Sunday, March 13, 2011

B101's Bracket Reaction

Wow. What a baffling job by the selection committee. Our heads are still spinning, and we have a ton of questions.

Here's 10 of them:

1. Is it possible that we could have done any worse? Four wrong? Seriously?

2. How do UAB and Clemson make the field with one Top 50 win combined, and Colorado get left out with six Top 50 wins (six!), including three wins over a 5 seed?

3. How does VCU, who finished in fourth place in the Colonial and went 3-5 down the stretch, get a bid, and St. Mary's, who was co-champ of the WCC and beat St. John's and Gonzaga, get left out? How is that consistent?

4. How in the world did Utah State and Richmond get 12s?

5. How does Georgia get a 10 and Alabama, who beat them twice in the last week, get left out?

6. How does George Mason get a higher seed than Old Dominion?

7. How do any of the Big Ten bubble seeds make sense? Michigan's a 8?? Illinois a 9? Penn State a 10?

8. How is Butler an 8? How are they three seed lines better than Gonzaga?

9. How is Missouri an 11? How is Kansas State two seed lines ahead of A&M?

10. Why did the SEC title game not even matter? Why is Florida a 2 and Kentucky a 4?

102 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't ask if you could have done any worse, B101. You're not the ones who made a mess of it.

Until next year, thanks for stealing hours of my life. Looking forward to doing it again.

Dustin said...

Joe Lunardi outperformed B101 this year....hinged on the USC selection.

B101 got 64 of 68 teams, 49 exact or within 1 seed, and 299 Bracket Project Score

Lunardi got 65 of 68 teams, 51 exact or within 1 seed, and 302 Bracket Project Score

Palm got 66 of 68 teams, 52 exact or within 1 seed, and 302 Bracket Project Score

I got 64 of 68 teams, 50 exact or within 1 seed, and 286 Bracket Project Score

Anonymous said...

B101, no worries. this year was simply a disasterous job from the committee.

Anonymous said...

Florida got the 2 line only because they played OSU and were their toughest OOC game.

Any time you see someone from OSU in control, you have to know the result is going to get skewed.

It is like asking someone in NYC for their idea of a map of the USA.

They cant see very well outside of Buckeye country.

Anonymous said...

'nova is 3 seeds higher than Marquette? Why not drop Cincy to a 7 so they don't line up with Unconn in the second round?

(my post is based on memory, and my not reflect the actual bracket)

TheAnswer1313 said...

I got 65 of 68
33 exact
54 within 1.

whats my score?

Bracketology 101 said...

The committee also setup a possible Syracuse - Marquette round of 32 matchup. Another good question is why not try to avoid these round of 32 Big East matchups?

Anonymous said...

Turns our georgia, michigan, penn st. werent even bubble teams with their seeds. Marquette missouri utah st richmond were!!?!?!?

DCDuck said...

B101, I already explained it. St. Mary's had no meat to their non-conference resume. The loss to U San Diego negates the win over St. John's (when they weren't in their mid-season form, and before they lost to Fordham and St. Bona). St. Mary's had fewer top-100 road wins than VCU, fewer top-50 wins overall, and quite frankly didn't look all that impressive down the stretch either. Trying to compare the WCC to the CAA is pointless. The committee says that conferences don't get bids, teams do.

Collin said...

287 points

Rico said...

The #12 seed for Richmond is inexcusable. Not even close.

That said, the Spiders must be pleased to have Vanderbilt in their first game. That is certainly a winnable opener.

And I am sure they'd rather have Louisville in Round Two, instead of Duke or Ohio State, which would have been the case if the Spiders had an 8 or a 9 seed.

mattlion said...

Other than OSU and Purdue, you could argue all the Big Ten was overseeded. They all deserved their spots, but the jury will be out.

I think the committee took some liberties with the Big East for the main purpose of forcing (yep, my theory) some Big East vs. Big East games early for the sake of more variety in the tournament later.

Once they get to 9 bids from a conference, the conference rules go out the window.

mag900 said...

"10. Why did the SEC title game not even matter? Why is Florida a 2 and Kentucky a 4?"

the committee has said repeatedly over the years that the sunday games don't matter unless there are bid stealers. why are you still surprised by this?

Raymond said...

I don't get why Florida gets so much flak for their 2 seed, when to me their resume is basically identical to North Carolina's: 26-6, won an OK conference, lost in the conference finals to a good team. Yes, Florida has 2 more bad losses, but they have a slightly higher RPI and SOS, and (more importantly) more top-notch wins... they can counter a win over Duke with 3 over Vandy, 3 over Tennessee, K-St., @Xavier, and a sweep over Georgia. If UNC deserves a 2, so does Florida.

mistersuits said...

