out of the RPI top 12 UK is the only team not a top 3 seed. Instead they pull the 18th best team based on RPI and a team we beat the day of the brackets. I Knew it would happen but I'm royally pissed that we get a major conference champion in the second round and to be honest it isn't fair to either team. I hope cal and the school send some kind of message that this crap has to stop!
Proof selection comittee corrupt
- Thread starter Goingfor9
- Start date
Cal and the school have sent messages.
Well it's cause they don't JUST use RPI. They looked at the top 50 RPI wins and saw that we had less than Duke, less than A&M etc so they placed them ahead of us.
It's alright tho. By the end of this, we'll have proven that once again they have mis seeded us.
The NCAA is licking their chops at the value of commercial time for the game. It's going to have higher ratings than any other matchup before the final four most likely.
Nantz all but **** juiced himself talking about the Saturday showdown...
Last edited:
The lying sack chair had the "hangers" to actually say they didn't look at potential matchups. So it was just weird how these teams ended up in these strange venues if you didn't look at matchups. Such a strange co-inky-dink.
Please just accept the committee favors certain schools and looks down at others. I mean, Cal just said it. It's real man. Its real.
We probably should just agree to disagree.
I like you. You're probably one of the best posters on this board.
It's ok to have different opinions. It would be boring if everyone agreed
Counting top 50 rpi wins is being very selective and if you wanna go that route why wouldn't the overall rpi rating be used instead of that? The answer is that it didn't fit in the selection committee's agenda.
Let me ask you something. Is Cal seeing things that aren't there?
Oh we agree to disagree. I'm just trying to figure out what it would take to get you to come over to the sane side?
You're not bad Answer not bad. Very consistent.
I agree with you but unfortunately looking at this for years, it's something they have always valued
I agree. A system should stand on it's own. If they wanna use RPI, just take the overall number and go with it.
Once u start looking at things this way, you begin to mis seed teams
For a the committee to say they don't look at future match-ups is just bald face lie. How do you set in a room and look at the brackets and not see that? Total lie.
That committee they try so hard to be fair but some how most year's see duke's Bracket bust wide open. Never see that coming.
Yes, it is in my head. It is fair and those darn dookies though, they just get lucky 8 years out of 10.
I think that Cal's beef is that he thinks the NCAA doesn't like him.
And I can't deny that. I mean I'm sure they do.
But even in that very interview that he did Sunday night, while he was upset with the seeding you heard what he said. He was complaining about the lack of consistency. He said one year it's road wins, the next year it's top 50 wins etc etc.
I don't think he was meaning that as "oh they are just using whatever means to make sure I don't get a high seed".........I think he was meaning it just as he says.......lack of consistency and not knowing how they are valuing teams.
The bottom line is if they actually do it like their procedures say they do...........there's no way they are pitting these matchups. If they make a seed list and THEN start bracketing as they say.......well they all they are doing is going down the list and placing teams in the natural geographical locations. The mere fact that anyone could take a seed list and see WHY teams went where they went.
The only way they can do things like pit UK and Indiana together.......is by doing the bracket and then CHANGING the seed line during the bracketing. There is no way they are thinking about this stuff WHILE they are doing the seed line. It just doesn't seem realistic to me at all.
Now we have no idea. Maybe they DO go back and change things. Until anyone is in that room, it's not something we will ever know the truth about.
Pitting IU and UK together. Or for several years pitting WVU with us. Or UL.........that alone doesn't prove much. Just think if it's based on geography and they keep non conference teams apart well then naturally it would make logical sense we would see teams situated close to us not in our conference more often than other teams. That's not called a conspiracy. It's called how the bracket works.
Cal doesn't tow the company line when it comes to NCAA politics. He calls out hypocrisy whenever he sees it. And under seeding his teams in the tournament or giving them a more difficult path is one of the ways the crooked sob's use to get back at him. I'm not saying he's perfect because he's not but he's always been one to go against the establishment and he's lost two final fours because of it.
I'm sorry, but it's very naive to think that they actually seed teams, then go by that and not take numerous things into consideration like matchups! Trust me, they place teams where they want them to be, and can make them the most money, and THEN go back and and simply " seed them by theallready made up bracket, LOL!
You mean to say that you actually be live that the fact that we've faced UL twice, and IU 3 TIMES in 5 years LMAO is coincindence, Yet Duke and UNC have never played each other in the tourneys far as I recall. At least not under the new format.
