2011 NCAA Basketball Tournament Thread

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by wade moore

By "not the most difficult" you mean OOC SOS of 157? Yeah, you could say that.

VT is infamous for a terrible OOC schedule. Idiot Greenberg does it EVERY year, yet whines and doesn't understand why he doesn't get in year after year.

He did "ok" in the ACC and "better than average" against a weak OOC schedule.

As I mentioned I dont mind George Mason getting in. The CAA has proven they are more than capable of holding their own in this tourny.

My biggest problem is Virginia Tech was 11-11 vs top 100 teams(Kenpom.com) while George Mason was 5-5 vs top 100 teams. VTech has no one but themselves to blame however I still think they are a team that was screwed this year.

I hope people remember this when wanting to expand the tourny even further. Yeah add 3 teams and it eliminates some of the bubble teams getting an unfair deal. Yeah right. There will be bubble teams even if the tourny was 300 teams. The problem will never go anyway so quit trying to pretend it will.(not directed at you Wade

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Anybody look into the online bracket polls? Do they give the option of not having to pick the play-in games like they've always done with the one play-in game. Would like to get my friends together but would be nice to not have to pick those games.

You get the option of picking either of say West Virginia or the other two teams as 1 pick. You dont have to pick the play in game.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This easily ranks as one of the worst jobs by a committee that I've seen in the past 15 years. Most years, the head scratching is limited to bubble talk. There's no way Colorado isn't a team that should be in. In addition, the seeding work in this tournament is laughable at best.

With that said, you just have to beat the team in front of you. I think we'll see one of the wilder tournaments related to lower seeds advancing in recent memory, just because the seedings are so bad.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

As I mentioned I dont mind George Mason getting in. The CAA has proven they are more than capable of holding their own in this tourny.

My biggest problem is Virginia Tech was 11-11 vs top 100 teams(Kenpom.com) while George Mason was 5-5 vs top 100 teams. VTech has no one but themselves to blame however I still think they are a team that was screwed this year.

Again, if you're in the ACC, you're going to get more shots. They were mediocre in those shots.

It's simple. If Seth Greenberg wasn't such a pussy and schedule real teams OOC, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Either they would be easily in, or clearly out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I agree with your last part, but not the first part. I know you differ from me in this, no surprise there, but I love the upsets and mid-major success. But it is a weak field.

It's the latter that has me more meh this year moreso than the former.

The fact that UT is a very defensible #9 seed says a lot to me about how weak this field really is, because I know far too well just how crappy they are more often than not. By the same token, I don't see much in terms of really good teams from lower profile conferences either, basically their top teams look just as meh as the mid/lower seeds from the power conferences.

Maybe it's just a combination of things all year that have me as blase about the tourney as I've ever been. A dead skunk GT team, a frustrating set of Vols, and a lot of the better teams have been ones that I simply can't make myself give more than a passing shit about. By the time we get to March Madness, a blech field just isn't getting me all that fired up on the heels of a bland regular season.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This easily ranks as one of the worst jobs by a committee that I've seen in the past 15 years. Most years, the head scratching is limited to bubble talk. There's no way Colorado isn't a team that should be in. In addition, the seeding work in this tournament is laughable at best.

With that said, you just have to beat the team in front of you. I think we'll see one of the wilder tournaments related to lower seeds advancing in recent memory, just because the seedings are so bad.

I'm not sure why Colorado is the team that people are championing as the poster child for bad selections.

Their OOC SOS was 324. There are 345 teams in Division I.

Again, as with VT - create a decent schedule, and we're not having this conversation.

Their RPI of 49 is good, not great - but their OOC SOS is just laughable. Hell, their overall SOS is only 57th.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's the latter that has me more meh this year moreso than the former.

The fact that UT is a very defensible #9 seed says a lot to me about how weak this field really is, because I know far too well just how crappy they are more often than not. By the same token, I don't see much in terms of really good teams from lower profile conferences either, basically their top teams look just as meh as the mid/lower seeds from the power conferences.

