Advertisement

Monday, March 14, 2011

Keegan

NCAA Tournament selection process flawed

Advertisement

Too tall to fit into anybody’s pocket, too smart to trust anyone else’s views over his own and too funny to deliver his opinions in drab fashion, Jay Bilas cemented his reputation as the E.F. Hutton of college basketball on Selection Sunday.

When Bilas talks college hoops, it pays to shut up and listen.

Bilas played for Duke and doesn’t let that fact make him favor his alma mater. He also doesn’t let it keep him from giving the Blue Devils the credit they deserve. It seemed clear that the four No. 1 seeds should be Kansas, Ohio State, Duke and Pittsburgh, yet so many others kept talking about Notre Dame and not Duke. Bilas predicted the right four, but it was after the selections, when he disagreed with the NCAA Tournament committee, that Bilas really shined.

Bilas rightly slammed the selections of UAB and VCU.

“These are horrible decisions,” Bilas railed on ESPN. “I’ve been saying for years I think we need basketball people on the committee.”

What a novel concept, basketball people on a selection committee for a basketball tournament.

“When I look at UAB and VCU at the expense of some of these other teams — and now listen, we’re not talking about great teams here, I understand that — but I wonder whether some people on the committee know whether the ball’s round. That sounds harsh, but I’m wondering. These were bad decisions. They’re indefensible.”

In trying to defend the indefensible, selection committee chairman Gene Smith acknowledged the dreaded RPI computer ratings entered the equation. It long ago was time for the RPI to RIP, but it remains a totally unreliable security blanket for weary committee members. It’s an awful system that places far too much emphasis on the win-loss record of opponents. Far better computer rankings, such as Sagarin predictor and kenpom.com, are out there.

If the committee needed help from computers, Sagarin predictor identifies a more worthy team from the same state as Virginia Commonwealth. Anybody with a clue must agree Virginia Tech is more deserving than VCU, yet insiderpi.com lists VCU with a 49 RPI and Virginia Tech with a 60. Sagarin predictor has Virginia Tech at 33, VCU at 86. Colorado, which beat Kansas State three times and Texas once, is 34 spots behind UAB in RPI ratings and 10 spots ahead of the Blazers in Sagarin predictor.

Scrap the whole concept of a committee. A better idea: One person a year chosen by Bilas, with vast college basketball experience and enough self-confidence not to have an agenda, should select the preliminary field, announce it on TV and then debate the selections with Bilas for 30 minutes. Exactly two hours later, the chairman then reveals whether he or she has made Bilas’ suggested changes or stayed with the original brackets. Think that selection show might get decent ratings?

Comments

ahpersecoachingexperience 7 years, 6 months ago

conspiracy alert conspiracy alert conspitacy alert

the ncaa obviously wants to blow this tourney up and add additional teams, anyone remember all that 96 talk? so why not screw a couple of somewhat deserving teams from major conferences in hopes of gaining public supports for an expanded tournament?

ok, got to go. my house is being circled by black helicopters

100 7 years, 6 months ago

I'll tell you what's disrespectful....

The seeding committee looking at our home game loss against Texas and purposefully looking the other way into their anal sphinctors, completely avoiding the fact that our players hadn't had an ounce of sleep that night.

They know plain as day we would have been the overall number one seed if our record was 33-1....

Complete disrespect by the seeding committee.

The seeding committee really thinks we're not better than Ohio State because we couldn't beat Texas after a night of tears & restlessness.

Seriously?

Complete disrespect.

Carry that chip for six games boys.

Looks like we're gonna have to hold a trophy to get some respect this year.

Tough D. Pass the ball with precision. Play through the twins. Have an edge. Own the rims.... And own the stat sheets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6 wins til the respect has been earned boys.

Carry those chips; Let's win 6

Jonathan Allison 7 years, 6 months ago

speaking of disrespect, anybody seen Dickie V's bracket yet?

Cameron Schienebeck 7 years, 6 months ago

You have to remember, this is the same guy that had KU 22 overall and 4th in the Big12. I view it as a good sign that he doesn't have faith in us.

Mike Bratisax 7 years, 6 months ago

After his preseason picks..I'm hoping he picked us to go out early.

ahpersecoachingexperience 7 years, 6 months ago

i don't know. osu played in that monster big 10. you know the one where the team that beat them scored 33pts in their game in the tourney.

my prediction is osu doesn't see past the first weekend!

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

I'll take that bet.

And look, I absolutely hate the style of play in the Big Ten but remember, they've outrepresented the Big 12 in the Final Four over the past fifteen years by a count of 12-6 so while Big Ten play is boring as hell to watch, it seems to work okay for them in the tourney.

ahpersecoachingexperience 7 years, 6 months ago

True, but most of those years are composed of some msu, osu, and the fab five (err whoops!) teams that had some superstar talent. This year...meh.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

You mean unlike the mediocre play this year of say... JuJuan Johnson and Sullinger?

And let's not forget that the Big 12 didn't exactly represent in the tourney despite Player of the Year awards in Griffin and Durant, and stars like Beasley, TJ Ford, Gooden, Collison, Hinrich, Simien, Collins, Augustine, Andre Emmett, Tony Allen, LaMarcus Aldridge, etc.

ahpersecoachingexperience 7 years, 6 months ago

Every jayhawk you named had a final four appearance.

Kyle Crenshaw 7 years, 6 months ago

who honestly cares about overall #1 or not. we were overall #1 last time and we didnt make it past UNI. in '08 we were the 4th #1! our bracket actually seems a lot easier than OSU's

echarles 7 years, 6 months ago

I completely agree. However, they put Ohio State in the toughest side of the bracket. Glad we're not in with those guys.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

You guys are kidding, right? Saying we were disrespected? We got a 1-seed, an easier bracket than OSU, we get to play within our geographic region, and we lost as many games as OSU (albeit at home as opposed to on the road; yes, I'm aware of the circumstances). And they may have the National Player of the Year on their team. Are you really that upset about being the #2 overall team as opposed to #1? Does that really demostrate such a huge level of disrespect?

I certainly hope this isn't the chip that KU needs to play well. I'd like to the think the embarassing loss last year to Northern Iowa (when we were the #1 overall seed) would be enough.

And as for the Big 12 being "disrespected", our peer Oxcaljayhawk said it best...

"Maybe if a team from the B12 other than KU would win the NC, this argument might make some sense. 4 schools from the BE have won 5 NCs in the league's existence. Compare that to the B12 where KU is the only school to have won an NC and no other school from the B12 North has gone to the FF in the B12's existence."

John Randall 7 years, 6 months ago

Nonsensical drivel here. Coaches and players know KU is better off without that 'overall' burden.

Effete posters who'd rather brag before the fact than after are the ones who feel disrespected.

This sounds like Michelle Obama's reaction to no invite to the Royal Wedding next month: "Well, I'm actually more famous than Lady Diana ever was." or words to that effect.

What ever happened to the attitude of "If I didn't earn it, I'd rather not have it." ?

TanMan 7 years, 6 months ago

Sure, I'm sure politics play in some of this...

BTW, who are the committee members anyway and how do they get picked? Keegan, there's another story for you...the public would like to know.

rockchalk_dpu 7 years, 6 months ago

Here is a link to do a little further reading on the committee and their set-up. Looks like they are 5 year terms and each rotates out at varying times. http://www.bracketography.com/selection-committee/

John Randall 7 years, 6 months ago

A Few Profile Highlights:

of the "50 most powerful African-Americans in sports."

recently quoted, "... have complete trust and confidence in coach Tressel ..."

The Sporting News named ... to its “Power 100 List” in

the second woman ever to serve

working for Deloitte and the Walt Disney Company as a CPA

BCS' television negotiations committee with ESPN

led the creation of ...TV to stream all major conference sporting events

the longest-tenured director in the ACC

built a brand new practice facility for its hoops

initiated a new student fee policy that generates over $2.1 million every year

KGphoto 7 years, 6 months ago

Clear as a bell. The only thing left to guess is when the campaigning will begin. They will get their way. $$$ says so.

echarles 7 years, 6 months ago

WOW! One hundred percent accurate. I didn't think of this, but it makes perfect sense.

Kye Clark 7 years, 6 months ago

It was so refreshing to see Jay Bilas blasting the committee, while Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg (while speaking to Gene Smith) just sort of nodded their heads in silent, obedient consent.

RockCaCO3 7 years, 6 months ago

The guy from ESPN who interviewed him just did the same (smiled/nodded), and he got the boiler plate response "when you look at the entire body of work, yada yada,....."

How about asking for details, specific criteria, showing the fans SPECIFICALLY, why one team got in and another didnt????

kureader 7 years, 6 months ago

Gene Smith provided no insight at all. And RockCaCO3 is right, the ESPN announcer let Smith off the hook. Worthless interview.

It's clear that the selection committe wants more slots, even though a couple were just added this year.

Two options. Do what Bilas suggests and put basketball people in charge of the selections. Or, let every NCAA Division I school into the tournament and give each team a "Participation Ribbon".

Funhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Anybody else feel sorry for Tad Boyle and his team? Cannot help but wonder if CU got hosed because the Big XII commissioner was on the selection committee; that is, spite due to CU deserting the Big XII. Tad Boyle on an ESPN phone interview sounded very mad about the snub. Colorado definitely deserved an invitation.

lawrence_is_my_middle_name 7 years, 6 months ago

One of the worst snubs I've seen. Also, Texas as a 4-seed? The Big 12 got no respect.

Jonathan Allison 7 years, 6 months ago

the only thing that Texas as a #4 seed tells me is that it confirms how bogus color commentators are during the game.

Did anybody really believe Brent Musburger and Bob Knight when they said that Texas still had a shot at a #1 seed if they were able to beat KU?

7 years, 6 months ago

I caught that too and had to laugh. Another funny thing was Musburger providing his talent evaluation of Selby. I normally like this commentator team, however not Saturday night.

CU definitely got hosed, as did the Big 12. How does the Big 10 get seven teams in??

Dirk Medema 7 years, 6 months ago

Bobby obviously did amazing things as a coach, but listening to him all season has made me wonder if he is now senile, and maybe a bigger reason he is no longer coaching.

And he was the better half of the team. Having them doing Big12 BB was the initial indication of disrespect for the league.

RockCaCO3 7 years, 6 months ago

I dont disagree with the senile comment, but I like Bobby. Shot Fake and all.

But speaking of senile, Charles Barkley as a commentator on CBS? That was painful to watch.

Funhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Charles Barkley was the first commentator to say KU would win the tournament. Therefore, Charles Buckley is fun.

lincase 7 years, 6 months ago

I agree. Bobby laughed at himself about the "shot fake" comments, and Charles Barkley was painful to watch--for several reasons.

lincase 7 years, 6 months ago

I was agreeing with calcium carbonate, not funhawk. Posting got out of order, sorry.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Texas, Wisconsin as 4 seeds, Florida as a 2.....

The proper response: WTF

Mike Bratisax 7 years, 6 months ago

Exactly! Florida had their butts handed to them by Kensucky!

Helen Gross 7 years, 6 months ago

I hope CU goes to the NIT and kicks booty!

KU_FanSince75 7 years, 6 months ago

This is the best day in sports----Selection Sunday, that is----and, it was by far, the biggest joke, compared to previous years. I have been watching the Selection Sunday show for years and poor Colorado. How can you not include the Buffaloes but say hey, K-State, come on in? Ridiculous! I know it is a far-fetched idea by Mr. Keegan to have Jay Bilas involved with the selection of the teams but anything would be better than yesterday. The Athletic Director of Ohio State, Gene Smith, the guy who is in charge of the Basketball Committee----I hope he didn't get much sleep last night because of the teams they overlooked, like a Colorado basketball team.

I will say, though, the Jayhawks should be in good shape if they take care of business.

100---Great point about the Jayhawks loss to the Longhorns and the insight that they should be the overall #1 seed. Totally agree with you on that one. Let's win two this weekend! Rock Chalk!

KU_FanSince75 7 years, 6 months ago

BTW, I think K-State deserves to be in, no get me wrong; however, when a team goes 6-7 against the Top 50, including three wins against the Wild Kitties----come on Basketball Committee! Wake up!

Ben Kane 7 years, 6 months ago

I wonder since Beebe was on the committee if this was his F-you to Colorado. I think Colorado and VT got hosed but i'm not losing any sleep over it. Cya later Colorado, I will miss the games at AFH west.

calvin 7 years, 6 months ago

I think the exact same thing. Dan Boobee is an idiot to start with and this was likely a final screw you to CU. CU was hosed by not getting in the tournament.

Clarence Haynes 7 years, 6 months ago

Selection Sunday was a Big Time Big East and Big Ten Affair!

Sam Brockert 7 years, 6 months ago

A member of the selection committee is not allowed to vote for a team that is part of the conference they represent.

deepind 7 years, 6 months ago

Colorado got shafted, period. When they are playing well (which has been the case the last few weeks), CU is a better team than K-state (beaten 3 times) and Misery.

bad_dog 7 years, 6 months ago

"Traitors like Colorado don't deserve to go to the NCAAs..."

Kind of harsh to hold decisions of the university administration against the players and coaching staff, isn't it?

Kye Clark 7 years, 6 months ago

I feel sorry for Tad. Something that was pointed out during one of their recent games was that Bdzelik was the one responsible for scheduling their non-conference so weak. Since that seemed to be the primary criteria used to keep them out of the dance it's kind of a raw deal for him and the kids. And I can guarantee you Colorado is a better team than the 11th (or 10th, or 9th) team that made it from the Big East.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Schools create their schedules, regardless of the coach. Having a soft non-conference schedule and begin criticized for it is nothing new. These universities know this. If they want to avoid the argument, then schedule harder teams. And besides, even against one of the softest non-conference schedules in the entire NCAA, CU still managed to lose to USF, Harvard, and New Mexico (three non-tourney teams) and needed OT to beat Colorado State. Then they also lost to ISU, OU, and Baylor.

And for those who hang their CU hat on the KSU wins, remember that two of those wins happened when KSU was collapsing, had fallen out of the Top 25, and clearly didn't look like a tournament-worthy team. I give them limited credit for beating a KSU team early this season when a lot of other teams, including OSU, were doing the same thing.

Kye Clark 7 years, 6 months ago

Well that's why I said that I feel sorry for Tad and his kids, and not the school as a whole. You're right they had a few bad losses, New Mexico didn't make the tourney but aren't a bad team; they beat BYU before they lost Davies. Harvard nearly won the Ivy league and had an RPI of 35.

Whether you want to give them credit or not, fact of the matter is they did beat K-State three times, and only once was during their free-fall (not twice as you claim). They also beat Texas. Bottom line is they had a better resume than several teams that got in.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Why do you not consider the second KSU loss part of the free-fall? Because they happened to win two straight games against Iowa State (by 1) and Nebraska in between? I'd hardly consider those wins justification for the end of their free-fall. In that case, you'd almost have to argue that beating Texas Tech marked the end of their free-fall (given that the next three losses were all to ranked teams).

I mean this was the preseason #3 team so I'd say losing to CU (a team that was never ranked this year) for a second time in a month would be part of that. KSU went 4-6 during that window. That's the 10-game window that I personally consider the free-fall, although I'd be willing to expand that to include the five final non-conference games (when they went 3-2) as well.

Jonathan Allison 7 years, 6 months ago

hah, clearly you were looking at the last bracketology prediction that had them as the 8 v. 9 matchup in KU's region.

I was looking at that too, and couldn't believe that 3-loss team was seeded so low as 8 or 9. That would have been a bad draw for KU.

But luckily they got seeded even lower as a 12 and now KSU has to play them in the first round. Looks to me like the NCAA committee was trying to pick and choose the upsets this year.

"hmm, I bet Utah State can upset Kansas State, let's pair them together."

Dirk Medema 7 years, 6 months ago

That was the first upset predicted. And CU was the first WTF? VaTech was a predicted miss since they followed up their upset of Duke with 2 stinkers against mediocre to bad teams at home. CU on the other hand has just been solid for the 2nd half of the season - after learning the new system instituted by a 1st year head coach.

ahpersecoachingexperience 7 years, 6 months ago

Suck it up Utah state. Win your first game, then you become the 5 seed.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Yep, as soon as that game was announced I said K-State got shafted. That's by far the toughest 12 seed in the tourney. Then if they knock off Utah St, KSU likely plays an under-seeded Wisconsin. Florida should be the 4 seed in that bracket.....

John Randall 7 years, 6 months ago

Remind me, who was it KSU played during FM's nostalgic weekend in Miami, and how did the next 15 games pan out?

BigPrune 7 years, 6 months ago

So anyone criticizing Gene Smith should be labeled a racist, right?

Chris Shaw 7 years, 6 months ago

APSE (First Post): There is a part of me that wants to believe this. I mean, in the one year where it was pretty cut and dry who makes it and who doesn't, the committee purposely shafts like 5 or 6 schools. Here are the picks that don't make sense to me.

1)VCU-As stated in article and by Bilas-V Tech deserved this bid over their step-brother from the same state.

2)UAB-Same reason as VCU-Colorado easily replaces UAB in this field IMO.

3)Georgia-A 10 seed and not even really considered on the bubble? I pretty much thought Alabama gets the nod over Georgia.

4) USC-I just don't think USC deserved to be in the field. I would have much rather seen Missouri State or St. Mary's in this spot

Other Head Scratching moments:

1) Florida a 2 seed? A little high don't you all think?

2) UNC a 2 seed? You can always count on UNC getting benefit of the doubt in region placement and seed line. I thought they were a 3 seed, but I guess they were the lowest #2 seed based on being in OSU's bracket

3) Texas a 4 seed? I think the committe got stuck and didn't have anywhere to put Texas. They wanted Texas in Tulsa, OK, but they couldn't get the regions to fit with the seed lines. I have no idea how Texas slips to a 4 seed. I mean, Wisconsin is a 4 seed for crying out loud.

4) Can't believe a in Nova who has lost their last 5 games and are 0-5 in last 5, 3-7 in last 10, and 5-10 in last 15 gets a 9 seed. I just don't agree with the Big East getting 11 teams.

5) How is Utah State a 12 seed? Even Utah States players were shocked they were a 12 seed when they showed them on TV. I agree with KSA above about how under-seeded they are.

Steve Gantz 7 years, 6 months ago

UNC won the ACC, tough to argue that. Agreed on the rest.
The Utah St. thing is a slap against KState also. They earn a relatively high seed, giving them a realistic chance to get to the Sweet 16 and they have to open against a, from what I hear, evenly matched opponent.

kureader 7 years, 6 months ago

You pretty much covered it. I agree. I suppose NC could be a #2. Somebody has to be a 2. But, certainly not Florida.

I also think PIttsburg got a pass. The other three regions are tougher.

kureader 7 years, 6 months ago

You pretty much covered it. I agree. I suppose NC could be a #2. Somebody has to be a 2. But, certainly not Florida.

I also think PIttsburg got a pass. The other three regions are tougher.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Yep, you got just about all of it. I don't have a problem with UNC being #2, but otherwise, the rest of what you said is pretty much right.

Also, If Colorado was named Michigan State, they would be a 6 seed right now.

Joe Satterwhite 7 years, 6 months ago

so will we be wearing the home or the away jerseys?

Jim Pendleton 7 years, 6 months ago

As overall # 2, we would wear home whites throughout the tourney unless we play Ohio State in the title game. They are the only team seeded ahead of us.

Uhjh 7 years, 6 months ago

I just hope we don't wear those damn red jerseys!

bradh 7 years, 6 months ago

As the overall #2 seed, shouldn't we have been playing against the winner of one of the play in games?

rockchalk_dpu 7 years, 6 months ago

Normally we should, but the winner of the play-in games go on and play in the Thursday second (formerly first) round and since they gave us a Friday/Sunday tip, we don't get one. I don't think I've ever seen us get a play-in opponent since this has started. Someone with more time than me might want to check that out to make sure I'm right.

