2011 NCAA Basketball Tournament Thread

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I heard a caller on ESPN radio this morning say that the bottom half of the Big East 11 shouldn't have gotten in, and when asked who should have taken their place, one of the teams he came up with was Georgia Tech.

Bwahahahahaha. That almost had to be a pro-BE plant or something, trying to discredit the naysayers. Either that or ESPN needs to instruct their call screeners not to accept calls from mental hospital and/or rehab wards.

[molson]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

It's now blatantly, BLATANTLY obvious VCU belongs in the field. Just give it up, man up, admit you're wrong, and move on. But he won't do it, and he planted the seed for not doing so on selection night. Not an appealing quality in a person.

Geez, can we also conclude that Morehead St. should have been an at-large, and that Pitt should have been a bubble team? Maybe we should finish this tournament, then do the REAL tournament which seeding adjusted based on how this one turns out (of course, if there's upsets in the next one too, we might need a another one).

Not that I have or had any problem with VCU getting in. I still find it hillarious that people freaked the 'f out about teams not getting an at large in a 68-team tournament. VCU deserved it as much as anyone else in the conversation.

VCU was a bubble team because they lost 11 games in a schedule that wasn't very difficult. They're taking advantage of their opportunity now, but those 3 big wins don't erase all the bad losses during the regular season.

[Swaggs]

This was touched on earlier in the thread a bit. I do think it was cheesy that the teams had to meet up in the round of 32. I don't see any reason that Marquette (as an #11) could not have been swapped out with any of the other #11s and one of Cincy/St. John's/G-town (all #6s) could not have been swapped down to a #7. At the end of the day, after they each won their first games, it did guarantee two Big East teams getting into the Sweet 16.

I'm pretty surprised that Pitt, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Louisville are all gone after the first weekend. I knew one or two would get knocked out early, but I really thought any of those four + UConn could make it to the E8 or better (but I'm not sure that I envisioned any as actual title contenders, barring some major flukes and/or upsets). St. John's, Georgetown, and Villanova had all been in decline (largely due to key injuries) and I think WVU and Cincy did as good or better than expected.

Overall, very disappointing and I have no problem with hearing about the conference's shortcomings in the tournament. Their top teams, aside from UConn (who has the only national star/legit NBA prospect, Ben Hansbrough sensationalism aside) all wet the bed -- mostly against mid-majors, to boot. I still think that the 11 teams that earned bids were all deserving based on their bodies of work and that the seedings were largely fair, though.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

This was touched on earlier in the thread a bit. I do think it was cheesy that the teams had to meet up in the round of 32. I don't see any reason that Marquette (as an #11) could not have been swapped out with any of the other #11s and one of Cincy/St. John's/G-town (all #6s) could not have been swapped down to a #7. At the end of the day, after they each won their first games, it did guarantee two Big East teams getting into the Sweet 16.

I'm pretty surprised that Pitt, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Louisville are all gone after the first weekend. I knew one or two would get knocked out early, but I really thought any of those four + UConn could make it to the E8 or better (but I'm not sure that I envisioned any as actual title contenders, barring some major flukes and/or upsets). St. John's, Georgetown, and Villanova had all been in decline (largely due to key injuries) and I think WVU and Cincy did as good or better than expected.

Overall, very disappointing and I have no problem with hearing about the conference's shortcomings in the tournament. Their top teams, aside from UConn (who has the only national star/legit NBA prospect, Ben Hansbrough sensationalism aside) all wet the bed -- mostly against mid-majors, to boot. I still think that the 11 teams that earned bids were all deserving based on their bodies of work and that the seedings were largely fair, though.

So, Um... which 11 seed would you have wanted Marquette to swap with? The one that paired with UConn in the round of 32? Or maybe the one that had them paired with Georgetown in the round of 64? Or, no, maybe the one that had them playing St. John's in the round of 64?

With 11 teams in, you're going to play each other. It shouldn't be some obligation of the committee to avoid the 11 Big East teams playing each other until the Sweet 16, that's just silly.

All of that being said, I agree. The Big East was strong and deserved a lot of teams in. Maybe you can nitpick the last couple, but that's just what it is - nitpicking.

They bombed in the tourney, so be it - it doesn't mean it wasn't a good conference.