Maybe it's just a combination of things all year that have me as blase about the tourney as I've ever been. A dead skunk GT team, a frustrating set of Vols, and a lot of the better teams have been ones that I simply can't make myself give more than a passing shit about. By the time we get to March Madness, a blech field just isn't getting me all that fired up on the heels of a bland regular season.

On the flip side, as a HUGE CAA fan, we have 3 teams in this year - a first ever - so my interest is at an all-time high.

That's even with me knowing that UT is going to implode.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I'm not sure why Colorado is the team that people are championing as the poster child for bad selections.

Their OOC SOS was 324. There are 345 teams in Division I.

Again, as with VT - create a decent schedule, and we're not having this conversation.

Their RPI of 49 is good, not great - but their OOC SOS is just laughable. Hell, their overall SOS is only 57th.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Colorado played very well in conference. Sure, they didn't schedule OOC well, but Colorado is a very good team. As was mentioned on ESPN, when we start using the stats too much to judge teams and don't watch a team to see how obviously good they are, we have problems. It's clear that this committee relied far too heavily on the numbers and didn't have a lick of basketball sense when making these decisions.

This is merely argument for argument's sake, since basketball allows for failures while still giving a team a shot at a championship. Did Colorado miss opportunities? Yes. Do they belong in the tourney? No question about it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

That's even with me knowing that UT is going to implode.

I've got 'em winning one then going home ... pending any more drama, crisis, or absurdity between now & 1st round tip off.

Then again, all things considered, this particular team getting to the 2nd round could actually be exceeding reasonable expectations.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Again, if you're in the ACC, you're going to get more shots. They were mediocre in those shots.

It's simple. If Seth Greenberg wasn't such a pussy and schedule real teams OOC, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Either they would be easily in, or clearly out.

I don't like getting too big into the big boys vs mid majors argument but this is starting to sound really hollow. It is coming across to me like you are arguing that a mid major should be judged against an average mid major team and a power conference team against an average power conference team and whichever one is stronger in that measurement should get in. You aren't talking at all about Virginia Tech's resume vs any mid-majors resume, just that "they're a power conference team they have more chances". That's not really how it works at all, nor how its designed to work.

That may suck and I sympathize, but the argument you're making doesn't seem to have anything to do with what the committee looks at to decide who gets in and who doesn't.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Colorado played very well in conference. Sure, they didn't schedule OOC well, but Colorado is a very good team. As was mentioned on ESPN, when we start using the stats too much to judge teams and don't watch a team to see how obviously good they are, we have problems. It's clear that this committee relied far too heavily on the numbers and didn't have a lick of basketball sense when making these decisions.

This is merely argument for argument's sake, since basketball allows for failures while still giving a team a shot at a championship. Did Colorado miss opportunities? Yes. Do they belong in the tourney? No question about it.

So, if we're now moving from the stats argument (which usually you try to use in your favor)..

How much have you watched, oh, lets say VCU (since that is a team I've watched a lot)? Or whatever other team you're saying Colorado should have gotten in over?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

So, if we're now moving from the stats argument (which usually you try to use in your favor)..

How much have you watched, oh, lets say VCU (since that is a team I've watched a lot)? Or whatever other team you're saying Colorado should have gotten in over?

UAB and Clemson are both teams that I would put below Colorado. VCU should be in. USC is a bit questionable, but probably above Colorado.

I run a winery and have 2-3 games on my TV's at all times thanks to the ESPN package. I'm embarrassed to say that I probably have watched far too many games as a side effect of my occupation.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Radii

I don't like getting too big into the big boys vs mid majors argument but this is starting to sound really hollow. It is coming across to me like you are arguing that a mid major should be judged against an average mid major team and a power conference team against an average power conference team and whichever one is stronger in that measurement should get in. You aren't talking at all about Virginia Tech's resume vs any mid-majors resume, just that "they're a power conference team they have more chances". That's not really how it works at all, nor how its designed to work.

