Glad to see this is SSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than the way college football does it and there are no problems with this system.

Glad to see this is SSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than the way college football does it and there are no problems with this system.

There are plenty of problems with this system...

Boeheim is preaching expansion on the Dan Patrick show as we speak.

One of the rites of spring is reviewing the picks for the NCAA men's tournament and analyzing the teams that were overlooked. At the outset, only 65 teams are invited to the tournament. Of that 65, several spots are reserved for conference winners. After those are removed from the mix, the remaining openings should be, in my opinion, filled by the best teams. If, and only if, there is a virtual tie in determining which is the best team, extraneous factors should be utilized to make a determination. These factors may include which players are injured, how hot a team has been, and various other factors. A review of previous posts indicates complaints about the following teams being "snubbed":

Drexel- Sure they had a gaudy record, but they achieved that record primarily by playing a weak schedule. Their schedule this year was the 131st roughest in the country. Having said that, when they did play good teams they won. For example, against top 25 teams they were 1-0. Against top 50 teams they were 3-0. On balance, though, the weak schedule doomed them. Their Sagarin and rating was 74th, not even enough to get into the tournament if the criteria were merely the top 65 teams. Drexel should not be in the tournament.

Syracuse- This is a team for which it is hard to feel sympathy. Despite playing in a rugged conference, the caliber of their opposition outside the conference caused their strength of schedule to sink to 76th. They played clunkers when not in conference and they exhibited an extreme aversion to playing on the road. When their record against top opposition is examined, any argument for Syracuse weakens further. Against top 25 teams they were 2-4 Against top 50 teams their record was 3-5. Their overall Sagarin rating was 49th. To their credit, they finished the season winning seven of their last ten and they beat Georgetown, that in itself an accomplishment. Overall though, too little too late. Syracuse should not be in the tournament.

KState- The closest comparison to Kansas State is Syracuse. Like Syracuse, they played a weak schedule, ranked 70th nationally. When they did step up the caliber of opposition, primarily in their conference, they lost. Against top 25 teams they were 1-4. Against top 50, they were 2-5. Sagarin had them one notch above Syracuse at 48th. If Syracuse did not deserve a bid, neither does Kansas State. They should not be in the tournament.

Florida State-This is the team with a legitimate beef. Strength of schedule? Try 13th roughest in the nation. Sagarin rating? Try 38th in the nation. Their Achilles' heel, perhaps, was when they played rugged opposition they lost. For example, against top 25 teams they were 4-7. Against top 50 teams they were 5-12. Everything considered, though, they did what they were supposed to do, playing a rugged schedule and winning enough to have their computer ranking at 38th. The Seminoles should be in the tournament.

Air Force-They played the 100th most difficult schedule in the nation this year. Their record was 22 wins and eight losses. Against the top 25 they were 0-1 and versus the top 50 they were 1-4. They finished their season with a flurry of losses. Despite this, they had some early impressive victories. Overall, their computer rating in the Sagarin system, which is a combination of the won lost record and the score margin methodology, placed them at the 43rd rank. Additionally, in the case of Air Force, if extraneous variables are considered the nod should be given to players who are going to defend the country and to a program that is unquestionably populated by students, not mercenaries playing basketball. Air Force should have been in.

 

Who else should have been considered? Clemson and Missouri State. Clemson faced a reasonably difficult schedule at 34th in the nation. They competed against a bevy of top teams, going 2-6 against the top 25 and 7-9 against the top 50. Sagarin had them rated 26th. Sure, they did not finish strong, but

Sagarin had them seven spots above the University of Louisville, and no one would dispute that U of L should be in. Statistically, Missouri State is a Clemson clone. Their schedule was the 30th most difficult in the nation and

Sagarin hand them ranked 27th. Their weakness was their record against high caliber opposition. Top 25 teams won two of three against them, and top 50 teams won six of seven against them.

Boeheim is preaching expansion on the Dan Patrick show as we speak.

He led the charge for it last year as well...