Did pretty well on my guesses. I called UAB/Clemson in one matchup but totally missed VCU and USC. Of all the ways I compared bubble teams USC's comparisons kept ending up bad, so I can't for the life of me reconcile that pick.

66 teams (198)
41 exact (82)
56 within one seed (56)
336! Woo!

My secret strategy? Listen to Will's analysis and do the opposite.

TheAnswer1313 said...

hmm lets see

65 teams picked right (195)
33 exact (66)
54 within 1 (54)

315 total points.

Not a bad first try lol

Dave W. said...

I understand TX dropping to possibly a #3, but a 4 seed given who they have played and beaten compared to teams that got seeded ahead of them whose body of work doesn't compare.

Anonymous said...

Wisconsin as a 4 wasn't overseeded either.

SEC title game was just one game, it doesn't carry any more weight the the team's other 30 games. Performance at the end of the season is no longer a criteria.

Utah St. did get a bad seed, I can see them giving Pitt all they can handle in a Sweet 16 game.

Alabama's profile was terrible, I am not even sure why you would have to ask. I wouldn't even include in my first four out.

I don't get Butler and Gonzaga either. I think Gonzaga can beat St. John's, and I think ODU will beat Butler.

TheAnswer1313 said...

Its not just the SEC Title game

UK has a better Pomeroy ranking, Sargarin Ranking, RPI, SOS and beat them head to head 2-1.

The only thing UF had was conference record.

Its silly. Both should have been 3's

gophs888 said...

missed out on the NIT really gophers come on.

amiezin said...

loved all the coverage, best site on the web! Thanks!

AG said...

You should be asking if the selection committee could have done any worse. But its like I said, your bracket made too much sense.

And I *did* warn you about the Florida/Mississippi State scenario from last year playing out again this year.

Dan said...

Scoring is 6 points for any teams seeded exactly, 4 points for any within 1 line and 3 points for just having the team correct but more then 1 line off?

Collin said...

You guys need to subtract your exact from the within one line your double counting those. Idiots

Ross said...

Well here we have it, Gene Smith says they finished seeding on Saturday.

http://twitter.com/bcthomas


That's complete crap. UConn gets the bump from winning its tournament, but I guess the Sunday winners don't matter? In addition, why did Duke get the 1 seed then?

Anonymous said...

I think the Big Ten bubble teams (the 4 teams who tied for 4th in regular season play) came down to splitting the Big Ten amongst the regions. The committee won't admit to it, but they really, really don't like to do things like put 3 teams from one league in the same region and put 0 to 1 in another.

Personally, I think an 8 for Michigan is mildly generous, but don't take issue with MSU or PSU being 10s or Illinois being a 9.

Smoking Kools said...

This was possibly the worst year I have seen since Missouri State got left out with a 21 RPI. There's little rhyme or reason to why any team is in or out. Clemson? I thought UAB should be in-I think highly of C-USA basketball-but USC?

Anonymous said...

Dan has the scoring right and Collin is bad at math.

Perfect score is 408:
3 points per team in field (204)
2 points per team exact (136)
1 point per team within 1 (68)

Previous years perfect score was 390.

Anonymous said...

Of those questions, the Florida one is the one I get the most. Even if you want the conference tournament to count more than the committee wants it to count, back-to-back wins over Tennessee and Vandy is pretty impressive.

Collin said...

ok actually I have an A in Calculus. I think the problem is that if you get a team exactly right it is 5 points not 6.

Ivar said...

I'm Ivar in the matrix (he didn't put my final bracket up) and I got a 323. Bracket is on the comments of the last post.

Anonymous said...

UAB being in is an abomination. CUSA was a fraud this season. Their RPIs are substantially out of line with every ratings system that takes actual basketball perfomance as its basis. The only factors they have in their favor are winning the regular season title (despite losing to all the god teams) and then a horsepoo RPI ranking.

I think some logrolling went on on behalf of the B12 to stick it to Colorado on the way out the door. UAB was one beneficiary.

Anonymous said...

you get too lost in the numbers. clemson is playing like one of the best teams in the country and they were going to find a way to get them in. the subjective element based on sub-regional committees is a bigger deal than you think.

Carl said...

Has a selection committee ever done a worse job than this year?

Even though conferences are supposed to be irrelevant, I think conference thinking came into play at a couple of different points for the committee.

First, based on the way they have the seedings, the committee clearly valued the Colonial over the West Coast Conference, so therefore, VCU gets in instead of St. Mary's.

Also, for Virginia Tech to get in, that would have meant 5 teams from the ACC in a down year for that conference. Now why Clemson got in over Virgina Tech, I cannot fathom.

And, the SMU AD is on the committee, which is the same conference as UAB. He would have had to be out of the room when UAB was discussed, but informally, he could have made a case for the strength of Conference USA, which probably carried some weight for the rest of the committee when they discussed UAB.

All that being said, VCU, UAB and Clemson all have no business in the field, while Colorado, Virginia Tech and St. Mary's all have legitimate gripes.

Anonymous said...

Collins right you guys are wrong if you seed a team exactly you don't get credit for both

TheAnswer1313 said...

Collin before you go calling people idiots you might wanna check things.

The max score in previous years was 390. 65 * 6 = 390.

I agree about doubling counting but that's how the paymon scale is.

TheAnswer1313 said...

Exactly from the site.


Using the final results from the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 matrices, each site was graded based on a scoring system made by Paymon at PHSports. This rubric awards 3 points for each team correctly picked, 2 points for each team correctly seeded, and 1 point for each team correctly seeded within one seed line. With 65 teams, a perfect score is 390.

Anonymous said...

How is St. John's a 6 when they won 10 out of the last 13 including wins over Duke, UConn, Pitt,and road wins at Marquette, Cincinnati, and Villanova-all tournament teams and two #1 seeds...Their losses-close losses against Syracuse, at UCLA(not terrible) and one goose egg at Seton Hall???? Their couple of bad losses 3 months ago they lost by 1 and 3 points......

Anonymous said...

How can a team lose its last 4, its last 6 of 8, its last 8 of 12 and still be selected by the committee? Oh I forgot, it's a "Big East" team. They get special consideration and are measured by a different set of standards. What was the committee smoking when they put Villanova in the tournament? Did I mention Villanova then proceeded to lose their first conference tournament game to USF? That must have been the game that convinced the committee to include Villanova in the tournament. Can you spell B-I-G__E-A-S-T__B-I-A-S?

Snapple said...

I don't blame you for missing some of the at-larges and some of the seed lines, b101. I like y'all's bracket better than the actual bracket.

How can you have 3 total losses in the WAC and get a 12 seed? I know their SOS wasn't great, but jeez that is robbery. Same with Richmond.

The only team that missed the field that I really feel bad for is Colorado. The rest of those teams are probably better than VCU and USC and UAB, but none of them are particularly good. Colorado played their hearts out this year and got nothing for it.

Oh well, such is life.

Anonymous said...

Tip times have been released.

Screw job for UAB or Clemson....play Tue night at 9 pm in Dayton...

...the winner then plays Thu at noon in Tampa. Makes no sense.

AG said...

St. Johns is a 6 because DJ Kennedy tore his ACL vs. Cuse.

And once again, Colorado's non-conference schedule was terrible, they struggled against Iowa State, 3 of their best wins were against the same mediocre team, and judging by where Texas was seeded the committee believed it said more about how weak Texas was than about how good Colorado was. And Missouri was an 11 seed, so its not like beating them was a big deal.

First it was the Missouri Valley, now its the CAA. Sooner or later the committee will find another mid-major conference to fixate on. Who knows, a few years from now we'll be talking about how much the committee loves the MAAC.

volzzilla said...

they need to remove AD's from the committee altogether. all of them have an agenda. the more of their conference teams get in, the more money they make for their school.


then altering the seeds to increase odds of going further means better chance to make even more money (that had to have happened this year with the big10 seedings)

Anonymous said...

Screw job for UAB or Clemson....play Tue night at 9 pm in Dayton...

...the winner then plays Thu at noon in Tampa. Makes no sense.




Nah, it makes sense. Neither of those teams should've made it.

Anonymous said...

I second that...That what happens when you are the 65th and 66th team in the tournament!

Anonymous said...

Did any site have every team right?

Evilmonkeycma said...

Providing a few answers for you, maybe:

5. Did you really look at those resumes? Georgia had the clearly better resume, and in that case, H2H means nothing

7. We all should have seen this coming. Gene Smith did a smash-up job last year of getting bumps for Big 10 teams.

9. Mizzou - why shouldn't they be?
Texas A&M - they don't have anything of note on their resume.

10. The Committee has never cared about Sunday games.

Dustin said...

The more I look at it, the more Im convinced the committee used different criteria than normal for the FF teams. I think they took people who excelled (sp?) at something even though they severely lacked somewhere else. That might be what they use the FF games for, and if thats the case, it might make this game a whole lot harder.

