GAME Selection Sunday Thread 6pm ET CBS

Volbound1700 said:
Arizona, UCLA, and USC were stout teams. I would say Colorado probably deserved a bid. They were a great squad.

I don't see how the B1G deserved 9 bids. Once again, the B1G is the most overrated and over loved league in College Sports. I pointed this out, but I was, just for fun, looking at Michigan football in the 1990s. They had a team one year that was 9-4 and finished in the top 10 in the AP Poll.

I would put the Big12 and SEC over the B1G this year in CBB strength. I guess we will see this weekend though if I am right or not.
Click to expand...

Yes Arizona, UCLA and USC were all elite to good teams, but the rest of the league stunk. Colorado had 1 win over a tournament team and 3 Q3 losses. They didn't deserve to make, and frankly, weren't even that close to making it.

The B1G did deserve the 9 teams. Whether they perform well or not this week doesn't matter. I thought A&M should have gotten in, but at the expense of ND, not one of the B1G teams so I disagreed there.
 
ericd7633 said:
Yes Arizona, UCLA and USC were all elite to good teams, but the rest of the league stunk. Colorado had 1 win over a tournament team and 3 Q3 losses. They didn't deserve to make, and frankly, weren't even that close to making it.

The B1G did deserve the 9 teams. Whether they perform well or not this week doesn't matter. I thought A&M should have gotten in, but at the expense of ND, not one of the B1G teams so I disagreed there.
Click to expand...

Michigan. Michigan beat literally no one and went 18-13. Notre Dame beat Kentucky at least. A&M should have been over Michigan and Dayton should have been over Rutgers.

Michigan and Rutgers should be in the NIT.

Big10 gets more love than any league out there despite not winning a major title in any sport since Ohio State's football run in 2014. The last time Big10 won a National Title in Men's Basketball was in 2000.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Michigan. Michigan beat literally no one and went 18-13. Notre Dame beat Kentucky at least. A&M should have been over Michigan and Dayton should have been over Rutgers.

Michigan and Rutgers should be in the NIT.

Big10 gets more love than any league out there despite not winning a major title in any sport since Ohio State's football run in 2014. The last time Big10 won a National Title in Men's Basketball was in 2000.
Click to expand...

Michigan actually beat 7 teams that made the field, so your statement is incorrect.

Rutgers beat 8 teams that made the tournament.

And I can guarantee the committee wasn't thinking about how the B1G hasn't won a title in football since 2014 and in bball since 2000. That doesn't matter. And the B1G probably won't win it this year.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Michigan. Michigan beat literally no one and went 18-13. Notre Dame beat Kentucky at least. A&M should have been over Michigan and Dayton should have been over Rutgers.

Michigan and Rutgers should be in the NIT.

Big10 gets more love than any league out there despite not winning a major title in any sport since Ohio State's football run in 2014. The last time Big10 won a National Title in Men's Basketball was in 2000.
Click to expand...
Michigan has 7 wins over yourney teams

A lot of this depends on how you value conference depth

The B10 may not have elite teams but theyve got way more depth than every league not named the B12

Making the tourney generally speaks to that depth. But to win it you need elite teams
 
ericd7633 said:
Michigan actually beat 7 teams that made the field, so your statement is incorrect.

Rutgers beat 8 teams that made the tournament.

And I can guarantee the committee wasn't thinking about how the B1G hasn't won a title in football since 2014 and in bball since 2000. That doesn't matter. And the B1G probably won't win it this year.
Click to expand...

Texas A&M beat the following teams that made the tournament:

1. Notre Dame
2. Arkansas - regular season
3. Alabama (on the road)
4. Auburn - Tournament
5. Arkansas - Tournament

A&M also beat bubble teams Florida and South Carolina both had over 20 wins

Michigan beat the following:

1. San Diego State
2. Purdue - Probably their best win
3. @ Iowa
4. Iowa
5. Michigan State
6. Ohio State

Michigan only beat 1 team seeded higher than 7 (Purdue). Texas A&M beat a #4 seed twice and a #2 seed.
 
rmilia1 said:
Michigan has 7 wins over yourney teams

A lot of this depends on how you value conference depth

The B10 may not have elite teams but theyve got way more depth than every league not named the B12

Making the tourney generally speaks to that depth. But to win it you need elite teams
Click to expand...

Is there depth really that good though?

Take a team like South Carolina and compare to Michigan or Rutgers. They look very close to even. I am NOT making the argument that South Carolina belongs in the tournament, I am making the argument that Michigan does NOT and really fits the resume of a team like South Carolina.

SEC clearly has depth, that is why they won the Big12-SEC Challenge. Big12 also had depth too. IMO, the Big12 and SEC were stronger leagues than the B1G. I am not buying the B1G depth.

I just looked at Michigan's schedule and they had tons of OOC losses.
 
I was shocked UM made it especially after the run A&M had and the Richmond win. I thought for sure Richmond winning was the final nail in their coffin. Michigan got in because of their name and then gifted with a favorable matchup close to home.
No way should a team with 14 losses be allowed in the tournament.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Texas A&M beat the following teams that made the tournament:

1. Notre Dame
2. Arkansas - regular season
3. Alabama (on the road)
4. Auburn - Tournament
5. Arkansas - Tournament

A&M also beat bubble teams Florida and South Carolina both had over 20 wins

Michigan beat the following:

1. San Diego State
2. Purdue - Probably their best win
3. @ Iowa
4. Iowa
5. Michigan State
6. Ohio State

Michigan only beat 1 team seeded higher than 7 (Purdue). Texas A&M beat a #4 seed twice and a #2 seed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree A&M should have made it, just over ND. Michigan also won at IU. And Iowa is a 5 seed. So Michigan beat a #5 seed twice and and a #3 seed. Slightly worse than A&M's best wins, but it's marginal. If you're going to count South Carolina as a bubble team, Michigan also beat UNLV.

