In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 878
Online now 736 Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
It's currently made up of a group of OWG AD's who clearly do not watch that much actual basketball during the year. Gonzaga wasn't a #1 seed, Oregon wasn't a #12 and I'm guessing none of them watched a minute of FL Gulf Coast.
I say you add a few journalists or other folk who are engaged in the game (maybe a some retired coaches) to actually watch college basketball throughout the year instead of Athletic Directors who seemingly are too lazy to do this or too busy with their day jobs/
Definitely add in some coaches to the discussion and reduce the reliance on the RPI. Its being gamed, but I think they are too stupid to realize it.
Of course Gonzaga was a #1 seed
Gonzaga definitely deserved a #1. Oregon wasn't terribly underseeded. I think the bigger issues there was UCLA as a #6 and not taking into account injuries for several teams. Thought that the ACC should have gotten a #1, be it Duke or Miami. Not sure that anyone saw FGCU. I didn't aside from the tournament finals and I watch as much basketball as anyone. I don't think adding "basketball people" hurts, but I don't know that it has much positive effect either.
Jeff Goodman/Ken Pomeroy/Jay Bilas/John Gasaway/Patrick Stevens
By the way, I don't want people projecting what teams are or aren't good. Teams should be evaluated on their resumes and that's it.
The problem is that no one has ever said what a resume is. And I think having so many analytical guys on your committee doesn't give you a resume-based approach.
Gary Williams. We'd be in every year.
I feel like the Committee tried to act like the "Hunger Games" gamemakers, and outsmarted themselves.
Same useless conversation every year. 1 or 2 seed goes out early and they were over seeded. Conference performs poorly and they didn't deserve so many bids. Etc. Give it a rest, who cares.
Overseeded convo goes into overdrive if it's a mid-major with a high seed or Duke that loses.
i don't understand those who say gonzaga isn't a 1 seed.
im sorry i was confusing...your "Superbowl" was the Redskins losing since you know that the Ravens cant win it all.
I can understand it. They don't have that many (any?) great wins and their conference is pretty meh,
MWC top conference according to RPI, and treated as such by the committee, getting 5 of their 9 teams in... yet once again they flame out, this time going 2-5. Fuggin disgraceful.
This is just dumb.
3 - New Mexico
5 - UNLV
7 - SDSU
8 - Colorado St.
13 - Boise St
Only UNLV and New Mexico underachieved relative to their seed and there's a strong argument that not only should Cal not have been a 12 but that they also got an unfair advantage playing the game in their back yard.
they lost 2 games and at least attempted to schedule some big games against schools who have had really good teams. i'd agree if there had been 4 teams that really set themselves apart but there weren't really any.
Gonzaga came into the NCAAT with at rpi 6. Their best win all season was beating rpi 20 Kansas St at home. Their next best wins were at Oklahoma St and St. Mary's. They played in the 9th toughest conference. They had the weakest resume of any #1 seed in a very long time
Huh? 40% seriously underperformed, 20% got blown the eff out by a 15 seed, and 20% underperformed marginally by losing to an identical seed by 9. Thank god for CSU, who performed up to seed by beating a 9 seed.
They were treated, both in inclusion and seeding, like a top conference, which they are anything but.
This post was edited by jaylamp 13 months ago
I saw FGCU play at Dukethis year and played exactly like this in a very tough game until about the 10 minute mark
This post was edited by goterpss 13 months ago
Duke should have been a #1 especially with a healthy Kelly.
I could understand Miami getting a 1 over them but one of them definitely deserved a #1.
They were down 22 at the half against Duke.
Regardless, I'm not sure what the point is. They came out of the 26th ranked conference and didn't even win the regular season in a true round robin league. So maybe they deserved 1 seed higher for beating Miami (without Scott), but it's not like they were an 11 who got underseeded.
they finished in 2nd place, a game behind a good Mercer team. They actually beat teams (Miami). I agree they were a 14th seed. But my point was that nobody on this selection committee saw them play.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports