The insanity of these locations

[Scarlet Hayes]

yet another reason why people believe that this tournament devalues the regular season: why on Earth is a 3 seed, A&M, playing a 6 seed, Louisville, in LEXINGTON KENTUCKY??????????????

Should A&M win and advance to play OSU in the regional final, 1 seed OSU gets to play TEXAS A&M in TEXAS!!!! WTF did we have a regular season for???????????????????????

Gobs of subjectivism involved in this nice little tournament. Funny how college football, without a "tournament," is miles ahead of college bball when it comes to popularity. No I'm not against a playoff. I know we need one. But we need to keep it limited and to have the least amount of human involvement possible. The way they matched certain teams with certain locations is, in my book, utterly laughable.

[H.I.]

yet another reason why people believe that this tournament devalues the regular season: why on Earth is a 3 seed, A&M, playing a 6 seed, Louisville, in LEXINGTON KENTUCKY??????????????

Should A&M win and advance to play OSU in the regional final, 1 seed OSU gets to play TEXAS A&M in TEXAS!!!! WTF did we have a regular season for???????????????????????

Gobs of subjectivism involved in this nice little tournament. Funny how college football, without a "tournament," is miles ahead of college bball when it comes to popularity. No I'm not against a playoff. I know we need one. But we need to keep it limited and to have the least amount of human involvement possible. The way they matched certain teams with certain locations is, in my book, utterly laughable.

even if you think the NCAA selection committee sucks, at least in college basketball we don't have the so-called experts telling us ohio state and michigan are the best 2 teams in the nation. they're just relegated to telling us who the 61, 62, 63, and the 64th best teams are. i'll take that any day of the week.

[Scarlet Hayes]

At that point in time, OSU and UM were the 2 best teams based on objective records. 2 months later, OSU gets to play another game and gets waxed by a team that all the experts said would get killed. How many more manufactured David vs Goliath story lines do we have to sit through?

[H.I.]

At that point in time, OSU and UM were the 2 best teams based on objective records. 2 months later, OSU gets to play another game and gets waxed by a team that all the experts said would get killed. How many more manufactured David vs Goliath story lines do we have to sit through?

objective? haha. anybody with two eyes that watched 1 qt. of the OSU/UM game and went away thinking UM was one of the top 2 teams in America should have their eyes and head checked. the game wasn't even close no matter what the scoreboard said. anyways, 2 months later it was prove that so-called "classic" was nothing but a fraud of two overrated teams - although tOSU deserved a right to play for the national title after their complete season. as for your david vs. goliath story line, i think it is pretty safe to say that OSU and UM are glad that didn't run up against boise state in the fiesta. i'm sorry that your buckeyes couldn't duck the xavier earlier today. if the ref made the correct call and gave oden an intentional the basketball buckeyes would be sitting at home right now. you know it. i know it.

[Scarlet Hayes]

if, if, if, if. IF Greg Oden hits his free throws we win in regulation. IF the refs call the foul on the put-back, Oden never throws a frustration foul. Oden was out after that anyway; it was his 5th foul. IF only X showed up in OT. IF, IF, IF... If my grandma had @#&$ she'd be my grandpa.

Then there's football. You base your opinion of OSU/UM off of one friggin game, 2 months after they played in an all-or-nothing rivalry of all rivalries. UF "shocked the world" after hearing how they didn't belong on the same field with OSU (or belong in the game at all for that matter) for almost 2 solid months. I never saw a less enthusiastic OSU team during the Tressel era than I saw that night. I never saw a less competitive Troy Smith than the one I saw that night. Kudos to UF for the natonal title. They deserve it and they certainly earned it. But it's also true that OSU looked like they wanted to take a knee after Ginn's kickoff return. FLAT. Being one of the members in the "greatest rivalry in all of sports" (disagree? then take it up with virtually every sports magazine on the planet) has its pros and cons. The con being the following game is often sort of a letdown. No excuse though. If ya can't get up for the title game....

But if ya still want to believe that OSU was overrated you probably believe that OSU would've been a middle of the pack SEC team. Unfortunately for some folks, Wiscy and PSU threw a wrench into that theory.

[EvilVodka]

yet another reason why people believe that this tournament devalues the regular season: why on Earth is a 3 seed, A&M, playing a 6 seed, Louisville, in LEXINGTON KENTUCKY??????????????

Should A&M win and advance to play OSU in the regional final, 1 seed OSU gets to play TEXAS A&M in TEXAS!!!! WTF did we have a regular season for???????????????????????

