kshoe Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Looking at the bracket and the seeds its hard not to believe there was a significant bias towards West Coast and Mountain teams this year. 1)The Pac-10 vs. MVC. The Valley ranked higher on the RPI yet both get 4 teams. Pac 10 teams were seeded 2, 5, 7 and 8 while the Valley gets a 7, 10, 11 and 13. 2) Air Force RPI of 50 with no top 50 wins and a terrible strength of schedule and they get in before Cinci, Michigan, Maryland, St. Joes and the Valley teams. 3) Utah St. RPI of 46 and 1-2 vs. top 50 yet in before those other teams. 4) Montana - Gets in by virtue of conference tourney but has only 2 games vs. the top 50 and 2 losses vs. the 200+ and they get a 12 seed, ahead of an at-large team like Bradley. Please don't reply to this with talk about Valley teams being over-rated. I just appears that the West Coast teams aren't subject to RPI concerns while the rest of the midwest mid-majors (or even East Coast majors like Cinci, Maryland, etc.) have to defend where their RPI came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 i agree kshoe. it appears that there was a concerted effort to "balance" the tourney geographically to some degree. that said, it is hard to understand the gift bids given to seton hall, north carolina state, kentucky, texas a&m, california and alabama whose main claim to fame are the conferences they hail from as compared to hofstra, missouri state, western kentucky, houston, creighton, and st joes and their respective conferences which do not play in top 10 conferences. i think that they went into the meeting with a set number of teams per top 10 ranked conference and they were going to give those conferences that number of bids first and foremost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 The "mid major" selection committee member happened to be from what conferences??? Take a look at your noted teams and seeds - I bet you can guess! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I read that UCLA's AD was on the NCAA Committee. UCLA has a lot of young talent and a good coach. UCLA would seem to have a direct shot to the Final 4. UCLA will not have to leave California to make the Final 4, as the first 2 games are in San Diego and the next 2 games would be in Oakland. Gonzaga looms in the Regional in Oakland, but the Zags have not been playing all that well of late and may have enough trouble getting by Indiana in Round 2 in Salt Lake City. Gonzaga's defense has been highly suspect, and Adam Morrison has actually had some shooting problems of late. Cal (RPI 57) seemed to get a gift #7 seed. However, if Cal can even get by NC State, which is a big if, Cal would get Texas in Round 2 in Dallas. Cal often struggles when it leaves the Pacific Time Zone. Washington (RPI 35) was given a #5 seed, perhaps a place or two or even three higher than it deserved. That was likely due to the pod system and trying to keep some schools closer to home. Note that UW was assigned for the first 2 rounds to San Diego. Montana (RPI 61) did not even win the regular season Big Sky championship. That #12 seed probably involved some type of regional pod seeding too. Nevada (RPI 19) had a great stealth-type year under the radar screen of the East Coast pundits. That #5 seed for Nevada is somewhat understandable and likely involved regional considerations. Nevada and Montana play each other in Salt Lake City in a first round pod game. I have no good explanation for the presence of Air Force and to a lesser extent Utah State in the NCAA, other than that both were assigned to San Diego. USU did finish with an RPI of 46, while Michigan was out at 47. My wife had as good an explanation as any re the Air Force. She said that (maybe) the Committee gave Air Force that bid because of the War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kappy96 Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 To me it seemed that RPI was completely disreagarded this year unless it fit their reasoning to exclude or include a particular team. By inlcuding Air Force, the committee clearly is saying RPI isn't important and by punishing GW with a 8 seed and dissing MO State only seems to prove the point that they pick who they want based on who knows what. But they turn right around and give Tennessee a #2 seed! Based on what? A #6 RPI. Hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Here they are... Robert Bowlsby.... Iowa AD Christopher Hill.. Utah AD Craig Littlepage.. Virginia AD Gerald Myers...... Texas Tech AD Karl Benson....... WAC commissioner Michael Slive..... SEC commissioner Floyd Kerr........ Southern AD Gary Walters...... Princeton AD Thomas O'Connor... George Mason AD Jonathan Le Crone. Horizon commissioner CM Newton......... Kentucky AD Bowlsby was the chair of the selection committee. I'd imagine it would be hard for members not to grant some leeway to fellow peers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 That is the snub that absolutely shocked me. I do not understand it. I really wondered if the NCAA was sending some type of message to that program for its past under Coach Huggins. Cincinnati lost by 1 in the Big East Tournament on a last second shot. By the way, does anyone think Huggins will resurface to replace John Chaney at Temple? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Division I Men's Basketball Committee Legislation: Ten members, including six Division I-A representatives, and four Division I-AA or I-AAA representatives. One member from each of the four Division I basketball regions (East, South, Midwest, West) and six selected at large. No more than three committee members shall represent any single region. Quota of 50 percent administrators: 5. Five-year terms. Liaisons: Thomas W. Jernstedt, Gregory Shaheen, L.J. Wright, Tammy Lee, Jeanne Boyd, Anthony Dean, David Worlock Chair: Craig K. Littlepage (Sep 2005 - Sep 2006), Gary D. Walters (Sep 2006 - Sep 2007) *Eligible for reappointment Division Region Title Name & Institution Conference Term Expiration I-A WEST REGION AD Christopher Hill University of Utah Mountain West Conference SEP 2009 I-A EAST REGION AD Craig K. Littlepage University of Virginia Atlantic Coast Conference SEP 2007 I-A AD Daniel G. Guerrero University of California, Los Angeles Pacific-10 Conference SEP 2010 I-A AD Laing E. Kennedy Kent State University Mid-American Conference SEP 2010 I-A WEST REGION Commissioner Karl D. Benson Western Athletic Conference Western Athletic Conference SEP 2006 I-A UNASSIGNED Commissioner Michael L. Slive Southeastern Conference Southeastern Conference SEP 2009 I-AA EAST REGION AD Gary D. Walters Princeton University Ivy Group SEP 2007 I-AA SOUTH REGION Commissioner Robert C. Vowels, Jr. Southwestern Athletic Conf. Southwestern Athletic Conf. SEP 2006* I-AAA EAST REGION AD Thomas J. O'Connor George Mason University Colonial Athletic Association SEP 2009 I-AAA MIDWEST REGION Commissioner Jonathan B. Le Crone Horizon League Horizon League Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 >That is the snub that absolutely shocked me. > >I do not understand it. I really wondered if the NCAA was >sending some type of message to that program for its past >under Coach Huggins. Cincinnati lost by 1 in the Big East >Tournament on a last second shot. > >By the way, does anyone think Huggins will resurface to >replace John Chaney at Temple? considering Cincy's president wanted every reason possible to get rid of Andy Kennedy (who should have been Big East coach of the year for what he had to deal with) maybe she made a call and asked not to invite Cincy so it would be easier to can Kennedy? Yes, I'm kidding, sort of.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 There is more to the selection process than RPI. The original post had one mention of another factor than RPI, Air Force ooc wins. MO State won at UWM without one of UWM's best players, ...and that is it. They din't win their league, and they lost first round of conf tourney. ...for one example....there will always be a few hits and misses for bubble teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 than just the RPI...but what I presented was a systematic bias where West Coast teams were not held to the same standard of schedule strength, RPI, etc. that teams in the Midwest and East. this bias evidenced itself not only in bubble teams in and out but the seeds of some of the teams. Cal had a better season than GW? Are you kidding me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I wonder if the "prep school" situation had something to do with the GW seeding. Still GW's RPI was 37 because of the weak non-conference schedule. It looks to me like this year's tournament was much more ad hoc, a return to the old days of the men behind closed doors. Evidence of one kind could be used to justify one team's situation and not be applied to another. It looks like the end was decided and the Committee then determined the means to justify that end. Re the West, I do think geography played a role this year. The NCAA has first round sites in San Diego and Salt Lake City. And the NCAA has a Regional in Oakland. Those seats need to be filled. The West has complained for years about not getting any attention. Lute Olson used to always give his State of the Pac-10 Address right before the Pac-10 Tournament. Invariably, it involved the lack of attention the Pac-10 was getting back East. Cal probably got a bit higher seed (#7) than it deserved. Still Cal got no great favors by drawing NC State in Round 1 and Texas looming in Dallas in Round 2. I do think Cal deserved to be in the NCAA despite its RPI of 57. That RPI was that low because Cal again played a bunch of nonconference cupcakes and assorted cannon fodder in Berkeley. Cal does have a star power forward in Leon Powe. (Will SLU ever, ever get someone like Powe?) UCLA (final RPI of 9) really got a good situation by getting to play in San Diego for the first 2 rounds, with the Regional in Oakland after that. Every true Bruin south of Fresno will be heading for San Diego. But UCLA has a lot of talent and a good coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I posted elsewhere disputing Cal's 7 seed. Thought they would get in for sure...but not a 7 seed. It is tough to stick up for GW in a year when Xavier is down, Temple is down....and GW's biggest non-conference win was vs a non-tourney team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinfootes Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Like it or not, it usually doesn't work that way. Right or wrong, conferences earn respect over the years. The MVC is gaining that respect, and if they start improving their schedules they'll get even more. Yes, that means big name opponents. After this year, schools won't be able to use the "nothing to gain" argument against MVC teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.