Feinstein - "Big Ten commish is Darth Vader"

[DrewDog]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402021.html

[Panthers to the Bone]

Pretty good article. I like reading Feinstein.

[Matt Trump]

Feinstein is one of the best sports personalities to read and listen to. He's on Cotlar this morning!

[CR Panther]

It just turns my stomach. I sure hope the mid-major conference heads and coaches speak their mind this spring and summer to help offset some of this year's BCS tainting.

[UNI MadCat]

Yes, great article if you want to make it this simplistic. The comittee does all this "research" solely because if they didnt everyone would scream bloody murder. 90% of the people on this board could sit down for 90 minutes and get "about 63" teams right -- again, he simplified it way too much. No matter what the comittee does no one is ever going to be happy. There is just no way around it.

[UNIAlum95]

Yes, great article if you want to make it this simplistic. The comittee does all this "research" solely because if they didnt everyone would scream bloody murder. 90% of the people on this board could sit down for 90 minutes and get "about 63" teams right -- again, he simplified it way too much. No matter what the comittee does no one is ever going to be happy. There is just no way around it.

True but I think they should be required to explain last teams in and out as well as seeding. Indiana a 7 and Purdue a 9? That's a big ten seed only. That is not based on performance on the court. Rima suggested the other day that these last teams in should be sitting in the play in games or some of the double digit seeds rather than dumping those continually on the mid majors.

[Newsbreaker]

True but I think they should be required to explain last teams in and out as well as seeding. Indiana a 7 and Purdue a 9? That's a big ten seed only. That is not based on performance on the court. Rima suggested the other day that these last teams in should be sitting in the play in games or some of the double digit seeds rather than dumping those continually on the mid majors.

I disagree, I don't think they should have to face an inquisition.

First, they don't answer to you, then don't answer to me. The NCAA, as governed by the University Presidents, chooses a method of selecting teams, and those teams are selected.

Once you start demanding explanation, where does it stop? Do you have to spend a half hour with each of the teams/fans who thinks they were wronged, and how long do you think that's going to take?

The idea of seeds is to subjectively 'rank' the teams. The whole "last team in" thing doesn't carry as much weight as we think...you can be the 'last team in' and still much better then half the field. You have 33 auto-bids, 32 teams to select, you pick them, THEN you 'rank' them to get seeds. Those low seeds aren't "dumped" on mid-majors, that's where those mid-majors fit.

Do you really think any of the play-in teams, the other 16 seeds, or even the 15 seeds, would win any more games if you put a "9" by their name? You might see an uptick from "rare" to "occasional" but not much more. They are what they are.

[UNIAlum95]

Simply them providing the criteria used should not scare anyone with nothing to hide. The problem is that nothing will change as long as this stuff is behind closed doors. The big conferences have control and their crappy 6-7 place teams will continue to get better seeds than a much more deserving 2-3 team from a conference like the Valley. If they have nothing to hide, show the information used to select and not select. At least teams like Drexel might have some idea why 13 wins on the road wasn't quite enough.

[Matt Trump]

The committee only answers to CBS.

[GonzoCat]

They cannot provide the criteria, because obviously they pick and choose different criteria to fit the teams (BCS) they want to put in the tournament. It varies from team to team.

It's never going to change unless some conferences were to drop out of the NCAA and form their own organization, tourney, television contracts, etc. That's also never going to happen.

What the NCAA said this year, and they were basically talking straight to the Missouri Valley Conference, is no other conferences are going to be allowed to infringe upon the exclusive territory of the 6 major media conferences. It doesn't make any difference how good you are, how tough a non-con schedule you play, how you perform in that non-con schedule, or how well you do against the 6 major media conferences when you can get them to play you.

[UNIAlum95]

They cannot provide the criteria, because obviously they pick and choose different criteria to fit the teams (BCS) they want to put in the tournament. It varies from team to team.

It's never going to change unless some conferences were to drop out of the NCAA and form their own organization, tourney, television contracts, etc. That's also never going to happen.

What the NCAA said this year, and they were basically talking straight to the Missouri Valley Conference, is no other conferences are going to be allowed to infringe upon the exclusive territory of the 6 major media conferences. It doesn't make any difference how good you are, how tough a non-con schedule you play, how you perform in that non-con schedule, or how well you do against the 6 major media conferences when you can get them to play you.

