How bad was the UCLA Pick?

[jncuse]

Worse than the pick itself was the justification for it.

First of all the chair cited too concepts that had been thrown away a while ago and were not really applied.
a) The good ole "Eye Test" which was diminished by the committee as a valid justification for a team a few years ago
b) They were playing better at the end. "The Last 10 Conept". This was outright discarded by the committee to move to the "Body of Work" Principle.

So he is justifying the UCLA pick with outdated principles which the committee clearly said no longer applied in prior years. But the best thing is even if they wanted to use those principles they were not even close to accurate:
1) How can the Eye Test justify anything that UCLA did
2) Steaming at the End. They were 4-3 to end the season with 4 wins against non tourney teams.

Just a 100% fail on all levels.

 

[longislandcuse]

I don't know that i've ever seen the committee make more of a mess with a selection than UCLA. The pick itself makes no sense and the justification for it makes it so much worse.

 

[nycfan]

Worse than the pick itself was the justification for it.

First of all the chair cited too concepts that had been thrown away a while ago and were not really applied.
a) The good ole "Eye Test" which was diminished by the committee as a valid justification for a team a few years ago
b) They were playing better at the end. "The Last 10 Conept". This was outright discarded by the committee to move to the "Body of Work" Principle.

So he is justifying the UCLA pick with outdated principles which the committee clearly said no longer applied in prior years. But the best thing is even if they wanted to use those principles they were not even close to accurate:
1) How can the Eye Test justify anything that UCLA did
2) Steaming at the End. They were 4-3 to end the season with 4 wins against non tourney teams.

Just a 100% fail on all levels.

With all the numerous bracketology shows that aired last night on the ESPN family of networks and the CBS Sports Network, I didn't hear one single analyst or coach support the choice (in fact just about everyone went out of their way to kill the selection). This really should be investigated. Temple and Colorado State both had much better resumes (I would even throw Miami in there too for their win at Duke). Regarding Colorado St, somebody brought this up on one of the shows last night so I read a little more about it: "Eustachy himself was so certain his team would get one of the 36 at-large berths in the tournament that he held star forward J.J. Avila out of a Mountain West tournament semifinal game and had a school spokesman issue a statement that said the 6-foot-8, 250-pounder would be available for postseason play. "We're not on the bubble," Eustachy said after the Rams' 56-43 loss to San Diego State late Friday night in Las Vegas. "… I've been through this a lot, and we're squarely in the NCAA tournament." And a comment was made by one of the analysts, that if that Semi-Final game was the NCAA Tourney he probably wouldn't even have been held out.

Colorado State has an RPI of 29 now (was 26 on Friday). How is is humanly possible to have an RPI that low and not make the Dance?

http://www.realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html

So when you also take into account the Georgetown selection as a 4-seed, it has to be the worst joke of a bracket they have ever come up with. (and this was just one real blatant seeding screwup---there many others like UNI and Wichita State being underseeded, Indiana a 10, I could go on all day...).

 

[bpo57]

Last night Jerry Palm said that in his 21 years of bracketology he has never seen a team with a weaker neutral/away resume than UCLA that got an invite. Even UCLA fans were calling into radio shows saying it was a joke.

 

[Madbiker]

Worse than the pick itself was the justification for it.

First of all the chair cited too concepts that had been thrown away a while ago and were not really applied.
a) The good ole "Eye Test" which was diminished by the committee as a valid justification for a team a few years ago
b) They were playing better at the end. "The Last 10 Conept". This was outright discarded by the committee to move to the "Body of Work" Principle.

So he is justifying the UCLA pick with outdated principles which the committee clearly said no longer applied in prior years. But the best thing is even if they wanted to use those principles they were not even close to accurate:
1) How can the Eye Test justify anything that UCLA did
2) Steaming at the End. They were 4-3 to end the season with 4 wins against non tourney teams.

Just a 100% fail on all levels.

If you could be a fly on the wall inside the committee room, I'm sure we would all be astounded by the politicking that likely goes on...despite the public denials. If you have a connected conference commish or AD I'm sure it's a big plus in getting in a bubble team or 2 from your conference. There is no rationalization for the UCLA selection. There were at least 3 more deserving schools.

