NCAABB

We need to replace the "Selection Committee"

4/6/10 in NCAABB   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

 Duke defeated Butler to win the NCAA title on Monday night, and many people disapprove of the fact. There are the haters who say the refs were in on it, but honestly, the Selection Committee screwed up big time in the seedings and caused this result. Duke was never ranked number one in the country at any point this season, finished 3rd in the last poll before the tournament, but still "earned" not just a number one seed, but got to play the play-in game winner, which used to be reserved to the top seed in the tournament. 

Now many of you are probably saying that if Duke was number 3 in the polls, they should get a number one seed. True, they did win the ACC, but lets look at the other two candidates for that number one seed and their conference strength.
ACC- 3. Duke (29-5) 3rd in RPI 2 ranked teams in final poll
Big Ten- 5. Ohio State (27-7) 26th in RPI 3 ranked teams in final poll
Big East- 6. West Virginia (27-6) 3rd in RPI 5 ranked teams in final poll

Very valid argument for any of those teams to be a one seed, but the ACC was clearly the weakest of the conferences. And with Syracuse earning a one seed, why have two teams from the same conference, but i think West Virginia should have gotten that one seed as they have the same RPI as Duke, but has a stronger strength of schedule and wins vs top 25 teams (5-4 for WV vs 1-3 for Duke). 

Another argument is why not base seedings on poll rankings. Even though it somewhat contradicts my last paragraph, some teams were grossly underseeded. Butler finished 11 in the AP poll and 8th in the ESPN poll, yet warrants only a 5 seed in the tournament? However a team like Georgetown, with 10 losses, and in the middle of the pack of the rankings gets a 3 seed, just because they are in the Big East? Why? just because Butler is a mid major, they get punished, and G-town gets rewarded for being in the Big East? A win is a win in my book. The coaches and pollsters obviously think that "mid-major' team belongs with the "BCS" conference teams if they are so high in the rankings. Here are some robberies and gifts that the comittee committed

TEAM                      AP      ESPN        SEED
Butler                      11          8                 5
Temple                   12         13               5
Georgetown           14         15               3
Tennessee             15         14              6
Purdue                     10         11              4
BYU                           17         16              7
Baylor                        19         21             3
Gonzaga                   22         18             8
Northern Iowa          26         24            9
UTEP                         27         25            12

The seedings pretty much make no sense and rewards teams from the conference tournaments. 4 months of play should not bubble down to a 4 day tournament. 

My Suggestions:
1. Eliminate Conference Tournaments
     As fun as they may be, i would rather see a 26-7 team represent the SWAC than a team who caught a hot streak and got in with a record of 17-16. The BEST teams should play in the top tournament. Period. 
2. Let fans vote in the bracket.
CBS should hold a one-week voting window for fans to pick the seeds. This would make bracket filling much more fun, challenging, and rewarding. Billy may have got three of his four final four teams right, but Steve got the entire Midwest region correct. The fans should pick the seeds, and a small 4 person committee (one person from each host city) handpicked by the NCAA President determine where the teams go. They cannot change seeds, just put them in correct regions. The selection committee never ceases to amaze me with the teams they leave out, and the horrible biases they have. They need to go, and I think the fans can fairly place teams where they need to go, regardless of conferences. 
3. NO EXPANSION PLEASE! 65 teams is plenty.

So there is my rant, and ideas on fixing problems. Let me know what you think below. Thanks for reading.



Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

1/20/11   |   blondie45044   |   5873 respect

IMO all officiating in all sports has sucked very badly, along with the fans behavior. There are also tons of profesional players that really suck for the young men and woman now days. They do not have the role models from the past. Drugs, tweeting along with good old fashioned sex taking the players down great article thanks for sharing! Butler played a good game of basketball in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Championship, leaving no questions that they deserved to be in this final game. But Duke just played a little bit better. They stayed ahead by a nose, and then by a nose and a chin, and it proved what they needed to win the game leaning over the finish line, just decisively enough that this wasn't’t really a photo finish (although Gordon Hayward’s near-3-pointer at the buzzer from half-court made you wonder if someone just didn't’t pray hard enough).

