« WHEW!!!!!!!!!!! | Main | NCAA Tournament First Round Sleepers and Duds - Part I »


Jeff Hufnagle

I wouldn't say "weird" as opposed to "inconsistent," Gary, as there were some selections made that just don't belong and don't make sense. The seedings aren't all that great, either. UConn seems to have it easy, with a soft 2, 5, an erratic 3 and 4, and a very overrated and disappointing 6. It has far too many of the "last-in" bubbles, and its ratio for autos to at-larges is 3 to 13. What did UConn really do to deserve this? They didn't outrightly win their conference during the regular season, and they didn't get very far in their conference tournament. Memphis may be the weakest #1, but that's got a good bunch of games.

Gonzaga got shafted by, I can only guess, Tennessee. What a surprise.

Bucknell is a 9!

As for your rules; I think the selections show how much those things were considered selectively. For example:

Rule 5: Alabama got a gift because of this one. One quality out-of-conference win, to Winthrop, at home, and beat Florida, Tenn, and LSU at home. They only beat Kentucky away. A record of 17-12? It isn't like the SEC is as good as the Big East or Big Ten, despite the number of draws.

Even adding an injury stipulation would have Rule #7 the least followed. GMU should have lost their bid, had they followed through with this philosophy, in the way that it hurt schools like Creighton (out), GW (now an 8 seed), and Villanova (which had to say Ray would be playable).

If Rule #9 was considered, fully, then who would have been snubbed, ultimately? It looks as, according to my projections, that a better bracket could have been made by the RPI outright, and would be less controversial. Based on a Last in/first out scenario, this is what I have:

Air Force: Missouri State
Utah State: Hofstra
Seton Hall: Cincinatti
Alabama: Creighton

Apply rule #7, and GMU hands its bid back to Seton Hall.

If you want to take Bradley's bid, you can give it back to Alabama. Would people have as big a complaint about Bradley being snubbed as opposed to Hofstra?

I really think the issue here was that the thought of giving the MVC and CAA one more bid over a second bid to both the Mountain West and WAC caused some heat at the tables on Sunday.

David L. Bird

You forgot this rule. If your AD is on the Selection Committee and your coach is an old friend of Littlepage, welcome aboard. This is the only criteria that can account for Hofstra losing out to George Mason. Hofstra beat Mason in their only matchups, twice in the last ten days of the season. They beat Mason with Tony Skinn playing; can Mason really be the better choice with Skinn not available for their first game? Hofstra's won-loss record was better if all games are included. Out of conference wins? Not much for either team, Hofstra's win at St. Johns being the closest thing to impressive. However, Littlepage (Selection Committee head)did point out George Mason had quality out of conference losses. An example he gave, Wake Forest, last place team in the ACC. Apparently the committee followed the rule stated above and then searched very hard for a justification.

George Mason's great performance in the tournament does not in any way vindicate the Selection Committee. They presumably made their decision based on the data available at the time, not by gazing into a crystal ball.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad