(03-13-2022 06:47 AM)schmolik Wrote:  The George Mason-Hofstra snub by the 2006 Bracket Matrix was not controversial. 11 of 23 had George Mason. 13 of 23 had Hofstra. More had Hofstra but it wasn't cut and dry. It's possible some brackets had both or neither. I'm almost positive George Mason's AD was on the Selection Committee that year.

And that should never be discounted. Not as controversial, but I seem to remember 2014 or 2015 BYU making it in despite there being better teams out there…Holmoe was on the committee.

(03-13-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.

They both should have gotten in and Air Force should have been left out

But that's politics

As high and mighty as these guys may feel about being above reproach, selection of those last at larges and even seeding can be 100% political

(03-13-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.

It doesn't change much but Hofstra got screwed by Covid. They had the CAA auto-bid won but obviously, the NCAA Tournament didn't happen.

And don't AD's and conference commissioners have to leave the room when their team or conference is being discussed?

(03-13-2022 11:22 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.

It doesn't change much but Hofstra got screwed by Covid. They had the CAA auto-bid won but obviously, the NCAA Tournament didn't happen.

And don't AD's and conference commissioners have to leave the room when their team or conference is being discussed?

Yes. But who's to say what happens under the table? And if I've worked and met George Mason's AD and I've never met Hofstra's, wouldn't I be more likely to vote for GMU than Hofstra, especially if I know if I vote for them they likely would vote for me as well?

Reddit posted a more complete list of teams chosen by the Selection Committee but not the Bracket Matrix and vice versa:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketba...snubs_and/

No additions this year.

Michigan 2022, and they get a game against Colorado St, the higher seed, in Indy. How does the NCAA justify that one?

(03-13-2022 06:05 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Subjectivity is inclusive of biases, prejudices, and favoritism, lobbying, name recognition, media power, and inconsistently valuing certain measures over others.

Sooooooo, the CFP every year?????

Probably Notre Dame going 2-8 against Quad 1. But I guess 21-10 overall looks too much better than Oklahoma's 18-15. Rutgers maybe next at 77 NET, 18-13; but they did go 6-6 against quad 1


On seeds:
I was going to say Houston getting a 5 seed, but I see they went 0-4 against quad 1, meaning they are a NET rating darling (happens) and hard to argue against that. Still, I'd have thought they'd get a 3 seed anyway. Murray State as a 7 seed looks low for a NET of 21, but they just didn't have enough schedule beyond Belmont. I see similar throughout, where strong showing against quad 1 (e.g., Wisconsin 9-3 despite a 22 NET) gets you a higher seed, and less impressive results lower it (e.g., Virginia Tech 3-5 vs quad 1 gets an 11 seed despite a 27 NET).

Anyway that's what I noticed, that they put more weight on quad 1 record than on NET.

(03-13-2022 01:50 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:40 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:35 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 01:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Tulsa a few years ago I believe is the worst recent one.

Michigan State (13-15, #76) NET in, ahead of (#37) Memphis was truly appalling last March, especially considering that Memphis won the NIT championship, while MSU failed to win a NCAA game.

NIT is meaningless and besides, wins and losses are irrelevant. Good teams lose games they should win and bad teams can rise up and go on a run. Lots of bad teams have won the NIT.

There has never been a bad team that has won the NIT, let alone “lots”. Any NIT champion is already in the top 20% of teams in the country.

Correct. I'm a Memphis fan. But the Tigers at 2020-2021's end were a very good team.

.

Q: How does the Big Ten get 9 NCAA bids (3 more than any other conference) after the way they imploded in the 2021 NCAA tournament?


Conf........Bids.Record...Win %
Pac-12......5.....13–5.....722
WCC.........2.....5–2......714
American...2.....4–2......667
Summit.....1.....2–1......667
Big 12.......7...11–6......647
MVC.........2.....3–2......600
SEC..........6.....7–6......538
Big East....4.....4–4......500
C-USA......1.....1–1......500
MAC.........1.....1–1......500
Southland.1.....1–1......500
MEAC........1.....1–1......500
SWAC.......1.....1–1......500
Big Ten.....9.....8–9......471

#1 Illinois lost to #8 Loyola
#2 Ohio St. lost to #15 Oral Roberts
#2 Iowa lost to #7 Oregon
#4 Purdue lost to #13 North Texas

.

(03-14-2022 03:23 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

Q: How does the Big Ten get 9 NCAA bids (3 more than any other conference) after the way they imploded in the 2021 NCAA tournament?


Conf........Bids.Record...Win %
Pac-12......5.....13–5.....722
WCC.........2.....5–2......714
American...2.....4–2......667
Summit.....1.....2–1......667
Big 12.......7...11–6......647
MVC.........2.....3–2......600
SEC..........6.....7–6......538
Big East....4.....4–4......500
C-USA......1.....1–1......500
MAC.........1.....1–1......500
Southland.1.....1–1......500
MEAC........1.....1–1......500
SWAC.......1.....1–1......500
Big Ten.....9.....8–9......471

#1 Illinois lost to #8 Loyola
#2 Ohio St. lost to #15 Oral Roberts
#2 Iowa lost to #7 Oregon
#4 Purdue lost to #13 North Texas

.

Because the field is determined by 2022 records, not 2021 results. You want to give 3-28 Oregon State a bid to the tournament this year?

(03-13-2022 09:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.

They both should have gotten in and Air Force should have been left out

But that's politics

As high and mighty as these guys may feel about being above reproach, selection of those last at larges and even seeding can be 100% political

I think that was the feeling/tone about 2016 Tulsa? AAC wasn’t on the committee in 2015 and Temple got snubbed. Next year, no way the conference was losing out, no matter how “out there” Tulsa was.

Would it have been close this year if Davidson got the AQ and Dayton got in as that last-in team? I thought VCU was popping up on more brackets still than Dayton was.

(03-14-2022 07:28 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 09:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.

They both should have gotten in and Air Force should have been left out

But that's politics

As high and mighty as these guys may feel about being above reproach, selection of those last at larges and even seeding can be 100% political

I think that was the feeling/tone about 2016 Tulsa? AAC wasn’t on the committee in 2015 and Temple got snubbed. Next year, no way the conference was losing out, no matter how “out there” Tulsa was.

Would it have been close this year if Davidson got the AQ and Dayton got in as that last-in team? I thought VCU was popping up on more brackets still than Dayton was.

Dayton was the last team out.

If Richmond hadn't gotten in it would have been Dayton.

A10 was going to be a mult bid conference this year.

Here are the committee members
The chair of the committee is Tom Burnett, commissioner of the Southland Conference.
Charles McClelland, commissioner of the Southwestern Athletic Conference
Chris Reynolds, director of athletics at Bradley
Mike O’Brien, director of athletics at Toledo
Keith Gill, the commissioner of the Sun Belt Conference
Bernadette McGlade, commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference
Barry Collier, the director of athletics at Butler
Jamie Pollard, director of athletics at Iowa State
Bubba Cunningham, director of athletics at North Carolina
Mark Coyle, the director of athletics at Minnesota
Martin Jarmond, the director of athletics for UCLA
Greg Byrne, the director of athletics at Alabama

(03-14-2022 07:59 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-14-2022 07:28 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 09:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.

They both should have gotten in and Air Force should have been left out

But that's politics

As high and mighty as these guys may feel about being above reproach, selection of those last at larges and even seeding can be 100% political

I think that was the feeling/tone about 2016 Tulsa? AAC wasn’t on the committee in 2015 and Temple got snubbed. Next year, no way the conference was losing out, no matter how “out there” Tulsa was.

Would it have been close this year if Davidson got the AQ and Dayton got in as that last-in team? I thought VCU was popping up on more brackets still than Dayton was.

Dayton was the last team out.

If Richmond hadn't gotten in it would have been Dayton.

A10 was going to be a mult bid conference this year.

Here are the committee members
The chair of the committee is Tom Burnett, commissioner of the Southland Conference.
Charles McClelland, commissioner of the Southwestern Athletic Conference
Chris Reynolds, director of athletics at Bradley
Mike O’Brien, director of athletics at Toledo
Keith Gill, the commissioner of the Sun Belt Conference
Bernadette McGlade, commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference
Barry Collier, the director of athletics at Butler
Jamie Pollard, director of athletics at Iowa State
Bubba Cunningham, director of athletics at North Carolina
Mark Coyle, the director of athletics at Minnesota
Martin Jarmond, the director of athletics for UCLA
Greg Byrne, the director of athletics at Alabama

All six of the P6 conferences had an AD on the Committee. I wonder if that will be the rule in the future.

(03-14-2022 09:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-14-2022 07:59 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-14-2022 07:28 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 09:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.

They both should have gotten in and Air Force should have been left out

But that's politics

As high and mighty as these guys may feel about being above reproach, selection of those last at larges and even seeding can be 100% political

I think that was the feeling/tone about 2016 Tulsa? AAC wasn’t on the committee in 2015 and Temple got snubbed. Next year, no way the conference was losing out, no matter how “out there” Tulsa was.

Would it have been close this year if Davidson got the AQ and Dayton got in as that last-in team? I thought VCU was popping up on more brackets still than Dayton was.

Dayton was the last team out.

If Richmond hadn't gotten in it would have been Dayton.

A10 was going to be a mult bid conference this year.

Here are the committee members
The chair of the committee is Tom Burnett, commissioner of the Southland Conference.
Charles McClelland, commissioner of the Southwestern Athletic Conference
Chris Reynolds, director of athletics at Bradley
Mike O’Brien, director of athletics at Toledo
Keith Gill, the commissioner of the Sun Belt Conference
Bernadette McGlade, commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference
Barry Collier, the director of athletics at Butler
Jamie Pollard, director of athletics at Iowa State
Bubba Cunningham, director of athletics at North Carolina
Mark Coyle, the director of athletics at Minnesota
Martin Jarmond, the director of athletics for UCLA
Greg Byrne, the director of athletics at Alabama

All six of the P6 conferences had an AD on the Committee. I wonder if that will be the rule in the future.

Last year it was 4 of 10. Now it’s 6 of 12. Talk about stacking the deck.

(03-14-2022 09:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  All six of the P6 conferences had an AD on the Committee. I wonder if that will be the rule in the future.

The ncaa.com article I pulled this from referenced them as the ACC or Big 10 representative so I would think so

Can't believe UMichigan got in this year. No wonder why people don't care about the regular season.

(03-14-2022 07:17 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-14-2022 03:23 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

Q: How does the Big Ten get 9 NCAA bids (3 more than any other conference) after the way they imploded in the 2021 NCAA tournament?


Conf........Bids.Record...Win %
Pac-12......5.....13–5.....722
WCC.........2.....5–2......714
American...2.....4–2......667
Summit.....1.....2–1......667
Big 12.......7...11–6......647
MVC.........2.....3–2......600
SEC..........6.....7–6......538
Big East....4.....4–4......500
C-USA......1.....1–1......500
MAC.........1.....1–1......500
Southland.1.....1–1......500
MEAC........1.....1–1......500
SWAC.......1.....1–1......500
Big Ten.....9.....8–9......471

#1 Illinois lost to #8 Loyola
#2 Ohio St. lost to #15 Oral Roberts
#2 Iowa lost to #7 Oregon
#4 Purdue lost to #13 North Texas

.

Because the field is determined by 2022 records, not 2021 results. You want to give 3-28 Oregon State a bid to the tournament this year?

Exactly. How ******* stupid is that. Let's get 6-25 Georgetown in there as well.

(03-14-2022 07:59 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-14-2022 07:28 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 09:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:28 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-13-2022 07:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Air Force and Utah State got in for 2006 because the MWC and WAC that year were ranked higher than the CAA and GMU was getting in. CAA deserved 3 that year but no way they were getting that while the WAC and MWC were getting only 1

That year proved to me that conference affiliation matters

If the CAA was only getting 2, Hofstra absolutely deserved to be #2 over George Mason. Think about how much things changed for both schools. GMU gets to not only get in but go to the Final Four (helped out by home games in the Sweet 16/Elite 8) and then now are in the A-10. Hofstra STILL hasn't made the NCAA Tournament since then.

Assume the GMU AD was on the Selection Committee that year. How much of a pay raise do you think he got because of Mason's Final Four as opposed to if they didn't make it? Now do you see why AD's shouldn't be deciding who gets to be in the NCAA Tournament? Would I be any less biased? I'd like to say I would be but probably not but if Illinois is a #1 seed or wins the national championship I don't see a dime.

They both should have gotten in and Air Force should have been left out

But that's politics

As high and mighty as these guys may feel about being above reproach, selection of those last at larges and even seeding can be 100% political

I think that was the feeling/tone about 2016 Tulsa? AAC wasn’t on the committee in 2015 and Temple got snubbed. Next year, no way the conference was losing out, no matter how “out there” Tulsa was.

Would it have been close this year if Davidson got the AQ and Dayton got in as that last-in team? I thought VCU was popping up on more brackets still than Dayton was.

Dayton was the last team out.

If Richmond hadn't gotten in it would have been Dayton.

A10 was going to be a mult bid conference this year.

Here are the committee members
The chair of the committee is Tom Burnett, commissioner of the Southland Conference.
Charles McClelland, commissioner of the Southwestern Athletic Conference
Chris Reynolds, director of athletics at Bradley
Mike O’Brien, director of athletics at Toledo
Keith Gill, the commissioner of the Sun Belt Conference
Bernadette McGlade, commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference
Barry Collier, the director of athletics at Butler
Jamie Pollard, director of athletics at Iowa State
Bubba Cunningham, director of athletics at North Carolina
Mark Coyle, the director of athletics at Minnesota
Martin Jarmond, the director of athletics for UCLA
Greg Byrne, the director of athletics at Alabama

In 2006, Cincinnati was robbed.

Cincinnati was 19-12, 8-8 in the Big East. #40 RPI, #5 Strength of Schedule. Nonconference wins over #13 LSU (neutral court), #65 Murray State, @#72 Vanderbilt, #84 Miami, and #98 Ohio (those are RPI ranks; KenPom rankings are higher). In-conference wins over ranked WVU and ranked @Syracuse.

Only 2 losses to teams that didn't make the NCAA tournament, both to rivals who UC played twice: a split with fellow bubble team Louisville and a split with 14-17 Dayton.

On the Bracket Matrix, Cincinnati was in 20 of 23 mock brackets with an average seed of #10. Lunardi predicted Cincinnati as a #9 seed.