Toggle sidebar

Selection Committee

A

ACTSEAN

Senior
Dec 5, 2007
341
441
0
How many more years have to go by before they scrap this joke of a committee? If you represent a certain school you can't be in the room as they discuss that team. Yet the chairman is a Duke alum?

There's needs to be no connection to any school on that board. Sort of like the people who do really well with brackets usually don't know anything and choose because of their colors or mascot. Until an impartial committee is put together Duke and others schools will always get preferential treatment.

When they say body of work and all the other BS cliche's they do they don't mean it for most part.

Nothing we can do except win in the hardest regions every year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky, madison1329, MegaBlue05 and 1 other person
J

jarms24

All-American
Mar 31, 2010
92,715
7,926
0
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky, d2atTech, TortElvisII and 3 others
A

ACTSEAN

Senior
Dec 5, 2007
341
441
0
Xception said:
its incredible what we've done under Cal given the intentionally tough draws they give us
Click to expand...

Exactly, I wish we could win every year the title. It's already so hard to win one but add the brackets we are dealt with every year it's even harder
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xception
A

ACTSEAN

Senior
Dec 5, 2007
341
441
0
Lempface said:
Rather they use a composite of major computer rankings and polls. Wisc and NW both same seed lol.
Click to expand...

That's a joke? I'm glad Northwestern made it in tourney but that seeding is a joke too. And the shockers are a 10?
 
ZakkW

ZakkW

All-Conference
May 22, 2002
4,666
4,868
113
Lempface said:
Rather they use a composite of major computer rankings and polls. Wisc and NW both same seed lol.
Click to expand...

^The obvious solution. Selection committee is archaic and obsolete. Assign EVERY team a number based on an aggregate of the various power ratings. Rank EVERY team based on the aggregate and seed based on pure s-curve. IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatCrazyChuk, jarms24 and Rush2112 UK
A

ACTSEAN

Senior
Dec 5, 2007
341
441
0
Zakk Wyldcat said:
^The obvious solution. Selection committee is archaic and obsolete. Assign EVERY team a number based on an aggregate of the various power ratings. Rank EVERY team based on the aggregate and seed based on pure s-curve. IMO.
Click to expand...

I think something like that would be great. Teams who have played tough schedules and have a great record should be rewarded instead of open to interpretation.

Not that coach k hasn't had a once in a lifetime journey but I wonder if anyone has broken down all of the five titles he has and browsed thru the bracket they had that year.
 
MegaBlue05

MegaBlue05

Heisman
Mar 8, 2014
10,768
21,129
66
I'd rather computers do it like they used to do in football. Personal biases are left out. Only the data is considered.
 
A

ACTSEAN

Senior
Dec 5, 2007
341
441
0
The_Answer1313 said:
If the composite rankings were used, people would still scream bias.

People freaked out here because BPI had Duke #1 lol
Click to expand...

Duke and UNC must have a ton of alumni everywhere within the NCAA and of course ESPN.

I'm exhausted this time of year listening to all their support.

Cheers if ESPN follows thru on axing hopefully most of their horrendous content
 
S

Saguaro Cat

All-American
Apr 27, 2008
16,531
7,155
113
ACTSEAN said:
How many more years have to go by before they scrap this joke of a committee? If you represent a certain school you can't be in the room as they discuss that team. Yet the chairman is a Duke alum?

There's needs to be no connection to any school on that board. Sort of like the people who do really well with brackets usually don't know anything and choose because of their colors or mascot. Until an impartial committee is put together Duke and others schools will always get preferential treatment.
Click to expand...

So we'll have a committee of immigrant high school drop outs. That way they never graduated from a college or lived in a state with one.
 
P

preacherfan

All-Conference
Oct 11, 2003
29,000
4,582
113
The_Answer1313 said:
It was pretty universal that Nova would get the overall 1 seed. I'm not sure how anyone could argue a better resume, maybe Kansas.
Click to expand...

Not sure how it can be justified to have Wisc and NW as both 8 seeds. Wisconsin better than an 8. I would say a 6.
 
A

ACTSEAN

Senior
Dec 5, 2007
341
441
0
The_Answer1313 said:
It was pretty universal that Nova would get the overall 1 seed. I'm not sure how anyone could argue a better resume, maybe Kansas.
Click to expand...