[larrymcg421]

I'm not sure which is worse: Using single game results over a full regular season to determine a team's quality or throwing out any and all results and judging the team based on "watching them play".

I'd probably say the latter, but both are pretty ridiculous. We have no way of knowing that Virginia Tech or Colorado wouldn't have upset two teams. If VCU was deserving, then they were deserving whether they got blown out by 40 pts in the first round or if they make the final four.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

Geez, can we also conclude that Morehead St. should have been an at-large

I think the point is that VCU is just destroying people. Morehead State was clearly an inferior team that pulled a fluky upset. No disrespect to them, I like them; Faried is an animal and they're a pretty solid team, but Louisville was better and Morehead loses that game at least eight out of 10 times. Pitt was seeded properly; they caught Butler on the wrong day. With VCU I think they'd win best-of-7 series against all their opponents thus far. They simply look a lot better.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

With 11 teams in, you're going to play each other. It shouldn't be some obligation of the committee to avoid the 11 Big East teams playing each other until the Sweet 16, that's just silly.

Actually, it is ... but only within reason.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...and+procedures

edit to add: I think they met the guidelines reasonably well, so I see no gripe with the setup, but technically they do at least have to try to avoid it as much as possible.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure which is worse: Using single game results over a full regular season to determine a team's quality or throwing out any and all results and judging the team based on "watching them play".

I'd probably say the latter, but both are pretty ridiculous. We have no way of knowing that Virginia Tech or Colorado wouldn't have upset two teams. If VCU was deserving, then they were deserving whether they got blown out by 40 pts in the first round or if they make the final four.

FWIW, I'm not against people arguing VCU shouldn't have been in.

It's the extreme stance that Bilas took that not only should they not have been in, they shouldn't have been on the bubble, and they weren't good.

All of it was patently false - and I think their blowout wins go to support my claim.

[molson]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

I think the point is that VCU is just destroying people. Morehead State was clearly an inferior team that pulled a fluky upset. No disrespect to them, I like them; Faried is an animal and they're a pretty solid team, but Louisville was better and Morehead loses that game at least eight out of 10 times. Pitt was seeded properly; they caught Butler on the wrong day. With VCU I think they'd win best-of-7 series against all their opponents thus far. They simply look a lot better.

If these blowouts are reflective of how good VCU has been all year (i.e. reflective of their candidacy for the tournament), why did they lose to Georgia St. and Northeastern, and Drexel and James Madison? Those are pre-conference warmup games for a lot of the higher-seeded tournament teams. Are you saying they're 20+ plus points better than Purdue and should have been seeded 2 or 3? They got hot. But they deserved their spot just as much as they would have had they lost to USC by 20.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

FWIW, I'm not against people arguing VCU shouldn't have been in.

It's the extreme stance that Bilas took that not only should they not have been in, they shouldn't have been on the bubble, and they weren't good.

All of it was patently false - and I think their blowout wins go to support my claim.

So in future (and past) tournaments, we can look at the tournament performance of CAA teams, and if they lose (especially if they're blown out), we can conclude that they probably shouldn't have been there? Or does this theory only work if they pull off a couple of wins?

Edit: I'm sure that Bilas would be gloating if all of the villainous at-large teams were quick 1-and-outs. I think it's easy to just be consistent on this. An entire regular season tells us more than a few tournament games. Anybody, even good teams, can flame out in tournament, and almost anyone (certainly all of the at larges) have the potential to win a bunch of games. They're all good teams.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by molson

Geez, can we also conclude that Morehead St. should have been an at-large, and that Pitt should have been a bubble team? Maybe we should finish this tournament, then do the REAL tournament which seeding adjusted based on how this one turns out (of course, if there's upsets in the next one too, we might need a another one).

Oooh, fun game, here's 1-65 from last year. Bracket to come.


duke
butler
wvu
michigan st.
baylor
kansas st.
kentucky
tennessee
purdue
syracuse
washington
n. iowa
st. mary's
xavier
cornell
ohio st.
cal
murray st.
mizzou
maryland
old dominion
byu
wake
ohio
texas a&m
gonzaga
new mexico
kansas
villanova
pitt
wisconsin
GT
Ark-PB
UTEP
Morgan St.
NM St.
Sam Hstn St.
N. Texas
ETSU
SDSU
Siena
Vermont
Marquette
UNLV
Richmond
Minnesota
Temple
UCSB
Louisville
Vandy
Clemson
Houston
Notre Dame
Florida
texas
Georgetown
Utah St.
FSU
Montana
Lehigh
Robert Morris
Oakland
Wofford
Oklahoma St.
Winthrop

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

If these blowouts are reflective of how good VCU has been all year (i.e. reflective of their candidacy for the tournament), why did they lose to Georgia St. and Northeastern, and Drexel and James Madison?

I think VCU is definitely playing better now than they played most of the year (though I think most Power 6 teams would take more bad losses than you'd think if they played a full conference slate of them with half on the road). That said, VCU was a fourth place CAA team and obviously their resume was as shaky as any other bubble team.

But if you watched them in the CAA tournament you could see this was going to be a possibility (hmmm... eye test!). That plus a competitive resume made them far from an off-the-wall at-large selection. But I'd still accept this from Bilas: "Even though I still don't think VCU merited a slot based on their resume at the time, I behaved like an immature assclown on selection night. I'll try not to be such a colossally arrogant dick in the future."

[molson]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

re: syracuse over and back...

Sec. 3 Art. 8. After a jump ball or during a throw-in, the player in his/her front
court, who makes the initial touch on the ball while both feet are off the
playing court, may be the first to secure control of the ball and land with one
or both feet in the back court. It makes no difference if the first foot down
was in the front court or back court.

Still a stupid play in a game (and really, season) full of them for Syracuse. Not the smartest/most disciplined team I've ever seen.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by wade moore

So, Um... which 11 seed would you have wanted Marquette to swap with? The one that paired with UConn in the round of 32? Or maybe the one that had them paired with Georgetown in the round of 64? Or, no, maybe the one that had them playing St. John's in the round of 64?

With 11 teams in, you're going to play each other. It shouldn't be some obligation of the committee to avoid the 11 Big East teams playing each other until the Sweet 16, that's just silly.

All of that being said, I agree. The Big East was strong and deserved a lot of teams in. Maybe you can nitpick the last couple, but that's just what it is - nitpicking.

They bombed in the tourney, so be it - it doesn't mean it wasn't a good conference.

I always love when people start a post with, "Um." It always let's me know that the poster is much smarter than me (and they know it!).

How about switching them with a 12 or a 10, then?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, it is ... but only within reason.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/...and+procedures

edit to add: I think they met the guidelines reasonably well, so I see no gripe with the setup, but technically they do at least have to try to avoid it as much as possible.

Thanks. I knew that rule existed in the past, but I was not sure how it was supposed to be enforced with a 16-team conference.

It seems like, even with 11 teams, they should be able to avoid conference match ups until the S16, but I understand that there were a glut of Big East teams in that 5-6 seed area. I assumed they bumped WVU up to a 5 (otherwise there could have conceiveably been four #6s from the Big East), so I don't see why they couldn't have done a bit of tweaking, taking some 6s to low 5s or high 7s, but that is nitpicking, I suppose.

At the end of the day, it ended up being a hedging of bets for the Big East. So be it. It will probably be awhile before a conference gets more than 8 or 9 teams in, so it isn't a huge problem. It just seems like something that a group of intelligent folks could hash out relatively easily.

[Easy Mac]

2010's re-seeded bracket, based on who lost to who (so Duke is #1 over, then the team Duke beat in the Elite 8 is the top #4 seed...)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It seems like, even with 11 teams, they should be able to avoid conference match ups until the S16, but I understand that there were a glut of Big East teams in that 5-6 seed area. I assumed they bumped WVU up to a 5 (otherwise there could have conceiveably been four #6s from the Big East), so I don't see why they couldn't have done a bit of tweaking, taking some 6s to low 5s or high 7s, but that is nitpicking, I suppose.

The problem, in addition to us not knowing what teams have already had their seeding shuffled in the past three years (which is something the guidelines say to avoid) is probably where it becomes hard to avoid unintended consequence. Plus the number of 1-4 seeds limits the options even further (since they're supposed to be kept separate as much as possible).

Here's what they had:
9,5,11,3
6,3
4,6,2
1,6


Let's assume we don't touch the 1-4 teams.

#11 Marquette was the most obvious I guess ... but moving them to any other region as an 11 seed would have put them against another BE team in the 1st round. If you drop them down to a #12 seed then
- in the same region they hit #5 WVU in the 1st round
- swapped with Richmond, you get a possible matchup with Louisville in the SW region R2 AND violate the avoid-rematches-rule by putting them against Vandy in R1 AND violate the avoid-rematches-rule by putting Richmond against Xavier
-- swapped with Memphis violates the stay-at-home rule for the Tigers
-- swapped with Utah State violates the stay-at-home rule for the Aggies

#6 Cincy solves nothing by staying at #6 & changing regions since you have the same 1st or 2nd round BE matchup. Dropping them to a #7
-- in the same region violates stay-at-home by sending them to Tucson
-- can't flip w/ Texas A&M because of the B12 matchup with Missouri it would create AND sets up Cincy-ND in round two.
-- could have switched with UCLA or Washington as far as I can tell, but again we don't know who may have been switched in recent years

Point to all this really just being that the options are more limited than we think at first blush.

[Arles]

There's been a lot of criticism about the 5-second call in the AZ/UT game on ESPN radio. First, they had a ref on our local radio that said once your reach 4 seconds - possession is in the process of "switching over" and you can't call a timeout. That's a pretty interesting rule and I'm surprised none of the ESPN guys researched that.

Also, I think the game was pretty oddly officiated down the stretch. From about 9 to 2 minutes left in the 2nd half, Brown shot 10 free throws (and Hamilton had 2). That means in 6 of those 8 possessions, Arizona was called for a shooting foul (many which were fairly touchy). Basically, Texas' offense was running Brown into the nearest Wildcat, initiating contact and then getting the call every time. Plus, Williams had contact on shots twice in the final 4 minutes with no call. So, while I agree Arizona was lucky to get the 5-second call, I think part of that was a makeup by the officials based on a fairly slanted final 8-10 minutes.

All in all, it was a pretty crazy game. Hopefully, Williams can keep winning games for Arizona in the final seconds as they move on.

[rjolley]

For the 5 second count, I've heard that you need to make the timeout call at the 4 second count in your head and not to wait, but never heard it was a formalized rule. I just remember from practice that when you hit 4, call the timeout if you don't have a pass.

[DataKing]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

But I'd still accept this from Bilas: "Even though I still don't think VCU merited a slot based on their resume at the time, I behaved like an immature assclown on selection night. I'll try not to be such a colossally arrogant dick in the future."

Not possible. He did go to Duke, after all...

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I always love when people start a post with, "Um." It always let's me know that the poster is much smarter than me (and they know it!).

How about switching them with a 12 or a 10, then?

I'm not sure if it was here or another board I read where someone said that on yet another board, anytime someone starts a post with "um...", the poster is banned for a week.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

So in future (and past) tournaments, we can look at the tournament performance of CAA teams, and if they lose (especially if they're blown out), we can conclude that they probably shouldn't have been there? Or does this theory only work if they pull off a couple of wins?

Edit: I'm sure that Bilas would be gloating if all of the villainous at-large teams were quick 1-and-outs. I think it's easy to just be consistent on this. An entire regular season tells us more than a few tournament games. Anybody, even good teams, can flame out in tournament, and almost anyone (certainly all of the at larges) have the potential to win a bunch of games. They're all good teams.

Read what I write. My issue is the complete and total disrespect from Bilas where he essentially said VCU is not a good team and shouldn't even be considered for the tournament. This wasn't true before selection, after selection, or during the 3 wins they've put together in the tournament.

The fact that they have come in and taken it to 3 big-6 teams only bolsters that argument.

I said that someone saying VCU didn't quite have the resume of say Colorado, fine. I'll nitpick your argument, but the wins this week mean little in that discussion. When you're flat-out saying VCU is bad and shouldn't even be on the bubble, yes - owning 3 big-6 teams in the tournament is a factor in showing what a moron you are. Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I always love when people start a post with, "Um." It always let's me know that the poster is much smarter than me (and they know it!).

How about switching them with a 12 or a 10, then?

Again, the tournament committee should not be expected to ensure that 11 Big East teams work out perfectly so that you could have 11 Big East teams in the Sweet 16. There's just no reasonable argument where that makes sense.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Read what I write. My issue is the complete and total disrespect from Bilas where he essentially said VCU is not a good team and shouldn't even be considered for the tournament. This wasn't true before selection, after selection, or during the 3 wins they've put together in the tournament.