Ben Kane 7 years, 6 months ago

I also thought it was automatic we'd get a play-in. i'm not really upset about it though.

I don't ND has the chops to make it to us in our bracket so i'm not upset about them being our #2.

Louisville kind of scares me.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Louisville is bay far the weakest 4 seed. Not saying we can't lose (by any means), but we got some breaks this year.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Louisville is by far the weakest 4 seed. Not saying we can't lose (by any means), but we got some breaks this year.

addlime 7 years, 6 months ago

I disagree. If you watched Louisville the last few weeks, they are a solid four seed. Looked great in the Big East tourney and beat all the heavies in the conference. Just struggled on the road a bit.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm not saying they stink. They are a solid team. I'm just saying compared to Texas, Wisconsin and Kentucky, they are the weakest of the 4.

Just my subjective opinion.

Jayhawk444 7 years, 6 months ago

We did have a game against a play-in winner game a few years ago. Niagara was one of the play-in participants and I think we played them, but not positive.

bad_dog 7 years, 6 months ago

I believe you're correct 444. Was that the same year we played Southern Illinois?

Jim Pendleton 7 years, 6 months ago

It is not automatic that a one seed played a play-in game winner. With expanded field, this will happen now, but there are several factors in play for this -

The bottom four automatic qualifiers play two play-in games on Tuesday or Wednesday. One winner goes to a Thursday site and one to a Friday. Since three of the four # 1's play Friday, the only one playing Thursday is Pitt so one winner goes there. Ohio State gets the other winner. Probably more in play this year with the expanded field for top seed to get a play in winner.

The other two play-in games are between the last four at-large teams. Obviously those teams will go on the 11 or 12 seed line and would not play a one seed like KU or any of the other one seeds. As with the games above, one advances to a Thursday game and the other to a Friday game.

In the past, some of these seedings had to do with avoiding teams in your conference in early rounds, at least until a regional final. Putting a team one seed up or down from where they might normally be would also help with this.

However, since the Big East now has more than eight teams in, this might no longer work. I fully expected to see three Big East teams in each region, and one with two. Not only are they spread out differently (2-4-2-3), one of the regions with only two Big East teams (Cincy/UConn) has the potential for them to meet in second round, and there are no other Big East teams in that region! Don't get that one. Should have spread those two further out on seeds to avoid a game that early.

John Randall 7 years, 6 months ago

The restriction on same-conference teams is that the top three from a conference go to different regions. Nothing else, so no rules were bent or broken. When it's handy to keep them apart, fine, but no juggling of seed-lines or other measures.

CLARKKENT 7 years, 6 months ago

GOOD POST LARRY. WHILE I BELIEVE COLORADO SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN, THE FACT THEY ARE LEAVING THE BIG 12 HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. RIGHT NOW, NOBODY IN EITHER CONFERENCE CARES WHETHER THEY ARE IN OR NOT.

I AGREE, DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT. THAT ALSO GOES FOR NEBRASKA.

RockCaCO3 7 years, 6 months ago

I may be naive, but I certainly hope there is NOT the opportunity to "lobby" for a team during the selection process.

kcglowboy 7 years, 6 months ago

Unfortunately, on this matter, you're naive. It's no coincidence that the Big 10 got seven teams in when they were deserving of five or six, and the committee chair is the Ohio State AD. Meanwhile, our conference was represented by Commissioner Dan Beebe, one of the weakest and least respected administrators in college sports. Throw in his bias against Colorado (for leaving the fold) and, unfortunately, non of this should come as a surprise.

yates33333 7 years, 6 months ago

What do you expect from the NCAA? They are interested in making money not sports.

jhox 7 years, 6 months ago

This is about the Big East and Big 12 hype machine, ESPN. Eleven Big East teams, after last year's poor Big East showing in the tournament? Give me a break. Then there's the Big 10, who goes o-fer against the Big 12, yet CU gets left out because, obviously, the Big 12 gets no respect.

I used to like Vitale, but now he's just become a sad parody of himself. He doesn't leave the Eastern part of the country, yet he gets on TV and professes how great the Big East and Big 10 are. I think he had 5 Big East teams in his Final 8 in his bracket predictions. Enough said. I hope most of them get beat in the first round, just like they did last year.

I agree, Bilas it the best, most unbiased ESPN announcer, and clearly the brightest. Davis isn't bad either. But they're not enough to balance out the East coast / Big 10 hype machine that is ESPN. Selection committee members obviously watch too much ESPN, and they've started to believe the hype.

Jayhawk444 7 years, 6 months ago

Anybody see the ESPN "championship week highlights" video that aired a couple of times on Sunday along with a Kanye West audio track? Tons of clips from Big East and ACC tournaments including a thousand angles of Kemba Walker's shot to beat Pitt and his cross-over dribble that tripped up that big guy - but not one clip from Big 12 or SEC tournaments (that I saw).

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Good point. Although, in their defense, Kemba's was a pretty sweet, highlight-ready, ankle-breaker move.

But your point is valid. ESPN even showed the national anthem before the Big East championship, sort of suggesting that the games before (i.e. Big 12 championship) were just opening acts to the main show.

jhox 7 years, 6 months ago

Obviously I mean to say "...Big East and Big 10 hype machine"...sorry about that.

John Randall 7 years, 6 months ago

Understood – just got a year ahead of yourself ...

Ron Franklin 7 years, 6 months ago

Anybody from SEK wanna make a road trip to Tulsa this weekend!

Steve Gantz 7 years, 6 months ago

This isn't the 1st year the committee messed up. Remember our 'reward' for being the #1 overall seed last year?
The funny thing is one of the "I can't believe they made it" teams will go out and win a couple of times or the "I can't believe they're seeded that high" teams (Florida!) will actually prove them right.

yates33333 7 years, 6 months ago

Colorado and Texas both got shafted. The post about the Big 12 lacking a hype machine is right on.

Woody Cragg 7 years, 6 months ago

Tickets in Tulsa are going fairly high for even crappy seats-$100 & up. Were some available last evening, but haven't looked this am. Reminds me of a Bro & nephew who lived in D.C. area for many years. Boy said "Dad! I figured out how to get into all the Skins games! I'll get a beer vendors liscense for $10 and am in the pink!" With beer at $275 a case & a 2 case minimum the old man said. "Are you nuts?" I'll be in the easy chair, in front of the big screen, gettin all the replays, payin 35 cents a can for beer from the PX, with no lines at the head, while you're bustin you butt, counting pennies, fighting the drunks and paying off the marker by the fourth quarter. And you're going to William & Mary? I want a refund! Get a loan & go to UVA!"

Kit Duncan 7 years, 6 months ago

The NCAA sets the prices and they were $ 237.00 per seat for three sessions (six games). Single session tickets will go on sale Wednesday @ 10:00 AM for $ 79.00 if it is not a sellout (most likely will sellout). If you were looking at single session tickets yesterday then you were looking at resales and people can set their own prices for those.

Courtside or nosebleed didn't matter if you bought your tickets when they went on sale months ago, they were all the same $ 237.00.

CLARKKENT 7 years, 6 months ago

WHILE IT IS NICE TO HAVE A CHANNEL LIKE ESPN TO BROADCAST SPORTING EVENTS, I DO NOT LIKE OR RESPECT MANY OF THEIR PEOPLE. THE BIG EAST BIAS MAKES ME PUKE.

I REALLY THINK THE BIG EAST WILL SHOW ITS TRUE COLORS IN THE GAMES. THEY GOT 11 IN, BUT THEY MAY VERY WELL GET 11 OUT.

WHILE ALL THE NUMBER 1'S ARE BEATABLE, WILL BE AWFUL HARD FOR SOMEONE TO BEAT KU. THEY ARE DEEP AND GOOD.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

So go to an 80-team field-- top 48 get a first round bye, bottom 32 get a one-game play in, played at the home court of the higher seeded team.

To get in, a team needs to be an automatic qualifier of one sort or another, and any team that isn't an automatic qualifier needs to have at least 20 total wins and/or finish in the top half of their league standings.

Any team that can't make it into that 80-team field isn't likely capable of winning the tournament, anyway.

KU was #1 in the RPI, but #2 overall. And the weird ratings listed in the article indicate that its apparent inaccuracy didn't stop there. Fix it, or get rid of it.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

80 teams??? Seriously? This is becoming like a participation trophy for 3rd graders? And your comment about "Any team that can't make it into that 80-team field isn't likely capable of winning the tournament, anyway" is true. You know what else is true... Any team that can't make it into 32-team field isn't likely capable of winning the tournament." (Villanova was an 8-seed when they won in '85 and the lowest seed to ever win.) I think the tournament is too LARGE and I'd be a fan of a 48-team tourney with a bye for the top 16 teams.

I mean 20% of all teams make the tournament right now. 20%! That makes one worthy of competing for a title? Teams have 30 games to prove themselves during the season. That's no small number. The last thing we need is more games and more teams. I mean soon we'll be letting in the sixth best team from the Big 12 (you see where I stand on the CU issue). How does being the absolute middle-of-the-pack team in a conference make you worthy of playing for the title?

And clearly you know where I thus stand on the Big East and its 11 bids. If you're not capable of being one of the best teams in your own conference (as proven by season-long conference schedule), then how can you justify getting the same shot as the team that wins your conference? Kind of discredits the regular season a bit, no?

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

"...and any team that isn't an automatic qualifier needs to have at least 20 total wins and/or finish in the top half of their league standings."

Sounds good, but rather impossible. If you increase to 80 teams, you are certainly going to have several teams with less than 20 wins (especially in a year like this) that will have to make the tournament to have enough teams. Michigan State is 19-14 finishing 7th in the Big 10 and, apparently, no one anywhere thinks they were even a bubble team.

Of course, as I said, if Colorado was named Michigan State, they would be a 6 seed right now....

100 7 years, 6 months ago

64 has always to me been the perfect number. It requires teams to take every game seriously during the year. But it's also such a big tournament that it's a blast to look at the initial bracket.

Plus two games at each location. Three weeks total.

There will always be two teams mad about being left out with 64.

If it moves to 80, there will be 4 teams ticked. And it's watered down. Teams have to play an unequal number of games to win it.

