Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="CorduroyG, post: 201985, member: 1011"]
I think the committee should go back to using this. I understand the "entire body of work" thing, but dont you want teams in the tournament that are playing their best in feb/march as opposed to teams that peaked in nov/dec? Lets say you got 2 bubble teams with similar #s, 1 team is 8-2 in their last 10, the other team is 5-5. But the team that is 5-5 had a tougher non-conference schedule and had better wins in nov/dec, so they get the nod even though theyre slumping down the stretch and the other team is hot. Id rather give it to the team thats peaking now as opposed to 3 months ago. 
 
Villanova last year is a good example. They completely fell apart down the stretch, they were considered a bubble team (and many people had them out), yet ended up with a 9 (so they werent even a bubble team in the committee's eyes) seed solely based on how they started the season. Everyone knew that team was in a complete freefall, and sure enough they got bounced in the 1st round. You obviously cant base everything on "last 10", but i think it should be a factor when comparing bubble teams or when seeding teams.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?