The fact that they have come in and taken it to 3 big-6 teams only bolsters that argument.

I said that someone saying VCU didn't quite have the resume of say Colorado, fine. I'll nitpick your argument, but the wins this week mean little in that discussion. When you're flat-out saying VCU is bad and shouldn't even be on the bubble, yes - owning 3 big-6 teams in the tournament is a factor in showing what a moron you are. Absolutely.

There's teams below the bubble that are capable of going on runs against good teams. We see it in the conference tournaments every year. You're still saying that VCU's success in the tournament justifies its inclusion as at least a bubble team v. a team that's not on the bubble. I don't think Bilas' stance, as unnecessarily intense as it is, has anything to do with how these teams do in the tournament. (In fact, I remember him saying, "just because I don't think UAB and VCU should be there, doesn't mean they can't win when they're there.) He could only look at teams' regular seasons, just like the committee. There's plenty of teams in the NIT and below capable of winning two games in the tournament if they got hot.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

There's teams below the bubble that are capable of going on runs against good teams. We see it in the conference tournaments every year. You're still saying that VCU's success in the tournament justifies its inclusion as at least a bubble team v. a team that's not on the bubble. I don't think Bilas' stance, as unnecessarily intense as it is, has anything to do with how these teams do in the tournament. (In fact, I remember him saying, "just because I don't think UAB and VCU should be there, doesn't mean they can't win when they're there.) He could only look at teams' regular seasons, just like the committee. There's plenty of teams in the NIT and below capable of winning two games in the tournament if they got hot.

I submit to you that there are very few, if any, teams in the NIT that are good enough to beat up on USC and then beat both Georgetown and Purdue by almost 20 - no matter how "hot" they are.

That's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

(In fact, I remember him saying, "just because I don't think UAB and VCU should be there, doesn't mean they can't win when they're there.) He could only look at teams' regular seasons, just like the committee.

Again, that was his insurance against looking foolish later, which seems to have worked as intended. I've never said he isn't smart.

The ESPN's crew's argument was not based on tournament resumes. It was based on believing VCU wasn't any good. That's why they spent the better part of an hour whining that more ex-coaches should be on the committee. Do you think it's because they think coaches are better at reading teams' records against the top 50? No, it's because they thought the committee was stupid and didn't know anything about basketball. Bilas' arguments towards VCU bordered on personal and towards the committee were unequivocally personal. No amount of his lawyerly argument maneuvering can make that look good in hindsight.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Again, that was his insurance against looking foolish later, which seems to have worked as intended. I've never said he isn't smart.

The ESPN's crew's argument was not based on tournament resumes. It was based on believing VCU wasn't any good. That's why they spent the better part of an hour whining that more ex-coaches should be on the committee. Do you think it's because they think coaches are better at reading teams' records against the top 50? No, it's because they thought the committee was stupid and didn't know anything about basketball. Bilas' arguments towards VCU bordered on personal and towards the committee were unequivocally personal. No amount of his lawyerly argument maneuvering can make that look good in hindsight.

Yup.

The statement about not knowing the basketball was round was pretty clear. He was saying, "I don't care what their 'resume' says, they're not any good".

A team that's not any good simply, unequivocally, could not do what VCU has done. They might pull out a couple of squeakers, but not what VCU has done.

[Ksyrup]

SB Nation's reporting Pearl was fired.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

There's teams below the bubble that are capable of going on runs against good teams. We see it in the conference tournaments every year. You're still saying that VCU's success in the tournament justifies its inclusion as at least a bubble team v. a team that's not on the bubble. I don't think Bilas' stance, as unnecessarily intense as it is, has anything to do with how these teams do in the tournament. (In fact, I remember him saying, "just because I don't think UAB and VCU should be there, doesn't mean they can't win when they're there.) He could only look at teams' regular seasons, just like the committee. There's plenty of teams in the NIT and below capable of winning two games in the tournament if they got hot.

Im not sure how you can argue with Wade on this one. The committee's job is to pick the teams most capable of winning games in the NCAA tourny. Its not to reward their performance on the year. VCU has beaten 3 larger conference teams so it would appear the committee did a great job with that pick. VCU certainly does make Bilas look silly right now. They have beaten 3 quality teams so its not all that fluky.

