Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:52 pm
by Cammo101
Virginia Tech should be in. Arizona or Baylor should be out. Glad South Alabama got in. Pretty good job by the committee this year.

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:02 pm
by Polynice4Pippen
Cammo101 wrote:Virginia Tech should be in. Arizona or Baylor should be out. Glad South Alabama got in. Pretty good job by the committee this year.


I think Baylor should be out, especially after losing to freaking last place Colorado in the first round of the Big 12 tourny. I think Arizona belongs though. And I think Arizona State>>>Virginia Tech. And Georgia plays the role of bid thief.

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:05 pm
by yaomac11-1
Aragorn wrote:No Virginia Tech. UGA must have bumped them out.
that stinks. Tech really deserved it over UGA. they got lucky in that sec tourney

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:08 pm
by hofer
Apparently Butler is the UNLV of 2008, but I don't think it will matter. They will be in the Sweet 16 at least.

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:24 pm
by Dry_Fish
hahahaha ASU didn't make it. I'll be trashing talking later tonight....hahahahaha

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:36 am
by studcrackers
they showed az st. go 5-10 there last 15, dont think they really deserve it if they close the season out like that

despite indianas poor finish to the season they deserved a better seed as did the other big 10 teams, and butler really got screwed too, maybe they just hate the midwest. i also think its funny that unc got the top seed but play the toughest bracket.

prediction for the tourney, memphis and unc both will not win it all, come back in 3 weeks to call me a dumbass

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:14 am
by mizzoupacers
Arizona State had an RPI in the 80s; I know there are other factors besides RPI to consider, but no team with an RPI that bad should get an at-large bid.

I'm disappointed that Illinois State did not get in, and I think they have the biggest gripe of the teams left out. THIRTEEN at-large bids went to teams with lower RPIs. That's kinda insane. I would have taken Illinois State over Villanova, Oregon, Baylor, or St. Joseph's for sure. The NCAA committee missed the boat on the MVC AGAIN. How many times do MVC teams have to win in the NCAA Tournament before somebody wakes up? Come on, dumbasses, the MVC's #2 team belongs in the tournament.

We can't live without the Big East's eighth-best team (18 RPI spots lower than Illinois State), or the Pac 10's sixth-best team (25 RPI spots lower)? We can't live without the Atlantic 10's fourth-place team (11 spots lower) who lost their only game this year against an MVC team (Creighton, a team Illinois State swept)?

Clemson vs. Villanova...borrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:54 am
by Cammo101
IMO VTech is the only team with a legit beef about not making it. They can play with anyone.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:57 am
by bill curley II
Arizona St should've gotten in. I do think that 5-10 record in the last 15 is the only big blemish on their record. Yes they have an RPI in the 80's, but if that's what's keeping ASU from the tournament, people should really start questioning how the RPI is calculated.

To me, it rewards teams too much on beating a team ranked 100 rather than 200 too much, even though for a good team, that difference isn't that big. ASU's RPI took a hit b/c they had 9 wins over teams with a 200+ RPI, but would they really be considered that much better had they beat teams with RPI's between 100-150? Secondly, it rewards losses against good teams too much, and wins against good teams too little. Who cares if you play a top 5 team and lose. Anyone can lose. ASU didn't get enough credit for beating Xavier, Arizona twice, Stanford, USC, and Oregon. If the committee's going to say they pick teams based on whether they can compete for a title and beat good teams, I think ASU should've gotten in based on those wins.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:20 am
by MalReyn
yaomac11-1 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

that stinks. Tech really deserved it over UGA. they got lucky in that sec tourney


Regardless, Xavier has a really dangerous game going up against UGA in the first round.

A hot major-conference team? Scary.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:40 am
by Scoot McGroot
mizzoupacers wrote:Arizona State had an RPI in the 80s; I know there are other factors besides RPI to consider, but no team with an RPI that bad should get an at-large bid.

I'm disappointed that Illinois State did not get in, and I think they have the biggest gripe of the teams left out. THIRTEEN at-large bids went to teams with lower RPIs. That's kinda insane. I would have taken Illinois State over Villanova, Oregon, Baylor, or St. Joseph's for sure. The NCAA committee missed the boat on the MVC AGAIN. How many times do MVC teams have to win in the NCAA Tournament before somebody wakes up? Come on, dumbasses, the MVC's #2 team belongs in the tournament.

