NIT

[br801]

Just a tad...

That is going to stick with him a long time as well.

That's a clown presser, Buzz.

 

[br801]

The NCAA is done for.

Brought down by crocodile tears.

 

[Otto'd]

Whoa. Just seeing this now.

His team had 1 or 2 Quad 1 wins going into the SECT. I think it is pretty clear that outside the auto bids, the committee is almost completely de valuing the conference tourneys. You saw this year in seeding and inclusions. Buzz might not like it but this is straight out of the Seth Greenberg playbook.

Entirely pathetic. Ive never seen a lower T presser in my life.

 

[CousCuse]

Brought down by crocodile tears.

You can call me a clown because I only profess to be a jester. However, do you know how much money and power Texas A&M and it's boosters have? More than a lot of country's.

 

[MSOrange]

As I've said before, at least in football, we are arguing about the top 4. Obviously, I want the best teams to make the NCAA, but when it comes to the bubble, it's just a bunch of teams with holes in their resume. I just don't have the energy to care much what Buzz thinks. Have a better season.

 

[Marty McFly]

We all know that having a mediocre season opens your team up to the subjective BS and political whims of the selection committee. This isn't new Buzz. They've always bent rules to get teams they want in, vs. leave others out. There is no golden standard. Some years it's "eye test", some years it's "road wins", some years it's "NET"... who the heck really knows, but give the committee the opportunity to screw ya, and they most likely will.

 

[orangecuse]

That was surprising to see, Buzz has been around the block a time or two and is well aware of the system, etc. and still so emotional some 48 hours plus later.

That being said, IMO, no doubt in my mind that A&M should've been in the Dance, especially before the likes of Rutgers, even ND. A&M went into South Bend and beat the Irish head to head. They were 15-2 prior to their major swoon of 8 straight losses from the third week in January to mid February. However, they were losing to very good and ranked teams in UK, Arkansas, UT & LSU. Their only real 'bad loss' in that span was against Mizzou, as USC finished at .500 in conference and had a winning record overall.

A&M crushed Alabama at Alabama in early March, and then went on to beat Florida, Auburn and Arkansas in the SEC tournament before losing out to Tennessee in the Championship game, who is another Top 16 seed in the Dance. A&M's NET is 43.

There is no doubt in my mind, if we were A&M, this place would've literally crashed due to high volume, etc. as many more would have come out of the woodwork, screaming and crying how we were totally screwed!

 

[SWC75]

Both of those games were in November.

So were the games that caused the ACC to have so many unranked teams. Once you get in conference, you can't change that because your teams will be playing each other. Last year the Big 10 was supposed to be Godzilla going into the tournament and the Pac 12 an afterthought. Teams could have improved or declined since then. Duke may have looked worse the last couple of weeks because their opposition got better. Or not...

 

[jncuse]

Whoa. Just seeing this now.

His team had 1 or 2 Quad 1 wins going into the SECT. I think it is pretty clear that outside the auto bids, the committee is almost completely de valuing the conference tourneys. You saw this year in seeding and inclusions. Buzz might not like it but this is straight out of the Seth Greenberg playbook.

Overall, I have to largely disagree with your bolded statement, even if I think Texas A&M got jobbed. The Committee has done some strange things or mistakes over the years in my view, but I don't think there is a trend on de-valuing conference tournament games.

In terms of this week not really mattering. Ask Indiana who played themselves in with 2 Q1 wins. Or better yet ask Wake Forest and Xavier if their opening round Q3 losses mattered this week? Not that I don't think Texas A&M didn't get jobbed -- but I think its more of a committee "mistake" rather than devaluing tourney conference games. It clearly mattered for some teams -- I guess the question for Texas A&M is why -- and will try to address that below, my theory is a bit of an inherent blind spot

A big part of the problem is that people expect conference tournament games to be valued more or for "conference titles" to mean more. They are just one single game... just like one single game in November. Some mentioned above or in other threads that the NCAA committee is not clear on this. They have been very clear on this principle year after year for at least 10 years. "Last 10 Games" was removed as a point of consideration well over 10 years ago. There is no lack of clarity on it, every committee says it. Time of the game does not matter. You can dislike the policy of not placing higher importance on later games, but that means the issue is the policy not the committee. Just because the committee is not giving the game more importance does not mean they are devalued.

Your point does apply to Sunday games (in particular the BIG final) - they typically have no impact on seedings -- it has been the case for awhile in most years, and I figured in the age of computers some program could have been built to quickly address this. But nope. But that is always a flaw of the committee that can be criticized. From my observations they have always considered games up to end of Saturday with no trending issue in my view.