 

12/28/10   |   behimario   |   5 respect

ی ی ی ی-hi are you send fore me sexiyan photos girls????tanks---my mail is    behimario@yahoo.com
 

4/22/10   |   ryanharris166

ryanharris166 wrote:
 Duke still would have won. I agree fan voting is a baaaaaddd idea. Look at what it has done to the MLB all star game.

True

4/8/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

abac89 wrote:
ok so why didnt Butler have this problem they had hard fought close games against Syracuse,Kansas State, and Michigan Sate in which they had to play without 2 of their starters for most of the second half because of injuries and still found a way to win those games just sounds like youre making excuses for WV and finding every reason in the world not to give Duke the credit they deserve.

 butler had close games because they are a smaller team than all those other teams. with a minimized inside game, they had to find other ways to win. michigan state was also without lucas and another player who had foul trouble. i am in no way shape or form a wv fan, and i am not hating on duke. if duke and west virginia traded places, it still would be wrong because wv would have had no competition. im saying the brackets need to be more even. dont make the south region a cakewalk, and then make the midwest region a murderers row. all im saying is even them out.

4/8/10   |   abac89   |   782 respect

redsox1002003 wrote:
 they got bruised up during the kentuckty game, and would have lost that game if massoula didnt turn into jerry west. baylor barely cracked the top 20 in the polls, but got a 3 seed for having a hot streak. 

ok so why didnt Butler have this problem they had hard fought close games against Syracuse,Kansas State, and Michigan Sate in which they had to play without 2 of their starters for most of the second half because of injuries and still found a way to win those games just sounds like youre making excuses for WV and finding every reason in the world not to give Duke the credit they deserve.

4/8/10   |   Lizzo   |   324 respect

BluDevil wrote:
Even if WV should have been a #1 instead of Duke, didn't Duke prove they were the better team? They out and out hammered WV.

I think I already gave you that without beating the dead horse of WV being beat up by the time they got to Duke who were awarded the lowest seeded sacrificial lambs in the first game advancing them to the second round pretty much automatically. I already said it was a great game and gave Duke their props.

4/8/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

abac89 wrote:

ok everybody keeps sayin how bruised up WV was that same beat up team went in and defeated Kentucky and if you are referring to Da'sean Butler by time he went out of the game Duke was already up by double digits. Baylor was overseeded really? The same Baylor team that finished 3rd in the Big 12 the so called toughest conference this year so for duke to go in and beat them by 7 in Texas might i add is no easy feat.

 they got bruised up during the kentuckty game, and would have lost that game if massoula didnt turn into jerry west. baylor barely cracked the top 20 in the polls, but got a 3 seed for having a hot streak. 

4/8/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

BluDevil wrote:
There have been plenty of national champs that you can say the same thing about, i.e. they got a "easy" draw, they didn't play a "elite, healthy" team all  year... but yet when Duke does it we get a lengthy thread about it and how we should revamp the entire selection process because of it.

Again, it is not Duke's fault that they played teams that had injuries. In fact, one could make the argument that injuries to Duke players (Zoubek in particular) is why Duke hadn't shown better in the previous 2-3 tournaments.

This year Duke was healthy, got some breaks and played themselves into championship form by the end of the season. It happens all the time.

How many "elite, healthy" teams did UNC beat last year? Was LSU, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Villanova or Michigan State "elite"? I don't think so. But UNC was seen as the best team going into the tournament. This year Duke wasn't seen that way, but I'd say Duke beat just as many "elite, healthy" teams this year as UNC did last year.

 that oklahoma team had the griffin brothers, which was no easy feat to beat them. Nova was also a very tough team last year, finding a way to beat a team that was probably better than unc in pittsburgh, and beating a spartan team with tons of postseason experience. any one of those teams listed could have beaten this years duke team.

4/8/10   |   abac89   |   782 respect

redsox1002003 wrote:
 sure, but west virginia was battered and bruised from tough games against kentucky and washington. the toughest game duke played was a double digit win against an overseeded baylor team

ok everybody keeps sayin how bruised up WV was that same beat up team went in and defeated Kentucky and if you are referring to Da'sean Butler by time he went out of the game Duke was already up by double digits. Baylor was overseeded really? The same Baylor team that finished 3rd in the Big 12 the so called toughest conference this year so for duke to go in and beat them by 7 in Texas might i add is no easy feat.

4/7/10   |   BluDevil   |   618 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
Not hate, just the truth. Duke never once this year beat an elite team when they are healthy. I'm not disputing that they are the national champions or that they won the tournament.  I'm just questioning whether they really proved they were an elite team or is it just a bigger indictment against the quality of play this season?  Obviously we know Duke didn't beat an elite healthy team this year, but was it just luck of the draw or did this season kind of suck?

There have been plenty of national champs that you can say the same thing about, i.e. they got a "easy" draw, they didn't play a "elite, healthy" team all  year... but yet when Duke does it we get a lengthy thread about it and how we should revamp the entire selection process because of it.

Again, it is not Duke's fault that they played teams that had injuries. In fact, one could make the argument that injuries to Duke players (Zoubek in particular) is why Duke hadn't shown better in the previous 2-3 tournaments.

This year Duke was healthy, got some breaks and played themselves into championship form by the end of the season. It happens all the time.

How many "elite, healthy" teams did UNC beat last year? Was LSU, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Villanova or Michigan State "elite"? I don't think so. But UNC was seen as the best team going into the tournament. This year Duke wasn't seen that way, but I'd say Duke beat just as many "elite, healthy" teams this year as UNC did last year.

4/7/10   |   BluDevil   |   618 respect

Lizzo wrote:
I am NOT a Duke fan. I believe the #1 seed they received was BS. I also believe they get favoritism with the section they were placed in. At first look when the brackets came out, they appeared to have the easiest road to the championship, BUT! all bets were off after every other favorite went down. Butler basicly played Duke for the Chapionship on home turf and played their hearts out. It was unquestionably the BEST Championship game I have ever watched. The young men from both teams left it all on the court. I was so impressed with the way Butler showed no fear and played an agressive game. They just could not neutralize Scheyer and Duke played awesome D. As much as I would love to complain about Duke winning, I just don't see any grounds to do so. Both teams in that game deserved to be there and the best team that night won.

Having said all that, I agree that the seeding was all screwed up this year. Tennessee should have been a higher seed, and W Virginia should have been the 4th #1 instead of Duke. Fan voting won't fix the problem. That just makes it a popularity contest, which is pretty much what it is now. Conference tourneys have to stay. That is the only viable way for up and coming programs to get a spot in the big dance. I really don't have a good idea for how to fix it.

Even if WV should have been a #1 instead of Duke, didn't Duke prove they were the better team? They out and out hammered WV.

4/7/10   |   kantwistaye   |   4214 respect

BluDevil wrote:
Hmm.. that Butler team who's tallest player is a 6'9 guard beat Syracuse, Kansas State and Michigan State. Yeah, you are right, Duke had a cakewalk to the title. They didn't have a single tough game. They should have had to play the really tough teams like Northern Iowa or West Virginia, who beat Kentucky.

Oh wait, they did play West Virginia and they dominated the big east champs.

Give me a break. This is haterism gone crazy. It isn't Duke's fault that St. Mary's beat Villanova, or that West Virginia beat Kentucky, or that UNI beat Kansas or that Butler beat Syracuse.

Duke played every team put in front of them and they won, which is more than any other team can say.

Not hate, just the truth. Duke never once this year beat an elite team when they are healthy. I'm not disputing that they are the national champions or that they won the tournament.  I'm just questioning whether they really proved they were an elite team or is it just a bigger indictment against the quality of play this season?  Obviously we know Duke didn't beat an elite healthy team this year, but was it just luck of the draw or did this season kind of suck?

4/7/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

abac89 wrote:
but in the end does all that really matter considering when they met up in the final 4 Duke won by 21.

 sure, but west virginia was battered and bruised from tough games against kentucky and washington. the toughest game duke played was a double digit win against an overseeded baylor team

4/7/10   |   ojekeme1   |   600 respect

I don't agree with fan voting. You see what we have done with the NBA All-Stars (Allen Iverson Really...). As far as using a athmatical formula do we really want to go down that road. You see how math has screwed up division I college football.

4/7/10   |   abac89   |   782 respect

redsox1002003 wrote:
 they usually are, but in my article, i showed that WV had a tougher schedule and more wins vs ranked teams than Duke did.
(Edited by abac89)

but in the end does all that really matter considering when they met up in the final 4 Duke won by 21.

4/7/10   |   rigatonys   |   36 respect

"Duke was never ranked number one in the country at any point this season, finished 3rd in the last poll before the tournament, but still "earned" not just a number one seed, but got to play the play-in game winner, which used to be reserved to the top seed in the tournament. "

WELL SAID!!

4/7/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

daytonfly2 wrote:
Arent the Number 1 seeds in each Region the top 4 teams from the final season standings? And arent the rest picked by the fans? Im thats what i heard from every analyst and person who knows just a little about NCAA basketball.  So everyone get your panties out of the knot and deal with the fact that UNC sucks.  Duke does suck but if they are so terrible then how did they manage a top 4 rank in the season standings?  I do believe those standings are based upon strength of schedule and wins.  Now i have no idea what their SOS was but without a doubt they did well enough to earn it. Plus everyone is complaining about the matchups, some of the the top 3 or 4 teams of the ACC (VT, Maryland, GT, maybe UVA) next to Duke deserved a bid to the big dance.

 they usually are, but in my article, i showed that WV had a tougher schedule and more wins vs ranked teams than Duke did.

4/7/10   |   WhoDat12   |   2252 respect

MrNFL wrote:
Fans voting wouldn't work, because most fans are idiots.  The sad thing is, we are screwed once they expand the field.

To avoid bias, they could use a mathematical formula like they use for the hockey tournament.  It sucks, but it beats human bias.

And BOTH are far better than the BCS.

Not really a fair comparison. Being stuck in the groin with a sharpened pencil is better than the  BCS.

4/7/10   |   daytonfly2   |   21 respect

Arent the Number 1 seeds in each Region the top 4 teams from the final season standings? And arent the rest picked by the fans? Im thats what i heard from every analyst and person who knows just a little about NCAA basketball.  So everyone get your panties out of the knot and deal with the fact that UNC sucks.  Duke does suck but if they are so terrible then how did they manage a top 4 rank in the season standings?  I do believe those standings are based upon strength of schedule and wins.  Now i have no idea what their SOS was but without a doubt they did well enough to earn it. Plus everyone is complaining about the matchups, some of the the top 3 or 4 teams of the ACC (VT, Maryland, GT, maybe UVA) next to Duke deserved a bid to the big dance.

4/7/10   |   Lizzo   |   324 respect

I am NOT a Duke fan. I believe the #1 seed they received was BS. I also believe they get favoritism with the section they were placed in. At first look when the brackets came out, they appeared to have the easiest road to the championship, BUT! all bets were off after every other favorite went down. Butler basicly played Duke for the Chapionship on home turf and played their hearts out. It was unquestionably the BEST Championship game I have ever watched. The young men from both teams left it all on the court. I was so impressed with the way Butler showed no fear and played an agressive game. They just could not neutralize Scheyer and Duke played awesome D. As much as I would love to complain about Duke winning, I just don't see any grounds to do so. Both teams in that game deserved to be there and the best team that night won.

Having said all that, I agree that the seeding was all screwed up this year. Tennessee should have been a higher seed, and W Virginia should have been the 4th #1 instead of Duke. Fan voting won't fix the problem. That just makes it a popularity contest, which is pretty much what it is now. Conference tourneys have to stay. That is the only viable way for up and coming programs to get a spot in the big dance. I really don't have a good idea for how to fix it.

