Selection Sunday: New reveal process

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Oklahoma and Arizona St got in soley based on their wins. Losses don't even matter anymore, just go at least 18-14 and beat 2 or 3 top tier teams and you are in??

Weird though, Oklahoma St had better wins than Oklahoma and beat them 2 out of 3.....so I give up on trying to understand the selection committee, I don't think they have a clue either.

It really isn't as hazy as you are making it out to be. The committee has been very consistent rewarding teams with a strong OOC record/strength of schedule and that was the case again this year. IMO the team with the biggest gripe is St Mary's. They absolutely should have been in the field over ASU and Syracuse but the metrics didn't work in their favor. I do think that the committee needs to have a what "have you done lately" approach as well because there are few arguments on why OU was in over OSU other than RPI.

 

[rholtgraves]

Oklahoma and Arizona St got in soley based on their wins. Losses don't even matter anymore, just go at least 18-14 and beat 2 or 3 top tier teams and you are in??

Weird though, Oklahoma St had better wins than Oklahoma and beat them 2 out of 3.....so I give up on trying to understand the selection committee, I don't think they have a clue either.

Yeah, that is one of my biggest problems with what they did. They were not consistent at all. Seemingly making up criteria for they wanted to put in and then changing it when they didn't want someone in. And their seedings...

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Where did I say anything about the magic 20 wins? There are a few teams out there with 23-28 wins though that should have made it over teams with 14 losses.

"After taking some time to digest the brackets the commitee made it abundantly clear, total wins and losses don't matter anymore."

No you didn't reference "20 wins" but your statement is the same line of thinking. When you say total wins don't matter anymore, you are also implying that all conferences are created equally and that is obviously not the case.

 

[NoCreativity]

It really isn't as hazy as you are making it out to be. The committee has been very consistent rewarding teams with a strong OOC record/strength of schedule and that was the case again this year. IMO the team with the biggest gripe is St Mary's. They absolutely should have been in the field over ASU and Syracuse but the metrics didn't work in their favor. I do think that the committee needs to have a what "have you done lately" approach as well because there are few arguments on why OU was in over OSU other than RPI.

I'm sorry but if you cant even go .500 in a conference as pathetic as the PAC-12 who technically only got 1 team in the field, then you shouldnt be in over St Marys or Middle Tennesse.

 

[NoCreativity]

Yeah, that is one of my biggest problems with what they did. They were not consistent at all. Seemingly making up criteria for they wanted to put in and then changing it when they didn't want someone in. And their seedings...

I think they used that new Trae Young metric honestly.

 

[NoCreativity]

"After taking some time to digest the brackets the commitee made it abundantly clear, total wins and losses don't matter anymore."

No you didn't reference "20 wins" but your statement is the same line of thinking. When you say total wins don't matter anymore, you are also implying that all conferences are created equally and that is obviously not the case.

Maybe Im old school but count me in for wanting a team with 28 wins over a team that cant finish .500 in a conference and losses 14 games.

 

[jsb]

Yeah, could have been any team, my argument was a 13-5 Big 10 team should have been in. Same for a 12-6 Pac-12 team, names are interchangeable.

Point I was making with that is it's become a joke, losses don't matter anymore, total wins don't matter either, just look at St Mary's. All you need to do is play a tough schedule anymore, nobody cares about actually winning basketball games anymore.

That’s one of the dumber arguments I’ve ever heard.

What good wins did Nebraska have? Michigan. They had bad losses to St. John’s, Illinois, UCF.

Oklahoma had wins against Wichita, KSU, TCU, Tech, and Kansas. Bad loss against us.

Oklahoma wouldn’t have been in without beating those good teams. They also wouldn’t have been in with more bad losses.

 

[rholtgraves]

It really isn't as hazy as you are making it out to be. The committee has been very consistent rewarding teams with a strong OOC record/strength of schedule and that was the case again this year. IMO the team with the biggest gripe is St Mary's. They absolutely should have been in the field over ASU and Syracuse but the metrics didn't work in their favor. I do think that the committee needs to have a what "have you done lately" approach as well because there are few arguments on why OU was in over OSU other than RPI.

