menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: I'm curious about opinions on the selection process/criteria on here
Page: 2 of 2
mail
person
TheGreatLarryMoe
3/14/2016 11:23 AM
[QUOTE/]

What really has people upset is that Syracuse got in.Especially with their coach having to sit out games for NCAA violations and them losing 5 of their last 6.

[/QUOTE]
That one really pisses me off. Most schools get at least a postseason ban for NCAA violations. But Syracuse just gets their coach banned for a few games during the regular season? It just goes to show what money and influence can get you.
mail
person
TheGreatLarryMoe
3/14/2016 11:30 AM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
After watching that selection show and seeing the bracket, I'm more disgusted by my perception of big school TV money winning out more than ever before. Monmouth, SDSU, and others have legit arguments on why they belong more than 'Cuse, Tulsa, and Vandy. Monmouth should be furious after playing exceptionally well in a tough November and December and being left out.


One of my biggest frustrations is that there's no true formula for a mid-major to get in short of playing 15 road games to start the year and hope you can win 12. It feels like the at-large criteria change every single year, and I just don't understand why there can't be minimum criteria laid out in May for the following year to be considered for an at-large. Something printed in writing publicly that the NCAA can't change after the fact.
I don't have a problem with Tulsa getting in, but no way should Syracuse, Vanderbilt or Michigan have gotten in. Unfortunately, I feel like there already is a minimum criteria, and that is that you have to be a member of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, PAC 12 to be taken seriously. A-10 and American to a lesser extent. It's not quite as bad as football, but it's pretty close.
mail
person
GoCats105
3/14/2016 11:34 AM
TheGreatLarryMoe wrote:expand_more
After watching that selection show and seeing the bracket, I'm more disgusted by my perception of big school TV money winning out more than ever before. Monmouth, SDSU, and others have legit arguments on why they belong more than 'Cuse, Tulsa, and Vandy. Monmouth should be furious after playing exceptionally well in a tough November and December and being left out.


One of my biggest frustrations is that there's no true formula for a mid-major to get in short of playing 15 road games to start the year and hope you can win 12. It feels like the at-large criteria change every single year, and I just don't understand why there can't be minimum criteria laid out in May for the following year to be considered for an at-large. Something printed in writing publicly that the NCAA can't change after the fact.
I don't have a problem with Tulsa getting in, but no way should Syracuse, Vanderbilt or Michigan have gotten in. Unfortunately, I feel like there already is a minimum criteria, and that is that you have to be a member of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, PAC 12 to be taken seriously. A-10 and American to a lesser extent. It's not quite as bad as football, but it's pretty close.
You can probably add the American to that list. Tulsa getting in shows that.

This site has been updated, but the Bracket Matrix, which is basically a site that includes 59 bracket "experts" picking who they think will be in the Tournament. Last night, exactly ZERO had Tulsa getting in the Tournament. Today it has been updated to ONE.

https://twitter.com/rodger_sherman/status/709150748626575...

http://bracketmatrix.com /

The list does include things like ESPN, KPI and Yahoo. So it's not just a bunch of fools predicting this thing.
Last Edited: 3/14/2016 11:47:01 AM by GoCats105
mail
Andrew Ruck
3/14/2016 11:45 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
What a difference five years or so makes. I was widely skewered on this board several years ago for suggesting that the selection process was not exactly objective and that smaller conferences were getting screwed. I believe I even said the process was corrupt. Now it appears that most posters in this thread agree with me. Welcome aboard! ;-)
Do we need to go over your history of not remembering things accurately?
mail
OUVan
3/14/2016 11:55 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
What a difference five years or so makes. I was widely skewered on this board several years ago for suggesting that the selection process was not exactly objective and that smaller conferences were getting screwed. I believe I even said the process was corrupt. Now it appears that most posters in this thread agree with me. Welcome aboard! ;-)
You'll have to excuse me when I say that I don't remember anyone sticking up for the selection committee in that regard...ever(maybe a couple of our closet scarlet and grey wearing posters). They've always done whatever they could to help the big boys. That being said I have said many times that the MAC hasn't gotten screwed by the selection committee. We just haven't had many at-large worthy teams and the ones that are win the MAC Tourney.
mail
OU_Country
3/14/2016 12:04 PM
TheGreatLarryMoe wrote:expand_more
After watching that selection show and seeing the bracket, I'm more disgusted by my perception of big school TV money winning out more than ever before. Monmouth, SDSU, and others have legit arguments on why they belong more than 'Cuse, Tulsa, and Vandy. Monmouth should be furious after playing exceptionally well in a tough November and December and being left out.