Anonymous said...

....and yes, we can criticize the committee in regards to their rationale for seedings and letting certain teams in.

But in the end, as always, there WILL be a few surprises in the Big Dance....has the MADNESS ever let us down as fans?

....NOPE.


...........THE MADNESS IS HERE!!!

Anonymous said...

WE ARE BUTLER!!!!

Anonymous said...

utah st as a 12 seed..what a joke

Anonymous said...

USC has the new formula for making it to the Big Dance...play 2 games over .500 in your conference, go 5 games over .500 in your overall record, and hope to (g)od your SOS opponents are ranked between 55 - 73 before Selection Sunday rolls around while flaming out in the 2nd round of your Conference Tourney.




.............oh shit, hold on a sec....then why was Colorado left out of the Dance...???

Anonymous said...

Scratch that last comment above....I was reading the wrong numbers.....LMFAO.

Too much tequila tonight.

....still, how the FAWK did Colorado
get left off???

Anonymous said...

when do you guys post your picks for the real tournament?

Chase said...

I got 65 of 68 and 55 exact or within 1 seed.

Yeah buddy.

Chase said...

Check that. I got 57 either exact or 1 seed off.

The only one's I missed were.

Kansas State (7), ODU (7), Utah State (8), Richmond (9), Missouri (9), Michigan (10), Butler (10), Illinois (12), Georgia (12) and then 3 incorrect: VT, Colorado, Saint Mary's.

Marty said...

Colorado is the only team I feel bad for. But these schools need to realize you cant play a 300+ OOC. This is the end result. UAB???? 1 top 50 win, against VCU. Not fair.

JGibson said...

Dustin may be on to something. Not that both first four games for at-larges are BCS Conference vs. Non-BCS conference. I had wondered if that might be the case, but convinced myself it was just extra teams. It still may be, but maybe they put that there exactly for those types of games.

Justin said...

Apparently T50 wins no longer matter. Except when you get enough T50 wins to overcome 6 bad losses and 14 losses overall.

Just a miserable job by the committee. I don't agree with any of the last four whatsoever over any of their possible bubble replacements. It feels like the committee just picked those teams based on some random game they saw and one guy saying "they look pretty strong."

No objective criteria whatsoever (to say nothing of smart ranking systems like Pomeroy or Sagarin) correspond to the bubble decisions.

AG said...

"Anonymous said...

utah st as a 12 seed..what a joke

12:24 AM"

Why is that a joke? Their seeding is appropriate for an automatic bid who would not have received an at-large bid, which they would not have if they choked against Boise State (or San Jose State for that matter).

I have to admit its odd that Colorado had 6 Top 50 wins and missed out, but 3 of those wins were against the same team, one was against a team that went 1-7 in conference road games (and were accordingly given an 11 seed as a result), and one was against an "elite" team that lost to so many bubble teams the committee downgraded their seed to reflect their lack of faith in Texas' ability to perform consistently.

mistersuits said...

The committee must have done something like arbitrarily deem 2 spots of the First Four to power conferences and the other two spots to mid-majors. That had to have been the directive and why you have two matchups between power and midmajors.

If you think of it from the perspective of two different groups of bubble teams competing for two spots, it makes a little more sense (although not THAT much more sense).

The power conference group competing for two spots was then:
Alabama, Boston College, Colorado, Clemson, USC, Virginia Tech

And the mid-major pack competing for two spots was probably:
Cleveland St, Harvard, Missouri St, St. Mary's, UAB, UTEP, VCU

Chris in NC said...

Well, B101, they don't call it March Madness for nothing!!!

Seriously though, the weakness of the bubble really screwed things up for the predicting people. Colorado and company have gripes, but they don't in the same breath. I mean come on, you're complaining because you were 69th and not 68th?

Now the love affair with the B10 I'll never get. Ok, I understand that Michigan and Penn State did enough to get in. That's ok. I accept that and agree with it. BUT Michigan an 8? Really? Seriously? Talk about being punked...

There are some baffling picks, no doubt. Maybe they just wanted to screw with the bracketologists.

Bracketology 101 said...

The answer to the Florida/Kentucky question being that they didn't care about the Sunday results doesn't hold water to us. How would you explain Duke getting a 1 seed then? I would have loved to see the uproar should Duke have lost Sunday and still gotten a 1 seed. A better answer to the question may be that the committee ASSUMED that Duke and Florida would win and ran with that.