Duke and UnC don't play each other because they are from the same conference and usually they are seeded on the first four lines. The rule is the first four teams from any conference if on the first four lines have to be in different regions.
We aren't in IU conference or UL or WVU. But we are close to each. That's why we keep getting put with them.
And I don't buy the money thing. This is the ncaa tourney. People are watching this regardless.
IU clearly got screwed on their seeding. And UK also got screwed on their seeding. And isn't it convenient how that dual screwing worked out to give the NCAA this marquee first Saturday matchup guaranteed to ensure MONSTER TV ratings? I'm not normally a conspiracty theory guy, but the circumstances here sure as hell DO support the suspicion that the NCAA underseeded both IU and UK to set up this showcase first weekend TV matchup they plainly wanted.
Neither UK nor IU should be playing a team this good in the 2d round, and the only reason we are is because of bizarrely suspicious under-seeding by the NCAA. .
Neither UK nor IU should be playing a team this good in the 2d round, and the only reason we are is because of bizarrely suspicious under-seeding by the NCAA. .
Last edited:
A
anon_013cn8yrfncx2
Guest
You might defend our seed but how does the regular season B10 champ get a 5 seed?
A&M in bracket with Texas and OU .. of course just a coincidence. The committee has ruined that word.
A&M in bracket with Texas and OU .. of course just a coincidence. The committee has ruined that word.
I don't know why people can't understand this one. By no means do I think the Committee does a good job, but I've seen people post in a number of threads about Duke getting preferencial treatment by not having UNC in their bracket, when in fact, rules don't allow it based on their seeding a majority of the time. Since the field expanded to 64 teams in 1985, Duke has had Kansas in their bracket just as many times as UK has had Duke. This idea that we are the only ones that play other blue bloods in our region is completely false and people need to get over that part of the argument. Do we get screwed in our seed in certain years? Yes. Do you have to play other blue bloods more than others do? No
Yes,Duke's current AD and former AD who is currently LSU's AD,plus UNC-Wilmington's AD
Can't tell me CBS didn't slip money to the Selection Committee to get this made for ratings 2nd round matchup,You can't tell me UK gets screwed more than any other blue blood either.Every time UK is the Number 1 Overall seed they get stuck with the toughest bracket,while Duke always cakewalks with an easy bracket and preferential officiating.
How many overall #1 seeds get stuck in a bracket where they play Wisconsin and Marquette in Minneapolis and can't get more than a thousand tickets for UK Fans?
Just to get to the Elite 8 UK will have had to beat 3 Conference Champions,show me one other team that has to do that.
How many overall #1 seeds get stuck in a bracket where they play Wisconsin and Marquette in Minneapolis and can't get more than a thousand tickets for UK Fans?
Just to get to the Elite 8 UK will have had to beat 3 Conference Champions,show me one other team that has to do that.
You do realize that the committee members change every year. Also, I guess the committee hates everybody else in our region...I mean if it is extra tough for us then it is also extra tough for them as well...right?
We are where we are because we lost to 5 teams that didn't even make the tourney and another to a team that lost by 20 to a 11 seed. We only won 2 games against other tourney teams...3 if you want to count UL.
UK's natural region is the South,but always conveniently gets put in the East or MidWest as needed,how else could they be an OverAll #1 seed and be in each of those brackets different years?
Meanwhile every freaking year either Duke or UNC conveniently gets a home game the 1st 2 rounds
Meanwhile every freaking year either Duke or UNC conveniently gets a home game the 1st 2 rounds
So you think it would be fair to require that the top seeds play essentially a home game vs UK?
If you are a 1 or 2 seed then you will more likely end up in your home region...after that...
This year Duke, Cinncy and Yale are in the West... Is Virginia in the Midwest or Kansas in the South??? How about where UCONN and Villanova got placed?
Kansas should have been in the MidWest, UK got UNC anyway,since when does Kansas belong in the South?Oregon is a joke as a #! seed,Michigan State got jobbed.The ACC Bias is heavy with the Tourney committee every year they can get away with it.
4 actually county UL (Duke, TAMU, Vandy) but continue on with trying to justify a committee ranking that was worse than every other poll and data site available, ignore the ton of wins against bubble teams and an OT loss at the #1 overall seed. The fact they had us closer to a 5 than a 3 actually. You do contrived you though.
