He's right.

It’s simply a business and nothing more.

It's beginning to look like all NCAA athletics are like the lottery, and leagues like the MAC are spending their rent money on scratch-off tickets in the vain hope of getting rich. The whole thing has always been rigged against the G5 in football and mid-majors in basketball, but it gets worse every year. Hard not to be disenchanted with the whole thing.

The best coaches know exactly what is in the best interest of developing next year's team. Since Kowalcyzk has been with his program a long time and will have an experienced team back, the benefit of playing in CBI/CIT type of tournament is much less than the rest his squad will get for two weeks and the position development/small group practices they can do after the break. I respect his perspective and there are many other programs with good records/index ratings that made the same decision.

In terms of the NIT, the benefit to a program like Toledo's is exposure on the ESPN family of networks and more game film against decent competition. I see why he would've wanted his team to be an at-large selection. And, he knows how this tournament is structured and has been since the NCAA took it over when it was on shaky ground financially -- a safety valve to take pressure off the around the last few teams selected for the field of 68 and smaller conference teams upset in league tournaments. It needs to break even and not detract from the money making big show on the other networks. Nothing to see here in my opinion. It is what it is.

.

"Forget that Buffalo has a RPI rating at No. 25. The system is the system, with the committee selectively using an ever-shifting set of criteria to protect the cash cows and shiv the little guys."

I said things like this a number of years ago on this board and was raked over the coals for hinting that the committee might be just a little bit corrupt. I feel vindicated that many sports journalists are now seeing the same thing. Back then the standard line was that everything was on the up and up and that to think otherwise was to engage in a conspiracy theory that placed you on the grassy knoll with an M1 rifle.

I also liked the ending sentence:

"I wonder if the FBI has time to investigate the committee, too."

Perhaps, Jim Schaus was wearing a wire! ;-)

P.S. It seems to me that the only solution to this, short of the FBI recommending a criminal indictment, is to increase the size of the tournament.

Any mid-major AD's service on the committee is about burnishing his/her reputation/resume rather than fighting for their league. And, sadly, that includes our AD.

This is a charade. All AD staffers, including the top guy, are looking to move up. There's no loyalty. It's not about doing right by your school, coaches, student athletes or fans.

Oh no, what? I thought the NCAA was a non-profit organization, wink wink.

Tod nailed it here.

Listening to what Shaheen has said over the last few days in examination...The committee is set up so that no one is able to lobby for a player or a team. He seems to play down things that ADs are allowed to manipulate geographically, conference affiliation or personal preferences. He says tHey are charged with utilizing data and making decisions based on Data Sets according to the current focus on the rules they have made for evaluating in a particular year.

As I listen to the former committee guys talk I get the impression that there is a ranking of teams by seed # then placement onto the bracket blindly, for example, Buffalo is a highest 13 seed so they fit the bracket where the highest 13 is predetermined to be placed. So, the bracket is set up beforehand then the discussion of where teams are ranked based on data sets. Once the ranking is done then they are just plugged in the pre set up bracket. I may be totally wrong but in examining the process and listening to whatever I can, that seems to be the impression I get. Looks like a rational approach devoid of anything that would let members influence place, bracket and personal bias but when you look at what it produced there seems to be more conspiracy theory than ever.

Personally, I like Villanova's route much better than UVA and suspect Bennett may have a little bracket envy. Same for several other similar situations.

https://s3.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/TXcmPZlJlMsr3sIH3ZZpHA...

Here's a chart that spells it out. This is a list of the at-large bids since 2000. With five (GMU, VCU, Wichita St, Butler x2) mids making the Final Four from 2006 to 2013 the committee has decided to just to stop inviting them to play. Keep in mind that only Butler in that group were automatic qualifiers. No chance teams with GMU, VCU or Wichita State's resumes make the tournament today.

I like what Tod Kowalczyk said, but I also think if a power conference school offered him a job tomorrow, he'd be at Toledo Express in less than an hour. I think he'd forget everything he said about the MAC, be praising the power structure of the bigger conferences and the NCAA and be advocating for more power conference schools to get into the tournament.

The first, and most notable I see: Change in the current selection committee chair and his team on the committee.

The next: Wichita State and Butler really aren't in "mid-major" conferences anymore, nor is Creighton, or Xavier, etc. In other words, several of the teams that were deemed mid-majors that received recent mid-major at large bids aren't in that kind of conference anymore.