The possibility of the committee viewing the last four teams in as 2 from mid-majors and 2 from big conferences is a good theory and should be kept in consideration in future years now.

Anonymous said...

Florida is a weak 2 seed, but they finished 3 games ahead of UK in the regular season. That's a pretty large gap regardless of H2H results. Coupled with UK's failure to win on the road and I think a 4 is about right.

Anonymous said...

USC had 3...count'em....3 losses to teams outside the RPI 200...

Not to mention they had a losses to 2 Big 12 teams (Nebraska and Kansas) and then 1 fluke win over Texas...

This is a team that lost to 3 teams that only had 11 wins each all season...

Colorado's "worst loss" was to San Francisco on the road... which is actually not as bad as USC's "semi home" loss to Rider...

It really is a shocking joke and can only show obvious corruption...

Justin said...

Definitely agree that the mid-major/major matchups seem to be what they went with. And for all our comparisons and discussion, I imagine it didn't take them that long for most of them.

Colorado had an abysmal OOC SOS. Done.
Bama has a terrible RPI. Done.
UAB won their regular season and has a high RPI. In.
Clemson beat Virginia Tech. In and done.

USC and VCU still baffle me though. They may have just been the last clowns standing but 6 bad loss USC over VT/Colorado and VCU over St. Mary's are very strange decisions.

Amy Cima said...

I am rarely correct, but I was saying last week that VCU was in. They looked really good against ODU. Don't know if that weighed in the committee's decision or not, but I left impressed with VCU.

VCU is taking a lot of heat, but they were more deserving than UAB or USC. USC is puzzling to me.

Anonymous said...

While I find it very difficult to defend the committee's math, they did set up some intriguing games. Teams who are in might feel hosed about their seed, but it's all about match-ups, and a lot of the teams in question were treated kindly. Who the hell wants an 8/9 seed, anyway? Those morons from michigan were jumping up and down like they won the lottery. Yeah, congrats, you get to play duke in NC, that's IF you can beat Tennessee.

Anonymous said...

It is all well and good to make fun of Colorado for the +200 RPI games they played but THEY DID NOT LOSE TO ANY OF THEM!!!

They won the games....USC on the other hand lost to 3 +200 RPI teams.... that is a JOKE

Keltic said...

I could have swore I saw Gene Smith interviewed on CBS and state that the Duke/UNC ACC Game didn't mean anything. That it wouldn't have switched the seedings for those teams. That would go along with what was said here by others . . . that Conference tournament games are not as important as regular season games and the Sunday games are meaningless unless it takes away an at-large team. For everyone who tries to use UConn as an example. UConn beat FOUR top teams and finished on SATURDAY. In comparison, UNC beat NO top 50 RPI teams in reaching the ACCCG. Duke beat ONE (UNC) in winning it.

Florida beat two top 50 RPI teams in reaching the Final game while UK beat only one (Florida) in winning it. Let's not go crazy about head to head, it's not like UK swept Florida. It was 2 to 1.

I have no problem with the top of the board. UK prolly deserved a 3 seed but so did the teams who were actually awarded those seeds. It's not like UK got a 4 and St John's got a 3.

Keltic said...

All this love for Colorado is sweet but misplaced. The tournament has always stated that out of all the factors that they take into account when looking at programs, the main one a school can control is their non-conference schedule.

Seth Greenberg has continuously ignored this to his own detriment. Alabama and Colorado scheduled as if they were trying to make the NIT instead of the NCAA.

Colorado finished 8-8 in the Big 12 with 3 wins over KSU (who's a great RPI team but not a great team) and a big win over a slumping Texas team. I'm sorry but when your toughest OOC games are Georgia and Harvard and you lose them both . . . better luck next year Buffalos. I'll shed no tears for you.

Anonymous said...

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, wasn't the NCAA supposed to post a list of objective criteria for selection to the field and seeding in the Division I basketball tournament?

At one point, weren't there some unwritten rules that the strength of a team's OOC schedule, the team's OOC record and how the team played against top-ranked teams would carry significant weight in the selection process?


For example, did someone on the selection committee point to Michigan and say, "Hey, they never got blown out by Ohio State in their three losses (losing those games by four, nine and seven points respectively). They lost by three to Syracuse on a neutral court. They beat Clemson on the road. They took Kansas to overtime before losing by seven at home. Let's make 'em an eight seed!"?

Or did someone on the selection committee say, "Hey, Michigan's got Hardaway, Horford and Dumars. They've gotta be pretty good. Let's make 'em an eight seed!"?

Anonymous said...

To the anon @ 12:26pm.... If you really think Kansas State is not very good... good luck in your brackets...

While under-achieving during a good amount of the season... KSU was still a top 5 pre-season team for a reason... LOADS of talent and when all playing together they are as good as every single #2 in this tournament...

Ross said...

I agree with the B101 bracket that neither Purdue nor BYU deserved three seeds. Kentucky easily deserved one of their spots.

In addition, Kentucky didn't just get a 4 seed. They got the worst possible 4 seed. They deserved better than that for their strong resume.

TJ said...

Why does everybody ignore Colorado's losses to Harvard, San Francisco, New Mexico, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Baylor & Iowa State?

Why does everybody ignore Alabama's losses to Seton Hall, St. Peter's, Iowa, Providence, Oklahoma State, Arkansas & Mississippi?

Why does everybody ignore Virginia Tech's losses to Virginia, UNLV, Georgia Tech, Boston College, Virginia again & Boston College again?

Why does everybody ignore Boston College's losses to Yale, Rhode Island, Harvard, & Miami twice.

That's why those teams didn't make the tournament, they all had lots and lots of TERRIBLE losses. UAB & VCU did not.

Anonymous said...

AG your dumb..Utah State was ranked in the top 20. they would have easily got in with a loss in the WAC tourney. They should have been a 9 seed.

JGibson said...

TJ - I wouldn't consider UNLV, Boston College, or New Mexico terrible losses. UNLV is a #8 seed in the tournament. Additionally, VCU, which had the same # of total losses as Virgnia Tech, lost to South Florida (1-17 in the Big East!), Georgia State (#223 RPI), and Northeastern (#178 RPI). Virginia Tech's 3 worst losses (twice to Virginia and once to Georgia Tech) don't actually match that. UAB has a better case on that front, with East Carolina (#96) being their worst.

Virginia Tech's 8 other losses - Kansas State, UNLV, Purdue, North Carolina, Boston College (x2), Clemson, Duke. VCU's 8 other losses - Tennessee, Richmond, UAB, Old Dominion (x2), George Mason, Drexel, James Madison. VaTech had 6 losses to tournament teams, 2 non-egregious losses to non-tournament teams, and 3 terrible losses. VCU had the same, atlhogh counting JMU and Drexel as on par with BC is being generous.

Evilmonkeycma said...

B101 - You say Duke couldn't have gotten a #1 without Sunday's result. In one of the few substantive things Gene Smith said, he mentioned that the ACC championship had no bearing on which teams got the #1 seeds.

mag900 said...

"B101 - You say Duke couldn't have gotten a #1 without Sunday's result. In one of the few substantive things Gene Smith said, he mentioned that the ACC championship had no bearing on which teams got the #1 seeds."

i still don't understand why people are surprised by this. the committee repeatedly has said that it is lazy and doesn't want to deal to with sunday games unless there are bid stealers playing. the B12 switched its final to saturday because of this.

it's indicative of what a bunch of dunces are on the committee that they couldn't make 1 bracket on saturday if duke won and another bracket if unc won. a bunch of high school kids could do that. if that's too much work or too hard for the committee members, then the ncaa should get new ones (it should get new ones anyway given what a train wreck of a bracket they created this year).

TJ said...

Gibson, Boston College was terrible this year, they didn't beat anybody good. They lost to 2 Ivy league teams. Yes that is a bad loss. I never, ever understood why people thought Boston College was a bubble team. VCU, UAB, UTEP, Missouri State, Harvard & Wichita State all deserved to make the tournament more than Boston College.

Heck, the CAA wasn't even that much worse of a conference than the ACC this year.

New Mexico is a terrible team that beat BYU twice so everybody thinks they had a shot at making the tournament. They were still a really bad team this year.

Georgia, St. Mary's, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Alabama, UAB, Virginia Commonwealth, Harvard, Missouri State, USC & Penn State all had pretty similar resumes. I don't get why everybody is getting so mad because they picked the wrong 5.

TJ said...

"AG your dumb..Utah State was ranked in the top 20. they would have easily got in with a loss in the WAC tourney. They should have been a 9 seed."

I think the bracket proved that both Richmond & Utah State would have missed out without winning their conference tournaments.

JGibson said...

TJ - If New Mexico and Boston College are bad losses, then you better add Drexel and James Madison to your bad loss list as well. No matter how you look at the bad losses Virginia Tech did not have more than VCU.

Tommy Salami said...

@JGibson 3:15

South Florida was actually 3-15 in conference (4-16 if you count Big East tourney). Not a huge difference but not quite as bad as 1-17, which is incidentally what DePaul finished at.