We can't live without the Big East's eighth-best team (18 RPI spots lower than Illinois State), or the Pac 10's sixth-best team (25 RPI spots lower)? We can't live without the Atlantic 10's fourth-place team (11 spots lower) who lost their only game this year against an MVC team (Creighton, a team Illinois State swept)?

Clemson vs. Villanova...borrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.



I see what you're saying. Sure, they lost 3 times to Drake, a pretty darned good team, and to IU early in the year when IU was a really, really good team, but not quite great. However, they're biggest win was....Cincinnati? Someone else in conference?

I think Dayton has as much, if not more of a gripe than Illinois State does. They lost to Xavier 3 times, but also knocked off teams like Louisville and Pittsburgh. They also had a ton of injuries they dealt with, but still, IMO, came up with a better resume.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:11 am
by PR07
Tennessee and Butler both got a raw deal today. Tennessee is the Top #2 seed (at least), and somehow they get stuck in the regional with the top overall team in UNC as well as a second round matchup with the best #7 seed I've ever seen in Butler and perhaps the best overall #3 in Louisville.

Butler was the #10 team in the country with an RPI of 16 and got a #7 seed? Why have rankings then, if the committee feels there are at least 24 teams better than Butler? This is a team that is better and stronger than last season's Sweet 16 team...yet they get a bad seed, the hardest regional, and basically play an away game against South Alabama in Birmingham.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:34 am
by oakfanintheeast
Nova beat 3 conf. winners, 5 top 50 RPI teams, and 8 top 60 RPI teams.

Ill. St's resume was not near theirs, either was ASU, OSU, or Vtech.


The blind love for Vtech was one of the most rid. things i hve ever seen in my life.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:57 am
by PhilipNelsonFan
I think Arizona State got hosed. They had a dreadful RPI and a weak OOC schedule but they did finish with a winning conference record, and not every bubble team could claim such a feat. .500 or greater in conference record should be a prerequisite.

Most of the other bubble teams didn't really get snubbed from what I can tell. There seemed to be pretty clear lines of who was in or out...teams like Georgia did f**k things up a little for the committee, but that happened all week.

Some excellent, excellent first-round matchups. ND/GMU and USC/KSU come readily to mind. The 5/12 matchups will once again be critical.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:22 pm
by hermes
PacersRule07 wrote:Tennessee and Butler both got a raw deal today. Tennessee is the Top #2 seed (at least), and somehow they get stuck in the regional with the top overall team in UNC as well as a second round matchup with the best #7 seed I've ever seen in Butler and perhaps the best overall #3 in Louisville.

Butler was the #10 team in the country with an RPI of 16 and got a #7 seed? Why have rankings then, if the committee feels there are at least 24 teams better than Butler? This is a team that is better and stronger than last season's Sweet 16 team...yet they get a bad seed, the hardest regional, and basically play an away game against South Alabama in Birmingham.

tennessee does have a rough go of it
and i was surprised butler was seeded that low

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:14 pm
by mizzoupacers
bill curley II wrote:Arizona St should've gotten in...ASU didn't get enough credit for beating Xavier, Arizona twice, Stanford, USC, and Oregon.


Those were all home games, except for once against Arizona. On the road ASU lost to Nebraska by 15 points, and on a neutral court they got blown out by Illinois.

If Illinois State ever got to play major-conference teams in their own gym, they would win their fair share of those games, but of course college basketball doesn't work that way.

bill curley II wrote:If the committee's going to say they pick teams based on whether they can compete for a title and beat good teams, I think ASU should've gotten in based on those wins.


Too bad they won't be playing the entire NCAA Tournament in Tempe, Arizona.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:19 pm
by mizzoupacers
Scoot McGroot wrote:I think Dayton has as much, if not more of a gripe than Illinois State does.


Dayton has a gripe, but they had some injury problems and just weren't the same team late in the season as they were earlier. I'd take Illinois State over Dayton, just because I think they're in better shape to be a tough out in the tournament.

Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:28 pm
by Scoot McGroot
mizzoupacers wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Dayton has a gripe, but they had some injury problems and just weren't the same team late in the season as they were earlier. I'd take Illinois State over Dayton, just because I think they're in better shape to be a tough out in the tournament.



I can understand that and can agree that they'd probably be tougher in the tournament due to health. However, I'd argue that Dayton had the better tournament resume and had earned a berth moreso than Illinois State. Then, we get into the argument of who earned their way in (which kind of favors the mid-majors) and who the committee thinks can win games and possibly win the tournament (where they'll favor the BCS conferences).