If you agree with that then how about the rest of the bracket? I don't see the other three brackets being in the same universe as having to play state, UCLA, and UNC just to get to final four. It's a joke
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blue Bigfoot
T

The_Answer1313_rivals

Heisman
May 27, 2007
31,898
24,995
113
ACTSEAN said:
If you agree with that then how about the rest of the bracket? I don't see the other three brackets being in the same universe as having to play state, UCLA, and UNC just to get to final four. It's a joke
Click to expand...

People overrate UCLA. They were 3rd in a Pac 12 conference that was weaker than the SEC this season.

It's all perception and big names. People see UNC and think man that's way harder than Nova and Kansas, although both had better resumes than UNC. Same goes with UCLA, when Baylor and Oregon had better resumes.
 
M

mjj_2K

All-American
Jul 11, 2010
12,439
7,007
0
The_Answer1313 said:
People overrate UCLA. They were 3rd in a Pac 12 conference that was weaker than the SEC this season.

It's all perception and big names. People see UNC and think man that's way harder than Nova and Kansas, although both had better resumes than UNC. Same goes with UCLA, when Baylor and Oregon had better resumes.
Click to expand...
UCLA also only lost 4 games, and had the best OOC win, by far, of any Pac 12 school. And they have a guy who's going to be picked in the top 5, and another who will go in the 1st round.

I'd take my chances with Baylor or Oregon.

UNC, I tend to agree. A lot of people on here were saying they didn't deserve a 1. You can't say that, then come back and say UK is getting screwed because UNC is the 1 in their region.
 
T

The_Answer1313_rivals

Heisman
May 27, 2007
31,898
24,995
113
Lempface said:
Haha you know what probability is right?
Click to expand...

Yeah......which is why I understand what's happened to Nova over the past 5 seasons.

These are toss up games.

Anyone who thinks the committee was giving Duke a favor by putting them in that region is kidding themselves. At least in terms of the 1 seed.


And yeah I don't wanna hear about UNC. When the bracket came around, everyone on here was killing that...."you can't have a 7 loss team as a 1 seed". People were going nuts. Now all of a sudden they are a tough 1 or the toughest 1?
 
A

ACTSEAN

Senior
Dec 5, 2007
341
441
0
mj2k10 said:
UCLA also only lost 4 games, and had the best OOC win, by far, of any Pac 12 school. And they have a guy who's going to be picked in the top 5, and another who will go in the 1st round.

I'd take my chances with Baylor or Oregon.

UNC, I tend to agree. A lot of people on here were saying they didn't deserve a 1. You can't say that, then come back and say UK is getting screwed because UNC is the 1 in their region.
Click to expand...

I don't think we got screwed on seed we got screwed for the teams we have to beat just to play the 1 seed.
 
T

The_Answer1313_rivals

Heisman
May 27, 2007
31,898
24,995
113
mj2k10 said:
UCLA also only lost 4 games, and had the best OOC win, by far, of any Pac 12 school. And they have a guy who's going to be picked in the top 5, and another who will go in the 1st round.

I'd take my chances with Baylor or Oregon.

UNC, I tend to agree. A lot of people on here were saying they didn't deserve a 1. You can't say that, then come back and say UK is getting screwed because UNC is the 1 in their region.
Click to expand...

Yeah but when Gonzaga finishes a season with 1 loss or Wichita St finishes a season with 4 losses, people conclude correctly if they were in a tougher conference, they would have more losses.

Why doesn't the same apply to UCLA? If u put them in a better power 5 conference, there record with look similar to other teams.

The 4 losses to me isn't that impressive when you factor their NC SOS was crap and their conference was crap.

There was a reason the committee seeded them 11th overall.

I pray to God that UK and UCLA play and we win by 15+ so the overrating of that team can end
 
M

morgousky

Heisman
Sep 5, 2009
23,959
43,171
0
It's always the same. Murderers row to the right, Duke to the left.

If you cannot see it by now you're just obtuse.
 
A

ACTSEAN

Senior
Dec 5, 2007
341
441
0
The_Answer1313 said:
We got the short end with Wichita St.

Other then that.......I mean NKU was weak. UCLA is good but comparable to other 3s
Click to expand...

Yeah, but don't you think UCLA is just a bad match up with us? They are huge and fast but I know they don't play great defense. Maybe we will get past state and then be out for revenge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom