A+ Grade for the 2014 Selection Committee

[jncuse]

They went exactly by what the results and numbers said. Everything made sense based on key metrics. No eye test was involved in this. I am sure that is why they had long discussions on it because some of the committee members refused to break the new philosophies for the old school guys.

They went by body of the work. Did not over emphasize the tournaments. Valued the entire season equally. Followed the philosophy to a T.

The only thing that was a little out of place was Virginia as the last #1 seed. There top 50 record of 6-5 is pretty bla for a #1 seed. But somebody had to be the last #1, and I think they decided that it had to be earned. Who else could have got it - Nova? Wisconsin probably had a better case by the numbers and who they beat. Not a biggie.

SMU was diagnosed for what they were. A 23 win team, built on 19 sub 150 games. The fact they were knocked out was consistent with everything they have said in the past.

Louisville was playing great but they have an empty resume. This is the way the committee does things now -- its about who you beat, not destroying teams in your victories or destroying the sisters of the poor.

Overall the AAC seemed to get slammed a bit. When 10 of your 18 games are against teams that are poor by MVC standards, a scrub down is deserved.


Great work.

 

[jncuse]

As a bonus they also mentioned that Duke was not one of the 3 teams considered for the final #1 seed. They had considered Virginia, Nova, and Michigan.

This earns them bonus points. Duke never deserved to be in the #1 discussion, but the assumption was they would be purely because they are Duke.

 

[Col. Bleep]

They went exactly by what the results and numbers said. Everything made sense based on key metrics. No eye test was involved in this. I am sure that is why they had long discussions on it because some of the committee members refused to break the new philosophies for the old school guys.

They went by body of the work. Did not over emphasize the tournaments. Valued the entire season equally. Followed the philosophy to a T.

The only thing that was a little out of place was Virginia as the last #1 seed. There top 50 record of 6-5 is pretty bla for a #1 seed. But somebody had to be the last #1, and I think they decided that it had to be earned. Who else could have got it - Nova? Wisconsin probably had a better case by the numbers and who they beat. Not a biggie.

SMU was diagnosed for what they were. A 23 win team, built on 19 sub 150 games. The fact they were knocked out was consistent with everything they have said in the past.

Louisville was playing great but they have an empty resume. This is the way the committee does things now -- its about who you beat, not destroying teams in your victories or destroying the sisters of the poor.

Overall the AAC seemed to get slammed a bit. When 10 of your 18 games are against teams that are poor by MVC standards, a scrub down is deserved.


Great work.

I generally agree with you.
But expect Louisville in the Final 4.

 

[jncuse]

I generally agree with you.
But expect Louisville in the Final 4.

Yep, Louisville is dangerous. They are playing better than a 4, but that it was they deserved. You are seeded based on criteria, not assumptions.

 

[PhatOrange]

No, UVA deserved the #1 over everybody and it wasn't close. That said the only 2 problems I see in the whole tourney is Kansas #2 and LVille #4. They should be flip flopped.

 

[jncuse]

No, UVA deserved the #1 over everybody and it wasn't close. That said the only 2 problems I see in the whole tourney is Kansas #2 and LVille #4. They should be flip flopped.

Absolutely it was close for the #1. And it was a little off the rest of the way they made the decisions. But I think a #1 seed should be earned, so no problem with the only double champ getting it.

As for Louisville over Kansas. Why? Eye test? Louisvillw is great -- but you must meet the objective criteria to earn a 2 seed.

 

[bpo57]

The true test of how well they did will be if the higher seeds consistently beat the lower seeds. You watch when the odds come out to win it all. Two #4 seeds will easily be in the top ten despite the fact they will have the harder road. That means the $$$ disagrees with the Committee.

 

[bpo57]

Absolutely it was close for the #1. And it was a little off the rest of the way they made the decisions. But I think a #1 seed should be earned, so no problem with the only double champ getting it.

As for Louisville over Kansas. Why? Eye test? Louisvillw is great -- but you must meet the objective criteria to earn a 2 seed.

My problem is with the criteria. They value all games (December v. March) equally which is stupid. There are 2 #1 seeds that got absolutely fokked by having MSU and Louisville as #4s in their bracket. The #1s will probably be underdogs if they play in those games

 

[jncuse]

My problem is with the criteria. They value all games (December v. March) equally which is stupid. There are 2 #1 seeds that got absolutely fokked by having MSU and Louisville as #4s in their bracket. The #1s will probably be underdogs if they play in those games

But that is not this committee's fault. They delivered based on how they were told.

They have been driving home that point for almost 5 years that this is the way its going to be. And today proved it out.

I can respect your view that it should be more eye test based, to avoid a situation where Louisville is the #4, but new policies would need to be approved.

 

[bpo57]

Not just eye test based. Stop counting games that took place a long time ago the same way you do games that happen in March. It's just stupid. But in any event be consistent. Nova had one top 25 win and it happened around Thanksgiving

 

[jncuse]

Not just eye test based. Stop counting games that took place a long time ago the same way you do games that happen in March. It's just stupid. But in any event be consistent. Nova had one top 25 win and it happened around Thanksgiving

I see your opinion, I guess they want to keep the subjectivity as low as possible.

The big difference between Nova and Louisville was that Nova beat a bunch of solid teams in the road (51-100). Louisville plays nobody like that in the conference I think how the committee values 51-100, varies all over the place from year to year.

 

[Briancuse]

My problem is with the criteria. They value all games (December v. March) equally which is stupid. There are 2 #1 seeds that got absolutely fokked by having MSU and Louisville as #4s in their bracket. The #1s will probably be underdogs if they play in those games

Then why even bother playing those games on nov and dec?