Gobs of subjectivism involved in this nice little tournament. Funny how college football, without a "tournament," is miles ahead of college bball when it comes to popularity. No I'm not against a playoff. I know we need one. But we need to keep it limited and to have the least amount of human involvement possible. The way they matched certain teams with certain locations is, in my book, utterly laughable.

the only use of the regular season in college basketball is for At-large placement in the tourney...if you have a great regular season, you can still make the tourney if you lose in your conference tournament...otherwise, its a useless span of 30 games

[TommyTrojan]

if, if, if, if. IF Greg Oden hits his free throws we win in regulation. IF the refs call the foul on the put-back, Oden never throws a frustration foul. Oden was out after that anyway; it was his 5th foul. IF only X showed up in OT. IF, IF, IF... If my grandma had @#&$ she'd be my grandpa.

Then there's football. You base your opinion of OSU/UM off of one friggin game, 2 months after they played in an all-or-nothing rivalry of all rivalries. UF "shocked the world" after hearing how they didn't belong on the same field with OSU (or belong in the game at all for that matter) for almost 2 solid months. I never saw a less enthusiastic OSU team during the Tressel era than I saw that night. I never saw a less competitive Troy Smith than the one I saw that night. Kudos to UF for the natonal title. They deserve it and they certainly earned it. But it's also true that OSU looked like they wanted to take a knee after Ginn's kickoff return. FLAT. Being one of the members in the "greatest rivalry in all of sports" (disagree? then take it up with virtually every sports magazine on the planet) has its pros and cons. The con being the following game is often sort of a letdown. No excuse though. If ya can't get up for the title game....

But if ya still want to believe that OSU was overrated you probably believe that OSU would've been a middle of the pack SEC team. Unfortunately for some folks, Wiscy and PSU threw a wrench into that theory.

I think Gary Danielson said it best following the selection of Florida to the BCS game..."No one has any idea who the two best teams are" I never would have thought UF was that much better than OSU. No one did! In 2004, I never could have predicted USC would beat OU by 36 in the title game. Teams in college football play such radically different schedules, it's nearly impossible to accurately grade out these teams.

One thing is for sure, Michigan and OSU weren't as good as they were hyped to be by the Kirk Herbstreit's of the world. I love Herbie, but his opinions did have a lot to do with the opinions leading up to the title game of the rest of college football fans. These ESPN, CBS, etc analysts have a lot of pull when it comes to shaping/creating opinions on programs.

[CJHawkeyes]

I think Gary Danielson said it best following the selection of Florida to the BCS game..."No one has any idea who the two best teams are" I never would have thought UF was that much better than OSU. No one did! In 2004, I never could have predicted USC would beat OU by 36 in the title game. Teams in college football play such radically different schedules, it's nearly impossible to accurately grade out these teams.

One thing is for sure, Michigan and OSU weren't as good as they were hyped to be by the Kirk Herbstreit's of the world. I love Herbie, but his opinions did have a lot to do with the opinions leading up to the title game of the rest of college football fans. These ESPN, CBS, etc analysts have a lot of pull when it comes to shaping/creating opinions on programs.

What is worse is that no one seems to have any idea that "who the two best teams are" is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, a large number of fans that love to criticize people like Herbstreit for expressing opinions, that are not necessarily wrong just because the team they favored is beaten, still think subjectivity has its place.

[TommyTrojan]

What is worse is that no one seems to have any idea that "who the two best teams are" is completely irrelevant

What? With the system we're working with, it appears that is ALL that matters. I don't care if you are in favor of using humans or computers...no one had any idea for sure going into the bowl games who the two teams should be to play for a 'championship'.

Also, I realize Herbstriet is on there to give his opinions. Just as any other analyst. I have no problem with that. They however can get so carried away, they have the rest of us fans taking it all as complete fact.

[CJHawkeyes]

What is worse is that no one seems to have any idea that "who the two best teams are" is completely irrelevant

What? With the system we're working with, it appears that is ALL that matters. I don't care if you are in favor of using humans or computers...no one had any idea for sure going into the bowl games who the two teams should be to play for a 'championship'.

Also, I realize Herbstriet is on there to give his opinions. Just as any other analyst. I have no problem with that. They however can get so carried away, they have the rest of us fans taking it all as complete fact.

I agree it appears that is all that matters under this system. I'm only pointing out that it is irrelevant with respect to the purpose of competition. If we could know who the two best teams are before a single game is played, the two best teams would not get a pass to the title game. The BCS title game should match the two most successful teams according equitable objective rules whereby the the qualifiers cannot be disputed even if there is opposotion to the rules in place. As it stands, a system that employs subjectivity is unaccountable. When the title game could have been different simply by a change of vote, the integrity of the system is equal to a coin flip.