Totally disagree and you give one great example. OU v. OSU or USC v. ASU.

 

[CycloneErik]

"After taking some time to digest the brackets the commitee made it abundantly clear, total wins and losses don't matter anymore."

No you didn't reference "20 wins" but your statement is the same line of thinking. When you say total wins don't matter anymore, you are also implying that all conferences are created equally and that is obviously not the case.

A quick look at Nebbie's schedule shows one decent win, vs.Michigan, which they balanced with a late blowout loss to Michigan and a loss to Illinois.
They just didn't do anything to get in.

 

[jsb]

Totally disagree and you give one great example. OU v. OSU or USC v. ASU.

One thing that annoys me is that it was never more OSU vs OU or ASU vs USC. Maybe OSU should have been in, but it didn’t have to be at thd cost of OU.

 

[rholtgraves]

One thing that annoys me is that it was never more OSU vs OU or ASU vs USC. Maybe OSU should have been in, but it didn’t have to be at thd cost of OU.

True. It is just easy to make league comparisons .

 

[NoCreativity]

A quick look at Nebbie's schedule shows one decent win, vs.Michigan, which they balanced with a late blowout loss to Michigan and a loss to Illinois.
They just didn't do anything to get in.

I know, 13-5 in the Big 10 and 12-6, 2nd place in Pac-12 isnt cutting it anymore. USC and Nebraska need to start scheduling some better teams to get blown out by and they will be in the field next time.

 

[NoCreativity]

That’s one of the dumber arguments I’ve ever heard.

What good wins did Nebraska have? Michigan. They had bad losses to St. John’s, Illinois, UCF.

Oklahoma had wins against Wichita, KSU, TCU, Tech, and Kansas. Bad loss against us.

Oklahoma wouldn’t have been in without beating those good teams. They also wouldn’t have been in with more bad losses.

So at what point do losses actually matter and start to offset a couple of big wins you have? The number is 14 this year, at what point does it start creeping up into the 15, 16 loss range? Isn't the whole concept to actually win basketball games?

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I know, 13-5 in the Big 10 and 12-6, 2nd place in Pac-12 isnt cutting it anymore. USC and Nebraska need to start scheduling some better teams to get blown out by and they will be in the field next time.

If Nebraska didn't play in a dog nuts conference we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[jsb]

I know, 13-5 in the Big 10 and 12-6, 2nd place in Pac-12 isnt cutting it anymore. USC and Nebraska need to start scheduling some better teams to get blown out by and they will be in the field next time.

So at what point do losses actually matter and start to offset a couple of big wins you have? The number is 14 this year, at what point does it start creeping up into the 15, 16 loss range? Isn't the whole concept to actually win basketball games?

And why should teams that play in a good conference be punished?

Every year teams get left out. And it sucks for them. But such is life.

And sometimes everyone agrees that the wrong decision gets made. But saying that number of wins is the only thing that matters is beyond asanine.

 

[CyTwins]

Yeah, could have been any team, my argument was a 13-5 Big 10 team should have been in.

Yeah that is still a really dumb take

 

[CycloneErik]

I know, 13-5 in the Big 10 and 12-6, 2nd place in Pac-12 isnt cutting it anymore. USC and Nebraska need to start scheduling some better teams to get blown out by and they will be in the field next time.

This is what it looks like when someone just refuses to understand the whole selection process. Congrats.

 

[NoCreativity]

Yeah that is still a really dumb take

Stay out of this.

 

[CyTwins]

Stay out of this.

Lol even you can laugh about this looking back at it. You were defending a team to get in the tourney that has to go on the road in the NIT!

 

[JusHappy2BeHere]

So at what point do losses actually matter and start to offset a couple of big wins you have? The number is 14 this year, at what point does it start creeping up into the 15, 16 loss range? Isn't the whole concept to actually win basketball games?

14 loses only works if you have the right name on the front of your shirt or a Lottery Pick's name on the back.

BU lost 14 with 13 coming against Tournament teams (yeah ISUwas the 1) #4 SOS in the Nation. Swept Texas and Beat OU by 25 two weeks ago.... but the Bears don't have a Trae or a MoBamba or a big state school name on the front.