That may suck and I sympathize, but the argument you're making doesn't seem to have anything to do with what the committee looks at to decide who gets in and who doesn't.

I think you're somewhat mis-reading my intent, or I'm not explaining it very well.

VA Tech was average in a high-major conference. There are a lot of teams that get in the conference with average performances in a high-major conference.

Generally, the ones that don't get in with an average in-conference performance are the ones that were average in-conference and didn't play anyone out of conference - like VT and Colorado.

Let's take Georgetown.

Georgetown was 10-8 (8th) in the Big East. VT was 9-7 (6th) in the ACC.

Georgetown is 31st in RPI, VT is 30th. Georgetown had the 30th ranked OOC SOS. VT had the 157th OOC SOS.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

UAB and Clemson are both teams that I would put below Colorado. VCU should be in. USC is a bit questionable, but probably above Colorado.

I run a winery and have 2-3 games on my TV's at all times thanks to the ESPN package. I'm embarrassed to say that I probably have watched far too many games as a side effect of my occupation.

Fair enough. To be fair, I haven't looked at a lot. You probably know by now that I'm pretty defensive of the mid-majors. So, I get into defensive mode.

I just find, in general, that teams (including a lot of the mid-majors) that just barely miss general are ignoring some glaring hole in the resume.

For Colorado, it's pretty easy to point to their TERRIBLE OOC schedule.

[wade moore]

And Radii - I didn't address the mid-major part there. I think mid-majors do need to be judged a bit differently. The mid-majors have a very hard time getting the high-majors to schedule them, especially if they are a good mid-major. So, if they play well in-conference and do well against the few good teams that will play them, I think they should get the benefit of the doubt vs. a high-major team that plays average in-conference and then beats up on a bunch of weak teams OOC.

[Young Drachma]

Colorado lost to Harvard. I was always surprised they were supposedly a lock for so long.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Fair enough. To be fair, I haven't looked at a lot. You probably know by now that I'm pretty defensive of the mid-majors. So, I get into defensive mode.

I just find, in general, that teams (including a lot of the mid-majors) that just barely miss general are ignoring some glaring hole in the resume.

For Colorado, it's pretty easy to point to their TERRIBLE OOC schedule.

The OOC strength on Colorado is pretty misleading. They played four top 100 RPI teams in non-conference. They only beat CSU and lost to Georgia, Harvard, and New Mexico. The problem isn't that they played a 'bad' schedule in non-conference. The problem for them is that they had three losses in that part of the schedule.

It's not just mid-major that's an issue. There's some head scratching majors as well. I don't think it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things. We're not talking about teams that have a realistic shot at the title. My problem is more with the seeding personally. There are some wacking seedings that are going to create 'upsets' that give advantages to some of the higher rated teams in the second and third round. Not good.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Colorado lost to Harvard. I was always surprised they were supposedly a lock for so long.

Harvard was #30 in the RPI. It's not a bad loss. It's just that CU didn't get enough good wins to bump their stats for a committee who apparently focused on that.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's not just mid-major that's an issue. There's some head scratching majors as well. I don't think it's a big deal in the grand scheme of things. We're not talking about teams that have a realistic shot at the title. My problem is more with the seeding personally. There are some wacking seedings that are going to create 'upsets' that give advantages to some of the higher rated teams in the second and third round. Not good.

I do agree with the seeding being a disaster fwiw.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Colorado lost to Harvard. I was always surprised they were supposedly a lock for so long.

You mean the Harvard that was one point away from being in the tournament?

SI

[RainMaker]

It seems like a particularly tough year to seed. There is so much parity these days.