 

[rrlbees]

Stay on topic. The topic is UCLA's selection into the NCAA tournament.

9/11 conspiracy theories belong on the OT board.

 

[Calilivin28]

I love my Bruins, with that said...no way should they be in the field. I don't even think they deserve to be a 1 seed in the NIT. They played well against Arizona in the Pac 12 tourney (still lost) and in terms of the performing well lately theory, beating USC twice, Wazzu, and UDub shouldn't reward them. They beat Oregon/Utah at home and Stanford on the road (NIT team) but other than those, they're next best win is probably is UAB. SMU is also a good matchup for them so don't be surprised if they win a game.

 

[Ringostar57]

So how much money did UCLA fork over to get into the field? Is Mr Gilbert still alive? Selection Sunday...fattest envelopes make it.

 

[Calilivin28]

I love my Bruins, with that said...no way should they be in the field. I don't even think they deserve to be a 1 seed in the NIT. They played well against Arizona in the Pac 12 tourney (still lost) and in terms of the performing well lately theory, beating USC twice, Wazzu, and UDub shouldn't reward them. They beat Oregon/Utah at home and Stanford on the road (NIT team) but other than those, they're next best win is probably is UAB. SMU is also a good matchup for them so don't be surprised if they win a game.

With that said...I have already put SMU to advance in my bracket. At this point I just hope UCLA doesn't get blown out or else that is what everyone will talk about going forward.

 

[bpo57]

I love my Bruins, with that said...no way should they be in the field. I don't even think they deserve to be a 1 seed in the NIT. They played well against Arizona in the Pac 12 tourney (still lost) and in terms of the performing well lately theory, beating USC twice, Wazzu, and UDub shouldn't reward them. They beat Oregon/Utah at home and Stanford on the road (NIT team) but other than those, they're next best win is probably is UAB. SMU is also a good matchup for them so don't be surprised if they win a game.

Of all the lines on the board I like SMU -3 the most. Very solid team that should be able to take UCLA apart.

 

[kirbivore]

I don't know that i've ever seen the committee make more of a mess with a selection than UCLA. The pick itself makes no sense and the justification for it makes it so much worse.

Arkansas getting in over Cuse in 2007 was worse

 

[Cusefan0307]

The UCLA pick really wasn't that bad. I don't get all the complaining. If you look at the top 50 teams in Kenpom, 4 teams didn't make the tournament. They were all ranked below UCLA. 45 of the top 46 teams made the tourney in Kenpom, Florida was the only team that didn't and they were below .500.

If you really want to make an argument of who shouldn't be in, it starts and stops with Indiana. The Pac 12 was underrated, and the BIG was overrated. Temple didn't have the resume to get in either. Miami should be the team that is most upset.

 

[bpo57]

The UCLA pick really wasn't that bad. I don't get all the complaining. If you look at the top 50 teams in Kenpom, 4 teams didn't make the tournament. They were all ranked below UCLA. 45 of the top 46 teams made the tourney in Kenpom, Florida was the only team that didn't and they were below .500.

If you really want to make an argument of who shouldn't be in, it starts and stops with Indiana. The Pac 12 was underrated, and the BIG was overrated. Temple didn't have the resume to get in either. Miami should be the team that is most upset.

I agree with you about IU and Miami. Not sure about the PAC-12. UCLA was 2-10 against the RPI top 50. Their signature wins were at home against Utah and ORE. They have NOTHING away from Pauley. That used to matter but now they go by the eye test.

 

[longislandcuse]

I agree with you about IU and Miami. Not sure about the PAC-12. UCLA was 2-10 against the RPI top 50. Their signature wins were at home against Utah and ORE. They have NOTHING away from Pauley. That used to matter but now they go by the eye test.

For the last time...they were building steam! What don't you understand about 4-3 down the stretch?

 

[CaptainJ]

The UCLA pick really wasn't that bad. I don't get all the complaining. If you look at the top 50 teams in Kenpom, 4 teams didn't make the tournament. They were all ranked below UCLA. 45 of the top 46 teams made the tourney in Kenpom, Florida was the only team that didn't and they were below .500.

If you really want to make an argument of who shouldn't be in, it starts and stops with Indiana. The Pac 12 was underrated, and the BIG was overrated. Temple didn't have the resume to get in either. Miami should be the team that is most upset.

