Selectikn Chair Comments
- Thread starter Rebel77fl2
- Start date
Same thing Ive been saying all season. Its an over rated conference and the committee saw that. They all played mid-level OOC except one or 2 toughly scheduled games (outside SDSU) and then each took turns pretending to be top 25 and then getting beat by the others. The eye test all season has told us this. Our argument was the conference was good and that those top 6 /7 beating up on each other was because the conference ball was good, but the committee saw it for what it was.
If NET is how you rank teams does it allow you to discount because you don’t think they are as good as the NET says, then why have it? I think the MWC had a bunch of teams that are between 20-40 range, but that doesn’t mean those wins should be looked at differently other wins in the 20-40 range. Maybe Q1 is too broad and they need to refine the ranges if they want to split between wins over top 20 and wins over 20-40 range.
OOC Q1 wins by top 7 teams in conference (top 25)
Big East - 13 (8)
Big10 - 12 (9)
ACC - 11 (5)
Big12 - 9 (6)
SEC - 9 (4)
MWC - 8 (6)
Does the SEC not get docked because they only beat each other. Shocking thing is the best SEC team in this stat is A&M who beat Iowa St, Ohio st(49), SMU(65).
Alabama’s best non conference win is home to Indiana State. But seeding wise they dropped one line compared to their NET? Even with their last four Q1 games all being blowouts! Sure they have only 1 non Q1 loss, so that means they are probably a 30-40 team. Their 4 Q1 wins besides Indiana St are Auburn (5), MSU (31), Florida (29). So they have one win over a team better ranked than Boise St.
St. John’s got robbed by having Virginia in over them, Virginia has a win over Florida but only won one other Q1 game, has same number of Q2/3 losses. SJU 2 more Q1 wins and frankly didn’t get blown out in all the other ones like UVA did in theirs.
My point is you can’t have a metric to show the quality of teams and then discount it because you don’t think it is accurate for some. I don’t think the NET is great but that is what the committee created. At that point win over someone ranked 21 should is worth a win over 21 and not well the win over 30 is better because they are in the SEC/ACC or whatever. If you start doing that what is the point of having the NET.
Its all about the money. NET as a measurement, playing by their rules, they couldn't keep our 6 teams out. But, where they have control is the seeding. They can put us where they want. Which they did. Their seeding was to make it more difficult for us to win. Winning takes away more money from the big boys. Getting 6 teams in really stirred up the P4 hornet nest. They are going to make less money because of us. That isn't acceptable to them. That is why, in an article I read today, said the Tourney in the near future may go to 76 - 80 schools.
"The most likely short-term shift appears to be expanding the tournament from its current 68 teams to somewhere between 76 and 80 – a concept that can only gain steam after an unpredictable set of conference tournament results dramatically shrunk the bubble and left a number of power-conference teams out of the draw."
"The most likely short-term shift appears to be expanding the tournament from its current 68 teams to somewhere between 76 and 80 – a concept that can only gain steam after an unpredictable set of conference tournament results dramatically shrunk the bubble and left a number of power-conference teams out of the draw."
March Madness as we know it could be on the way out amid seismic changes in college sports
News about “pay for play” in college sports gushes from a veritable firehose these days.
apnews.com
The NET is just another metric that allows the them to justify which teams the screw and where. It gives them a quantifiable argument over excluding at large teams in a market that now demands 2 hour follow up shows discussing why they seeded or selected teams and fuels blogs about it. Before social media, most people didnt argue so much as to why a team did or didnt make the tournament. It just came down to the committees opinion. Now when all these analysts interview committee members they can point to the NET and theres no argument.
I prefer eye tests. Watching the MWC this year, theres a lot of good players, but teams are not good. I thought we preformed admirably in conference play.. but watching our team, theres not really a reason UNLV should've finished in the top 4 of a conference where the "NET" among the top 7 was good enough that 4 of them got at large bids(excluding SDSU from that argument as they have established credibility.. but theyre a bad team as well). The committee slammed the conference with seeding to send that message.
I prefer eye tests. Watching the MWC this year, theres a lot of good players, but teams are not good. I thought we preformed admirably in conference play.. but watching our team, theres not really a reason UNLV should've finished in the top 4 of a conference where the "NET" among the top 7 was good enough that 4 of them got at large bids(excluding SDSU from that argument as they have established credibility.. but theyre a bad team as well). The committee slammed the conference with seeding to send that message.
Seems like there are enough metrics out there to find one or two to justify whoever it is you want in the field. To me, 19-14 is not a good enough record, I don't care what your schedule looks like, to get in over someone who is, say, 26-6. At the end of the day, there has to be a penalty for losing too much. Anybody can schedule up and lose. But then the GOB metric comes into play: the Good Ol' Boy who's there every year, and usually has a deserving team, gets in because of the name. They can say previous years don't matter, but that's total BS. You're damn right they matter, intentionally or not. It's human nature.