[molson]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Again, that was his insurance against looking foolish later, which seems to have worked as intended. I've never said he isn't smart.

The ESPN's crew's argument was not based on tournament resumes. It was based on believing VCU wasn't any good. That's why they spent the better part of an hour whining that more ex-coaches should be on the committee. Do you think it's because they think coaches are better at reading teams' records against the top 50? No, it's because they thought the committee was stupid and didn't know anything about basketball. Bilas' arguments towards VCU bordered on personal and towards the committee were unequivocally personal. No amount of his lawyerly argument maneuvering can make that look good in hindsight.

Originally Posted by wade moore

Yup.

The statement about not knowing the basketball was round was pretty clear. He was saying, "I don't care what their 'resume' says, they're not any good".

A team that's not any good simply, unequivocally, could not do what VCU has done. They might pull out a couple of squeakers, but not what VCU has done.

I never heard him say they were "bad" - more like that they were outside the bubble, i.e., they were outside the top 40 or so in the country. Still "good" by any measure, but maybe not as good as some prior CAA teams (and maybe even not as good as a few this season).

And the reason Bilas felt he needed "insurance" for later is because he knew perfectly well that any of those bubble teams were capable of going on a run. But he also correctly recognized that any such run has nothing to do with whether a team is the 30th most worthy at-large team or the 40th most worthy at large team. That's the range we're talking about here that everyone's getting all upset over. There's not a ton of difference between those teams. You're making it sound like he thought they were a Dartmouthl-level team, that shouldn't have been able to do anything against Big 10 teams. I don't think he went that far. The RPI is flawed, but VCU was a top 50 RPI team, close to the RPIs of UCLA, Illinois, Georgia. They're capable of playing with and beating top teams, and Bilas wasn't disputing that.

I also didn't hear him say, "I don't care what their 'resume' says, they're not any good" - I think he had a big problem with their resume. 11 lossess for a mid-major at large is pretty unusual. They had enough good wins behind it (and I think we're getting past the idea that a mid-major has a tiny margin for error - clearly they have plenty of margin for error if you schedule well enough, and if your conference has a good enough season.)

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I submit to you that there are very few, if any, teams in the NIT that are good enough to beat up on USC and then beat both Georgetown and Purdue by almost 20 - no matter how "hot" they are.

That's my stance, and I'm sticking to it.

VCU has looked great so far, no denying that. But if they are as great as you are claiming them to be where were they during the regular season?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

I never heard him say they were "bad"

Starting at 2:20. He didn't explicitly say bad, but what follows doesn't define as "these guys deserve to be here."

[larrymcg421]

VCU (did/did not) deserve to be an at large selection over other teams.
Jay Bilas (is/is not) a total jackass.

The answer to both of these statements is the same no matter how well VCU does in the tourney.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

VCU (did/did not) deserve to be an at large selection over other teams.
Jay Bilas (is/is not) a total jackass.

The answer to both of these statements is the same no matter how well VCU does in the tourney.

one thousand times this.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Im not sure how you can argue with Wade on this one. The committee's job is to pick the teams most capable of winning games in the NCAA tourny. Its not to reward their performance on the year. VCU has beaten 3 larger conference teams so it would appear the committee did a great job with that pick. VCU certainly does make Bilas look silly right now. They have beaten 3 quality teams so its not all that fluky.

But we're not arguing about VCU in a vacuum. The question is did they deserve to get in ahead of other teams like Virginia Tech or Colorado. Now I don't really have an opinion or care which of those teams was the most deserving. But the point is that Virginia Tech and Colorado did not become less deserving just because VCU has done well in the tourney. If someone thought those teams should've been selected, nothing has happened to prove them wrong.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Starting at 2:20. He didn't explicitly say bad, but what follows doesn't define as "these guys deserve to be here."

But I doubt he'd put them outside say, the top 150 in the country. And if he said they were as bad as a bottom level northeast conference team, i don't need two tournament games to know that he's wrong, I can see that from what they did in the regular season.

He'd probably put them way outside the bubble, maybe even as bad as #60 in the country. And a #60 team can beat flawed BCS conference teams, it happens all the time.