4/7/10   |   redsox1002003   |   881 respect

BluDevil wrote:
Hmm.. that Butler team who's tallest player is a 6'9 guard beat Syracuse, Kansas State and Michigan State. Yeah, you are right, Duke had a cakewalk to the title. They didn't have a single tough game. They should have had to play the really tough teams like Northern Iowa or West Virginia, who beat Kentucky.

Oh wait, they did play West Virginia and they dominated the big east champs.

Give me a break. This is haterism gone crazy. It isn't Duke's fault that St. Mary's beat Villanova, or that West Virginia beat Kentucky, or that UNI beat Kansas or that Butler beat Syracuse.

Duke played every team put in front of them and they won, which is more than any other team can say.

 I wasn't hating on just duke. I was hating on the selection committee. Duke drew the weakest 2 seed, a Nova team with obvious problems on and off the court, 3 seed a Baylor team that barely cracked the top 25, but got a high seed due to a run in their conference title, and 4 seed, Purdue, who pretty much limped into the tournament with their star player gone, and in search of a replacement on the fly, of the whole tournament. And if you want to skip the article because i made one mistake, then fine. I think that rule should change, however.

4/7/10   |   BluDevil   |   618 respect

I just can't respect anyone's knowledge level of college hoops when they say that the "play in winner is reserved for the #1 overall seed". That just shows a complete lack of understanding of how the selection process actually works.

Go look at this bracket from 2006: sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney06/bracket

In 2006 Duke was the consensus #1 seed. They were ranked #1 just about all year long. Did they get the play in winner? No, they didn't. That year the play in game was between Monmouth and Hampton. Monmouth won and played Villanova, which was the 4th #1 seed behind Duke, UCONN and Memphis.

So no, the play in winner has never been "reserved to the top seed in the tournament". When I read a statement like that, I immediately disregard the rest of the post.

4/7/10   |   BluDevil   |   618 respect

kantwistaye wrote:
Its not so much that any 16 seed was a threat as much the principle. Duke had the weakest 16 seed and the weakest 2,3,4, and 5 seeds in their bracket.  That got a free trip to the Final Four where they played West Virginia without their PG (and best player for most of the 2nd half) and a Butler team who's tallest player is a 6'9 guard.  They never had to prove they could beat an elite healthy team this year. That's not their fault, but its just what it is.

Hmm.. that Butler team who's tallest player is a 6'9 guard beat Syracuse, Kansas State and Michigan State. Yeah, you are right, Duke had a cakewalk to the title. They didn't have a single tough game. They should have had to play the really tough teams like Northern Iowa or West Virginia, who beat Kentucky.

Oh wait, they did play West Virginia and they dominated the big east champs.

Give me a break. This is haterism gone crazy. It isn't Duke's fault that St. Mary's beat Villanova, or that West Virginia beat Kentucky, or that UNI beat Kansas or that Butler beat Syracuse.

Duke played every team put in front of them and they won, which is more than any other team can say.

4/6/10   |   astromaniac1995   |   22 respect

MrNFL wrote:
Fans voting wouldn't work, because most fans are idiots.  The sad thing is, we are screwed once they expand the field.

To avoid bias, they could use a mathematical formula like they use for the hockey tournament.  It sucks, but it beats human bias.

And BOTH are far better than the BCS.

 i like the mathematical idea. top 65 with the highest output based on the formula. simple as that. get rid of conference tournaments. who enjoyed watching the high seeds win all the big conferences and then wofford making the tourny cause they won four games in a row against their crappy conference

4/6/10   |   astromaniac1995   |   22 respect

ryanharris166 wrote:
 Duke still would have won. I agree fan voting is a baaaaaddd idea. Look at what it has done to the MLB all star game.

 and the nba allstar game. IVERSON made the team

4/6/10   |   elevenbravo138again   |   1163 respect

MrNFL wrote:
Fans voting wouldn't work, because most fans are idiots.  The sad thing is, we are screwed once they expand the field.

To avoid bias, they could use a mathematical formula like they use for the hockey tournament.  It sucks, but it beats human bias.

And BOTH are far better than the BCS.

Thank you sir, a polite applause for your analysis-Golf clap

4/6/10   |   kantwistaye   |   4214 respect

abac89 wrote:
That same WV team without their pg beat Kentucky who was a #1 seed Joe mazzulla is vey capable of leading that team, before bryant got there he was the starter and Da'sean Butler got hurt with less than 9 minutes to go in the game by that point it was already a 15 point defecit and he wasnt that big of a factor in that game he only had 10 pts.

There's still a reason why he was on the bench. Beyond that, they also lost depth at that position. In addition, its arguably the most important position in college basketball. It was a major loss. Duke played great basketball in the game, but they were playing against a West Virginia team that could have been much stronger.

4/6/10   |   abac89   |   782 respect

(Edited by abac89)

That same WV team without their pg beat Kentucky who was a #1 seed Joe mazzulla is vey capable of leading that team, before bryant got there he was the starter and Da'sean Butler got hurt with less than 9 minutes to go in the game by that point it was already a 15 point defecit and he wasnt that big of a factor in that game he only had 10 pts.

4/6/10   |   ryanharris166

 Duke still would have won. I agree fan voting is a baaaaaddd idea. Look at what it has done to the MLB all star game.

4/6/10   |   kantwistaye   |   4214 respect

Terry wrote:
Duke got the play in winner because of the following stipulations:

ACC Tournament ends on a Sunday
Big 12 Tournament ends on a Saturday

In order to give both potential winners of each conference tournament (Like Kansas and Duke) the same amount of off days, the big 12 winner would play on thursday and acc winner on friday. (Another example: Big East Tournament ended on a Saturday and A10 ended on a Sunday. Temple played on Friday, Nova played on Thursday. This obviously isnt the case for every team, but I think they try to follow this for the top seeded teams)

On top of the previous 2 stipulations, the play in game is on a Tuesday, and the committee likes to have the play in winner play on Friday. Since the #1 overall seed had to play on a Thursday this year, they would not get the play in game winner.

But seriously, if we're complaining that Duke got the #64 or 65 team instead of the #63 team thats pretty pathetic. Was Lehigh going to beat Duke? I think not.

Its not so much that any 16 seed was a threat as much the principle. Duke had the weakest 16 seed and the weakest 2,3,4, and 5 seeds in their bracket.  That got a free trip to the Final Four where they played West Virginia without their PG (and best player for most of the 2nd half) and a Butler team who's tallest player is a 6'9 guard.  They never had to prove they could beat an elite healthy team this year. That's not their fault, but its just what it is.

4/6/10   |   Terry   |   25 respect

Duke got the play in winner because of the following stipulations:

ACC Tournament ends on a Sunday
Big 12 Tournament ends on a Saturday

In order to give both potential winners of each conference tournament (Like Kansas and Duke) the same amount of off days, the big 12 winner would play on thursday and acc winner on friday. (Another example: Big East Tournament ended on a Saturday and A10 ended on a Sunday. Temple played on Friday, Nova played on Thursday. This obviously isnt the case for every team, but I think they try to follow this for the top seeded teams)

On top of the previous 2 stipulations, the play in game is on a Tuesday, and the committee likes to have the play in winner play on Friday. Since the #1 overall seed had to play on a Thursday this year, they would not get the play in game winner.

But seriously, if we're complaining that Duke got the #64 or 65 team instead of the #63 team thats pretty pathetic. Was Lehigh going to beat Duke? I think not.

4/6/10   |   mk_donley   |   2554 respect

I agree with #3, but #1 and #2, forget it! It wont work! ( I agree with MrNFL on #2 BTW)

4/6/10   |   MrNFL   |   175 respect

Fans voting wouldn't work, because most fans are idiots.  The sad thing is, we are screwed once they expand the field.

To avoid bias, they could use a mathematical formula like they use for the hockey tournament.  It sucks, but it beats human bias.

And BOTH are far better than the BCS.