Right in a sense. They care more about top 50/top 100 wins........but that stuff is all based on RPI lol
Proof selection comittee corrupt
- Thread starter Goingfor9
- Start date
Right in a sense. They care more about top 50/top 100 wins........but that stuff is all based on RPI lol
I thought that the way a team performed in the last 10 regular season games was one of the key criteria used by the selection committee. I have not heard that element used much this year....
The selection committee uses a different criteria every year so the coaches can't prepare for it.
Indiana Duke Texas and Iowa State would all play three conference champs to get to elite eight
The problem is exactly what Cal said.......there's a bunch of different people in that room and they all value things differently. There's no set criteria. So it become a guessing game on what exactly does this particular committee value the most
mine have completely left their socket.Oh I can see the eyes rolling at this statement
All you have to do is ask yourself this question: what if UK was given a favorable draw EVERY year? We were placed in the region that if we weren't the 1 seed, we were at least paired with the weakest 1 seed. What if we got to play our first few tourney games in Louisville, Cincy, or Nashville nearly EVERY year, regardless of our seed? And after all that, it was shown that 3 out of 10 committee members had ties to UK. Would anyone be surprised? Would the entire nation (aside from us) think that we were getting beneficial treatment? Of course they would, and they would be right. Well, that's exactly how it is for Duke. So, with that being said, if some schools are guaranteed to favoritism by association/bias, it's not out of the realm for biases to work negatively against other schools...namely UK.
Power Conference Champs? I could look ,but I don't think you'll find anybody with a 4 seed or higher that has a tougher 2nd round game than UK
Since when is UNC Wilmington or Yale in a power conference for Duke,or Northern Iowa ,VCU or Oregon State for Texas,or Iona,Arkansas Little Rock for Iowa State? You think that compares to UK vs IU and then UNC?
I guarantee this will be the last time the selection committee is allowed such freedom in selection criteria. In years past they've gotten heat for picks that raised questions, but not like this season. They were raked over the coals by everyone, including Joe Lunardi who doesn't typically have anything negative to say about the committee's choices, but lambasted them for several questionable at-large bids and seedings.
I always enjoy looking at these kind of things when the question is asked to truly see when it last happened. It looks like in the 2013 NCAA Tournament, 3 seed SEC Champions Florida had to play 6 seed PAC 12 Champion UCLA in the 2nd round and had Big East Champion Georgetown slated for the Elite Eight (but Georgetown didn't make it). So, the last time was 2013 that a 4 seed or better was scheduled to play that many major conference champions to get the the Elite Eight.
Comment was in response to: "who else has to play 3 conference champs to get to elite 8". UK is not playing three power conference champs unless Stony Brook is in the big east all of a sudden.
IU has the same route as UK by the way with Chattanooga in place of stony.
But I was simply responding to the comment that no one else plays three conference champs to get to elite eight and my response was all those teams i listed do. Yes IU and UNC are tough (as is UK and UNC for Indiana) but four seeds get that sometimes. As do five seeds.
Imo the toughest draw though is Wichita State's having Arizona then Miami then Villanova then Kansas and that was after Vandy. And those five wins would only get them to the final four.
Yea and most of those Top50 wins were in conference based on perception of that conference. Top50 wins should be based on non conference.
Mitch said Cal talked to the committee about all the problems LAST year. I think they were showing him (us) who is boss.
If we ever get in trouble. The program is doomed.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support him speaking up. And maybe should have said more
This isn't directed towards you.
I thought I read that Mitch sent a letter after this years bracket was released.
I think our program would be doomed with whatever it was. The NCAA picks and chooses who to go after the hardest. They have never gone easy on KY. Kanter, the 500th win, etc.
That was one game, by one team... who didn't win the conference.
But 4-3 isn't great (5-3 if you count Michigan over Tulsa), but at least it isn't 2-5 like the PAC-12 whom everyone said was the best along with the Big 12 (who by the way went 3-4).
Here is the breakdown I see so far for conferences with at least two teams in; and unfortunately it isn't great if you hate the ACC the way I do...
MVC ............3-0 (two of three wins were by Wichita St)
ACC ............6-1
A10 .............2-1 (both victories were by lower seeds)
SEC ............2-1
B1G ............5-3 (includes Michigan win over Tulsa)
Big East ......3-2
Big 12..........3-4
American ....1-3
PAC 12 .......2-5
This weekend is where it will really start to play out, when even one seeds play somebody worth playing, and conference heads up get more frequent... like B1G champ vs. SEC champ!
the answer, bthaunert, and fuzz, etc. always agree with the establishment, always.
And it's always UK fans that are wrong, always.
And it's always UK fans that are wrong, always.
Not sure how it's agreeing with the establishment when you post facts. I posted in this thread three times, all of which were facts from previous tournaments. It's a fact that since 1985, Duke has played Kansas in the tournament just as many times as we have played any blue blood. It's a fact that in 2013, Florida had to play two major conference champions to get to the Elite Eight. I posted a fact about UNC in 2006 in their region and who was placed in their region. Apologies that I am not a poster that thinks these things only happen to UK.
In this thread, I also agreed with opinions that we get screwed in our seeding this year. I agreed with opinions that we got screwed in 2003 by having Marquette and Wisconsin in our Minneapolis bracket.
I would love to know how that is agreeing with the establishment?
Just because I don't believe the NCAA is out to get UK, doesn't mean I always agree with the establishment.
