UL ranked #5 but a 4seed?????

[UKMustangFan]

SMU didn't get in because they had a SoS in the non-conference of 300+, and a total SoS of 135. The worst SoS to get in with an at-large was roughly 90.

 

Pitt had an RPI of 38 with a SoS of 66.

NC State had an RPI of 54 with a SoS of 23.

SMU had an RPI of 53 with a SoS of 135.

 

SMU had 2 losses to teams with an RPI of 150 or worse.

NC State didn't have any.

Pitt's worse loss of the season was to the RPI #54, NC State.

[4chs]

Tennessee being the half in the money grab that is Dayton. People talk about Wichita States schedule. The actually blew out Tennessee, and beat BYI, St. louis, and Tulsa. Thats not too b

 

They beat Tennessee by 9, which is not really a blow out. A blow out is something like a 35 point win, which is how bad Tennessee beat Virginia. Wichita St. also beat Alabama by 5.

[Bluegrasscard]

I have more of a problem with NC State than any team. SMU got snubbed and I have yet to see any reason that makes sense. The committee represenative on yesterdays selection show said it was because of the RPI SoS, yet they let teams ranked below SMU in the RPI in. So you can't pick and choose if they are using that as their reasoning and not use the same criteria for every team.

 

If that is the case then Witchita State shold not be a #1 seed according to the committee. Their were other teams according to the RPI ranked much higher than them.

 

It was very inconsistent and having more ACC members on the committee than other conferences makes it really stink as a snow job.

 

SMU didn't get in because they had a SoS in the non-conference of 300+, and a total SoS of 135. The worst SoS to get in with an at-large was roughly 90.

 

Pitt had an RPI of 38 with a SoS of 66.

NC State had an RPI of 54 with a SoS of 23.

SMU had an RPI of 53 with a SoS of 135.

 

SMU had 2 losses to teams with an RPI of 150 or worse.

NC State didn't have any.

Pitt's worse loss of the season was to the RPI #54, NC State.

 

See my post in other thread about the committee make up and the NCS/SMU comparison.

 

The 2 ACC members had 1.5M reasons to slide NC State in.

 

It is hard to defend the snub of SMU with how they closed the season. 3 straight losses and one to a 100+ RPI Houston team. Had SMU gotten by Houston they probably would be in, IMHO.

 

And NC State lucked into a win that gave the committee ammunition to slide them in.

 

The SoS as a measuring tool when comparing two teams head to head to not a good tool. SMU did go outside of conference and played Virgina (and only lost by 3), Arkansas and Texas A&M. That is not bad non-conference scheduling. SMU was 3-4 vs RPI top 26, NC State (with the luck of their win in the ACC tournament) was 1-7.

 

The committee does lose credibility when it 'full body of work' when they put Louisville on the 4 line, but then completely ignore the full body of work when looking at the SMU/NCS head to head selection.

[UKMustangFan]

^Not sure how you can look at the numbers and say SMU deserved to be in over NC State.

 

NC State beat a top team on a neutral court, and had no bad losses. SMU beat no one out of conference, and lost to some really bad teams. Bad losses hurt a lot worse on the bubble than good wins help. The SoS number is what ended up doing SMU in. SMU went 23-9 with the 135th best schedule this year. NC State went 21-13 with the 23rd best schedule. NC State's Non-conference SoS was 87. SMU was 303.

 

NC State went on the road and beat Tennessee, Pitt, and won against Syracuse on a neutral court. SMU went on the road and beat UConn.

 

SMU lost to Houston, South Florida and Temple.

 

NC State had no losses near as bad as any of those.

[Bluegrasscard]

^ - not saying SMU SHOULD be in over NC State.

 

I am just saying if one is out, both should be out. Given the 'full body' of work.

[UKMustangFan]

^ - not saying SMU SHOULD be in over NC State.

 

I am just saying if one is out, both should be out. Given the 'full body' of work.

 

Here's the problem with that....They have to have 68 teams. Who that got left out should be in, instead of NC State?

[oldrambler]

I am anything but a UL fan/supporter, would only pull for them in a couple of situations if that.

Having said that what the hell were they thinking? I don't believe that they should have been a 1 seed at all but I absolutely believe they, with the run they are on, deserved a 2 seed, 3 at absolute lowest but Louisville as a 2 seed would be fair. There is no justification for as low as a 4 seed.

The NCAA selection guys, to me a anyway, had to be setting up "story line" match ups.....UL/Manhatten coaches, possible U.K. / UL game later, possible U.L. / Duke (Pitino, Coach K), Possible U.K. / Duke (obvious reasons) etc., etc...... :idunno:

The UL seeding wasn't the only one like this.....Ohio State/Dayton (Matta wouldn't schedule Dayton), there were a couple of others that I can't think of right now.

 

Bottom Line....you show up and play who they put there. Should you want to prove a Point (UL, UK, etc..) then win and keep winning. That's all anyone can do.

[oldrambler]

^ - not saying SMU SHOULD be in over NC State.

 

I am just saying if one is out, both should be out. Given the 'full body' of work.

 

My problem wasn't SMU/N.C. St.. I think that SMU should have been in with BYU out. I am not saying that NC St should be in either, maybe Arkansas over NC St. ?? Don't know but that's not the problem. Problem is that the selection commitie should look at things closer.....Throw The Dang Computer off a bridge and open their feakin' eyes ! JMO of course.

[sportsfan41]

I agree that Louisville did get the shaft but also think it showed that the committee didn't put much value or faith in the final polls.

[Bluegrasscard]

Here's the problem with that....They have to have 68 teams. Who that got left out should be in, instead of NC State?

 

Not sure as we can see arguments could be made in a lot of ways.

 

But its the committee's use of phrases to fit the decision that is troublesome. Maybe when they define 'full body of work' it will be easier to understand.

[Cats3x]

......

 

I thought 4 was a line or two too low, but don't use rankings for anything -- they mean nothing to the committee and aren't even something that they see in the war-room. Rankings are meaningless.

 

They are playing well right now, for sure, but their non-conf SOS was terrible and their best non-conf win outside of YUM was Florida International.

 

Exactly. Schedule is not all their fault with the alignment, but two teams that would have helped their cause in the OOC portion of their schedule in UNC and UK beat them.

[oldrambler]

I just want U.K. at a ONE Seed and wonder if the feds will let Richie Farmer delay his trip to prison another couple of weeks more so he can go to some of the U.K. - U.L. tourney games ?? :idunno:

[MentschTrachtGottLacht]

I agree that Louisville did get the shaft but also think it showed that the committee didn't put much value or faith in the final polls.

 

They put ZERO stock in the polls - aren't even a remote factor.

[MentschTrachtGottLacht]

.....

 

I think NC State is a clear choice over SMU, in my opinion. Much better non-conf schedule (that which you can control), more Top 100 wins, wins away from home against Syracuse (Neutral), at Pittsburgh, and at Tennessee. SMU's only quality win away from home is at UCONN. I do think the loss to Houston in the 1st round of the tourney was the death-blow for them, rightly or wrongly.

 

I said last week I didn't think SMU would deserve a bid but was certain they'd get one -- I was happy for the committee that, in my opinion, they gave SMU what they deserved.

[mcpapa]

Poll rankings and NCAA seeds don't go hand in hand.

 

Last week, Harvard was "ranked" 30th (UK was 31st) going by "other teams receiving votes".

 

Harvard is a 12 seed, playing 5-seed Cincinnati.