Virginia Tech at a 10/11 seed is hardly offensive to me or people who projected the bracket. ACC teams played at the same level this year as MWC, WCC and not much better than some A-10 years in the past. When a team from a mediocre conference starts on the outside before tourney week they are not going to jump to a great seed.

Why did Texas A&M get jobbed. Really Tough to answer because I thought they should have got in over a Notre Dame. But I think there is two reasons:

1) The committee "Blind Spot" - There is a clearly defined process for determining who is on the "bubble" when the committee meets. This process of identifying bubble teams at the start is documented in their procedures. Point is those teams that get identified early on the bubble get discussed early and a lot. And the committee likely falls in "love" with certain things about the teams it picked over others early on.
Texas A&M was very likely not on this list when the week started. In my thread, at the beginning of last week I had noted that they were maybe a team that could get in with a run to the SEC final and a loss. But it was hard to tell. They were not one of the last 8 teams out when last week started per the matrix for example.

So they were not discussed early on, and what probably happened was that the committee started to really like certain aspects of the teams they put above the line... like a Notre Dame. There is a process to bring Texas A&M onto the bubble reporting sheet which they must have been after a few games (which probably happened after the Friday game). But by that point the committee has found things they really like. "Group think" to a certain degree for teams that are just in. So it makes harder for Texas A&M to get chosen above them. And issues like their non-conference SOS get used against the,

Now Indiana, Wake, and Xavier would have all been on this list when the week started. So they were probably all discussed and followed early on so were treated correctly. But a deep charger like Texas A&M came in late. So you can argue late, late chargers perhaps are placed in a hole in this process. But for teams that are clearly on the line when the week started they seem to get treated fine.

2) Their non-conference SOS was not good. Probably was used against them when they arrived late to the party when other teams had established strong factors the group had liked.

 

[Orangezoo]

Overall, I have to largely disagree with your bolded statement, even if I think Texas A&M got jobbed. The Committee has done some strange things or mistakes over the years in my view, but I don't think there is a trend on de-valuing conference tournament games.

In terms of this week not really mattering. Ask Indiana who played themselves in with 2 Q1 wins. Or better yet ask Wake Forest and Xavier if their opening round Q3 losses mattered this week? Not that I don't think Texas A&M didn't get jobbed -- but I think its more of a committee "mistake" rather than devaluing tourney conference games. It clearly mattered for some teams -- I guess the question for Texas A&M is why -- and will try to address that below, my theory is a bit of an inherent blind spot

A big part of the problem is that people expect conference tournament games to be valued more or for "conference titles" to mean more. They are just one single game... just like one single game in November. Some mentioned above or in other threads that the NCAA committee is not clear on this. They have been very clear on this principle year after year for at least 10 years. There is no lack of clarity on it, every committee says it. Time of the game does not matter. You can dislike the policy of not placing higher importance on later games, but that means the issue is the policy not the committee. Nor that the the committee is de-valuing those games compared to earlier games.

Your point does apply to Sunday games - they typically have no impact on seedings -- it has been the case for awhile in most years, and I figured in the age of computers some program could have been built to quickly address this. But nope. But that is always a flaw of the committee that can be criticized. From my observations they have always considered games up to end of Saturday with no trending issue in my view.

Virginia Tech at a 10/11 seed is hardly offensive to me or people who projected the bracket. ACC teams played at the same level this year as MWC, WCC and not much better than some A-10 years in the past. When a team from a mediocre conference starts on the outside before tourney week they are not going to jump to a great seed.

Why did Texas A&M get jobbed. Tough to answer because I thought they should have got in over a Notre Dame. But I think there is two reasons:

1) The committee "Blind Spot" - There is a clearly defined process for determining who is on the "bubble" when the committee meets. This process of identifying bubble teams at the start is documented in their procedures. Point is those teams that get identified early on the bubble get discussed early and a lot. And the committee likely falls in "love" with certain things about the teams it picked over others early on.
Texas A&M was very likely not on this list when the week started. In my thread, at the beginning of last week I had noted that they were maybe a team that could get in with a run to the SEC final and a loss. But it was hard to tell. They were not one of the last 8 teams out when last week started per the matrix for example.

So they were not discussed early on, and what probably happened was that the committee started to really like certain aspects of the teams they put above the line... like a Notre Dame. There is a process to bring Texas A&M onto the bubble reporting sheet which they must have been after a few games (which probably happened after the Friday game). But by that point the committee has found things they really like. "Group think" to a certain degree for teams that are just in. So it makes harder for Texas A&M to get chosen above them. And issues like their non-conference SOS get used against the,

Now Indiana, Wake, and Xavier would have all been on this list when the week started. So they were probably all discussed and followed early on so were treated correctly. But a deep charger like Texas A&M came in late. So you can argue late, late chargers perhaps are placed in a hole in this process. But for teams that are clearly on the line when the week started they seem to get treated fine.

So to be clear I am pointing to the interview last year where it was the chair I think who spoke about the conference tourney games not playing a big role (don't know exact wording). So not so much over the years but more so that comment itself. You look back and there was clear evidence the conf tourneys mattered more but it doesn't appear as much this year to use Texas A and M as a reference. ND has ad many Q1 wins as T A and M going into the conference tourney. They also had a worse NET.

Tenn had as many or fewer Q1 wins vs Duke before the conference tourney then more after. Duke gets a 2 Tenn gets a 3. So overall it did seem they didn't put as much emphasis on it.

VT I had no issue with, I felt they were in good shape even at 14-10 as their numbers were strong, barring a poor finish.

Anyways I just wanted to clear up it looks there is some correlation to what was said last year about conference tourneys and what we saw this year.

If my long covid impacted brain is remembering incorrectly then forget everything I posted lol. It was a TV interview I was recalling.

 

[SWC75]

Whoa. Just seeing this now.

His team had 1 or 2 Quad 1 wins going into the SECT. I think it is pretty clear that outside the auto bids, the committee is almost completely de valuing the conference tourneys. You saw this year in seeding and inclusions. Buzz might not like it but this is straight out of the Seth Greenberg playbook.

College basketball team ratings 2021-22 - Jeff Sagarin Ratings

sagarin.usatoday.com

We could eliminate all selection controversy and allow everyone just to focus on the games by including everybody based on a mathematical system like the one above, rather than meetings behind closed doors. There are 358 teams. In the first round, have the bottom 102 teams play the next 102 teams above them. Team #155, (College of Charleston, 17-15) would play team #358, (Mississippi Valley State 2-26) on their home court. Team #156 UC Riverside 14-12), would play team #357 (Indiana/Purdue at Indianapolis, 1-26) on their home court, etc.

That would leave you with 256 teams for the second round. They would play 128 games on the home court of the higher seeded teams, which would produce 128 winners who would be matched up in round three, also on the home court of the higher seeded team.

This could be done over a 2 week period and would lead us in a field of 64. Now you got to regionals in neutral courts and pass out the NCAA bracket sheets for the fans.

It's doable. Now you have literally everybody involved. People aren't going to argue over whether they should have bene seeded 99ths rather than 100th. No more parsing "blind resumes" of mediocre teams to see who is in and who is out. No more coaches getting fired for not making the tournament. No more NIT, CBI or TBC.

Texas A&M (23-12), #51, would play the winner of #206 (San Diego 13-16) and #307 (Morgan State 9-14) in the round of 256 and if the favorites all won, #78 (Toledo 25-7) in College Station to get to the round of 64.

Syracuse is ranked #68, ahead of several teams that made the tournament. (We didn't make it into a 68 team tournament with our #68 ranking.) In this proposal, SU would play the winner of the first round game between #189 (Pennsylvania 12-16), and #324 (St. Francis of New York, 9-20) in the Dome in the round of 256. If the favorites all won, we'd play #61 (Dayton, 23-10), in Dayton for a spot in the field of 64.

 

[Lord Ashby]

However, do you know how much money and power Texas A&M and it's boosters have?

Evidently not enough to get invited to the big dance nor did they have enough to stop Oklahoma & Texas from joining the SEC.

 

[pfister1]

College basketball team ratings 2021-22 - Jeff Sagarin Ratings

sagarin.usatoday.com

We could eliminate all selection controversy and allow everyone just to focus on the games by including everybody based on a mathematical system like the one above, rather than meetings behind closed doors. There are 358 teams. In the first round, have the bottom 102 teams play the next 102 teams above them. Team #155, (College of Charleston, 17-15) would play team #358, (Mississippi Valley State 2-26) on their home court. Team #156 UC Riverside 14-12), would play team #357 (Indiana/Purdue at Indianapolis, 1-26) on their home court, etc.

That would leave you with 256 teams for the second round. They would play 128 games on the home court of the higher seeded teams, which would produce 128 winners who would be matched up in round three, also on the home court of the higher seeded team.

This could be done over a 2 week period and would lead us in a field of 64. Now you got to regionals in neutral courts and pass out the NCAA bracket sheets for the fans.

It's doable. Now you have literally everybody involved. People aren't going to argue over whether they should have bene seeded 99ths rather than 100th. No more parsing "blind resumes" of mediocre teams to see who is in and who is out. No more coaches getting fired for not making the tournament. No more NIT, CBI or TBC.

Texas A&M (23-12), #51, would play the winner of #206 (San Diego 13-16) and #307 (Morgan State 9-14) in the round of 256 and if the favorites all won, #78 (Toledo 25-7) in College Station to get to the round of 64.

Syracuse is ranked #68, ahead of several teams that made the tournament. (We didn't make it into a 68 team tournament with our #68 ranking.) In this proposal, SU would play the winner of the first round game between #189 (Pennsylvania 12-16), and #324 (St. Francis of New York, 9-20) in the Dome in the round of 256. If the favorites all won, we'd play #61 (Dayton, 23-10), in Dayton for a spot in the field of 64.

I like the behind closed doors system with the accompanying selection controversies. It’s created a lot of great unemotional debate over the years, in large part because we were always on the inside looking out. Hopefully we are going to be back in that position again next year and in the years to come.

 

[Orangello]

I just want to know who in the hey is dressing Rex Chapman ????? A blind person, trippin, Runner, Bjorn, the Joker, ghost of Pigpen, Superfly ????

 

[SWC75]

I like the behind closed doors system with the accompanying selection controversies. It’s created a lot of great unemotional debate over the years, in large part because we were always on the inside looking out. Hopefully we are going to be back in that position again next year and in the years to come.

I dislike mysteries and controversies and like basketball.

 

[kcsu]

And once again, by all of the objective standards, we weren't competitive. As evidenced by the net results.

You spent a lot of time talking about individual games, what ifs, and rationalizing about what the perception would be if we'd managed to win a few more games.

Breaking down the resume settles a lot of that debate. Pretty sobering to see that we were 0-10 against quadrant 1 opponents. Thar's a lot more informative than subjective hair splitting about what "competitive" means.

This team wasn't CBI caliber. That says a whole lot about how this season went for the team we all root for. That it transpired during a year when the ACC was unbelievably weak, and should have made our path to winning games that much easier also provides evidence about how about our lack of ability to compete.

We lost to Gtown, Pitt, and gave up 100 to Colgate

 

[pfister1]

I dislike mysteries and controversies and like basketball.

That’s what the regular season and conference tournaments are about. Part of what makes the tournament and our run in it “special” is that you have to earn your way in.

If you’re worried about the mysteries and controversies don’t have a mediocre season.

If everyone is included it’s not as “special” and it becomes too long almost a season unto itself.

 

[kcsu]

I just want to know who in the hey is dressing Rex Chapman ????? A blind person, trippin, Runner, Bjorn, the Joker, ghost of Pigpen, Superfly ????

Elton John

I just want to know who in the hey is dressing Rex Chapman ????? A blind person, trippin, Runner, Bjorn, the Joker, ghost of Pigpen, Superfly ????

 

[miamicuse]

Did buzz cry? There is no crying in basketball!!!

 

[RF2044]

Did buzz cry? There is no crying in basketball!!!

This is what it sounds like... when the Buzz cry

 

[Orangezoo]

I just want to know who in the hey is dressing Rex Chapman ????? A blind person, trippin, Runner, Bjorn, the Joker, ghost of Pigpen, Superfly ????

Being a twitter God comes with expectations I guess. Either that or he is just a huge Hunger Games fan.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

That's just a tad too melodramatic.

He was acting as if the committee chair not only didn’t invite them to the dance, but personally rolled up on him and shot his dog in a “boyz n the hood” style drive by

 

[kingtidge]

He was acting as if the committee chair not only didn’t invite them to the dance, but personally rolled up on him and shot his dog in a “boyz n the hood” style drive by

Quite a grandstanding display by Buzz and diplomatically throwing his toys out of the stroller. His bubble burst and it's now a huge conspiracy.

Happens every year to someone, buzz...

Maybe get some more Q1 wins next year to make sure your bubble doesn't burst?

That said, they should have been in... Certainly wasn't the first snub by the committee and likely won't be last. But if A&M was in and another team was snubbed, he'd be fine with it, hence why he can do one... It can't only be a problem when it happens to you. He's always come off as a man-baby and this episode only solidifies that.

 

[CousCuse]

Evidently not enough to get invited to the big dance nor did they have enough to stop Oklahoma & Texas from joining the SEC.

The committee is a political entity, the SEC will take countermeasures now that is transparent. What makes you think A&M doesn't want and OU in the SEC? They are long term rivals of their's, they want to play them and beat them now that the field is level in the SEC. No way that the WCC deserves 3 teams in the NCAAT.

 

[kirbivore]

It was historically bad. I dont think it can ever happen again. Put it this way. Duke did not play a top 25 ranked team from December on through March. How does that happen in the ACC? It's insane the way things had to break to create that fact.

Gotta go back to 1999 to find a comparably bad ACC.