[RainMaker]

Also, I see arguments for Virginia Tech and think it was a coin flip on whether they get in or not. The committee has shafted some mid-majors over the last few years so I wonder if this was throwing them a bone for that. But I don't view Colorado as a snub. That team was pure horseshit on the road and that should be taken into account.

St. Mary's could make a case but that loss to San Diego was just too miserable to look past. As could Boston College. But honestly, I don't feel like any school left out really has a huge case. None of them really beat good teams and all blew huge opportunities throughout the season.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Colorado lost to Harvard. I was always surprised they were supposedly a lock for so long.

There were many (Jay Bilas leading that pack, it would seem) who considered Harvard not getting in as an at-large to be the biggest travesty of this selection process.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Comey

There were many (Jay Bilas leading that pack, it would seem) who considered Harvard not getting in as an at-large to be the biggest travesty of this selection process.

I would've been totally cool with Harvard being in and if I'm in the committee room, I try to float that rubber ducky. They had good wins despite an otherwise weak schedule. Plus, throwing the Ivy two bids for once would be fine to me.

But their strength of schedule would've been the lowest of any of the at-large teams by any measure you used to evaluate these things. I just thought it was interesting that so many of the pundits had CU in and then they didn't make the field in the end, was all. (And I'm sort of a backup fan of CU mostly because the only D1 school I've ever worked at.)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Comey

There were many (Jay Bilas leading that pack, it would seem) who considered Harvard not getting in as an at-large to be the biggest travesty of this selection process.

I'd agree. I think Harvard has an even better argument than Colorado.

[Swaggs]

Still trying to digest things here, but a couple of things that I do not like:

1.) From a personal standpoint, I'm not sure how I feel about WVU getting the winner of a play-in game. I guess there could be the advantage of having a slightly fatigued team, but I think that is outweighed by not knowing who your opponent is until ~48 hours before game time. As a 5-seed, I'd probably rather have the opportunity to spend the next few days studying film and preparing/teaching a game plan, rather than (I guess) splitting attention between two teams and/or trying to guess who you think will win.

2.) I know few will have sympathy for the Big East, but it seems kind of cheesy that there are two pods that have potential second round matchups between Big East teams (East has #3 Syracuse vs #11 Marquette if both win one game and West, which is much worse in my opinion, has #3 UConn vs #6 Cincy if both win one game). It seems like they easily could have avoided any conference matchups until the second weekend.

[molson]

Harvard/Oklahoma St. in the 1st round of the NIT is kind of interesting to me for some reason.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I would've been totally cool with Harvard being in and if I'm in the committee room, I try to float that rubber ducky. They had good wins despite an otherwise weak schedule. Plus, throwing the Ivy two bids for once would be fine to me.

But their strength of schedule would've been the lowest of any of the at-large teams by any measure you used to evaluate these things. I just thought it was interesting that so many of the pundits had CU in and then they didn't make the field in the end, was all. (And I'm sort of a backup fan of CU mostly because the only D1 school I've ever worked at.)

I'm not comparing them to Colorado; I'm more taking issue with VCU/USC/UAB/Clemson, and even PSU to a degree.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by molson

Harvard/Oklahoma St. in the 1st round of the NIT is kind of interesting to me for some reason.

How so? Underseeded, maybe?

[Lathum]

I agree with swaggs about a ucinn cinci round 2 game. That stuck out to me.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I'll preface this with an admission that I watch very little College Basketball, and that while I have no love for the school, I DO hear the local sports talk radio blather about them...

...but I think St. Mary's has the best reason to gripe about a "snub." They had an awful loss to San Diego coupled with a fairly weak finish to the season (losses to Utah State and Gonzaga twice), but about 3 weeks ago they were ranked in the top 15 and finished the season with an RPI of 44.

They definitely had their chances to punch their own ticket to the dance, but I think they're the most deserving of the teams that did not make it.

[RainMaker]

The San Diego loss is just so horrible that it killed their chances. I wouldn't complain if they were in at all, but it's one of those teams I don't feel sorry for at all. I feel bad for the schools that didn't have an opportunity to get in despite doing what they had to do schedule wise.

[molson]

Game times/networks have been posted on the ESPN scoreboard pages now, if you're interested:

NCAA College Basketball Scores - NCAA Basketball - ESPN

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The San Diego loss is just so horrible that it killed their chances. I wouldn't complain if they were in at all, but it's one of those teams I don't feel sorry for at all. I feel bad for the schools that didn't have an opportunity to get in despite doing what they had to do schedule wise.

Wouldnt that be St Marys?

They were 25-8 so I assume the reason they didnt get in was a weak SOS. I would think St Marys is the team that best fits this " I feel bad for the schools that didn't have an opportunity to get in despite doing what they had to do schedule wise" criteria you mention.

Their losses were BYU, SD St, Vanderbilt, Gonzage(twice), Portland, San Diego, and Utah St. Six of their losses were to tourny teams.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Wouldnt that be St Marys?

They were 25-8 so I assume the reason they didnt get in was a weak SOS. I would think St Marys is the team that best fits this " I feel bad for the schools that didn't have an opportunity to get in despite doing what they had to do schedule wise" criteria you mention.

Their losses were BYU, SD St, Vanderbilt, Gonzage(twice), Portland, San Diego, and Utah St. Six of their losses were to tourny teams.

I can't see a realistic argument for St. Mary's to be in. They just didn't do much other than beat up bad teams. 15 of their wins were also against RPI 150 and below teams. Gonzaga has shown what you need to do in the WCC to get an at-large bid. St. Mary's didn't do that.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

Game times/networks have been posted on the ESPN scoreboard pages now, if you're interested:

NCAA College Basketball Scores - NCAA Basketball - ESPN

I am the happiest person in the world right now. The UW game is the late game on Friday so I'll be able to watch. So excited.

Plus I think it will help that we are playing UGA at 9:45 EST

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I can't see a realistic argument for St. Mary's to be in. They just didn't do much other than beat up bad teams. 15 of their wins were also against RPI 150 and below teams. Gonzaga has shown what you need to do in the WCC to get an at-large bid. St. Mary's didn't do that.

St Marys isnt really one of the teams I felt bad for in not getting in. I was just trying to understand RainMakers argument so I brought up St Marys.

VTech is the one that bothers me and its not only because they were snubbed this year. Its happened far too often to them in the past few years.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

St Marys isnt really one of the teams I felt bad for in not getting in. I was just trying to understand RainMakers argument so I brought up St Marys.

VTech is the one that bothers me and its not only because they were snubbed this year. Its happened far too often to them in the past few years.

I'm fine with Virginia Tech going through this every year.

[LloydLungs]

St. Mary's is a good team and they probably would have acquitted themselves well in the tournament, but you just can't butcher a game like San Diego. I can't feel too bad for them.

I found Jay Bilas' demeanor immediately following the bracket announcement to be the most curious thing about the analysis. He was maintaining what I would call a fit of controlled rage for a good half hour or so. Vitale, he's always complaining after the selections -- if major schools get left out he whines about his coaching buddies getting the shaft, and if mid majors get left out he whines about the little guy never getting a chance. Digger is just a goofball. But Bilas -- it's just weird seeing him that angry. There's got to be something else behind that energy besides a couple of flawed teams getting left out of the NCAAs. I was wondering if it was because VCU knocked off Duke a couple years back. It was strange.

[Lathum]

The problem I have with Va Tech is looking at their OOC schedule they lost to K State, UNLV, and Purdue. Their best OOC win was Penn State.

If you play a crap OOC schedule you better win against the teams that are rater high

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Wouldnt that be St Marys?

They were 25-8 so I assume the reason they didnt get in was a weak SOS. I would think St Marys is the team that best fits this " I feel bad for the schools that didn't have an opportunity to get in despite doing what they had to do schedule wise" criteria you mention.