There's a whole crapload of teams between #30 and #60 that aren't really that different. Bilas has VCU lower than most in that group of teams. He was weird about it, but I think that people are being overly weird about his opinion on that. And two games doesn't prove someone should have been #35 instead of #55, just like one blowout loss wouldn't have proved they should have been #55 instead of #35.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But we're not arguing about VCU in a vacuum. The question is did they deserve to get in ahead of other teams like Virginia Tech or Colorado. Now I don't really have an opinion or care which of those teams was the most deserving. But the point is that Virginia Tech and Colorado did not become less deserving just because VCU has done well in the tourney. If someone thought those teams should've been selected, nothing has happened to prove them wrong.

They certainly didnt become less deserving but VCU has shown that the committee made the right decision according to what the committee is suppose to look for.

I was pissed that V Tech didnt make it but its hard for me to now argue that VCU was a poor choice based on what has happened.

Committee's job is to pick teams most capable of doing well in the NCAA tournament not reward teams for the best seasons.

We should probably be looking at USC as a team that shouldnt have made it. Plus they quit with a minute left and didnt even foul down 9 with a minute left.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

You're making it sound like he thought they were a Dartmouth-level team

Wait, did you actually see the aftermath on ESPN right after the selections? Because actually he DID make it sound like that, complete with bizarre personal attacks on the committee. Picking the 40th team instead of the 35th team should not make one openly question whether the committee knows whether a ball is round. It should not inspire snarky comments like the selection not meeting the "laugh test." That's just obnoxious behavior.

I think Joe Sheehan, in his selection Sunday epilogue, noted that it sounded as if Bilas mistakenly thought we were talking about VMI instead of VCU.

[molson]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Wait, did you actually see the aftermath on ESPN right after the selections? Because actually he DID make it sound like that, complete with bizarre personal attacks on the committee. Picking the 40th team instead of the 35th team should not make one openly question whether the committee knows whether a ball is round. It should not inspire snarky comments like the selection not meeting the "laugh test." That's just obnoxious behavior.

I think Joe Sheehan, in his selection Sunday epilogue, noted that it sounded as if Bilas mistakenly thought we were talking about VMI instead of VCU.

He thinks they jumped VCU over maybe 10 teams that deserved it more. He was a psycho about it, but I guess that's kind of his job.

I really don't believe that he thinks they jumped VCU over 150 teams that deserved it more.

[molson]

And another thing, why do people care so much what Jay Bilas says?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Committee's job is to pick teams most capable of doing well in the NCAA tournament not reward teams for the best seasons.

This isn't accurate at all and goes entirely against what the committee has being preaching the last 2 years.

They dropped last 10/12 as a point of emphasis because it put too much importance on the end of the season. They've also been repeatedly bringing up "total body of work" for selection. The selection committee rewards teams for their work during the regular season and that's the way it should be. If they wanted to do a better job of rewarding teams capable of winning the tournament they'd certainly get rid of the RPI and move to something that at least attempts to predict a team's future success such as the kenpom ratings or even Sagarin.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Atocep

This isn't accurate at all and goes entirely against what the committee has being preaching the last 2 years.

They dropped last 10/12 as a point of emphasis because it put too much importance on the end of the season. They've also been repeatedly bringing up "total body of work" for selection. The selection committee rewards teams for their work during the regular season and that's the way it should be. If they wanted to do a better job of rewarding teams capable of winning the tournament they'd certainly get rid of the RPI and move to something that at least attempts to predict a team's future success such as the kenpom ratings or even Sagarin.

This is what CBS repeatedly says. I dont have the committee handbook so Im going off of what CBS says. Bilas is one of the experts that says this all of the time.

He even makes a point of mentioning that the committees job is to find the best at large teams. Has to do with his "eye test" statement.

The "total body of work statement" is an easy out for them in defending on why they left a mid major team out.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by molson

And another thing, why do people care so much what Jay Bilas says?

Me personally, I like watching obnoxious people with their tails between their legs. The Heat crying, Russell on Survivor this season, Jay Bilas scrambling to lawyer-explain his way out of his psychotic behavior while VCU is taking a machete to all its tournament opponents... come on, it's fun!

[Butter]

Originally Posted by molson

And another thing, why do people care so much what Jay Bilas says?

