Selection Sunday Discussion

[DudeAnon]

so St Bonnie's didn't try to get road games against tougher team?

No. You're missing the point. No one will play, period.

You know this to be true because there is zero reason, financial or competitive, to ever have an open slot on your schedule and not play a game. We’re not trying to play RPI games… This was the first time we’ve competed for an at-large in 17 seasons. And we were picked Preseason EIGHTH in the Atlantic 10.

As a bottom half A-10 team, we can't be relied on to have a winning record. You’d expect a 16-15 record at best from the 8th place A-10 team. We don’t help the RPI of anyone above us.

But we’re still .767 in the last 20 years against teams outside the BCS. So anyone in the OTHER 24 conferences don’t want to play us either.

Our lat 14 games against BCS teams have been decided by an average of 4 points.
3 wins
8 losses decided by 5 points or less (or in OT)
2 losses by 3-5 possessions (9-13 points)
>> 7-22 Bona at #16 Syracuse, we lost 70-82. That’s not the kind of battle you want in a guarantee game. Cuse can pay Cornell and win by 30.

The ONLY time we’ve been blown out by a BCS team in the last 20 years was the season we were 2-26. And no one wants to play a 2-26 team, either.


There is zero incentive for any school in the country to play us. Period. And that’s the only reason a school would ever only schedule 11 OOC games when they’e allowed to play 12.

So JP, how do you fix it? My simple solution would be to remove the cherry picking of the RPI and just take it straight up. Whats yours?

[sciencejay]

Here's the link to a discussion our local OWH columnist had with Bruce Rasmussen, CU AD and NCAA Selection Committee member:

http://www.omaha.com/sports/shatel-rasm ... 55403.html

Many of us aren't happy with some of the inclusions/exclusions, but it's nice to know that at least some of the committee members are thoughtful, reasonable people who could give a rat's ass what John Calipari thinks.

[BEwannabe]

I stopped reading the article at "selection cmt being most prestigious appointment". There is the problem. This is a process far better left to a computer with artificial intelligence that can outperform humans in Jeopardy and Go. Build a set of metrics, much if not all the data already exists and let the non human computer that has no clue who appointed it in charge analyze the data. It's that simple and btw, Coach Cal's comments were spot on, the committee has proven him and others to be 100% right and it doesn't take much to be right except to say, we have no clue what your metrics are because they're a moving target.

[JPSchmack]

Here's the link to a discussion our local OWH columnist had with Bruce Rasmussen, CU AD and NCAA Selection Committee member:

http://www.omaha.com/sports/shatel-rasm ... 55403.html

Many of us aren't happy with some of the inclusions/exclusions, but it's nice to know that at least some of the committee members are thoughtful, reasonable people who could give a rat's ass what John Calipari thinks.

No disrespect to your guy, but his logic/seeding is straight up stupid on Tulsa and the entire AAC & A-10.

There's 11 teams from the AAC & A10 in the top 65 of the RPI. And they took ALL the AAC and half the A10.... based on... nothing that makes sense. Their own seed list has Dayton & St. Joe's ahead of every eligible AAC team. Those are the teams Bona beat, while UConn/Cincy/Temple/Tulsa basically just beat each other.

It's insane circular logic:
Temple's in because (After going 6-6 OOC with their best win in the 200s) they picked up NCAA wins vs the group of SMU/Cincy/UConn/Tulsa in conference.
St. Bona's out because (after going 9-3 OOC with their best wins 77 & 81) they picked up NCAA wins vs the group of Dayton/SJU/VCU/GW in conference.
Both are regular season conference champions, Bona with the better RPI of course.

But not only is Temple in over Bona, Tulsa is in over Bona for… beating teams LOWER on the seed list than St. Bona.

Which makes no sense because there’s no reason why in the hell Bona wouldn’t be on the seed list ahead of all those AAC teams on the list by the time you get to Tulsa for the last spot.


There was a point in the process where they had their top 34 teams. We all know the top 20, plus Louisville and SMU somewhere in there.

21. Texas
22. Notre Dame
23. Arizona
24. Seton Hall
25. Wisconsin
26. Dayton
27. Iowa
28. Oregon State
29. Texas Tech
30. Colorado
31. USC
32. Saint Joseph's
33. Providence
34. Butler


So who’s next? You’ve got a pool of teams, Probably about 20 to 25. No one from the American at-large board beat more than ONE of those teams safely in.

Bonaventure is the highest rated RPI team, and the second MOST WINS against those already seed (behind just Michigan’s 4-10).
But Bona not only has the BEST win percentage vs teams seeded to that point, but is THE ONLY team at-large board team with a WINNING RECORD against those already seeded.

Even if you put UConn NEXT (Which they didn’t), none of the AAC at-large picks gets a THIRD win over a seeded team. They’d be SMU + UConn = worse than Bona’s UD + SJU + SJU.

Out of the next 13 teams on the NCAA’s own seed list (nine of which make the list) Bonaventure isn’t 10th or worst in ANYTHING…

Not RPI, SOS, Top 50 wins, wins vs seeded teams, wins vs the at-large board, “fewest bad losses,” “win percentage” or anything else the committee ever mentions…

except OOC SOS. Which they ranked exactly 10th in. And just .0010 behind Cincinnati. But ahead of South Carolina, Michigan and Pitt… Indiana, Arizona, Providence, Seton Hall and Butler.


This was, without a shred of doubt, the biggest screw job in NCAA history.

[BEX]

I thought JP was at the post game press conference for Yale, but it was coach Jones with the exact same argument.

[JPSchmack]

I thought JP was at the post game press conference for Yale, but it was coach Jones with the exact same argument.

The guys on the A-10 board think I'm Will Wade. (Skip to 17:55)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tylmiBDE1Iw