The best part of 64 has always been; you win 6... You win the title.

The only other idea I would be OK with is to bump it to 256 teams. 2 games per site. 4 weeks to play. Every team has to win 8.

But the obvious problem with that is now you get about 20 teams upset they didn't get in. The prestige is taken away. And lastly.... The rest of the season means much much less!

64 is perfect. They should have realized that was perfection. Someday they'll realize that number still is perfection. Nobody should have to play 7 games. If you're in, you're in.... Everybody should be equal once 64 are chosen.

Rock Chalk

Steve Corder 7 years, 6 months ago

Listen to Bilas. He knows college basketball better than anyone else.

He predicted KU over Memphis in '08

Said the 2010-2011 Big 12 championship had to go through Lawrence while others picked K-State and UT.

He speaks his mind like Knight, but he's not abrasive, he's a better communicator and he's masterful at breaking down (analyzing) teams.

KU_FanSince75 7 years, 6 months ago

Totally agree, and Jay has a good sense of humor, too, which I give him high praise for that.

KGphoto 7 years, 6 months ago

He was also the only puppet to pick KU over Texas on Saturday.

nocolohawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Completely agree with Keegan and bb73. There are many good commentators, but for some reason, Bilas is consistently (always?) head and shoulders better and more spot on with his analysis.

Wasn't he the only one of the four pre-game talking heads in '08 to pick Kansas?

slowplay 7 years, 6 months ago

Who cares? Let the bottom feeders argue about it. Ever since the NCAA expanded the field to 64 it's been a flawed system. 30+ teams get an auto bid if they win their league tournament regardless of record. It's absolutely ridiculous. To me it boils down to 2 things. Your final record and WHO DID YOU BEAT!

Andrew Moore 7 years, 6 months ago

The big 12 really got the shaft. They committee was way off this year!

Mizzou was garbage, but they shouldn't be an 11 seed.

KSU is over seeded. Sure they are rolling, but their body of work suggests they aren't a five seed.

Texas is a very good team, and it was maybe 2 weeks ago they were in the #1 seed discussion. Its disappointing for the Big 12 that they are a four seed.

Texas A&M got a fair seed based on the "eye test," as they aren't all that impressive looking. However, they are the third best Big 12 team (based on standings) yet they are only a 7 seed?

RockChalk26 7 years, 6 months ago

KSU is way over seeded. Colorado beat them 3 times this year. 3 times!

Jim Williamson 7 years, 6 months ago

I don't know much, but something I have learned over the years is that sometimes it's all about matchups. A team that appears to have inferior talent gives what should be a better team fits.

For a number of years, KU football gave aTm problems on the field when it looked on paper like they had no business being on the same field as the Aggies.

I think Colorado got screwed, too, but as far as them beating KSU three times this season, it was just a lousy matchup for the Wildcats.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

KSU may be over-seeded, but their opponent is tremendously under-seeded. That game will play like an 8/9.

Kenneth Johnson 7 years, 6 months ago

As usual, Duke gets a better seed than it deserves and gets the easiest route to the Final Four. And, as usual, KU gets the hardest of the 16-seeds. Why is that?

Ken Johnson (KU MS '70) www.hoopszone.net

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

You're kidding, right? KU does not have the hardest region this year. Last year we were absolutely screwed but this year, we got a very fair deal. Not saying it's the easiest but it's certainly not the hardest. And really... a 16-seed???

And Duke does not have the easiest region, either. They have UT as their 4-seed and UConn as their 3-seed. I will admit that they got the easiest #2 seed in SDSU but I hardly see them getting past UConn.

We KU fans like to think we always get the hardest bracket (because history seems to suggest that is often the case) but this is not one of those years.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

Florida is the easiest 2 seed. Florida as a 2 with Wisconsin and Texas as 4's is a joke.

Duke's region is surprisingly pretty tough.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

I think I agree with what you're saying... that Pitt has the easiest, yes? Agree that Florida as your #2, BYU as your #3, and Wisc as your #4 is the easiest group I see.

Marcia Parsons 7 years, 6 months ago

The analysts last night said "Pitt got the Duke path." meaning Pitt got the easy one this year.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

You're kidding, right? KU does not have the hardest region this year. Last year we were absolutely screwed but this year, we got a very fair deal. Not saying it's the easiest but it's certainly not the hardest. And really... a 16-seed???

And Duke does not have the easiest region, either. They have UT as their 4-seed and UConn as their 3-seed. I will admit that they got the easiest #2 seed in SDSU but I hardly see them getting past UConn.

We KU fans like to think we always get the hardest bracket (because history seems to suggest that is often the case) but this is not one of those years.

JayHawkFanToo 7 years, 6 months ago

What never ceses to amaze me is how Duke and to a lesser extent UNC almost always manage to play within driving distance of their campuses. Duke is in the WEST region buy somehow they found a pod in Charlotte, NC, just a short distance from Durham. UNC is also playinng in Charlotte,although in this case, at least it is in the EAST region...makes you wonder...

John Randall 7 years, 6 months ago

You must still be looking at the 2010 bracket. Duke got no favors this year.

If you're worried about one or another of the 63-68 teams, I pity you.

DocBean 7 years, 6 months ago

I've gained a lot of respect for Jay Bilas over the last few years. I'd love to hate him just because he's a Duke guy, but I almost always agree with him.

His SuperBowl prediction cracked me up. He talked about how Basketball was the superior sport, and how it would be nice when the SuperBowl was over so everyone could focus on it. I might have to look it up on YouTube.

ahpersecoachingexperience 7 years, 6 months ago

it's so funny that any and all "bracketology" stuff has been taken off of espn.com

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

I've never seen so much b*tching from a group of fans that just got a #1 seed. There are two things I want to address that seem to be capturing the most attention: KU not getting the #1 overall seed and CU.

First off, who cares if KU got the #1 overall seed. It wouldn't have changed where we play, what seed we play first, second, third or fourth. Would it change the teams? Maybe... but is Notre Dame that much better (if better at all) than UNC? I don't think so. It's not like we suddenly came in as a #2 seed and thus have to play a 3-seed rather than a 4-seed. Then I could understand. And it's not like our bracket is completely unfair like it was last year. I think we made out pretty well and do not (for what seems like a first) have the hardest region. What's there to complain about here?

As for CU, I understand we want to support the Big 12, but let's clear something up. Prior to 2001, 64 teams got in. In 2001, they added a 65th team via a play-in game. Now, they've increased it to 68 teams with four play-in games to address the issue in the past of bubble teams. Four teams are in this year that would not have been in a year ago, implying that one year ago, CU would have been possibly the fifth team out rather than the first team out. In my mind, CU has no justified reason to complain. They finished tied for 5th in the conference, didn't reach the conference tourney final, and had one of the worst (331st in terms of strength of schedule) non-conference schedules in all of NCAA basketball. You can't assume that with those stats that you're deserving of a spot that didn't even exist a year ago. I personally think too many teams are already let in and thus don't think a team like CU, that was decent but certainly not great for 30+ games, has any right to complain about not getting a shot at the title.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Yes, they're dangerous and a great duo but...

a) Nebraska gave us a good run but nobody's crying for them.

b) while they gave us a good run, the same can't be said for Harvard, New Mexico, San Francisco, Iowa State, Baylor, and Oklahoma... teams they lost to and none of which are tournament-worthy.

CU had 34 games to prove itself. The committee obviously didn't feel they were worthy of being the 68th best (and I can't stress that number enough) team out there. If you're not in the top 68, what is there to complain about? 34 games to prove yourself and they're upset because they're only considered the 69th best team. Again, this tournament is becoming a giant participation trophy at this point. Every year (no matter how many teams get let in, there will always be a "first four out"), some team is going to be upset because they didn't get a ribbon.

JayHawkFanToo 7 years, 6 months ago

"The committee obviously didn't feel they were worthy of being the 68th best (and I can't stress that number enough) team out there. If you're not in the top 68, what is there to complain about?" <<< I respectfully disagree with you as your premise is factually incorrect. If the top 68 teams would be selected, many of the automatic qualifiers would not be in the tournament. If you want the top 68 teams, then you have to eliminate the automatic qualifiers, figure out an objective procedure to evaluate all teams and then pick up the top 68 regardless of conference affiliation. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The formula that the committee seems bound and determined to use, i.e. RPI, is widely considered to be grossly misleading. For example, it seems that UAB got a bigger boost from playing (and losing by 21 points) Duke than VT got from playing and beating Duke, Does this makes sense to you? Even if you go by RPI, there are 14 teams with RPI better than 68 that did not get selected.

Do you think that all 68 teams are better than Colorado, when CU is ranked 49th by both Jeff Sagarin and Ken Pomeroy? I would bet that Colorado is better than at least 20 teams in the tournament, and I have yet to see one College BBall analyst/commentator that disagrees with this.

Do you honestly think that The Colonial Conference ranked as 11th by Jeff Sagarin deserves 3 bids when the third and fourth ranked Big 12 and ACC received only 5 and 4 respectively?

Again, your premise that the top 68 teams were selected is incorrect.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm happy to rephrase it then. The committee obviously didn't feel they were worthy of being the 43rd best (and I can't stress that number enough) team out there. If you're not in the top 43, what is there to complain about?

There were 31 automatic bids and I'm fine saying that only the 6 BCS conference champs (for simplicity) are teams that would have got in anyway, so let's just pretend that there are 25 teams that "potentially" got in due to conference tournament wins that aren't Top 68 (even though we all know that Richmond and Utah State probably were in anyway). Thus 68 minus 25 = 43.

CU, you were not considered to be the 43rd best team left to choose from. At no point were you ranked. At no point did you go "out of your way" to play difficult programs. And at no point did you prove yourself worthy by winning your conference, your conference tournament, any tournament for that matter... or even finishing in the top 2 of any of those listed.

So do I feel sorry for CU? No. And I'd make the exact same claim had one of the other "bubble" teams not gotten in.