Also, when filling out brackets, is anyone else finding themselves with all four #1's in the Final Four? I really don't want to do it but I just can't bring myself to rely on any of the 2-4 seeds to win four games...the closest is Syracuse, but even then I'm very reluctant.

Justin said...

@TJ

Really the only one I can complain about is Clemson over VT. It's a pretty apples to apples comparison. Identical records in conference and overall. 3 losses to bad ACC teams. Close to the same in RPI and SOS.

VT beat Duke, FSUx2 and PSU out of conference. Two T50 wins, including over a number 1 seed.
Clemson beat FSU. No T50 wins. No good out of conference wins.

With otherwise identical records a team from a conference with three good wins and one great win was left out in favor of a team with one good win. That's never how the committee has done things before. The only reasoning must be head-to-head (where VT only played @Clemson) or some random eye test of just asserting Clemson is better.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bro, I totally believe that Colorado was ROBBED. There is NO WAY they should have been left out of this tournament, period. I am a Mizzou fan, and I feel bad for the Buffs Nation and their fans. As for Utah State/K State, "Mad Franks" Wildcats better be on their toes!!

Anonymous said...

@ TJ.... not sure if you follow RPI or Ken Pomeroy but your idea of what is to be considered a bad loss is pretty silly IMHO...

Losing to Harvard, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Baylor are not even remotely "bad losses"... The Iowa St and Oklahoma losses were not good but neither was USCs losses to Rider, Oregon St, TCU and Bradley...

Nebraska and New Mexico were about 5-6 FTs each from being in the tournament solidly... Nebraska and New Mexico combined lost seven 1 basket games...

Harvard missed the tourney by a bucket as well...

Anonymous said...

mistersuits said...

The committee must have done something like arbitrarily deem 2 spots of the First Four to power conferences and the other two spots to mid-majors. That had to have been the directive and why you have two matchups between power and midmajors.

If you think of it from the perspective of two different groups of bubble teams competing for two spots, it makes a little more sense (although not THAT much more sense).

The power conference group competing for two spots was then:
Alabama, Boston College, Colorado, Clemson, USC, Virginia Tech

And the mid-major pack competing for two spots was probably:
Cleveland St, Harvard, Missouri St, St. Mary's, UAB, UTEP, VCU
____________________________

Very good theory.

Apissedant said...

There are 12 teams in the NIT with 10 losses or less.

Who was it again that said there's no way the committee would bypass a team with a good record for a team with 13 losses?

They were apparently off by a bit.

MichigIN said...

I don't think I'll ever understand the seedings for Utah State, Richmond, Missouri, Michigan, Illinois, Old Dominion, and Butler. What a joke.

Anonymous said...

Throw in Florida and Kentucky

Amy Cima said...

The problem with projections is that due to acceptance of certain theories, the prognasticators are operating off assumptions that are no longer true. For example, most people believe that a .500 season in the Big 12, Big Ten, Big East etc is more deserving than a 4th place finish in the Colonial/MWC/MVC. This may have been true 10 years ago, but the outcome of the NCAA tournament is proving that it's not true. It's time to stop rewarding medicority.

Anonymous said...

The actual board Cheap RS Gold also startup a possible Syracuse -- Marquette around involving Thirty two game. Yet another good question is try to protect yourself from these types of circular connected withBuy WOW Gold32 Massive Far east matchups?

office 2010 activation key said...

When the new iPad came out, just like its predecessor Apple gadgets, the rumor mills worked cheap windows keys overtime in telling men and women purchase windows 7 key that there may well be variations among the black and white units. Essentially the most persistent rumor was that the white version on the Pad was thicker than the black one particular. Hence, there were a good deal of people who deemed promoting iPad online to ensure that they could acquire the thinner model.

If you already sold your white Pad and also you now personal the typical black unit, then you could simply sell your tablet again to get the other 1. You do not have to force oneself to work with anything in a color that you're not specifically fond of.

Sell your old iPad very easily by learning each of the mac microsoft office 2011 product key crucial facts about on line selling. Absolutely nothing is incorrect with equipping yourself with all the proper info window 7 starter activation key. As you will be aware, promoting something useful like your iPads is like taking a danger, so make sure that if you take this danger, you will not lose anything with it.

GM MDI said...

All vehicle, light truck and SUV companies are actually mandated to possess this method set up of their vehicles because 1996. When difficulties with the vehicle's devices take place the on-board pc generates carprog a code to enable the driving force diagnose the issue. This code might be study by connecting and OBDii scan instrument towards the vehicle's computer system.

obd2s online store said...

I don't need to drive a lot nor drive many hills. Stuff we've tried:? Replaced air filter? Replaced rotor scania vic2 distr cap? Replaced spark plugs? Replaced ignition wires? Replaced the TPS? Replaced oxygen sensor? Replaced fuel filter? Replaced Fuel Module (used a Mopar replacement)? Took it.ps2 diagnostic tool to Chrysler for the E22 recall (they reprogrammed the computer, said I didn't need a new catalytic converter)? Replaced the catalytic converter (several years after the above E22 thingy)? Checked the CPS?

wedding-dress said...

Thanks for these wonderful Photoshop guides. burberry wallet These will be a lot of fun to try out.

Anonymous said...

Deux professions wow po de collecte sont proposés pour ramasser de profiter de la World of Warcraft. Les deux de vos personnages et vos professions ont besoin d'être nivelé. Selon mon expérience, le dépouillement et l'exploitation minière sont les plus facile et très rentable à mesure. Beaucoup de joueurs pensaient que l'or qui lui a valu par les quêtes est juste pour les joueurs qui n'ont pas d'autre moyen de faire de l'or wow. En outre, cet or peut être utilize or wow pour payer des transmissions des caractères, le nivellement des professions, ou l'achat volante épique. Peut être acheter wow gold est un logiciel facile quand vous êtes paresseux pour faire de l'or wow par les quêtes. Mais ce n'est pas la réalité, maintenant nous allons aller jeter un oeil sur les quêtes. Vous pouvez utiliser l'or qui lui a valu ici pour alimenter vos vocations et de développer un bassin d'argent que vous pouvez wow europe gold investir dans le jeu pour un but lucratif.

Anonymous said...

[p]Swiss engineering,precision [url=http://www.springhermeshandbags.co.uk]hermes handbags kelly uk[/url] crafted timepieces . We have heared any rumor that the couple had some hard time . Functions medium top manage and detachable shoulder strap, il permit you to hold easily and [url=http://www.fashionhermesbagsuk.co.uk]hermes belts women


[/url] comfortably at your will . Hermes handbags Playing with Color

The key to the perfect fashion accessory is that it is both fun and play while at the same time adds to the overall style of your outfit . Kelly and Birkin are so identical with each other in termes of appearance that people [url=http://www.fashionhermesbagsuk.co.uk]hermes bags birkin[/url] often take one for another . Vibram 5 various Possession runners are classified as without shoes trainers . In Gossip [url=http://www.fashionhermesbagsuk.co.uk]hermes bags[/url] Girl, Lily carries her Birkin bag in black and tan in season one . These are of good design and need.[/p][p]Refined needlework strips away any downside perfectly . If this suit isn't going to fits completely, you should not fret about it, I have ability to cope with the make a difference is only the Herve Leger gown which can be a bit of cake . The reason for this specific long wait is that each handbags is created by just one authority craftsman . According to a few online retailer of replica high-end bags, the price of one limited edition crocodile leather authentic Birkin bag encrusted using [url=http://www.fashionhermesbagsuk.co.uk]hermes bags birkin on sale[/url] diamonds is $120, 000! Original Birkin bags' prices enjoy the range from $7, 000 all the way up to six characters . These include orange, pink, brown, black, white, efficient, beige, and gray . Even so, there may [url=http://www.springhermeshandbags.co.uk]cheap hermes handbags birkin[/url] be the fact that query in price ticket, cost you and price ticket . " I think that's why people tend to call this kind of beauty ridiculous . At that time, bags were attached to exterior girdles worn around the [url=http://www.springhermeshandbags.co.uk]hermes handbags sale

[/url] waist.[/p]

Anonymous said...

I was in college about ahem years ago, and it expresses my own opinions.
A good line producer will have bond companies he works with private internet
marketing owners on creating personal and internet marketing value.
Amounts repaid under the revolving credit facility and for general partnership purposes.
Indeed, the load is fairly light here compared to a typical off-the-shelf PC, but there is some remaining variability.


Have a look at my page; higher search engine ranks

Anonymous said...

This is something of an experiment for Realtors Dan Lesniak and Gabe Deukmaji, founders of the City Smart Living Team. gw2 gold

wowlever said...

who was co-champ of the WCC and beat St. John's and Gonzaga, get left out? How is that consistent?
WOW Gold Kaufen Billig
Billig WOW Gold Kaufen

Football Feed said...

A new social feed dedicated to the greatest football league in the world. Share your opinion, news and views. Engage in topical debate and banter with other Premier League supporters.
Football Feed