BTW, I wasn't really attacking you about Herbstreit. I was attacking the fact that some complain about their supposed influence on the rankings while still continuing to favor subjectivity's place in the process.

[EvilVodka]

What is worse is that no one seems to have any idea that "who the two best teams are" is completely irrelevant

What? With the system we're working with, it appears that is ALL that matters. I don't care if you are in favor of using humans or computers...no one had any idea for sure going into the bowl games who the two teams should be to play for a 'championship'.

Also, I realize Herbstriet is on there to give his opinions. Just as any other analyst. I have no problem with that. They however can get so carried away, they have the rest of us fans taking it all as complete fact.

Just my opinion...but I think Florida and Ohio State were the right teams...

I thought Florida would win, and they did...

I like the controversy the BCS brings...the only real screw up is when you have multiple undefeated teams, like '04

A 4 team playoff would solve alot of problems though...

[Scarlet Hayes]

Just my opinion...but I think Florida and Ohio State were the right teams...

I thought Florida would win, and they did...


I never mentioned this before the game because I didn't want Doc Buck to kick my arse. :) But, honestly, I had a really bad feeling about the title game. I know this is nutty, but I based it on the lack of enthusiasm (from the general fanbase) compared to our trip in '02. Of course that's probably natural of fans--I wasn't "feeling it" myself--since the "newness" wasn't there, but...

...but Doc will probably remind everyone how I usually cry wolf about OSU in big games (btw, he would be right. I am usually pessimistic about my team. But I'd rather call it "cautious optimism.")

[ZOOMBAG]

yet another reason why people believe that this tournament devalues the regular season: why on Earth is a 3 seed, A&M, playing a 6 seed, Louisville, in LEXINGTON KENTUCKY??????????????

Should A&M win and advance to play OSU in the regional final, 1 seed OSU gets to play TEXAS A&M in TEXAS!!!! WTF did we have a regular season for???????????????????????

Gobs of subjectivism involved in this nice little tournament. Funny how college football, without a "tournament," is miles ahead of college bball when it comes to popularity. No I'm not against a playoff. I know we need one. But we need to keep it limited and to have the least amount of human involvement possible. The way they matched certain teams with certain locations is, in my book, utterly laughable.

Two pools of though here. Yes, the locations are nonsense in more ways that just what you state. How is West region game played in Buffalo, NY and an East region game in Spokane, WA????

The other pool of thought is the near obvious consipiracy to begin limiting mid-major involvement in the tourney. Not only are there far fewer mid-majors in the field than in the past five years, but they paired so many TOGETHER in the first round!

[EvilVodka]

Two pools of though here. Yes, the locations are nonsense in more ways that just what you state. How is West region game played in Buffalo, NY and an East region game in Spokane, WA????

The other pool of thought is the near obvious consipiracy to begin limiting mid-major involvement in the tourney. Not only are there far fewer mid-majors in the field than in the past five years, but they paired so many TOGETHER in the first round!

The 2nd pool of thought is pure paranoid schizophrenia....there are 5 matchups in the first round where mid-major is paired with mid-major....

There's 21 match-ups where a "power conference" team is matched with a mid-major...

a fourth of the sweet 16 is mid-major...

just a stupid argument

[CJHawkeyes]

Two pools of though here. Yes, the locations are nonsense in more ways that just what you state. How is West region game played in Buffalo, NY and an East region game in Spokane, WA????

The other pool of thought is the near obvious consipiracy to begin limiting mid-major involvement in the tourney. Not only are there far fewer mid-majors in the field than in the past five years, but they paired so many TOGETHER in the first round!

I believe this is precisely the reason subjectivity still rules the selection process. As long as you can make a case for any team in or out, there is no accountability. I still cannot begin to understand what put Stanford in. 5 of their 18 wins came against teams that won less than 10 games.

Furthermore, despite ample eveidence on a yearly basis that the difference between majors and mid-majors is rather small, majors still get rewarded for the names on their jerseys. In a thread below, Bucky scoffed at the seedings produced by an approximation of my ranking system. Yet, the higher seeds under my system are 38-10, same as actual higher seeds. Furthermore, 2 of the three biggest upsets based on actual seeds (VCU-Duke, Winthrop-ND) are not even upsets under my system and the third (UNLV-Wisconsin) is a #3 beating a #2 under my system.