JayHawkFanToo 7 years, 6 months ago

Again, your premise is still flawed. Just because the committee did no think Colorado was not one of the "43 best" does not make it so. Look at the following link: http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm It lists the choices of all available "bracketologists." Now, look at how many selected:

UAB = 11 VCU = 15 CU = 81 VT = 87

Would you agree that the number above indicate that most "bracketologists" clear feel that CU and VT should have gone in ahead of UAB and VCU?

In addition, I have not heard a single analyst/commentator defend the inclusion of UAB and VCU at the expense of CU and VT; in fact, it has been quite the opposite. If you still think that VCU and UAB deserve it more than CU and VT, then you are as blind and uninformed as the members of the committee appear to be.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

I see your point in all this. Am I saying CU is less deserving than UAB or VCU? No. Is the committee? Yes. All I'm saying is that I don't think anyone can sit there and complain because they weren't the last team chosen. To me, it's not an issue of "why did they get in rather than us." That's an excuse-filled, responsibility-avoiding approach. Like so many other examples we see in daily life, it's someone wanting to blame someone else for their failures or mistakes. CU is not in the tourney because of what CU did (or did not do). Clearly there were at least some experts that thought UAB and VCU were deserving. Perhaps not many but there still were some. Again, I have zero sympathy for CU. The ball (no pun intended) was in their hands the entire season to earn the right to play.

JayHawkFanToo 7 years, 6 months ago

"The committee obviously didn't feel they were worthy of being the 68th best (and I can't stress that number enough) team out there. If you're not in the top 68, what is there to complain about?" <<< I respectfully disagree with you as your premise is factually incorrect. If the top 68 teams would be selected, many of the automatic qualifiers would not be in the tournament. If you want the top 68 teams, then you have to eliminate the automatic qualifiers, figure out an objective procedure to evaluate all teams and then pick up the top 68 regardless of conference affiliation. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The formula that the committee seems bound and determined to use, i.e. RPI, is widely considered to be grossly misleading. For example, it seems that UAB got a bigger boost from playing (and losing by 21 points) Duke than VT got from playing and beating Duke, Does this makes sense to you? Even if you go by RPI, there are 14 teams with RPI better than 68 that did not get selected.

Do you think that all 68 teams are better than Colorado, when CU is ranked 49th by both Jeff Sagarin and Ken Pomeroy? I would bet that Colorado is better than at least 20 teams in the tournament, and I have yet to see one College BBall analyst/commentator that disagrees with this.

Do you honestly think that The Colonial Conference ranked as 11th by Jeff Sagarin deserves 3 bids when the third and fourth ranked Big 12 and ACC received only 5 and 4 respectively?

Again, your premise that the top 68 teams were selected is incorrect.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

You may be missing the argument. It's not about CU (or anyone) getting in necessarily. It's more about them, VTech, Harvard being left out when VCU, UAB, USC get in. The argument isn't about everybody getting in... it's about THE RIGHT teams getting in.

That was Jay Bilas' point and most people on here. CU had a bad non-con scheduled, sure, but they also had 6 wins versus top 50 teams and UAB had zero. That's a joke. While the argument about somebody being left out will always exist regardless of the size of the tourney (unless it's a 350 team tourney), the arguments for the RIGHT teams in can be corrected. In the end, yes, someone will always complain no matter what, but that doesn't give the committee the right to make such egregious mistakes.

Any argument about KU, on the other hand, I agree with you that it is simply unjustified whining. We're seeded exactly as we should be, and our regional is favorable.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Agree but a) all tourney selections are subjective (aside from auto bids) and b) we're talking about a group of teams of which none really deserved to be in. Again, go back 12 months and nobody is arguing for CU because even the others don't get in. So perhaps the committee did get it wrong in their 66th, 67th, and 68th teams. My point is that it's the 66th, 67th, and 68th teams in, and thus one can't really complain. When you start letting so many teams in, it's basically like saying "you're just above reject" and thus you qualify to come in and maybe knock out a team or two, but you have zero chance of actually winning anything.

My point is simply that once you get far enough down the list, it really isn't that relevant anymore. If Iowa State had been picked as the 68th team, I'd probably say "CU is clearly more deserving than ISU but I don't think either should be in."

It's like a kickball game from when we were kids. Whomever you pick last isn't going to change the outcome of the game much. At that point, you're kind of just picking to fill spots. CU, you weren't picked at all, so run along and go play Four Square (NIT) until you're ready to prove that you deserve (unquestionably) to play in the big dance.

LAJayhawk 7 years, 6 months ago

I understand your argument, but I have a couple of counterpoints to make:

1) Yes, of course, the selections are subjective, but you can use data to back up your decisions, and in this case that data (and the "eye ball test" as some like to say) goes to CU.

2) You are correct, we are talking about the last 3 teams. However, the tournament is setup to include those teams, so, by definition, they belong. Does anyone really think CU has a realistic chance to win the title? No. But there is a phrase in poker that perhaps you might be familiar with: "a chip and a chair." It, of course, means that a poker player still has a chance to win a tournament as long as he/she has a single chip in front of him. In this case, CU isn't even given the chance to compete for the title when inferior teams are. And that is unfair. If you are going to have a tournament that includes 68 teams, then the 68th best team deserves to be in. Simple as that.

If you don't believe the tournament should be 68 teams, then your argument is with the setup, not the execution. As long is it is done by these rules, it needs to be done fairly and correctly.

I do think you make a rather level-headed argument, and one that I certainly understand.

My point is that I think it's understandable that people are making arguments for the inclusion of CU over any of those other 3 schools when everything suggests that they are the more qualified team to play in the tournament under the defined rules. In the end, you have to have a solid case and an argument for every single team included in a tournament regardless of the number of teams, whether it's 8 or 68.

Also, a bubble team at 10 or 11 seed certainly can make a large impact by knocking off a 2 or 3 seed in the 2nd round (and again in the Sweet 16). It happens many years.... Davidson in 2008 is perfect example. Would we have still won the National Championship in 2008 if we played #2-seeded Georgetown instead of Davidson? How about #3-seeded Wisconsin? Who knows. But it certainly could have had a major impact.

KGphoto 7 years, 6 months ago

Plain and simple.

Colorado and V Tech took the fall, in order to make an argument for further expansion. Eventually, the brilliant Jay Bilas just might catch on to this.

The NCAA wants more teams, more games and more commercials. That's all.

It's a pretty good plan, and it's working.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

How does excluding a worthy 66- and 67-seed justify expansion? If that's true, then you need to allow every team into the tourney. Since when did being the 67th best team qualify as being tournament-worthy? This year... and only because people b*tched about teams being left out previously. They let four more in and people still complain. That will always be the case so until you let every single team in (which is a ridiculous and terrible idea), there will always be a "first man out". If a team can't prove that it's "CLEARLY" worthy in 30+ games of regular season and conference tournament games, then they have nothing to complain about. There were five teams ahead of CU in its own conference that got in. CU, you want to be in the tournament... then finish ahead of those five.

Kip_McSmithers 7 years, 6 months ago

If you look at the Big12 tourney seedings they did finish ahead of Mizzou...

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Because of a tie-breaker, fine, but both were 8-8. And fine, let CU in and kick Mizzou out. My point is that I'm not sure Mizzou is truly worthy of competing for a national title either. I'm not saying they're not one of the best 68 teams but I'm saying that I don't think the 50th-best team necessarily deserves a title shot.

KGphoto 7 years, 6 months ago

Are you even paying attention?

Look at all the arguing going on. Do you think that arguing to include a mid-major is going to compare to the argument to include major conference teams?

It's a brilliant marketing strategy that only has to be played out. And it will be. Just wait.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Well I agree that the tournament is almost certainly going to get larger (certainly against my wishes) due to money. I don't and have never questioned that. One only needs to watch college football to see the influence of money and tv rights. Having said that, you notice it's the media (and not the university presidents or AD's) who always talks about "who got left out". Now perhaps guys like Digger and Jay Bilas are being pushed by the networks into this game so that the networks can get more money with a larger tourney, but I honestly don't think that's the case. I think "who didn't make it" is an argument that will always exist as long as there's always someone that gets left out. And thus we'll always be complaining about some team "missing out" even when we're allowing 96 teams in, and the 96th team has a 10-20 record and only suits up four guys and a golden retriever.

Steve Brown 7 years, 6 months ago

Beauty contests by definitioin are matters of opinion. I see Colorado Buffs by Crimson colored glasses as I support Big 12 and Tad Boyle as I would Turg if they were a bubble.

Joe Lunardi knows his stuff and said CU was in and off the bubble, not a close call. I trust him.

We can hope Tad's boys goes to NIT and kicks some butt.

BCRavenJHawkfan 7 years, 6 months ago

The Sagarin ratings have proved to be more on the mark. Last year the Sagarin rating had UNI as the 8 or 9 ranked team overall and they were seeded as an 8 in our bracket which means the "Committee" thought there were 24 to 28 teams that were better. Hmmmmm.

If you look at the Southwest bracket the 8, 9 seeds of UNLV and Illinois are the highest in the Sagarin ratings of any of the 8, 9's in the other brackets, UNLV at 20th in the nation. All the other brackets, even the East bracket, the 8, 9's are out of the top 25 (Nova at 24).

What's the big deal about these 8, 9 seeds? They are usually the Goliath Killers. This is were the "Committee" cloaks teams.

Woody Cragg 7 years, 6 months ago

Although it's a shame teams that played reasonably well at seasons end failed to make the cut, the real travesty is that so many automatics go to schools that have no business in the field. The CU fan that screamed FKU during the silence at Boulder should really feel like it was his classless act that left them out even if it wasn't.

TV money, expansion (watering down product), and boy's club (NCAA) backroom deals control the overall process. The NCAA is more crooked as SMU was in it's heyday and is fueled by greed and money. And it'll remain like that until a Joe Valachi comes out of the woodwork, plain & simple. I mean, just look at all the penalties they're dishing out these days-they're just awful don't you think? Suspensions OSU players & Tressel...next year two games? Bruce Pearl? Calhoun? Now if ya pi$$ em off it's now, like Baylors' Jones, and your team is dissed to the NIT.

Again Duke got the pass everyone new they'd get. And the Big East with 11?

Joe Baker 7 years, 6 months ago

Words are cheap and actions are priceless.

CU needs to win NIT convincingly. B12 needs to have a great showing in the tourney. KU needs to win the NC to show the B12 supremacy.

Let the Madness begin.

Woody Cragg 7 years, 6 months ago

Words are cheap and actions are priceless.

Unless you're a lawyer.

Hank Cross 7 years, 6 months ago

I haven't seen such nonsense on this board since the KSU loss.

  1. 'The committee disrespected KU and KU should have had the No. 1 seed.' - Both of OSU's losses were on the road to ranked teams. For their reward they get UNC, Syracuse, and UK as their 2-4. Who wants to trade KU's 2-4 for those?

  2. "The B12 was disrespected and the BE is overrated" - Maybe if a team from the B12 other than KU would win the NC, this argument might make some sense. 4 schools from the BE have won 5 NCs in the league's existence. Compare that to the B12 where KU is the only school to have won an NC and no other school from the B12 North has gone to the FF in the B12's existence.

  3. "CU and Vtech were robbed" - Every Selection Selection Sunday we hear anguished cries of So-and-So State was robbed, and every year those complaints are forgotten by the tip of the play-in game. Why? Because those also-rans never had a legit shot at winning anything anyway. CU's loss on Friday proved that. I would rather see more mid-majors get in than C+ teams from BCS conferences. I also find it ironic that while so many here are upset about the number of schools the BE and the B10 got in, yet believe an ACC school should get in ahead of mid-majors UAB and VCU.

4."CU is a traitor" No, they're not. They were smart enough to escape serfdom on Bevo's ranch and went to a conference where they will be treated as an equal. I only wish we could've left with them.

Woody Cragg 7 years, 6 months ago

Maybe if you'ld said "smurfdom" once no one would notice your redundancy.

William Weissbeck 7 years, 6 months ago

Would be nice if they showed some love to the mid majors, but I remember Drake a few years ago, and Creighton? Still they should cut off the big boys with no more than half their conference eligible for a bid. The mid majors can't pick their conference opponents, and the non-conference games can be costly when the big boys won't do a home and home deal.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Amen! Amen! Amen! I like the way you think. Must be a Cali thing. Ha ha. As you saw in my post above, couldn't agree more.

"Hey rest of the Big12 teams, uhhhhmmmm... feel free to step up and help us out a bit. As much as we love dominating the league year-after-year and being the lone representative in the Final 4, it might help the "cause" a bit if one of you (cough, cough... Texas!) would consider joining us in making a regular habit of a national run.

As for No. 4, I agree. Had the Kansas Board of Regents not required KU and KSU to stay together, I'm almost certain KU would have seriously considered that move to the Pac-10. As is, we had to beg UT to keep the band together and now we get hosed on the terms.

Woody Cragg 7 years, 6 months ago

While there's many a slip twixt the cup of the lip, the BOR have us joined at the hip. Travel issue & time changes were the major concern in possible Pac 10 realignment. KU BB would have still been the "cats a$$" in hoops but rather stayed to be the Texa$$ whipping boys in FB. KSU is "cat$hit" no matter where they are.

hawk_of_ages 7 years, 6 months ago

"I only wish we could've left with them."

And gone where? The Mountain West? How many titles do they have? Colorado will be a "serf" to USC in the Pac-10 just like they were to Texas in the Big 12. And if Kansas were to move to any other major conference, we'd be the "serf" there as well because we aren't a football power.

I do agree with you on your first point. OSU deserves the overall #1, but just like last year, the overall #1 inexplicably has a tougher road than some of the other 1-seeds.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Well while almost everything we heard was "rumor", there was a rumor that KU was considered for the Pac-10 (and not Utah, and we know that the Pac-10 didn't want Baylor due to its religious ties) to round-out its 16-team conference. However the Kansas Board of Regents did not want KU and KSU splitting up, and the Pac-10 didn't want KSU.

As for KU being a "serf" in any other conference, would it be any different than now? You can't say the Big 12 isn't a powerhouse in football. The one difference is that in any other major conference, the revenue is split equally while in the Big 12, it is not. So essentially, staying in the Big 12 as opposed to another BCS conference (as opposed to a mid-major) is the worst possible option (again, aside from being in a mid-major conference).

And yes, OSU (like us last year) got shafted a bit.

tis4tim 7 years, 6 months ago

I agree with all your points, except #2. My view is that those 5 Big East championships have a correlation with the sheer numbers of teams that get in from that conference year after year. Imagine how many more titles the Big 12 might have if we got 8-10 teams into the big dance annually. Instead, we get five, maybe six.

jayhawktalk 7 years, 6 months ago

Not that I disagree on the BE being a great conference, but being rewarded with 11 teams in the tournament dramatically increases the odds they will have a team or teams advance deep into the brackets. Other major conferences are lucky to get half that number, so are disadvantaged statistically. I do not think anyone would say that only the reason the BE gets more teams in the tournament is solely on the strength of the teams themselves. They are a good conference, without question, but where there is a doubt between two teams getting in, one from the BE and one from any other conference, the BE will generally be the beneficiary.

William Weissbeck 7 years, 6 months ago

Forget the RPI - it's all about large TV markets and the NCAA's weird fascination with matching up coaches with former teams and the previous year's match ups. Remember last year UNLV lost on a last second shot to NIU, or they would have been KU's opponent. And then there is the weird thing with Illinois. Purdue or ND would have been shipped out with Duke, but NCAA couldn't resist the state of Indiana match up.

Woody Cragg 7 years, 6 months ago

Right on the head, that's what she said!

Chris Shaw 7 years, 6 months ago

Doesn't it seem like a very long long time ago since anybody mentioned Nova! It seems like they lost two weeks ago in the first round of the Big East Tourny.

Woody Cragg 7 years, 6 months ago

The dive they took in Jan-Feb looked like Neptune...but the poverty level in Philly now includes direct TV & internet. We're redistributing the wealth & the networks are huge benefactors of all this nonsense.

Dyrk Dugan 7 years, 6 months ago

the key this year for KU is normalcy. we're scheduled on a Friday night, as the first game at 5:50 p.m. that's only fair. last year, we played the late game...that didn't end until 11 p.m. local time...and then we had about 36 hours to get ready for a tough UNI team. horrible draw for an overall #1 seed, and playing that late game was unprecedented.

this year, we'll have a normal first night's rest.....god forbid, we lose the first round.

Illinois and UNLV are both name schools, coaches we know, so it will not be hard to prepare for them. i like the first weekend....i like the whole bracket frankly....i'd love to play Louisville and ND...or even GTown or Purdue.....we can beat any of those schools. so our bracket is fair enough, no excuses this year. i mean, there's never excuses, but the draw and times we got last year, was just a slap in the face. it was like, "we dare you to win the tourney...we'll make it as hard as possible."

As far as Bilas goes, he's exactly right. RPI SOS between Clemson, CU, UAB and VCU are negligible..and then CU has 6 wins vs the top 50. shoot, they beat KSU three times and Texas once....when was the last time a team on the bubble had four wins vs. five seeds or higher, and didn't get in? it has to be unprecedented....a total slap to the Big 12. Clemson has no wins vs. RPI top 50...that's right....none. UAB, who shouldn't be in either...needs to win that game.

Woody Cragg 7 years, 6 months ago

All the "experts" blew so much smoke up KSU's a$$ they had to put them in-certainly can't look like idiots. A #5? Please! Utah State is a real tough draw, probably an 8-9 who no one would want to play. The East with 11? Big 10 with 7? Lotsa bitch slaps with all the autos IMO. Texa$$ got hosed big time. Just breaks me up...LOL.

86finalfour 7 years, 6 months ago

I remember KU playing the late game last year and I never understood that. I remember the overall #1 playing the first games of the day. That's what the Big 12 tournament does -- award the top seed by giving them the most rest. Can someone else explain why the committee has changed this method, if they have?

86finalfour 7 years, 6 months ago

Never mind -- i'm looking at the schedule and I now see it's all about your pod. This weekend is a four team tournament. And KU plays the first game and the UNLV/Illinois game follows.

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

"Bias, Error and Countervailing Force in Team Selection and Seeding in March Madness..Onward to a Basketball Constitution"

Axiom: Any method of selection will have bias and error.

"Bias" is inclusion of teams for reasons other than how good they are.

"Error" is picking teams for how good they and being wrong about the judgement/inference of their goodness.

So: the key question is what method of selection would produce the least amount of bias and error.

Bilas' suggestion of putting "basketball men" on the committee is a logical one for a "basketball man" to make. :-)

But is it apt to produce the desired objectives of:

a) tending to get the best teams in the tournament; and

b) tending get the ones selected in the most accurate rank order of goodness.

Bilas' solution is clearly an attempt to reduce the "error" of selection and does not, explicitly at least, attempt to solve bias.

Further, on the surface, at least, it focuses most on reducing error regarding selecting teams on the margin, not on reducing error in rank order selection. He lists several teams at the margin that he thinks are left out, because of inferior knowledge of basketball among selectors, then assumes "basketball men" wouldn't have left them out.

This assumption sounds sensible..at first. It is an appeal to expertise and insider knowledge. It is the same logic that seeks to put financiers in charge of regulating banks and selecting which ones are let live and which are let die at bail out time. It is the same logic that drives appeals to put "business" men in charge of government, because "government needs to be run as a business." It is the same argument that drives persons to argue that only a military man is smart enough about the military to be President. It is the same argument that says only judges know enough law to be supreme court justices and rule intelligently and without bias, like say Antonin Scalia, or, say, Clarence Thomas, who hasn't asked a question on the bench for nearly half a decade, or so. And so on. :-)

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

It is in short, an appeal to an expert elite to solve a rather democratic, and rather technologically elusive problem. Which boys teams ought to be in and and in what order, and which boys' teams ought to be left out, so we can all have some fun watching our team try to beat other teams, win a ring, and make the TV guys their cut, and the universities their cut?

How much can expertise really and truly improve this situation, when all the expertise of our empire, and about a trillion bones a year, cannot even crush a tiny country like Afghanistan in over a decade of trying? :-)

I know, I know, jaybate, what has Afghanistan got to do with Jay Bilas and March Madness?

Okay, so I exaggerated too much for effect?

So compare the polls by sports writers and coaches--writers (non-basketball men if ever there were such) vs. "basketball men" (coaches)--during the regular season. They are almost always extremely similar. This does not suggest a big reduction in error at the margin in seeding would flow from adding "basketball men." But surely one would get some improvement. Well, surely, if one banishes the expertise that led to pre-emptively attacking Afghanistan with too few men, then with the expertise that the real experts at the Pentagon unleashed on Afghanistan.

One rule of thumb to remember here is never to use an expert to hit your thumb with a hammer, when you could just as well hit your thumb with a hammer yourself. But I digress. :-)

Let us give Jay his full due.

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

Bilas suggestion might also reduce the error of the rank order of seeding...a little. Again, compare sports writer polls with "basketball coach" polls. There is always a small difference in rank order, but never a very big difference. It might even be just a random difference. Its is hard to say. Again, Bilas solution probably buys a little reduction in error, but not a lot.

What Bilas does not mention is the effect adding "basketball men" would have on "bias."

Would it improve our lot, or worsen it?

We can be pretty sure that no person is without bias, not even a "basketball man."

I have adapted the old syllogism about Socrates being a man and so a mortal to put this in pithy, memorable focus. :-)

All men are biased. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is biased.

The leaping assumption in the adapted syllogism is "all" men are "biased." Tough to prove. But tough to refute also. I'm going with it on a hunch driven by my experience over 57 years of never having met a person without some discernible bias, especially in the things he is most expert in. So shoot me for cynicism, okay?

I suppose another pithy, memorable syllogism might follow from the last one:

All men are biased. Jay Bilas is a man. Jay Bilas is biased.

Jay, baby, logic says you've got a bias issue even with "basketball men."

And, Jay, you are without question the brightest light, and most apparently decent and intelligent fellow, among face workers at ESPN/CBS...by an order of magnitude, as they say in the magnitude business.

What might the "basketball man" bias issue look like?

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

Well, we know that "basketball men" are something of a good old boy network, composed of a few major sub networks. We know there is an Okie Baller Mafia. We know there is a UNC mafia. We know there is a Knight-Consonants nexus currently called the Dukie Mafia, because Knight is proselytizing for his coaching tree from ESPN, and not out in the trenches reputedly slapping players and winning games. And so on.

We know that some "basketball men" are in the network and others are at its margin.

We know the coaches from the Maybach Constellation of coaching mafias talk about doing things "the right way" and that tends to involve hiring coaches from the Maybach Constellation of coaching mafias and not form the margins.

We know that all "basketball men" have to swim in the same water and that like any professional group, they have haves and have nots. They have leadership that has occasional mavericks, but that often comes from the "have" schools of the profession.

We know all the basketball men are part of a basketball community they would not like to be exiled from for being too "objective" about a fellow member of the community. It is the nature of communities, after all.

We know basketball me, like other men of professional expertise, have to pick their battles, pick the ditches they are willing to die, and so often have to go along to get along.

We know they often are fired and so often wish to "hook up" with one of their old associates, or get recommendations from former associates for new jobs, so they struggle mightily with candor about their colleagues, whom they may need a helping hand from down the road.

We know a significant number of basketball men take jobs and practice nepotism.

We know they tend to recommend hiring their own assistants when jobs open.

And, above all, I suppose, we know that year in and year out, in several cases decade in and decade out, the same schools attract the most talent and the best coaches and tend to win the most games, which implies a considerable amount of systemic bias in outcomes. of which "basketball men" are a willing part.

Jay, I think your "basketball men" solution may pose some risk of bias that could off set the probably slim benefit of your solution. :-)

Heck, just look at the face workers at ESPN. There are a lot of "basketball men" there among the analysts. And quite a lot of them, rather more than one might expect from random effedts, are from what some might call a Knight-Consonants basketball mafia. Why, even you are from that, Jay.

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

Well, we know that "basketball men" are something of a good old boy network, composed of a few major sub networks. We know there is an Okie Baller Mafia. We know there is a UNC mafia. We know there is a Knight-Consonants nexus currently called the Dukie Mafia, because Knight is proselytizing for his coaching tree from ESPN, and not out in the trenches reputedly slapping players and winning games. And so on.

We know that some "basketball men" are in the network and others are at its margin.

We know the coaches from the Maybach Constellation of coaching mafias talk about doing things "the right way" and that tends to involve hiring coaches from the Maybach Constellation of coaching mafias and not form the margins.

We know that all "basketball men" have to swim in the same water and that like any professional group, they have haves and have nots. They have leadership that has occasional mavericks, but that often comes from the "have" schools of the profession.

We know all the basketball men are part of a basketball community they would not like to be exiled from for being too "objective" about a fellow member of the community. It is the nature of communities, after all.

We know basketball me, like other men of professional expertise, have to pick their battles, pick the ditches they are willing to die, and so often have to go along to get along.

We know they often are fired and so often wish to "hook up" with one of their old associates, or get recommendations from former associates for new jobs, so they struggle mightily with candor about their colleagues, whom they may need a helping hand from down the road.

We know a significant number of basketball men take jobs and practice nepotism.

We know they tend to recommend hiring their own assistants when jobs open.

And, above all, I suppose, we know that year in and year out, in several cases decade in and decade out, the same schools attract the most talent and the best coaches and tend to win the most games, which implies a considerable amount of systemic bias in outcomes. of which "basketball men" are a willing part.

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

Jay, I think your "basketball men" solution may pose some risk of bias that could off set the probably slim benefit of your solution. :-)

Heck, just look at the face workers at ESPN. There are a lot of "basketball men" there among the analysts. And quite a lot of them, rather more than one might expect from random effedts, are from what some might call a Knight-Consonants basketball mafia. Why, even you are from that, Jay.

Isn't it possible that "basketball men" with a group think, however state of the art it may be, isn't there some risk of inbred group think there? Of foxes in hen houses? Isn't there some possibility of even more unworthy ACC and Big East teams getting in than already occurs with non-basketball men?

Ummm, yes, there would be.

I for one would be very much in favor of basketball men from the Kansas family trees and Okie Baller Mafia dominating both broadcasting and tournament selection, because, well, because I'm at least as biased as Jay Bilas. :-)

And I'm at least as good of an egg, in ethical terms, as Jay. Well, maybe not quite, but close on my good days.

But this is not meant to disrespect Jay, who is a keen and admirable fellow, nor is it meant even to reject Jay's solution out of hand. It is rather to expose the perils and complexities of any "solution" to selection.

Solutions need to be assessed "globally" for feasibility. Will they probably net improve upon both bias and error, or not?

I think the founders of our Republic, that sharp bunch of rebellious haves of the late 18th Century, offer wisdom to us about this issue.

The founders didn't trust government much, because they had seen its despotic teeth and its self-interested use of weaponry up close and personal.

HawkKlaw 7 years, 6 months ago

Oh, the fabulous RPI ranking. Okay, I understand that your team's winning percentage gets weighted by 25%. I'm even slightly okay with your opponent's winning percentage being weighted at 50% (although, I'd like to see it a little lower, or else raise the weight for your team's winning percentage). But why the hell is your opponent's opponent's winning percentage weighted at 25%?! When you look at it rationally, your team's winning percentage should matter a heck of a lot more than your opponent's opponent's winning percentage!

Plus, you can't quantify things like BYU losing their second best player. I don't have all the answers, but I think the most important criteria would be what teams you beat, what teams you lost to, and the good ol' "eye" test. There's no way Colorado would be out if that were the case.

Regardless, KU is a #1 seed, yet again. I can't wait for these games to begin. Let's beat BU! Rock Chalk!

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

But they were practical men and understood that there were public goods and services that could be most efficiently provided through government. They also understood that because of these long term structural efficiencies government could provide, there would always be someone around scheming to provide them, while posing as governors. The founders, who were mostly rich, educated men understood that you can't trust an elite any more than you can trust a king, or a mob. The founders had the rather brilliant, if somewhat cynical insight, that you can't really trust anyone, once they are given the power to govern. It is some kind of a flaw in human nature, kind of a joke played on many by god, or the gods, or by evolution in a stochastic universe. Give any group all the power and it goes to their heads, even the best of them.

So: the founders decided to pit as many groups against other groups as they could in a short document called the US Constitution. To be polite, they called it checks and balances. They created the Senate for the wealthy to control and buy influence in. They created the House for the masses to control and buy influence in. The created the executive to counter balance the wealthy and the masses. They created the judiciary to counter balance short term convergences of the wealthy, the masses and the executives. They created a military, but said they couldn't operate as military forces anywhere within the boundaries of US. They created police to counter balance the militaries temptation to become police. They armed the people by giving them the right to bear arms to counter balance the military and police.

In short, the founders created a beautiful, elegant, simple constitution that has tended to act as an imperfect monkey wrench thrown into every conceivable group seeking to impose its own narrow bias on the system and so on the rest of us.

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

The constitution has almost constantly been assaulted by special interests of one axis of oligarchy, or another, of one special interest group, or another, f one foreign country buying influence inside USA, or another. It is currently under massive and sustained assault by the central bankers, and by the Crown of England, the second largest economic unit on the planet, behind the USA economy. And it is also under varying degrees of assault by all of our "allies" and all of our enemies.

But the constitution, even though it is brought precariously close to destruction by the endless power plays up on it, and it is perilously close right now to destruction, it just keeps pitting power against power, greed against greed, bias against bias, etc. And because it does, every power mad group and every ego manical individual inevitably trips into motion a cascade of increasingly unforseeable complexity of reactions that eventually all of the forces pitted against each other weigh in like sharks to chummed waters and eventually overwhelm the would be tyrannists among us.

Oh, my yes, the founders learned a thing or two about human nature, and group behavior, and countervaling forces, while standing up to the greatest empire in the world at that time, and saying, well, we tried like good little colonists for a century to be a voting member of your common wealth of nations and you kept screwing us and telling us to wait, because there was always another Great Power you had to battle first. Well, the founders said, we're not waiting any more, because we realize you, King are caught between France and Spain, between central bankers in the chartered district of London and the landed aristrocracy in England, between moving forward with democratization and a royalist restoration. So: we are making our own government and kissing you off.

And they made a trial with the Articles of Confederation, which naive though they were, were actually brilliant conceptual seed stock for the Constitution that followed.

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

The failure of governance under the Articles convinced the founders that you couldn't rely on the fairness and lack of bias of any one group in the experiment of self government. They learned the hard way that you had to admit that people were people and that they all had biases. You couldn't take wealth from people, but you could give all people and groups rights that prevented that wealth from creating a dictatorship of the landed classes. And you could create enough countervaling forces to achieve at least a stable government channeled away from despotism and toward incremental progress.

And you could do so with pen and paper defining institutions that were so sticky that by the time the conspirators of any one group actually bought and coerced the control of the government that the other groups set in counter balance to them would converge and eat the conspirators. Not always. But often enough to finally root out even the occassionally successful coup d'etats that have in fact occurred in USA several times in our history.

So long as the constitution is in place, whether or not pirate leaders are disrespecting it momentarily, nothing is written about any one group ending democracy permanently.

Nothing is written.

Any group of conspirators, any group of extreme wealthy, of oligarchs, any mob, no matter how powerful any may become, or seem to become, none of them are instituted until the constitution is destroyed, torn up, burned to ashes, and replaced.

In somethings, like governance of nations, and selection of college basketball teams for March Madness, a constitution that pits all the constituent groups against each other in a zero sum game of countervailing power, i.e., if my power increases, yours decreases, is the only rational approach.

It may not be perfect, but finally, if we cherish something public, like American government, or Division One College Basketball, wisdom says err on the side of pitting each against all, so that no one group can high jack it permanently.

March Madness needs a constitution. It needs democracy. Fans for sure should be part of the voting process in a House of Representatives. The Senate should be full of haves and "experts." There should be a president to administrate. There should be a judiciary to keep all in check. More expertise, or rule by any one group leads to despotism by one group without hope of unseating them.

The game is a democratic game. Demos. Liberty. It was born in the populist and progressive eras. It deserves a Constitution to protect it from the predators.

Rock Chalk!

Hank Cross 7 years, 6 months ago

You have been quite right about group-think in the media. Although I skimmed your retort to Bias, I take to mean that there is no guarantee that "basketball men" would do any better than the selection committee due to cliques and typical backroom politics. I also agree with that.

Here's my solution:

  1. No team that finishes in the bottom half of its conference gets in. If they can't prove they are one of the better teams in the regular season, there's no reason to reward them.

  2. An automatic bid also goes to every regular season conference winner. If an undeserving mid-major conference gets two teams in - they both play in the 1st 4.

  3. Break ties using the won/lost records of opponents and other objective criteria that is impossible to game by scheduling around. The won/lost record of opponents is especialy effective because it discourages scheduling cupcakes and takes into account under-/overperformers who people thought differently about when the season began.

kcglowboy 7 years, 6 months ago

Dangit, Keegan. I thought you were writing a serious, thoughtful piece on the injustices and indefensible flaws of this year's committee (while rightfully celebrating Jay Bilas). Then you had to screw it up with that silly, sarcastic, worthless ending.

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

P.S.: Sorry about the botched cutting and pasting. But you get the rough idea, anyway.

Chris Shaw 7 years, 6 months ago

What do you guys all think about Nebraska's #5 seed? Darn it, I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong post season bracket! Now back to the NCAA tournament where the magic happens.

Chris Shaw 7 years, 6 months ago

Jaybate: Once the season concludes or once Nebraska's miserable NIT season concludes, you think you could write one of your sarcastic historical pieces on the Cornhuskers riding off into the sunset for the Big 10?

Pwnage 7 years, 6 months ago

KU fans would only be happy if the committee selected them as champions without playing a single game.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Non-tourney note:

Well it's no surprise that word out there is that Duke is now going after DeAndre Daniels. Yes, unrelated to the tourney but I know we all care. Duke has made him an offer. %#@%@!!!!!!

KU thus far only has one recruit in 2011 and 2012. I was counting on Daniels to come in and help TRob with both twins possibly gone. Duke entering the picture is not going to help. God I hate those guys! Hopefully Daniels realizes that "if" the twins leave, we'll have a huge hole at the 4-spot that would be perfect for him to fill.

Chris Shaw 7 years, 6 months ago

Duke can get in the picture all they want. First, I wouldn't worry about 2012. There are going to be plenty of roster spots available regardless so the 2012 class is going to be huge because of "Playing Time". KU will have plenty in 2012. No need to lump 2011 and 2012 together.

As for next year (2011), it's still too early to tell. Quite honestly, I'm shocked at the percentage of the Top 150 recruits that committed in the early signing period and through January. Doesn't make sense to me because of so many uncertainities....................NBA, College Rosters, who bolts and who leaves, coaching changes, NCAA tournament success, etc etc.

Unlike the previous 2 or 3 recruiting classes, 2011 has seen a weird shift of recruits committing early. I think DeAndre Daniels is smart by waiting. He can see the collapse of Texas, see whether or not Jordan Hamilton is going to leave, and see whether or not the Twins are going to leave or stay. It's a smart move on his part.

Also, I don't see Daniels in a Duke uniform for the simple fact that Alex Murphy is a legitimate candidate Dookie going there the following year. IMO, Duke can get involved all they want.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

You've had enough of these Top 10 guys? Really? You realize the guys that won us the title were basically all Top 15-20 guys? Wright, Chalmers, Rush, and Arthur (yes, aware Wright wasn't there in '08) all Top 20. And Collins was 21 his year.

If KU can pull-in the likes of a Sullinger, Irving, Durant, Griffin, Wall, Rose, Singler, Love, Hansbrough, Luol Deng, etc, I'll happily welcome them.

And while kushaw makes a point about the value of waiting, the other fact is that KU currently stands to lose anywhere from 4-8 guys from this team and yet has one recruit signed for next year so... without a "prospected" stud like Daniels, next year could be more difficult than usual.

We lost out on Johnson, Chol, Turner, Nash, Beal, and Brown, so unless we get Daniels or McLemore (both Top 20 guys), we're going to have an interesting time filling spots for 40 minutes a game.

BCRavenJHawkfan 7 years, 6 months ago

Maybe, just maybe, the real answer is not expanding the tournament to more teams but rather shrinking it. For instance: In the tournament would be regular conference champions of every Division I school with a basketball program; the conference tournament winners or the runner up if the winner also won the regular seaon conference. That's it, end of story!

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

I agree on smaller. I vote for a 48-team tourney with a bye for the top 16. And I think regular season conference champs should get the auto bids and the conference tourneys (if you'd still keep them) used as tie breakers. So that would be 33 auto bids and then 15 at-large.

tis4tim 7 years, 6 months ago

Dear BCRavenJHawkfan,

I think that's a horrible idea.

Sincerely,

$$$

Robert Lofthouse 7 years, 6 months ago

single elimination tournament of conference champs; what a concept!

NO more committee!

this would take college basketball well into the baseball season and with a small break during football, come back again in October to do it all over again!

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

You've got a keen idea here.

But single elimination with fewer teams would not generate enough revenues.

So: cut the number of teams to conference champions and conference runner up.

Eliminate the conference tournaments.

Go to an NBA Style best of seven, or best of five, or even Best of Three, format for the Madness.

Make the thing run through March and April.

Fill the tube with tournament series games.

Amp the revenue out through the roof and use the money to provide all players with insurance policies against injuries so they can afford to stay the full four years if they want.

Buy back college basketball from the stinking NBA with brute force generation of television revenues.

I've never liked the idea of all of the non-entities getting into the tournament.

I'd like to leave everything as it is now, but standing pat means the NBA just keeps nibbling away at the solvency and talent of D1 college basketball.

College basketball is busy being born, or busy dying.

I say get busy being born.

Take college basketball into the 21st Century.

tis4tim 7 years, 6 months ago

While the idea of a three-game, five-game or seven-game series would, I believe, get to the heart of who really is the "best" team in any given college season, it would, in some respects, strip the beauty of the tournament away entirely: the Cinderella story.

Part of what makes the college tourney so great is that David always has a shot. If circumstances are right and the match-ups are right, a team has a chance. Take away single elimination and make it a series and Goliath would, in all but the rarest of cases, come out on top due to attrition.

I'm not sure I would take that trade-off.

blindrabbit 7 years, 6 months ago

Please, Clark Kellogg give up using the "body of work" terminology; talk about something that is trite and overused. Makes my skin crawl whenever someone uses it in speech; kinda like "stuff".

jaybate 7 years, 6 months ago

Clark Kellogg is no Satchel Paige.

Or Yogi Berra.

Or even Hubert Davis. :-)

prairie_rattler 7 years, 6 months ago

Didn't read any of the 166 remarks before me... only commenting on the story. I apologize if the following has already been stated ad nasueum.

The process is not flawed.. it is the fairest of any collegiate sport. Colorado, Virginia-Tech, et al. should have realized that the NCAA tournament began the week before selection Sunday. All any conference affiliated team (and especially one that performed poorly early in the season) has to do is win; you control your destiny... lose in the conference tournament, and your future is taken out of your hands. There is no reason to disparage the greatest sporting event ever created.

KU_alum_2001 7 years, 6 months ago

Agree on everything except for one point: "the NCAA tournament began the week before selection Sunday." I'd argue it started in November and thus perhaps CU shouldn't have gone with the 325th strongest non-conference schedule... or perhaps have beaten San Fran, Harvard, or New Mexico earlier in the season.

JayHawkFanToo 7 years, 6 months ago

Then how do you explain Villanova being in the tournament? They lost 10 out of the last 15 game, 7 out of the last 9 and the last 5 games they played. The problem with the selection is that is a mostly subjective selection with only the (heavily flawed) RPI as guide. The head of the Committee indicated in a TV an interview that CU and VT “just did not get the votes.” This clearly indicates that politics played a bigger role than merit.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.