If you don't care, why are you defending him so much?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

And another thing, why do people care so much what Jay Bilas says?

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Me personally, I like watching obnoxious people with their tails between their legs. The Heat crying, Russell on Survivor this season, Jay Bilas scrambling to lawyer-explain his way out of his psychotic behavior while VCU is taking a machete to all its tournament opponents... come on, it's fun!

What Lloyd says.

In addition, I'm blatantly a Mid-Major, and more specifically, a CAA homer.

So, this is a little bit of "*I* can mock my brother for his big head, but *YOU* can't".

So.. yeah.. I want to see him eat crow. Plain and simple. He went WAY WAY WAY overboard on his criticism of VCU and the committee. Way moreso than anyone has in the past. Especially someone supposedly as smart as him. This wasn't the normal, "oh shucks, these two teams should be in over them". This was "this team has absolutely no business even being in any discussion". That's not a difference of 5 teams or so.

So when you come out that harshly, you'd better be able to take it and eat it just as harshly.

And you keep claiming that "any" team that doesn't stink can do this.

Any team in say the top 40-75 can beat these teams. Any of them might even be able to beat 3 in a row. Very few, if any others, can win in the convincing fashion 3 games in a row like VCU has.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

If you don't care, why are you defending him so much?

I'm not defending him at all, but I do admit that I irrationally care about logic errors on message boards. Not that I lose sleep or anything, but I care enough to post, which is still a irrational amount of care.

[molson]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Any team in say the top 40-75 can beat these teams. Any of them might even be able to beat 3 in a row. Very few, if any others, can win in the convincing fashion 3 games in a row like VCU has.

So how good exactly do you think they are, and where was that team all season?

Because some think they should be in, some think they shouldn't be, but I don't think anyone thinks they were MORE than a bubble team. (even you called them a "stretch" before the tournament). So we're still talking a team where the difference of range of opinion is #35-#55ish. They weren't going to prove themselves out of that range in either direction no matter what happened. (Though if you think a team can prove it's way up in 2 games in the tournament, I think you also need to admit that a team can prove its way down in 1 tournament game, which I don't think you'd be willing to do when it comes to CAA teams.)

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Any team in say the top 40-75 can beat these teams. Any of them might even be able to beat 3 in a row. Very few, if any others, can win in the convincing fashion 3 games in a row like VCU has.

We're not exactly seeing the real VCU. If we were they wouldn't have been anywhere near the bubble to begin with. Yesterday they scored 1.41 points per possession against a team that led the Big 10 in fewest points allowed per possession.

[larrymcg421]

I always root for mid-majors in the tourney and I hope VCU keeps it up. I'm just simply debating the logic.

The committee could've put a list of bubble teams on a wall, put blindfolds on, thrown darts and selected those teams. If those teams did well, it does not mean the committee was correct in deciding the at large bids by throwing darts.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by molson

So how good exactly do you think they are, and where was that team all season?

Because some think they should be in, some think they shouldn't be, but I don't think anyone thinks they were MORE than a bubble team. (even you called them a "stretch" before the tournament). So we're still talking a team where the difference of range of opinion is #35-#55ish. They weren't going to prove themselves out of that range in either direction no matter what happened.

They started poorly. They were 1-4 to start the season. The CAA, despite whatever people point at, is a tough conference. Difference is, the bottom is deeper. VCU has a rough day and loses to Ga St. on the road. The top teams in the nation do not play low RPI teams on the road. It just simply doesn't happen, VCU has to because of their conference.

VCU got better as the year went on. They showed flashes of this, but they play on emotion so they had bad games.

Yes, I thought they were borderline. At the same time, I knew that they were a team capable of this. Hell, in my bracket I had all of the CAA teams going to the round of 32, but GMU and ODU losing there - and VCU going to the elite 8. So it's not like I'm completely pulling this out of my ass.

For the 9999999th time - it's the extreme stance Bilas took that I think has been blown out of the water. I don't see how you argue against that.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Atocep

We're not exactly seeing the real VCU. If we were they wouldn't have been anywhere near the bubble to begin with. Yesterday they scored 1.41 points per possession against a team that led the Big 10 in fewest points allowed per possession.

I guarantee you I have seen VCU play a lot more than you have. A LOT.

This VCU has shown up at times this year, just not consistently.