One of my biggest frustrations is that there's no true formula for a mid-major to get in short of playing 15 road games to start the year and hope you can win 12. It feels like the at-large criteria change every single year, and I just don't understand why there can't be minimum criteria laid out in May for the following year to be considered for an at-large. Something printed in writing publicly that the NCAA can't change after the fact.
I don't have a problem with Tulsa getting in, but no way should Syracuse, Vanderbilt or Michigan have gotten in. Unfortunately, I feel like there already is a minimum criteria, and that is that you have to be a member of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, PAC 12 to be taken seriously. A-10 and American to a lesser extent. It's not quite as bad as football, but it's pretty close. [/QUOTE]You make a good point on "minimum criteria". It's a strong argument for considering a different conference, though I really, really don't want to go down that road.

Tulsa doesn't really belong any more than Syracuse or Vandy do. That's coming from a guy who also roots for UC that thinks the AAC doesn't get it's due.


[QUOTE=OhioCatFan] What a difference five years or so makes. I was widely skewered on this board several years ago for suggesting that the selection process was not exactly objective and that smaller conferences were getting screwed. I believe I even said the process was corrupt. Now it appears that most posters in this thread agree with me. Welcome aboard! ;-)
You'll have to excuse me when I say that I don't remember anyone sticking up for the selection committee in that regard...ever(maybe a couple of our closet scarlet and grey wearing posters). They've always done whatever they could to help the big boys. That being said I have said many times that the MAC hasn't gotten screwed by the selection committee. We just haven't had many at-large worthy teams and the ones that are win the MAC Tourney.

I wouldn't argue in favor of Arkon this year. I would argue in favor of Monmouth, St.Mary's, Hofstra, Valpo, St.Bonnie. I just have a hard time accepting the idea of an at-large team with 12-13 losses when there are others out there that won their conference outright with 22, 24, to 27 wins, AND they've beaten some "power" conference teams. At some point, winning a lot of games has to mean something, right?
Last Edited: 3/14/2016 12:24:18 PM by OU_Country
mail
person
TheGreatLarryMoe
3/14/2016 1:29 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
After watching that selection show and seeing the bracket, I'm more disgusted by my perception of big school TV money winning out more than ever before. Monmouth, SDSU, and others have legit arguments on why they belong more than 'Cuse, Tulsa, and Vandy. Monmouth should be furious after playing exceptionally well in a tough November and December and being left out.


One of my biggest frustrations is that there's no true formula for a mid-major to get in short of playing 15 road games to start the year and hope you can win 12. It feels like the at-large criteria change every single year, and I just don't understand why there can't be minimum criteria laid out in May for the following year to be considered for an at-large. Something printed in writing publicly that the NCAA can't change after the fact.
I don't have a problem with Tulsa getting in, but no way should Syracuse, Vanderbilt or Michigan have gotten in. Unfortunately, I feel like there already is a minimum criteria, and that is that you have to be a member of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, PAC 12 to be taken seriously. A-10 and American to a lesser extent. It's not quite as bad as football, but it's pretty close.
You make a good point on "minimum criteria". It's a strong argument for considering a different conference, though I really, really don't want to go down that road.

Tulsa doesn't really belong any more than Syracuse or Vandy do. That's coming from a guy who also roots for UC that thinks the AAC doesn't get it's due.
I too root for UC. The AAC has my respect because they are the leftovers of other failed conferences, or the leftbehinds after their conference has been scavenged by the big conferences. That is why I don't have a problem with Tulsa being in the field. I agree there are others, like Monmouth, Valpo, St Mary's, who I think have better resumes, but if I am going to kick teams out of the field, it's teams like Michigan, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, and I would even include Oregon St and Texas Tech, who I would give the boot. Mediocrity shouldn't be rewarded just because they have a name like Michigan and Syracuse, or play in a "power" conference.

