|
|
Post by udflyerskw on Nov 29, 2009 21:59:13 GMT -5
Exactly, so why give those last spots to the eighth and ninth teams in the Pac 10 and Big Ten? Let Furman enjoy going to the dance, let North Dakota State hang a banner. Instead of watching MSU lose to an NCAA team for the 10th time this season (of course, MSU will win, just so people can say "See!" Funny you should mention Furman. 9/18/2009 Neutral L Michigan State 17-25, 21-25, 12-25 They scored all of 50 points against "the last place team in the Big Ten" Although they actually have a leg up on ND State in that they did beat a team in the top 100. They beat #95 College of Charleston twice. Again, I'm not disputing Michigan State is the better team. But are they more deserving? How about Tulsa? Michigan State went 3-9 vs NCAA tournament teams. Tulsa went 4-3 vs NCAA Tournament teams. Us there a difference between PSU, Illinois, and Rice and Tulane? Yes. Okay. Vs Teams 26-50 in the RPI Tulsa: 4-3 MSU: 1-2 vs 51-100 in the RPI Tulsa: 3-1 MSU: 8-6 If MSU is a lot better than their record, than Tulsa is a lot better than their RPI |
|
|
|
Post by pennstate7188 on Nov 29, 2009 22:00:44 GMT -5
Michigan State is one of the top 64 teams in the country, and therefore, should receive a bid into the tournament. There are probably 20+ teams from the bracket that Michigan State could easily beat on any night of the week. Yes, playing against Illinois, Minnesota, Penn State, and Michigan certainly didn't help their record, but they're much better than people think. 1) This is not a national championship tournament between the 64 best teams in the country and never has been. 2) Your second sentence is missing a crucial component. We all know there are 20+ relatively weak auto-qualifiers. What you should be focusing on is how many other at-large bid teams MSU could "easily beat on any night of the week". I'd like to see your list of 20 at-large teams that would easily lose to MSU any time. 1) I'm aware. Don't even get me started on that... 2) I don't have a list of 20 at-large teams because that's not what I originally said. Regardless, if MSU can beat a third of the teams in the bracket, they deserve their spot. No one is bitching and complaining about Binghamton who is 15-15, or the two teams that are 18-12. I don't see the fascination with Michigan State's bid... |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 22:01:17 GMT -5
This year? I think they do, easily. Baylor and Dayton are great wins. Even with those losses, Purdue's RPI is 60 or so. Win those matches, and they are in the top 40, I would guess, with some very good wins. So, logically, teams in the lower half of the Big Ten only need focus on preseason in order to secure a tournament berth. Sure, you want to move up in the Big Ten, etc., but you don't really need to feel any pressure if you're interested in getting to the tournament. You have to have some quality wins in the big ten, but Purdue did beat Ohio State and Michigan St, so that is why I said their conference performance was enough. Oh, I forgot Kentucky. Now, had _IOWA_ taken Purdue's pre-conference season and gone undefeated and then done what they did in the Big Ten, that's a tougher call. Probably a no. They lacked that big conference win of Ohio St. That is also Indiana's problem, although I think they were darn close as it was. If they had beaten both UT Martin AND Kentucky, they would have been looking much better. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 22:02:07 GMT -5
Funny you should mention Furman. 9/18/2009 Neutral L Michigan State 17-25, 21-25, 12-25 They scored all of 50 points against "the last place team in the Big Ten" Although they actually have a leg up on ND State in that they did beat a team in the top 100. They beat #95 College of Charleston twice. Again, I'm not disputing Michigan State is the better team. But are they more deserving? If the goal is to get the best teams in the tournament, then, yes, by definition. |
|
|
|
Post by pennstate7188 on Nov 29, 2009 22:02:55 GMT -5
Tulsa should've made it in... THAT's criminal.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 22:03:38 GMT -5
The committee has made it clear that, while they value RPI, they do not rely on it exclusively. ...except when seeding Florida State 3rd overall. Seeding is a different beast from selections. I'm not as clear on the rules for seeding, I'll admit. But your point is well-taken...  |
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Nov 29, 2009 22:06:51 GMT -5
Tulsa should've made it in... THAT's criminal. You lose to Gonzaga, Arkansas, UTEP, Southern Miss, and you should get in? |
|
|
|
Post by udflyerskw on Nov 29, 2009 22:10:48 GMT -5
Again, I'm not disputing Michigan State is the better team. But are they more deserving? If the goal is to get the best teams in the tournament, then, yes, by definition. The NCAA has never stated anything other than: -- The championship provides for a field of 64 teams. -- To be considered during the at-large selection process, a team must have an overall won-lost-record above .500. -- The criteria shall be employed by a governing sports committee in selecting participants for NCAA championships competition shall be (W-L, SOS, Eligibility/availability of student-athletes for the championship, RPI, head to head, results vs common opponents, significant wins and losses, late season performance, location of contest) They at no time have ever said the tournament is for the BEST teams. It's implied that the teams which do the best in against that criteria are the MOST DESERVING of at-large bids, not the best teams. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 22:10:55 GMT -5
Tulsa should've made it in... THAT's criminal. Tulsa has an RPI of 68. Very few teams with RPIs that low get selected (there have been 1 or 2 in the last 10 years). It would have been much more of a shock if they had made it. The thing that took Tulsa down was their non-conference schedule. In particular, teams like Northridge, Northern Arizona, Boise St (!), and Gonzaga are RPI killers, playing in western conferences that are heavily biased against. Their non-conference schedule had an average rank of 194. That's awful. It was 164 in Pablo, which still isn't good, but is at least better. |
|
|
|
Post by pennstate7188 on Nov 29, 2009 22:13:26 GMT -5
Tulsa should've made it in... THAT's criminal. You lose to Gonzaga, Arkansas, UTEP, Southern Miss, and you should get in? Yeah, especially if there are teams like Binghamton, Coastal Carolina, College of Charleston, etc. on the bracket. Yes - I understand auto-bids vs. at-large bids. I just don't care. |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 29, 2009 22:15:43 GMT -5
The Spartans got in because they had two Big 10 reps on the Championship Committee going to bat for them, end of story.
|
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Nov 29, 2009 22:25:16 GMT -5
Yes - I understand auto-bids vs. at-large bids. I just don't care. Well then you shouldn't be arguing this point, should you? It's not perfectly fair. It's like saying "I don't think Ice-T should make millions of dollars when Mother Teresa died penniless. Yes, I know how capitalism works, but I don't care." |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 29, 2009 22:25:45 GMT -5
They at no time have ever said the tournament is for the BEST teams. It's implied that the teams which do the best in against that criteria are the MOST DESERVING of at-large bids, not the best teams. I don't see a difference. I don't see how Mich St didn't satisfy the criteria better than did NDSU. Especially the parts about "significant wins and losses" which is a primary consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Nov 29, 2009 22:27:26 GMT -5
The Spartans got in because they had two Big 10 reps on the Championship Committee going to bat for them, end of story. Who would you put in instead? |
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Nov 29, 2009 22:35:11 GMT -5
San Diego (18-7)?
|
|