I don't know how many times in this thread or countless other threads I've blasted them for using RPI as a measure. I don't know how many times I have said they do a real poor job seeding teams.
The only difference between me and the majority is the fact that people believe the committee does this intentionally. I just think they do it because they aren't basketball people. They don't know how to properly evaluate teams. And so you get a seed list that's well.........off. As far as bracketing goes. I've look into past tournaments so much that I realize that all of this has to do with geography.
I don't know how many times in this thread or countless other threads I've blasted them for using RPI as a measure. I don't know how many times I have said they do a real poor job seeding teams.
The only difference between me and the majority is the fact that people believe the committee does this intentionally. I just think they do it because they aren't basketball people. They don't know how to properly evaluate teams. And so you get a seed list that's well.........off. As far as bracketing goes. I've look into past tournaments so much that I realize that all of this has to do with geography.
least we forget the 8 seed 2 years ago and murders row setup for us as a result. everyone said UK asan 8 was totally BS.
There's only 1 thing the committee values when it comes to seeding, money. $$$ The tourney is about generating money either at the venues or through television. Just look at potential match ups that could have occurred in the 2nd round. TAMU/Texas, UK/Indiana, Mich St/Syracuse, and a bunch of others. The only thing they can't control is what happens when the ball rolls out.
Don't doubt for a minute they don't stack regions so certain teams can eliminate each other. Just look at the teams who either have a current scandal or a coach who doesn't care to speak out against the NCAA. Make money and protect the brand. That's their Only worries.
Don't doubt for a minute they don't stack regions so certain teams can eliminate each other. Just look at the teams who either have a current scandal or a coach who doesn't care to speak out against the NCAA. Make money and protect the brand. That's their Only worries.
UNC is 33-1 in the tourney when playing in the state of NC. We did NOT even get to play our first round game in L-Ville this year. We had to play Marquette on basically their home floor when we were a #1 seed. Occasionally we get to play in Atlanta, but it is rare.
The committee did a horrible job this year with seedings and locations. I won't even go into who was picked and who was left out, that is a problem every year.
The committee did a horrible job this year with seedings and locations. I won't even go into who was picked and who was left out, that is a problem every year.
As I said before, I don't think the committee is corrupt or out to get UK, they are just inept.
They are not qualified to do the job. They know very little about basketball
Letting them choose the field is the equivalent of taking ten random posters from this board and letting them choose the field.
I feel like the only thing the committee does that might be slightly corrupt is to try to manufacture matchups for ratings. They have been doing this for a while now, it's just getting worse. Must be pressure from corporate sponsors.
They are not qualified to do the job. They know very little about basketball
Letting them choose the field is the equivalent of taking ten random posters from this board and letting them choose the field.
I feel like the only thing the committee does that might be slightly corrupt is to try to manufacture matchups for ratings. They have been doing this for a while now, it's just getting worse. Must be pressure from corporate sponsors.
They have been manufacturing matchups since at least the early 80's when UK and Uvel didn't play
And so they can justify whatever they do and place their favorites like Duke in an open lane.
Na, they know. That's why they've stuck it to cal since his Memphis days and why teams like Duke go out west to pac12 land.
Are some of you not getting this seriously?
To say the committee is corrupt is an understatement. The people on these committees and other members in power in the NCAA offices could very well be more corrupt than our illustrious politicians in our own government. They are true hypocrites in the full sense of the word..The only thing that matters is money and power and their own personal agendas. It has truly ruined what was once the top sport in the country behind football.
Well first off there was no opening round games in Louisville this season. Your talking about regional games.
If we ended up better than a 4 seed we would have ended up somewhere better than Des Monies.
People complain about the Nc schools playing at home well it's two fold. One that state just happens to have more venues then the state of Kentucky and two those teams are usually good seeds. Duke was only a 4 this season thus they didn't play in Raleigh
hope this thread stays up a while. there are many sports conspiracies. fifa, nfl, nba have all had scandals. on the college level it's the selection committee. they are dirty. they do what they do in order to make more money, regularly tarnishing the "even playing field" that sports is supposed to represent. yet teams not named duke are regularly punished for their seasons, instead of being rewarded accordingly. it's not just uk that gets screwed. not by a long shot.
door swings both ways, S&C. agree completely with you sentiments, bro. But sometimes you just have to accept that the world if full of quasi-utopian thinkers for almost anything. In this case, people who refuse to believe that the system cannot be tainted by persons / processes that disallow for across the board fairness and validity.
Thing I hate most about the situation is that this is what the media has on the tee and ready to swing at with their biggest drivers: should we not come out on top today, the media will say that the committee justly chose this pairing for the good of the sport, because it needs the UK-IU game, and they will likely paint an image that it was our program that refused and not the other, while remaining silent of the fact that Bobby Knight refused for too many years to play in Rupp Arena, and was the reason all along that games were never in Bloomington in the first place.
I think in our case it's not so much the school, I think it's coach Cal they hate . IMO
I don't know. I know an awful lot of older UK fans (that aren't conspiracy nuts. Teachers. Principals, engineers, etc) that will tell you Kentucky has been hated since the media became slanted. They will tell you the NCAA didn't care for Joe hall either.
I think it's a combination.
Last edited:
Nope.
There are actually 3 dukies on the committee.
30% of the committee is made up of Duke or former Duke people.
80% of the media is made up of former Duke people.
5% of this board refuses to see what's smacking them square in the mouth.
A true case of thank you sir, may I have another.
I would say they don't like UK but they really really hate Calipari. Combine the two together and you see the results.