucky]

Ohio State is a #1 seed. Is there really any issue between #1a, #1b, #1c, and #1d?

I hardly see any difference between being seeded 1, 2, or even 3.

[Bucky]

Here's an original idea: OBJECTIVE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The subjective nature of the selection and seeding process has as much integrity as college football polls. That is, to say, none. SH is correct to point out the absurdity of Florida's #1 overall seed based on the stated reasons. Similar arguments are made to justify other seedings and qualifiers. The chairman even said while on ESPN, that a different committee could and would likely choose different teams and seedings. Who makes the playoffs and where they are seeded should not be a crapshoot.



CJ, for once, please enjoy College Athletics for what they are intended for: Friendly competition of the finest amatuer athletes in the country.

[Scarlet Hayes]

Ohio State is a #1 seed. Is there really any issue between #1a, #1b, #1c, and #1d?


Another difference shows up in that should all top seeds advance to the FF, the top 1 seed plays the "worst" one seed. i.e. UF would have to get by Kansas instead of over OSU or UNC.

Yes, I'm being nitpicky. Sue me. ;)

[ZOOMBAG]

We knew there would be some arguments as to which teams should have been included in the NCAA tournament and which ones should have been left out.

So, in your opinion, which team(s) should have been included in the field of 65 and which one(s) should have been left out??

Also do you agree with the way some of the teams are seeded?

Now make your case. Why or why not??




www.thecollegeendzone.com


We had a decidedly anti-mid major slant in the committee this year. The fewest mid-major at large bids in five years, even though the mids had higher RPI's than ever. Stanford and Ark do NOT belong in the tourney. AFA beat Stanford by 35 points in December! Drexel, Missouri St, AFA, all deserved bids over those two.

[CJHawkeyes]

CJ, for once, please enjoy College Athletics for what they are intended for: Friendly competition of the finest amatuer athletes in the country.


Are you kidding? Everyone else bitches about one thing or another too. The lack of objective rules in determining the value of one's season makes it difficult to completely enjoy the competition. The fact that the participants would be different given a different committee or perhaps even the same committee if they started their deliberations on a different day is absurd. What is enjoyable about competition whereby the winners and losers are determined arbitrarily?

[Spice1]

If you look at overall numbers instead of just the seed number it makes a little more sense. That puts Maryland at around #16 in the polls and duke at approx #24. That might be slightly higher than either deserves but when you factor in a top 15 PRI and top 10 SOS, it starts to seem at least marginally acceptable. Another factor could be the large number of upsets in the conf tourny auto-bid teams. A dilluted field would push them higher as well. I think both teams better be ready to play on day 1 because Davidson and VCU are capable of beating them.