No, you can't make sense like that! These folks enjoy conspiracy theories, and I want to hear what the committee's grand scheme was for pulling off this elaborately woven ruse.

 

[longislandcuse]

No, you can't make sense like that! These folks enjoy conspiracy theories, and I want to hear what the committee's grand scheme was for pulling off this elaborately woven ruse.

My question is what is the NCAA distracting us from with this?

 

[CaptainJ]

My question is what is the NCAA distracting us from with this?

The relatively sh***y product they have provided us with this season? The fact that our team was even sniffling the bubble this season sounds like the punchline to a bad joke.

To be clear, until provided a motive, I'm not going to bother to take this seriously. I want to hear what these conspiracy theory fanatics attribute this to.

 

[longtimefan]

The UCLA pick really wasn't that bad. I don't get all the complaining. If you look at the top 50 teams in Kenpom, 4 teams didn't make the tournament. They were all ranked below UCLA. 45 of the top 46 teams made the tourney in Kenpom, Florida was the only team that didn't and they were below .500.

If you really want to make an argument of who shouldn't be in, it starts and stops with Indiana. The Pac 12 was underrated, and the BIG was overrated. Temple didn't have the resume to get in either. Miami should be the team that is most upset.

I don't think UCLA's metrics (offensive/defensive efficiency, etc.) did jot translate into on-court performance (W-L).

 

[Cusefan95]

The relatively sh***y product they have provided us with this season? The fact that our team was even sniffling the bubble this season sounds like the punchline to a bad joke.

To be clear, until provided a motive, I'm not going to bother to take this seriously. I want to hear what these conspiracy theory fanatics attribute this to.

I'm a Hanlon's Razor kind of guy...I don't think there is any great conspiracy, it's just that most people are pretty much incompetent. Committees are even worse than individuals. Getting upset that the committee did a terrible job is pointless - it's more surprising to me when they do a (mostly) good job. In those cases I just remember that a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, and the committee lucked into a rare chance to fake us into believing they know what they are doing.

 

[longislandcuse]

I'm a Hanlon's Razor kind of guy...I don't think there is any great conspiracy, it's just that most people are pretty much incompetent. Committees are even worse than individuals. Getting upset that the committee did a terrible job is pointless - it's more surprising to me when they do a (mostly) good job. In those cases I just remember that a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, and the committee lucked into a rare chance to fake us into believing they know what they are doing.

I think it's the explanation that has everyone annoyed. The explanation LITERALLY makes no sense. It's against everything they've said counts and on top of it, like I said, LITERALLY makes no sense.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Arkansas getting in over Cuse in 2007 was worse

Stanford the same year was just as bad..and as I recall, both those teams got blown the out in round 1

 

[STEVEHOLT]

OK. fine. UCLA getting in was a joke. But why compound the joke by making them an 11 seed? The were comfortably in? What kind of ganja did they give the committee members? My guess minimum caliber had to have been Maui Wowee

 

[MSOrange]

My manager went to UCLA so I had to pretend they deserved to make it today. But she just gave me a nice raise and promotion so you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[jncuse]

I think it's the explanation that has everyone annoyed. The explanation LITERALLY makes no sense. It's against everything they've said counts and on top of it, like I said, LITERALLY makes no sense.

Yep - that is it exactly. He could have said the committee liked their entire body of work, they had some quality performances against good teams, they had a tough schedule. It would still not have been enough to let them in, but at least it would be within the parameters they are supposed to be working with.

He defends the UCLA pick on principles that have been dismissed for at least a few years (Eye test, Last 10). and then UCLA struggles in those same principles. Well I guess the Eye test can tell you whatever you want to hear.

 

[longislandcuse]

Yep - that is it exactly. He could have said the committee liked their entire body of work, they had some quality performances against good teams, they had a tough schedule. It would still not have been enough to let them in, but at least it would be within the parameters they are supposed to be working with.

He defends the UCLA pick on principles that have been dismissed for at least a few years (Eye test, Last 10). and then UCLA struggles in those same principles. Well I guess the Eye test can tell you whatever you want to hear.

The best is "gaining steam" at 4-3 down the stretch. Lol, really dude, really?