You are right and I understand why things won't change. The point is still valid that things won't change until someone forces them too...

[Newsbreaker]

...and then the black helos arrived.

The "criteria" they use IS available. We have the RPI, we know everything a team has done. If you want to have a fly on the wall for discussions between individual teams, that will never happen.

I suppose you could ask for an offical list of the "last 4" teams out, and the "last 4" in, but all you're doing is confirming a list of teams we already have. At the end of the day, it's like arguing with an offical...they see it how they see it, and there's no objective argument against that.

When it comes to seeding, I can't imagine a less important thing to be worried about. Unless you're being denied a 1 or 2 seed (which normally we are not) where 90%+ of the time you're getting a very easily won game, the rest of the time you've got to beat somebody to get out of the first round anyway.

There is this perception that if you win your first game against a poor opponent you are better then if you lost a first round game to a good opponent. That's just not the case. The point, the ONLY point, is to get a national champion. The point, the ONLY point, in playing is to win that national championship, and you're going to have to beat good teams to do that no matter what. The order in which you do so is unimportant.

[HebrewHammer]

moral of the story...drink more beer

[Khan4Cats]

...and then the black helos arrived.

The "criteria" they use IS available. We have the RPI, we know everything a team has done. If you want to have a fly on the wall for discussions between individual teams, that will never happen.

I suppose you could ask for an offical list of the "last 4" teams out, and the "last 4" in, but all you're doing is confirming a list of teams we already have. At the end of the day, it's like arguing with an offical...they see it how they see it, and there's no objective argument against that.

When it comes to seeding, I can't imagine a less important thing to be worried about. Unless you're being denied a 1 or 2 seed (which normally we are not) where 90%+ of the time you're getting a very easily won game, the rest of the time you've got to beat somebody to get out of the first round anyway.

There is this perception that if you win your first game against a poor opponent you are better then if you lost a first round game to a good opponent. That's just not the case. The point, the ONLY point, is to get a national champion. The point, the ONLY point, in playing is to win that national championship, and you're going to have to beat good teams to do that no matter what. The order in which you do so is unimportant.

Sorry News but you are flat out wrong. They ARE trying to get to a national champion but that is not the point of the selection and seedings. The point of the seedings and the ONLY point that truly matters to the power conferences that were screaming last year is MONEY. Every bid, every additional game played means money to the power conferences.

MONEY is why the Drexels and Missouri States were left out and the Arkansas, Stanford, Illinois, and Purdues were put in. The power conferences now how to live with doling out an extra 4 shares to the Colonial for the next six years. They don't want to have to do that again.

That is why there were fewer "mid-major" bids this year and why they were paired against each other or at least given match-ups that would make it difficult to make a run. There were only 3 smaller schools given a seed of 6 or better (making a sweet-16 bid more likely). Of those: Butler was paired against another mid 1st round, Southern Illinois was matched with a possible 2nd round opponent that would already be familiar with their unorthodox style by either facing a former coach who set up the system or a team they have already played, making scouting them easier. The other, Memphis is a 2 seed matched with a 2nd round mid winner of Creighton/Nevada, thus minimizing the number of mids "likely" to advance.

The committee may not be able to predict upsets, but they can minimize the chances of mids advancing by pairing them off, thus virtually guaranteeing the bigs advance as many as possible to the sweet 16. Had they paired mids with majors throughout the first round, yes they could have blanked all of the mids from advancing, but the committee IS smart enough to realize that some of those mids actually are good enough to beat some of those majors, so why take the chance? Why put Duke as a 6? So they wouldn't have had to face a 1 or 2 seed in the 2nd round.

The committee supposedly has criteria, but those only apply if they are convenient to justify including a power conference school or excluding a smaller school. They are a moving target. The only real way to get in for a smaller school is to win your conference or finish top two with a good tourney showing.

There is no need to worry about black helicopters. The committee left a LOT to be desired this year. Maybe there needs to be a little more transparency in the process. Release a transcript of the discussion over the last teams in or out, make it obvious what qualifies a team or excludes them. At least then we will know without having to hit a moving target because of conference affiliation.

[UNIAlum95]

...and then the black helos arrived.

Yep I'm all conspiracy theory. Thanks for bringing me back around.