Feinstein - "Big Ten commish is Darth Vader"

[Newsbreaker]

Let's assume you guys are right, that the committee is trying to "protect" the finances of the "big boys."

Here are the guys we have to blame, and their full-time position:


Gary D. Walters, AD, Princeton University (Chair)*
Craig K. Littlepage, AD, University of Virginia
Christopher Hill, AD, University of Utah*
Laing E. Kennedy , AD, Kent State University*
Stanley M. Morrison, AD, Univ. of California-Riverside*
Michael L. Slive, Commissioner, Southeastern Conference
Thomas J. O'Connor, AD, George Mason University*
Jonathan B. Le Crone, Commissioner, Horizon League*
Daniel Guerrero, AD, UCLA
Eugene Smith, AD, The Ohio State University

There are ten members...I've done the work for you, and placed an asterisk next to each member who is employed by a school or conference that is not part of the "big six." They comprise 6 of the 10 committee members, giving them a voting majority, as well as the current chairmanship.

What you're saying is that all six of them either (A)throw their like institutions under the proverbial bus in an effort to appease, or gain favor with, schools in the "big six" or (B)are pressured by the NCAA to end up with a general tournament composition, and leaving their like institutions out of the mix, and then keep their mouths shut about it.

You need to understand the actual reality of the situation you believe exists.

[UNIAlum95]

Again I never claimed a conspiracy. Maybe you need to read a little more carefully before you accuse someone of not understanding something. All I asked for is an EXPLANATION as to why they include some teams and not others. It really isn't as complicated as you seem to think it is.

It is a moving target for small conference schools without the big name. That's what makes this tournament great is the opportunity for the little guy to make some noise. The problem is that there is no clear way to get there short of winning the conference tournament. Teams are told to play big schools, go on the road, etc, etc. They've done that and then get denied a shot by some .500 team in a big six conference.

[Newsbreaker]

I am reading quite carefully.

It is a moving target for small conference schools without the big name.

The insinuation is clear...big conference schools are given an advantage by the committee, and an explanation as to "why" is needed. Why? The Committee's work is clearly being questioned, hence you are starting from a premise that you find fault, in this case, that they give preference to "big conference" schools.

Now, if you reject the notion that when comparing two similar teams, one from a large conference and one from a small, the advantage goes to the large conference team, then all you are left with is an argument where the committee is bias towards 'big conference' schools.

You're faced with a choice...either you believe in a conspiracy, or the whole "little guy gets screwed" line falls apart.

[UNIAlum95]

You can call it a conspiracy theory if you want but my point holds regardless if the team is Syracuse or Drexel. The committee makes decisions based on things no one understands. Is everyone going to be happy? Of course not. But at least the reason is understood. Whether you like to hear it or not, this arbitrary selection process generally hurts the smaller schools more than the larger schools.

[Khan4Cats]

Thanks for doing the work of looking those up.

So you're saying that 4 of the 10 members are from conferences that make up 1/5th of the conferences that make up the tournament. Love that proportionality.

BTW, I don't count Princeton (or anyone from the Ivy League) as being with the smaller schools since they don't really worry about athletics budgets as they are all non-scholarship and generally tend to view themselves as far superior to any of the other conferences. In other words, money makes little difference to them.

As for the others, you have at least one, the Mountain West (Utah) representative from a conference that doesn't consider themselves "mid", and one from the MAC who are trying to get themselves attention from the BcS football cartel.

That leaves two true "mid" representatives from George Mason and the Horizon, and UC-Riverside as the token small conference representative.

Not exactly a voting bloc that can carry much weight.

[Newsbreaker]

You can call it a conspiracy theory if you want but my point holds regardless if the team is Syracuse or Drexel. The committee makes decisions based on things no one understands. Is everyone going to be happy? Of course not. But at least the reason is understood. Whether you like to hear it or not, this arbitrary selection process generally hurts the smaller schools more than the larger schools.

Yes, it is arbitrary both by necessity and nature. We get various criteria (RPI, SOS, record, last-10, vs various groups, etc). The fact is that no one element in that list is more important then any other, and they will ebb and flow according to the team being looked at. We might look at a school that is 'superior' in all but one of those areas, and the committee might decide that the single area where another team is 'superior' is the most important determinant. Asking for team-by-team discussion/rationale is asking for far too much.

If you want to make the point that ALL teams should get in, extending the field, I think you could make some good points. You could also argue that every team is already "in" by virtue of the conference tournament system. We didn't get left out, we failed to win the any of the first 3 rounds of our particular path towards the Final Four.

Thanks for doing the work of looking those up.

So you're saying that 4 of the 10 members are from conferences that make up 1/5th of the conferences that make up the tournament. Love that proportionality.

BTW, I don't count Princeton (or anyone from the Ivy League) as being with the smaller schools since they don't really worry about athletics budgets as they are all non-scholarship and generally tend to view themselves as far superior to any of the other conferences. In other words, money makes little difference to them.

As for the others, you have at least one, the Mountain West (Utah) representative from a conference that doesn't consider themselves "mid", and one from the MAC who are trying to get themselves attention from the BcS football cartel.

That leaves two true "mid" representatives from George Mason and the Horizon, and UC-Riverside as the token small conference representative.

Not exactly a voting bloc that can carry much weight.

That is a pretty impressive performance of mental gymnastics. You arbitrarily altered the perception of reality to try and make a point.

If you want to cross the MWC guy off the list, then you have to add their bids to the number included in the "major" category...plus you'll have to add everyone from the MVC that gets in, for the same reason (thus negating the whole motivation for this discussion on this board.) You apparently also want to add CUSA into the mix as well, and now the numbers will look REALLY bad for the "mid-majors," however you've gutted their ranks.

The fact is that it's a 60/40 breakdown. Period. The "big six" make up 40%, but they also make up about 95% of the potential National Championship contenders.

The Ivy League is very much a mid-major league. Just because they are less 'traditional' doesn't mean they don't have more in common with the little guys then the big guys.

Again, that was an impressive attempt to redraw reality and then proclaim that you've made a point.

[UNIAlum95]

Asking for team-by-team discussion/rationale is asking for far too much.

Yeah you're right. It is too much to ask.

[Khan4Cats]

Nothing being redrawn at all.

If you want to claim that the tournament is ONLY for determining a national champion, then I assume you would be in favor of only permitting teams that have a "potential" (whatever that might be interpreted to mean) chance to win the national title. Sorry MEAC, SWAC, AmEast, Southland, etc.

My claim is, and has been, that the committee is more about doling out the money. Thus the apparent discrepancy in bids/seeding.

As for the MWC and CUSA, I believe they got 2 and 1 bids each. Air Force might have had a legitimate case to be in, but there were also legitimate reasons to exclude them as well. But that is the case with all of the last 6 or so teams in. Let's hear the arguments and figure out what exactly it takes.

What I would call for to help clear all of this up, would be for a "sunshine rule" for these committee meetings. Nothing wrong with shedding a little light on these proceedings. What has everyone upset is that there does not seem to be any consistent set of precedents towards choosing teams. That is one of the reasons why the RPI was initially established and used, until the small conferences began to "crack the code." At least then everyone would know what the playing field is, and what they have to shoot for. Otherwise as has been speculated, the NCAA will be the domain of the BcS and the NIT for everyone else. At least then we know that the NCAA won't expand the field past 73 teams, unless the big 6 expand.

[Newsbreaker]

Kahn, either those folks on the committee are the very definition of "mid-major" OR they are part of the "major" conferences, in which case we are part of the "haves" and the number of truly quality teams in the "have nots" is very small.

You can't have a little of both.

In reality, I think we all agree those guys are mid-majors people, in which case if the committee is purposely shutting mid-majors out, you're faced with the above 'conspiracy.' I think we all agree that's ridiculous.

Asking for a team-by-team discussion is asking to be in on the selection process, and that's not even a close cousin of reasonable.

In your last paragraph, you seem to be asking for a bar to be set, and if you clear it, you're in. Unless you have a floating number of seeds, that's impossible...what's good enough today just might not be tomorrow.

Honestly, I would have NO problem (other then missing the tournament as we know it) if there were 33 teams in the field...each and every conference champion, and nobody else. They are the champions, let them fight it out to choose a National Champion.

[Matt Trump]

Ok, if CBS doesn't want a lot of mid-majors knocking their teams out (and they do) why would they put Nevada as a 7 seed, when they have been a consistent top 20 team all year, against another mid-major. They pitted mid-majors against one another throughout the tourney to knock each other out. I already posted the quotes from the CBS commish about how they want the more known teams in....

The RPI is worthless as the last 2 years have shown. Its all about who you are more than what you have actually done.

[Newsbreaker]

Like I said Matt, black helos.

[Khan4Cats]

I wonder why they're black helicopters? I mean, if they come at night, does it matter what color they are? And if they come during the day, then wouldn't you want a different color to blend with the terrain? Maybe it's just that they pulled the yellow tigerhawks off the sides and thought no one would notice.

[Purple Reign]

Ok, if CBS doesn't want a lot of mid-majors knocking their teams out (and they do) why would they put Nevada as a 7 seed, when they have been a consistent top 20 team all year, against another mid-major. They pitted mid-majors against one another throughout the tourney to knock each other out. I already posted the quotes from the CBS commish about how they want the more known teams in....

The RPI is worthless as the last 2 years have shown. Its all about who you are more than what you have actually done.

Game, set, Match.


PR

[BCPanther]

The NCAA has become the master of using criteria "when its convenient for them"....

[Newsbreaker]

Like I said, you guys are implying that the NCAA is systematically "eliminating" the mid-majors, probably at the behest of CBS.

For that to be true, an awful lot of mid-major people would have to be complacent in this, AND keep quiet about it even after the leave the committee. That defies logic.