If I were to support Ohio moving to a different conference, it would be the AAC. To me it's the only one that makes sense geographically and competitively. But even then I don't see it happening. Our athletics program has come a long way I think, but I think we have a ways to go before any other conferences come calling.
Last Edited: 3/14/2016 1:30:17 PM by TheGreatLarryMoe
mail
100%Cat
3/14/2016 1:48 PM
I love the tournament, but I hate the selection process. Why? Monmouth. And any other mid major that does exactly what the committee says they need to do...and they still get sent to the NIT. I look at it this way. Monmouth and Syracuse have a very important thing in common: neither is going to win the NCAA tournament. Let's throw that out there, it's a fact. When you acknowledge that fact, I think the argument about who to include and who not to include is very simple: which team deserves a spot? Which team earned their way in for the reward of being in the tournament? Syracuse did nothing to earn their way in, didn't they lose 5 of their last 6? But, they are a big school from a good conference, so they get rewarded for mediocrity. Monmouth, they get "rewarded" by going to the NIT, getting smacked in the face by the NCAA's because we have to have Syracuse in there.
mail
OUVan
3/14/2016 2:39 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
I wouldn't argue in favor of Arkon this year. I would argue in favor of Monmouth, St.Mary's, Hofstra, Valpo, St.Bonnie. I just have a hard time accepting the idea of an at-large team with 12-13 losses when there are others out there that won their conference outright with 22, 24, to 27 wins, AND they've beaten some "power" conference teams. At some point, winning a lot of games has to mean something, right?
I would agree, particularly with Monmouth, St. Mary's and Valpo. Bonaventure may have gotten in with a deeper run in their conference tournament but losing in the first round killed them.

No excuse for Monmouth being left out. None. They went 5-1 against the Big Boys, all on the road. They won their conference and made it to the conference tourney final.
Last Edited: 3/14/2016 2:41:03 PM by OUVan
mail
person
bobcatsquared
3/14/2016 5:20 PM
"this year it's top 50 wins. . . last year it was road wins. . . two years ago it was RPI."

..."it's a moving target.. instead of making it 'this year this is how we are going to rate teams'..."

The above is me paraphrasing something a college basketball coach said today about the selection committee. And it meshes with my biggest complaint about the process the committee uses to serve the major conference schools in each individual situation.

Wanna guess who said it?
Last Edited: 3/14/2016 6:18:53 PM by bobcatsquared
mail
OUVan
3/14/2016 6:10 PM
TheGreatLarryMoe wrote:expand_more
I don't have a problem with Tulsa getting in, but no way should Syracuse, Vanderbilt or Michigan have gotten in. Unfortunately, I feel like there already is a minimum criteria, and that is that you have to be a member of the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, PAC 12 to be taken seriously. A-10 and American to a lesser extent. It's not quite as bad as football, but it's pretty close.
5 teams got at large bids with a .500 record in conference.

Pitt - Didn't play a single road game OOC and lost 11 of their last 18 games

Syracuse - Played two road games OOC and lost both. Finished the year losing 5 of 6.

Oregon State - Lost at home to Valpo who was ranked ahead of them in every metric yet didn't get a bid. Had a losing record over their last 19 games.

USC - Lost to Monmouth and only played one road game (traveling all the way to Santa Barbara) OOC. Finished the season winning 3 games out of their last 10.

Texas Tech - Didn't play a single road game OOC and lost 3 of their last 4. Their record over the last 19 games was 8-11.

Sorry but this flies in the face of everything the committee has said over the years. There is not a deserving team in the bunch.
mail
OU_Country
3/14/2016 6:43 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
"this year it's top 50 wins. . . last year it was road wins. . . two years ago it was RPI."

..."it's a moving target.. instead of making it 'this year this is how we are going to rate teams'..."

The above is me paraphrasing something a college basketball coach said today about the selection committee. And it meshes with my biggest complaint about the process the committee uses to serve the major conference schools in each individual situation.

Wanna guess who said it?

The head of the committee?
mail
person
Big Willy
3/14/2016 7:12 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
If Monmouth can't get in this year, the MAC will never get 2 teams in again. Monmouth did everything the committee asked. Just shows you how impossible it is for the MAC moving forward.
According to the papers and news reports out here,the committee gave the following reasons for leaving Monmouth out:

1.They beat UCLA and Georgetown>But those schools weren't "impressive enough" this year.

2.They lost to Army,Canisius and Manhattan.

What really has people upset is that Syracuse got in.Especially with their coach having ot sit out games for NCAA violations and them losing 5 of their last 6.