It is a big damn coincidence that we drew exactly what most of us predicted (IU) based on what has happened in the previous years. They would never arrange what the announcers were calling possibly the biggest round of 32 game ever. Just never.
I am sure the only SEC rep on the committee...the guy who was part of canceling an entire sports program based on an accusation, the guy whose team quit and refused an NIT bid, and the guy who misread a situation so badly he almost fired an enormously popular football coach, as well as being a Dukie.....really went to bat for us. Sidenote, pretty interesting that the most contraversial selection, Tulsa, came from the same state as the committee chair.
The weird thing about the 2003 Tournament was that Syracuse was the #3 seed in the Albany Region where Oklahoma was the #1 seed and Marquette was the #3 seed in the Minneapolis Region, where we were the #1 seed. Seems so simple to swap those two #3 seeds instead of screwing two #1 seeds.
In 2005, UNC and Illinois were 1A and 1B and UNC got screwed in the Syracuse Regional, when the Committee decided to put 2 seed UConn and 5 seed NOVA in their bracket, which is very similar to our 2003 draw.
There have been some very questionable region placement across the board.
There's no doubt that IU should have been a better seed. I had them as the last 3 seed but at worse they should have been a 4 seed.
So some will say they bumped them down to set this match up. And who knows. No one is in that room when the bracket is being constructed. We'll never know for sure. As soon as they were a 5 and we were a 4, this matchup was extremely likely and they didn't have to manipulate much for it to happen. Just the geography rule going into full effect. You mention A&M getting thrown with Texas and OU. Again no surprise that these team are closely located to one another. People see that and think well the committee is doing that. But if your placing teams based on geography, that's always gonna happen.
But the thing is.........I see so much mis seeding I have to believe that something else is going on here. Duke a 4 seed? A&M a 3 seed? California a 4 seed?
We know they use RPI. We know how flawed RPI can be. IMO this isn't about setting up matchups. It's about using stats that are flawed to seed these teams.
I think he was saying exactly "they use whatever means necessary" and as to the matter off not looking at match-ups,the only way that is possible is if the committee had zero knowledge of college basketball recent history and potential T.V.ratings. We can be pretty sure that neither of those are the case.
They took UK off the three line so they could place them in the middle of nowhere in order to take the fan base out of play as much as they could.The only defense we have year over year is to be a clear cut #1 seed(and we better be overall #1 or they will shaft us to the extent they can)
They don't like Cal or UK and we play in the SEC(which provides minimum opportunity for quality wins and maximum opportunity for bad losses) Every away game is hat,shirt or underwear day.
This is the way it is and the way it will be for the foreseeable future,meanwhile in NCAA fairy tale land UNC and Duke go their Alice in Wonderland merry way getting seeding,officiating and location breaks at every turn.I wish that other schools would go public and say we are tired of the NCAA double standard.
FWIW The YUM Center is actually closer to Allen Fieldhouse compared to the United Center. But that's probably not the reason. They added a rule this year that they wanted to balance out the 1s and 2s. They didn't want to send the best 2 (MSU) and the best 1 (KU) to the same region. The rule states they will try to balance it if they can.
Well given the distance between the South and Midwest, it made it very easy for the committee to just stick them in the Midwest to accomplish this.
As far as Oregon goes. This is where using RPI obviously affected things. We look at Oregon and say no way should they be a 1 seed. They see a team with 9 top 50 wins and a whopping 18 wins over top 100 RPI teams. No other team has that resume except KU. I suspect that's why you see California and Oregon State mis seeded as well
Last edited:
Can't argue with what you say here,but if they can pick that stuff out correctly but then get wrong anything to do with UK,Duke, IU,Texas A&M,Monmouth and a half dozen other schools they must have been on some kind of special mission to accomplish a specific goal.
The thing is while alot of people think they got it wrong I don't think they think they got it wrong. Duke and A&M were rated higher than us for the same reason they put Oregon at number one. Going into Sunday, we had two wins vs the top 50. Duke had more, A&M had more. Hence they ended up being rated higher than us.
To me the biggest fault in this whole thing is using wrong numbers to evaluate these teams.
They admit the flaws of RPI yet use team pages which have stats on them entirely based off RPI. You can game the system with RPI. The PAC12 did this to perfection this season so it's no reason that their teams are rated higher than they should be.
The RPI is less and less important to the Committee every year. It is all about who you beat. If RPI was important then St. Bonaventure (#29) would have been in the field.