Their losses were BYU, SD St, Vanderbilt, Gonzage(twice), Portland, San Diego, and Utah St. Six of their losses were to tourny teams.

They had chances to beat those schools though. Some at home. And if you aren't going to beat those teams, then you can't blow a game to a school like San Diego which is literally one of the worst in all of D-1.

Like I said, I wouldn't be down about them getting in. Just don't think they have a big gripe and had their opportunities. There are small schools that get snubbed that don't get those same chances.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They had chances to beat those schools though. Some at home. And if you aren't going to beat those teams, then you can't blow a game to a school like San Diego which is literally one of the worst in all of D-1.

Like I said, I wouldn't be down about them getting in. Just don't think they have a big gripe and had their opportunities. There are small schools that get snubbed that don't get those same chances.

I agree with that. I just didnt really understand what you meant I guess. I wasnt sure if you were saying teams like Long Beach St and Missouri St should be in or teams that did their best with a difficult schedule deserve to be in.

[cartman]

Very surprised that Maryland didn't get an NIT bid.

[Commo_Soldier]

Looking for a site that had a breakdown of teams in by conference, I came across the USA today site for their bubble watch, surprised to see the only had one swap wrong, UAB out and VT in.

[molson]

These teams that everyone is freaking out over (the last few in, and out), all look pretty hugely flawed on paper, and I don't see any clear way to distinguish any of them. And they're all listed in pre-selection show bubble discussions. There's people like Jay Bilas freaking out because his own opinion was two teams off from the ncaa's. I mean really? It is indeed strange. If the NCAA doesn't deliver the ESPN bracketology bracket exactly people are yelling about travesties. Nobody got robbed - and a couple teams got really lucky with the tourney expansion.

[Young Drachma]

Here's the CIT field:

Former NCAA tournament darlings Northern Iowa and Valparaiso highlight the 24 teams selected to play in the CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament on Sunday.
The tourney expanded from 16 teams this season, which creates a few quirks in the schedule.
All 24 teams play first-round games starting this week, with four teams then getting a bye into the quarterfinals. They'll play the winners of four games involving the other eight teams.
The single-elimination tournament will continue through semifinals with a championship game scheduled for March 30. All games will be played at campus sites.
The other teams include: Air Force, Buffalo, East Carolina, East Tennessee State, Furman, Hawaii, Idaho, Iona, Jacksonville, Marshall, North Dakota, Northern Arizona, Ohio, Oral Roberts, Portland, Quinnipiac, Rider, San Francisco, Santa Clara, SMU, Tennessee Tech and Western Michigan.

Oh and here's the CBI field:

March 15 - James Madison at Davidson; San Jose State at Creighton
March 15 - Austin Peay at Boise State; Hofstra at Evansville
March 16 - Duquesne at Montana; Weber State at Oregon
March 16 - Miami (Ohio) at Rhode Island; St. Bonaventure at UCF

[jbergey22]

Maryland and Minnesota turned down invites.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Maryland and Minnesota turned down invites.

I don't blame 'em. Those aren't cheap excursions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Maryland and Minnesota turned down invites.

Umm ... someone should have told Gary Williams
Maryland basketball: Terps get left out of NIT field - baltimoresun.com

"After 19 wins and beating Penn State, Florida State and Clemson, it's disappointing that we're not at least in the NIT," Maryland coach Gary Williams said in remarks e-mailed to reporters. Penn State, Florida State and Clemson made the 68-team NCAA field.

"We played right with Duke for 35 minutes and got a win in the ACC tournament. It's kind of surprising we weren't selected," Williams said. "We worked very hard to get to where we were with 19 wins this year. We're looking forward to the start of next season."

edit to add: Or did you mean they turned down an invite to the pay-as-you-go-Classics?

[Lathum]

who gives a rats ass about the CBI and CIT? Why do you always feel the need to champion the cause of the little guy?