Maybe somebody already said this (I haven't read the entire thread), but Monmouth also beat Notre Dame at a neutral site. They got screwed royally. In the past the Committee has said if you go out and attempt to play good teams that will help you. Now they say that teams like UCLA and Georgetown weren't good enough just because they had off years. You can't predict when somebody is going to have an off year. They were both in the Tourney last year. Ridiculous.
Tulsa and Syracuse were ridiculous picks. Some are saying that since Louisville and SMU were banned, the committee thought those conferences should each have another team. How else would Tulsa and Syracuse get in. St Bonnie got screwed too. They had an RPI of 29, tied for the regular season A-10 Championship, beat St Joe's twice, and won at Dayton. The Committee is a joke.
mail
bornacatfan
3/14/2016 7:40 PM
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
"this year it's top 50 wins. . . last year it was road wins. . . two years ago it was RPI."

..."it's a moving target.. instead of making it 'this year this is how we are going to rate teams'..."

The above is me paraphrasing something a college basketball coach said today about the selection committee. And it meshes with my biggest complaint about the process the committee uses to serve the major conference schools in each individual situation.

Wanna guess who said it?
Calipari?
mail
OU_Country
3/15/2016 11:11 AM
bornacatfan wrote:expand_more
"this year it's top 50 wins. . . last year it was road wins. . . two years ago it was RPI."

..."it's a moving target.. instead of making it 'this year this is how we are going to rate teams'..."

The above is me paraphrasing something a college basketball coach said today about the selection committee. And it meshes with my biggest complaint about the process the committee uses to serve the major conference schools in each individual situation.

Wanna guess who said it?
Calipari?
I'm pretty sure that's who said it. Even though his teams have no trouble getting in, his point is spot on. It's time for a known, consistent, transparent, and public set of criteria to determine who gets considered for an at-large. It has to be this way so that there is consistency when the committee members change. There's no reason we can't have an idea on the metrics that are used in discussion in the committee room. Then, at that point, it's a matter of going out and winning games.

Personally, for 3-4 years, I've wanted to see the following as minimum criteria for at-large:

1) Non-Conf SOS, and corresponding W-L

2) Winning conference record. Not 8-10, not 9-9. 10-8, 9-7, whatever. If you aren't good enough to win 1-2 more than you lose in conference, you're not good enough for the tournament.

3) Road Wins. Force some of these teams to play more than 2 road games before conference play starts. I used to take the stance on a minimum number. Now I just say, tell them it's a factor that they'll be evaluated on as an at-large. Play two road games before January and lost them both? Tough luck for your team.

4) Stop using this "Top 50 wins" nonsense if teams in the Top 50 won't ever give the next 50-75 teams a game. Let's do Top 100, Top 150 records.

**Other than having a winning record inside your conference, Top 50/Top 100 wins within conference needs to be a secondary factor in the process. You can't easily choose your conference. You can more easily choose your Nov/Dec strength of opponent.

This at least puts the onus on a team to just go out and "Just Win Baby".




**EDIT -- Of course I don't think they'll actually do anything like this, but the pressure should be on to come up with something like this. If we can put the changes in the shot clock in the defined rules, why can't we have the factors to be selected as an at-large to play in the tournament for the national championship also in there?
Last Edited: 3/15/2016 11:13:37 AM by OU_Country
mail
person
rpbobcat
3/15/2016 11:31 AM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
"this year it's top 50 wins. . . last year it was road wins. . . two years ago it was RPI."

..."it's a moving target.. instead of making it 'this year this is how we are going to rate teams'..."

The above is me paraphrasing something a college basketball coach said today about the selection committee. And it meshes with my biggest complaint about the process the committee uses to serve the major conference schools in each individual situation.

Wanna guess who said it?
Calipari?
I'm pretty sure that's who said it. Even though his teams have no trouble getting in, his point is spot on. It's time for a known, consistent, transparent, and public set of criteria to determine who gets considered for an at-large. It has to be this way so that there is consistency when the committee members change. There's no reason we can't have an idea on the metrics that are used in discussion in the committee room. Then, at that point, it's a matter of going out and winning games.

Personally, for 3-4 years, I've wanted to see the following as minimum criteria for at-large:

1) Non-Conf SOS, and corresponding W-L

2) Winning conference record. Not 8-10, not 9-9. 10-8, 9-7, whatever. If you aren't good enough to win 1-2 more than you lose in conference, you're not good enough for the tournament.

3) Road Wins. Force some of these teams to play more than 2 road games before conference play starts. I used to take the stance on a minimum number. Now I just say, tell them it's a factor that they'll be evaluated on as an at-large. Play two road games before January and lost them both? Tough luck for your team.

