NCAA Tourney Selection Process
- Thread starter RhoadsRage
- Start date
Just looking through the team pages link on the NCAA website, looks like our only "bad" losses are Drake on the road and Okie St on the road.
Time to start looking at the BPI instead of the RPI. Looks like the current BPI (updated Feb 12) is 34.
Do we know the names of the committee members for this year's selection? Be interesting to know if we have any "friends/associates" on it.
I think he replaced Beebe on the committee...
Meet the Men’s NCAA Tournament Selection Committee | Bracketography.com
Scott Barnes was in the ISU AD from 94-97.
I feel like I am talking to myself...:spinny:
Even though it was at home, UNI is at 52 on the RPI. Okie St is 106 and Drake is 128.
Even though Mr.Barnes is not currently employed at Iowa State, I wonder if he will have to sit outside when the committee talks about us? What's the protocol on this?
Awesome.
...
Side note: Further down in the article, it mentions the (ugh) "First Four" and short turnaround/travel issues.
"Clemson was among the First Four and, after winning its opening game, had a short turnaround and a long trip, playing two days later in Tampa, Fla. The tired Tigers ended up losing to West Virginia in the first round."
Nobody gave a **** when the field expanded to 65, when the "First Two" winner could face the same situation. But I digress.
I can't tell if they consider it a problem of logistics (unrealistic travel situations on a short turnaround) or a competitive disadvantage (which, if these play-ins are bottom-rung tournament entries, you take what's there).
Bottom line, if First Four is a play-in, let the dice fall. If First Four is supposed to be a true part of the tournament, and the goal is fairness for those teams and the rest of the field, it's simple: Play two games on Tuesday (feeding into evening slot on Thursday) and two games on Wednesday (winners play evening slots on Friday).
...
Side note: Further down in the article, it mentions the (ugh) "First Four" and short turnaround/travel issues.
"Clemson was among the First Four and, after winning its opening game, had a short turnaround and a long trip, playing two days later in Tampa, Fla. The tired Tigers ended up losing to West Virginia in the first round."
Nobody gave a **** when the field expanded to 65, when the "First Two" winner could face the same situation. But I digress.
I can't tell if they consider it a problem of logistics (unrealistic travel situations on a short turnaround) or a competitive disadvantage (which, if these play-ins are bottom-rung tournament entries, you take what's there).
Bottom line, if First Four is a play-in, let the dice fall. If First Four is supposed to be a true part of the tournament, and the goal is fairness for those teams and the rest of the field, it's simple: Play two games on Tuesday (feeding into evening slot on Thursday) and two games on Wednesday (winners play evening slots on Friday).
Clearly if Beebe was still the Big 12 rep on the committee he would not be able to vote in the 24 or less teams left in the bubble pool votes if a Big 12 team was in the pool. As Joe represents the Big 12 is he unable to vote as well or does the prohibition for him only apply to OU? When I read it the first time I thought it only applied to OU, but when I re-read it, I'm not so sure...
It doesn't seem like anyone would be voting if it was taken as Joe represents the Big 12 as just about every conference represented by a member AD or commissioner would have a bubble team in that pool of 24 or less.
