T1B

Ok so I can only blame OSU for not getting the job done...

but Oregon and KENTUCKY...fuck me running...

I mean I can kind of understand Arizona and their schedule...

but again Oregon and Kentucky and potentially Nova...I mean the Big East with 8 fucking bids...

edit - this is a 5 minute after the brackets are announced bitch fest...I am sure once I read the entire bracket and make my picks OSU deserves the NIT...

thoughts?

Kentucky went 12-4 in conference...no way do they get snubbed.

Arizona State got screwed over when they beat Arizona twice and split with Oregon. O'Connell had no good answer for why they picked Arizona over them. To praise the Wildcats schedule is one thing but they didn't have as good of a win as the Sun Devils had with beating Xavier. Anyone can play the best teams in America but you need to win some of those games for that schedule to really mean anything.

I had a few markers left, and I called them in.

Shoalz...agree to a point...but the SEC was very weak this year...Kentucky won 12 games in a shit basketball conference (of course T REX would differ if he were here)...but Kentucky did lose to Gardner Webb and was what 9-8 at one point...

meanwhile I kind of see your point on ASU v AZ...how Oregon got in is beyond me...OSU and or Va Tech were more deserving in my opinion...

I guess UGA and Temple winning their conference championships really wrecked havoc for some of us bubblers...but hey you can't spell NIT without OSU i guess...

No team in history has ever been snubbed by the NCAA since it expanded to 64-65 teams.

There may be teams more deserving than teams that got it, but there's no such thing as a snub. If you don't get in you have no one but yourself to blame.

It's really pretty simple on how you make the Big Dance....

1.Play somebody
2.Beat somebody
3.Win a lot of games

That's it. If you don't do that, you leave your fate up to a biased committe and if you don't' get in you have only yourself to blame. Because teams that play someone, beat someone, and win a lot of games only leave the seeding up to the biased committee.

So if you're not in the tournament, blame yourself. No one has ever nor will ever be snubbed by the tournament because EVERY team in the history of the game that has done those 3 things I have listed above has and will be a part of the Big Dance. Don't leave things up to a committee. Make their decision for them.

So to the Dick Vitale's of the world.......SHUT THE FUCK UP!

TheJON wrote:No team in history has ever been snubbed by the NCAA since it expanded to 64-65 teams.

There may be teams more deserving than teams that got it, but there's no such thing as a snub. If you don't get in you have no one but yourself to blame.

It's really pretty simple on how you make the Big Dance....

1.Play somebody
2.Beat somebody
3.Win a lot of games

That's it. If you don't do that, you leave your fate up to a biased committe and if you don't' get in you have only yourself to blame. Because teams that play someone, beat someone, and win a lot of games only leave the seeding up to the biased committee.

So if you're not in the tournament, blame yourself. No one has ever nor will ever be snubbed by the tournament because EVERY team in the history of the game that has done those 3 things I have listed above has and will be a part of the Big Dance. Don't leave things up to a committee. Make their decision for them.

So to the Dick Vitale's of the world.......SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Nice one, jon....fuckin' rack that shit!

The Seer wrote:I had a few markers left, and I called them in.

TheJON wrote:1.Play somebody
2.Beat somebody
3.Win a lot of games

We did that!!!

Sincerely,
Arizona State

I would argue that Arizona State is more deserving than Kentucky (a team that has absolutely no business being a part of the Big Dance), but like I said don't leave the decision up to a committee.

How's about not losing to 4 teams ranked 92 or BELOW in the RPI? Or how's about actually playing a non-conference schedule that includes more than 1 team ranked in the Top 90 of the RPI? Or how's about not losing in the first round of your conference tournament?

19-11 with 6 total quality wins (only 1 being out of conference) and (worst of all) a 5-10 record in the last 15 games.

Now how can anyone honestly say based on those facts that ASU was snubbed?

What did I say? DON'T LEAVE IT UP TO A BIASED COMMITTEE. Arizona State failed to do that and that's why they're not amongst the field of 65. Period.

Looking more into this....

ASU is 4-6 on the road with only 1 quality road win
ASU is 2-2 on a neutral court with 0 quality neutral court wins

That's not very impressive.

TheJON wrote:Looking more into this....

ASU is 4-6 on the road with only 1 quality road win
ASU is 2-2 on a neutral court with 0 quality neutral court wins

That's not very impressive.

Beat Arizona twice and had a better PAC 10 record. They also beat Xavier. I believe they also beat either USC or Stanford.

i think ASU got jobbed, too.

based on the "proverbial" last 10 games, no way BOTH Baylor and KSU should be in.

who knows? it ain't the best 64 teams, but we've all been taught a variety of changing criteria over the years that seem inconsistent.

i guess that's the "soft science" of the committee. the black box art.

Mucho,

Again......they left it up to the committee. WIn a couple more games and we're not having this discussion because they'd be a lock.

I just don't see how a team that has 6 quality wins all year (only 1 being away from home), a 5-10 record in the last 15 games, a loss in the 1st round of their conference tournament, and 4-5 bad losses has any reason to be upset about missing out on the Big Dance.

Do I think there are teams that made the tourney that are less deserving than Arizona State? Yes (Oregon's resume is very similar and somehow they not only got in but managed a 9 seed.....explain that to me??). But my point is that no one gets snubbed. Teams get unfair treatment (ie Kentucky), but teams don't get snubbed. If they wanted to make the tournament so bad, they wouldn't have gone 5-10 down the stretch.

If you leave it up to a biased committee you didn't get snubbed.

If you go 21-9 or better with 7-8 quality wins, less than 3 really bad losses and a 6-4 or better record down the stretch you'll be in 100% of the time. If you can't manage to do that then I say you have no reason to be upset if you don't get in. If you do get in, consider yourself lucky. But if you don't, blame yourself. If you can't achieve those standards I mentioned then perhaps you're best suited for the NIT anyways.

ASU is the only one out there with a legit gripe, IMO.

How about Butler getting jobbed as a 7? No love for the Mid-Con.

JON,

Arizona State had more quality wins then some teams making the tournament. They had a legit gripe especially against Arizona, who they beat twice and finished ahead of in league play. I wish the committee didn't look at the last 15 games or so. It should be based on the entire body of work and Arizona State had enough to get in, regardless of where they won their games.

So based on your list Jon...

what did Oregon, Kentucky, Zona, and Nova do that was anymore or less special then ASU, Va Tech, and OSU and probably a couple of others...

yes ASU has a legit gripe...prolly the most based on what we know...

my problem is the talking heads...I heard Bilas defend Zona based on their 2nd rated schedule...ok OSU had a schedule that rated 17th toughest...so you use that to defend one pick but use it against someone who did not get in...so the thing bounces around from member to memeber and Jon I agree there is considerable bias there...

so Jon Kentucky and Oregon both won 18 games which is < 19 right...who did Oregon beat again? Kentucky won ONE fucking great game against UT...so again based on your logic all the teams we are talking about should be sitting at home and some 22+ win teams should be in right?

Again now that I have digested the brackets I really only have a problem with Oregon and Kentucky...other than that outside of the Butler deal I think the committee did a pretty good job...although I think UNC has one of the tougher roads to get to the FF...

just my opinion...

good discussion

Buck_in_sc, it's obvious the committee didn't think much of the Big Ten as a whole, fair or not.

-Wisky as a very dubious 3 for a 29-4 team that won its league regular season and tournament.

-Indiana gets no respect being tagged with an 8 and sent off to the N. Carolina Invitational in Raleigh. Although they have played like a bunch of malcontents since Samspon was flushed.

-Purdue finished second in the league after a strong year from start to finish and gets a 6. Although on the flip side, Mich St. gets a 5 solely on rep.

tOSU just got caught up in it.

MuchoBulls wrote:I wish the committee didn't look at the last 15 games or so. It should be based on the entire body of work and Arizona State had enough to get in, regardless of where they won their games.

Do you know exactly what the committee pinned against ASU? All I heard them say in reference to ASU was that their out of conference SOS was somewhere in the 300 range.

Didn’t they also say that ASU would have had the worst RPI ever for an at large team? I don’t mind Wisconsin at the 3 seed, especially since they kept them in the Midwest. The 2 seeds were Georgetown, Tennessee, Texas and Duke. Not sure I could make a strong case for placing UW ahead of any of those with the exception of Texas (head-to-head).

But I’d rather see UW in Texas’ 2-seed than where they’re at as a 3. I think the South is the weakest bracket, with Memphis being the most suspect of the 1-seeds. I don’t like UW’s potential 2nd-rounder against OJ Mayo, and if they get past that it’s Georgetown, then Kansas. I’ll pick my team to finish up at the Sweet 16 level.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

MuchoBulls wrote:I wish the committee didn't look at the last 15 games or so. It should be based on the entire body of work and Arizona State had enough to get in, regardless of where they won their games.

Do you know exactly what the committee pinned against ASU? All I heard them say in reference to ASU was that their out of conference SOS was somewhere in the 300 range.

That has to be the only thing that held them out.

MuchoBulls wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

MuchoBulls wrote:I wish the committee didn't look at the last 15 games or so. It should be based on the entire body of work and Arizona State had enough to get in, regardless of where they won their games.

Do you know exactly what the committee pinned against ASU? All I heard them say in reference to ASU was that their out of conference SOS was somewhere in the 300 range.

That has to be the only thing that held them out.

Goober McTuber wrote:Didn’t they also say that ASU would have had the worst RPI ever for an at large team?

Hello? Is this thing on?

buckeye_in_sc wrote:meanwhile I kind of see your point on ASU v AZ...how Oregon got in is beyond me...

Dude, you are absolutely KILLING me over here.


First off, I'll state that even as a hardcore homer, I though O's worthiness was take it or leave it, flip a coin if you will, and I think the #9 is asinine...

That said...


Dude... you're clowning yourself, bud.

Badly.


You see why they would take Arizona, but it's beyond you how a team with a better conference record who beat Arizona with some degree of ease in both meetings could get in?

Did I really just read that?

ASU should be more pissed at Georgia than the selection committee. Or rather, Kentucky, Miss St, and Arkansas for letting the Bulldogs slip by in each game.

Dins...I don't think Zona should be in...

I think ASU should be in...but can you tell me Oregon is more deserving of say Va Tech, OSU, or say Dayton? Kentucky is more deserving?

My point was I heard Bilas say Zona had the 2nd toughest schedule...well if that is one of the main criteria...OSU's schedule strength was 17th and RIP was top 50...that was my point...

my other point is people say that you need to win more games...well Kentucky and Oregon both won 18, OSU, Va Tech, and ASU won 19...so by that logic...they did win more games than Tucky and Oregon...


maybe I just harbor ill feelings toward Oregon not getting the job done against UF last year (I was only one of about 8 that had Oregon in the FF and it would have won me a ton of money)...well that and the midget was cold and the refs didn't do Oregon any favors...

again as I said up above now that I have digested the brackets I don't think there is much out of place...

my first post was right after selection sunday rant...

I agree 100% with what you guys are saying about ASU being as deserving or more deserving than teams like Kentucky, Oregon, Villanova, etc...

That's not my point. My point is no team really got snubbed. When you leave the decision up to a biased committee then you have nobody but yourself to blame for not getting in.

Do I think it's ridiculous that Oregon gets a quality seed and Arizona State didn't even make the field? Heck yes.

But had Arizona State gotten the job done by not meltding down the 2nd half of the season, not having 4-5 really bad losses, and playing more than 1 quality OOC opponent we're not having this discussion.

Every team in the history of college basketball with a record of 21-9 or better that includes 7-8 quality wins and a last 10 game record of 6-4 or better has gotten in the tournament. If you can't achieve that and you don't make the NCAA Tournament I don't feel you got snubbed. And if you don't achieve that but do manage to get in, consider yourself lucky.

Don't leave it up to the committee......make their decision for them. If you don't then you have no reason to complain.

buckeye_in_sc wrote:My point was I heard Bilas say Zona had the 2nd toughest schedule...well if that is one of the main criteria...OSU's schedule strength was 17th and RIP was top 50...that was my point

Funny thing, that.

Is anybody really sure where the NCAA/RPI even comes up with that number?

If youlook at SoS rankings from different sources, you get some pretty varied numbers.


Jeff Sagarin's system is based on opponents and opponents' opponents. It has Zona at #1, OSU at #19, and Oregon at #4. ASU came in at #41... which works out to one hell of a cupcake OOC for a PAC10 team. Oregon's OOC was its usual joke, but not like ASU and even Stanford went through.

Speaking of Sagarain... definitely not the best way to rank teams, but I believe he's got a good system to rank SoS and hat sort of thing. And the PAC was the #1 conference in the Sagarin's, by a decent margin at that.



Meatgrinder, baby!

And BSC, don' worry -- your ill-willtowards Oregon will be sated by the beating they'll take in the second round.

But who knows? Ernie Kent is simply amazing in his ability to get his team up for, and in an "unbeatable" grrove for just enough big games to keep his job, and continue his reign of mediocrity. He has an amazing knack for it. The man may be the best, most overachieving recruiter in the country -- and can't coach his way out of a wet paper sack.

If Bluetooth Porter hits half his shots or better, the Ducks beat anybody you put on the floor with them. If a midget is going to drop jumpers on the run from halfcourt with a hand in his face, how do you even defend that? But like every extreme streak-shooter, youdon't expect that for more than two games in a row at best.


Plus, remember that Ernie's 5 star recruits have this wonderful habit of taking the forst 3.5 years of their career off on vacation, then suddenly deciding at the last minute that they might like a possible shot at the NBA. Hell, the only top-level players in recent memory that played well as freshman were Ridnour and Leunen, unless I'm forgetting someone.

But alas, we're probably stuck with Ernie for another year. Once again pulled a pretty sick recruit class, who he'll coach to te heights of mediocrity and inconsistancy.

Geting a 9 seed sucks. I would prefer an 11-14 seed. Your first game may be a bit tougher, but game 2, should you win game 1, will not be the #1 seed. I would prefer the 11-14 seed just because I think it woud be easier to make it to the next week. Of course, 3-6 is preferred to be in the same part of the bracket, but I was referring to Jon saying that Oregon got a good seed. As a fan of the 9 seed A&M, I'm not liking having to play UCLA should we beat BYU.

TheJON wrote:Do I think it's ridiculous that Oregon gets a quality seed and Arizona State didn't even make the field? Heck yes.

I think my homerism is a point of record around here. And believe it or not, I hang around with plenty of others. And despite being blinded by homerism, even the homerifics think a #9 is whack.


I'm a PAC homer, as well, and I won't shed a tear for ASU. While they went 9-9 in the Meatgrinder, OOC the got fat on Florida Gulf Coast, Cal Poly, Coppin State, and St Francis. Only decent team hey beat OOC was Xavier.

With all of the other PAC10 teams putting up very high SoS rankings, it's lame that ASU had such a lower SoS. That'srobably part of what killed them, that and dropping 4 of their last 7 and 9 of their last 14. That ain't exactly building momentum into March. Whereas the Ducks won 5 of their last 8 to pull themselves back into the conference by the bootstraps when it mattered.


Now don' get me wrong, I think a #9 is nuts, and is following the money. But in what was the premiere hoops conference with some bubble-action going on in the middle,I don't think it was unreasonable to give the nod to the team that did the most to burst the bubble at the end of the season, rather than the beginning.


Sending Zona, with a losing conference record, and losers of 3 of their last 4 (including @Oregon), is just plain playing favorites. I know Zona schedules out of heir minds, and frankly, they sell tickets, and Lute Vacation has done so much for he sport... but 8-10 in conference? C'mon.

My backup keyboard sucks huge balls-btw.

I have to say that Zona getting in is a travesty!