4) Stop using this "Top 50 wins" nonsense if teams in the Top 50 won't ever give the next 50-75 teams a game. Let's do Top 100, Top 150 records.

**Other than having a winning record inside your conference, Top 50/Top 100 wins within conference needs to be a secondary factor in the process. You can't easily choose your conference. You can more easily choose your Nov/Dec strength of opponent.

This at least puts the onus on a team to just go out and "Just Win Baby".




**EDIT -- Of course I don't think they'll actually do anything like this, but the pressure should be on to come up with something like this. If we can put the changes in the shot clock in the defined rules, why can't we have the factors to be selected as an at-large to play in the tournament for the national championship also in there?
Because the NCAA's primary concerns,when it comes to the tournament, are ticket sales and T.V.revenue.
Last Edited: 3/15/2016 11:31:44 AM by rpbobcat
mail
OU_Country
3/15/2016 11:57 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Because the NCAA's primary concerns,when it comes to the tournament, are ticket sales and T.V.revenue.

Which they're going to get anyway, right? Regardless if they allow 3-5 mid-major teams in that are deserving.
mail
person
bobcatsquared
3/15/2016 12:06 PM
Yes, Calipari.
mail
100%Cat
3/28/2016 8:09 AM
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
Monmouth and Syracuse have a very important thing in common: neither is going to win the NCAA tournament. Let's throw that out there, it's a fact.
I'm currently searching recipes for crow...
mail
person
GoCats105
3/28/2016 8:39 AM
Syracuse's run to the Final Four doesn't justify that they should have gotten in. They've had an easy path in the tournament thanks to MTSU taking out Michigan State and an epic collapse from Virginia. Kudos to them for going out and winning the games, but unless they win this whole damn thing I still don't think they should have got in over Monmouth.

Truth be told, I've never been a fan of expanding the tournament, but I think this year and VCU's run to the Final Four a few years ago proves you can and it will pay dividends. Even a low seed that just barely gets in can make something happen.

I don't think the magic number is 128, but I think you can find a reasonable number everyone can agree on. Think about it: are there really 60 more deserving teams that need to be in? If they do that, they may as well just put everyone in like HS basketball and play it out.
mail
OU_Country
3/28/2016 10:01 AM
GoCats105 wrote:expand_more
Syracuse's run to the Final Four doesn't justify that they should have gotten in. They've had an easy path in the tournament thanks to MTSU taking out Michigan State and an epic collapse from Virginia. Kudos to them for going out and winning the games, but unless they win this whole damn thing I still don't think they should have got in over Monmouth.

Truth be told, I've never been a fan of expanding the tournament, but I think this year and VCU's run to the Final Four a few years ago proves you can and it will pay dividends. Even a low seed that just barely gets in can make something happen.

I don't think the magic number is 128, but I think you can find a reasonable number everyone can agree on. Think about it: are there really 60 more deserving teams that need to be in? If they do that, they may as well just put everyone in like HS basketball and play it out.

First, I agree with you that it's important to note that just because 'Cuse has gone on this streak, it doesn't mean they're pre-NCAA Tournament resume was at-large worthy. It wasn't. Great for them for going on a run.

I'm a huge fan of the idea of expanding the field, but only if they're going to in turn give automatic bids to the outright conference winners. Otherwise, it's just an excuse to let in the bottom feeders of the P5 conferences. While I'm not naive enough to think it will change, the selection process needs changed to include more transparency about what the committee is looking for - minimum criteria - and it needs to be done in advance of scheduling for upcoming years.
mail
bornacatfan
3/28/2016 12:27 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
First, I agree with you that it's important to note that just because 'Cuse has gone on this streak, it doesn't mean they're pre-NCAA Tournament resume was at-large worthy. It wasn't. Great for them for going on a run.

I'm a huge fan of the idea of expanding the field, but only if they're going to in turn give automatic bids to the outright conference winners. Otherwise, it's just an excuse to let in the bottom feeders of the P5 conferences. While I'm not naive enough to think it will change, the selection process needs changed to include more transparency about what the committee is looking for - minimum criteria - and it needs to be done in advance of scheduling for upcoming years.
Totally agree.

Add in a minimum number of true road games and penalize a Duke who has not played a true road game in forever and you got something. Reward the one bid league regualr season champs as well as the one on a roll come tourney and no expansion of Power league bottom feeders.
Showing Messages: 26 - 47 of 47
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)