The biggest reason my system would never be considered over subjectivity is due the fact that seven more mid-majors would have qualified than actually did. The majors can't have that when they can keep a system that allows them to make a case for anyone without accountability. What amazes me is that with so much money at stake, that anyone would leave their fate up to the randomness of a selection committee.

[CJHawkeyes]

The 2nd pool of thought is pure paranoid schizophrenia....there are 5 matchups in the first round where mid-major is paired with mid-major....

There's 21 match-ups where a "power conference" team is matched with a mid-major...

a fourth of the sweet 16 is mid-major...

just a stupid argument


15 of those major vs mid-major matchups involve a mid-major seeded 13th or lower.

[EvilVodka]

15 of those major vs mid-major matchups involve a mid-major seeded 13th or lower.

so you're saying the seeding is unfair?

cry me a river

they're in the tourney, just win

[ZOOMBAG]

The 2nd pool of thought is pure paranoid schizophrenia....there are 5 matchups in the first round where mid-major is paired with mid-major....

There's 21 match-ups where a "power conference" team is matched with a mid-major...

a fourth of the sweet 16 is mid-major...

just a stupid argument

No, I'm talking AT-LARGE mid-major matchups. Most of the AT-LARGE mid-majors were matched against other MID-MAJORS.

[ZOOMBAG]

so you're saying the seeding is unfair?

cry me a river

they're in the tourney, just win


Actually, the seeding was HORRENDOUS. Butler and Nevada BOTH spent MOST of the season ranked in or near the TOP TEN!!! Butler was a five and NEvada was a 7??? Creighton wins the sixth highest rated conference and comes in a 10???? And matched against Nevada??? Both NEvada and Butler should have received top four seeds, if not a #2 or #3. Creighton was a legit 6 or 7. Ark and Stanford had NO BUSINESS even in the tourney in the first place, either Missouri St, Drexel or Air Force had FAR BETTER resumes than those two major conference also-rans.

Yep, criminal.

Yea, that was pure CRIMINAL.

[CJHawkeyes]

so you're saying the seeding is unfair?

cry me a river

they're in the tourney, just win


So an unfair selection and seeding process is justified simply by being in the tournament?

[H.I.]

just like all majors aren't built equally, all mid-majors aren't built equally. that's the problem with the seeding process. most of the high, high seeds (usually majors) get a creme puff type of mid-major (deserving creme puff's) in the 1st round. and the under seeded mid-major's usually get crappy draws. as much as i believe Arkansas, Stanford and Illinois didn't belong in this years tournament. image what the big boys would say if they were seeded as a 14 or 15 seed up against teams like Pitt, UCLA, Georgetown, etc. in the 1st round. i guess i'll never understand how the "last few in" get higher seeds than about 20-25 teams that qualified each year. with all of this being said, it is still hilarious how conferences like the ACC or the Big Ten can one get 1 in 6 or 7 teams to advance to the Sweet 16 with all the seeding advantages they have. just think if OSU and UNC had to actually play 2 decent teams this past weekend instead of one?

[EvilVodka]

So an unfair selection and seeding process is justified simply by being in the tournament?

to a certain extent, yes...at least your foot is in the door

you don't get that luxury in college football...college football is all about walking the tight wire

[CJHawkeyes]

to a certain extent, yes...at least your foot is in the door

you don't get that luxury in college football...college football is all about walking the tight wire


So, as long as your foot is in the door, it is okay to stack the deck in favor of major programs? Like college football, college basketball continues to operate under the notion that there is this great disparity between majors and mid-majors. Even worse, they think it is relevant. Selection committees are clearly biased in favor of major programs based on the idea that being "better" entitles them to more berths and higher seedings. Being "better" entitles nothing. Everywhere else in sports, teams are ranked most to least successful according to agreed upon fixed objective criteria. So long as college sports continues to embrace subjectivity, the results on the field of play are meaningless. If either one of two teams can earn a berth over the other under the same system given exact same results, the results have no value. Under this system, both A > B and A< B can be true. That is absurd. It is especially aburd when a selection committee can continue to favor A over B because A is a brand name and the only defense necessary to justify the selection is that another committee could have selected B. There is no accountability. Certainly, having a foot in the door is preferrable to standing out in the cold, but why not have a completely objective anyway? Because as long as subjectivity rules, the majors do not have defend Stanford's inclusion into the tournament let alone explain how they are seeded higher than a team (Davidson) that was 8.5 games better. Schedules are not THAT important.