But again, your issue should be with ND, look at who they've beaten. It's two teams and that's it. Rutgers and Michigan have a lot of good wins.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Is there depth really that good though?

Take a team like South Carolina and compare to Michigan or Rutgers. They look very close to even. I am NOT making the argument that South Carolina belongs in the tournament, I am making the argument that Michigan does NOT and really fits the resume of a team like South Carolina.

SEC clearly has depth, that is why they won the Big12-SEC Challenge. Big12 also had depth too. IMO, the Big12 and SEC were stronger leagues than the B1G. I am not buying the B1G depth.

I just looked at Michigan's schedule and they had tons of OOC losses.
Click to expand...

South Carolina beat ONE tournament team, in no way is that comparable to Michigan. Yes, both have the about the same number of losses, but Michigan played a drastically harder schedule.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Is there depth really that good though?

Take a team like South Carolina and compare to Michigan or Rutgers. They look very close to even. I am NOT making the argument that South Carolina belongs in the tournament, I am making the argument that Michigan does NOT and really fits the resume of a team like South Carolina.

SEC clearly has depth, that is why they won the Big12-SEC Challenge. Big12 also had depth too. IMO, the Big12 and SEC were stronger leagues than the B1G. I am not buying the B1G depth.

I just looked at Michigan's schedule and they had tons of OOC losses.
Click to expand...
I mean Michigan lost to AZ, UNC and Seton Hall OOC. Their only bad loss was UCF and they were missing key guys that game

So Car lost to Princeton, Coastal Carolina and Clemson OOC and only beat 2 tourney teams ( one of whom was an autobid from a 1 bid league )

The resumes arent at all similar
 
phantomfoul88 said:
I was shocked UM made it especially after the run A&M had and the Richmond win. I thought for sure Richmond winning was the final nail in their coffin. Michigan got in because of their name and then gifted with a favorable matchup close to home.
No way should a team with 14 losses be allowed in the tournament.
Click to expand...
At that point youre punishing teams for good OOC games though

Say UM had decided to play

Jackson St
Kent St
La Tech

Instead of

Zona
Seton Hall
UNC

Theyd be 20-11 right now and no one would have an issue with them being in

Part of what makes CBB better than CFB is we get tons of great OOC games because youre rewarded for scheduling well. In CFB youre not .

If you start saying " well you cant get in with X amount of losses" all youd do is water down the OOC
 
rmilia1 said:
At that point youre punishing teams for good OOC games though

Say UM had decided to play

Jackson St
Kent St
La Tech

Instead of

Zona
Seton Hall
UNC

Theyd be 20-11 right now and no one would have an issue with them being in

Part of what makes CBB better than CFB is we get tons of great OOC games because youre rewarded for scheduling well. In CFB youre not .

If you start saying " well you cant get in with X amount of losses" all youd do is water down the OOC
Click to expand...

Would they? I saw a lot of bad losses on Michigan's resume as well.

Frank Martin made a great response about Alabama. Alabama is 19-14 and they struggling against a lot of SEC teams but were a 6 seed simply because of two games (Baylor at home and the win @ Gonzaga). Texas A&M won @ Alabama yet Alabama is deemed by the committee to be leagues ahead of A&M and other SEC programs that were regularly beating them.

IMO, the OOC is too weighted. Also none of the CBB teams are at their peak performance in November and December and there are more UPSETs then. I am not sure why the emphasis is so heavy on the early season/OOC schedule but Conference Tournaments are meaningless.
 
@ericd7633 and @rmilia1

Don't get me wrong, I think you both are making great arguments for Michigan but Michigan only had one top tier win (Purdue) and was pretty much got credit for beating other B1G teams.

Take conference comparisons:

1. The SEC was ranked ahead of B1G in most rankings: NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings (updated today)
2. SEC teams went out and got MAJOR wins: Alabama @ Gonzaga, Kentucky @ Kansas, Arizona @ Tennessee, Baylor @ Alabama
3. The SEC won the Big12-SEC Challenge
4. SEC had a lot of depth, one of the deepest leagues this year

Yet the NCAA Selection Committee thought 9 teams from B1G should make it and only 6 from SEC. That means, according to the committee, the B1G was massively better than the SEC (and Big12 but that is another argument). I don't see it.

Pac12 3 teams vs. B1G 9 teams - Even more ridiculous.

I just don't see how the B1G is good enough to deserve 9 bids.
 
But Tennessee ahead of Duke should have happened.

There are six metrics on the selection committee's team sheets: NET, KPI, SOR, BPI, KP and SAG. What do they stand for and how are they calculated? Not important and who the heck knows. But Tennessee finished eighth or better in all six of those metrics while Duke finished in 10th or worse in all six metrics.

Don't like computers telling you what to do? Alright, fine. After beating A&M on Sunday, Tennessee finished the season with 11 Quadrant 1 wins—second only to Kansas' 12—and did not suffer a single loss outside of the top half of Quadrant 1. Duke had just six wins against Q1 and ended up with five losses outside the top half of Q1.

Granted, Tennessee had more Q1 opportunities (18) than Duke (eight), but doesn't that intrinsically make the Vols' 26-7 record a whole heck of a lot more impressive than the Blue Devils' 28-6 record?

In the end, we all know why this happened. Duke has the four most powerful letters in college basketball at the top of its resume. It didn't matter that it lost to Virginia, Florida State, Miami and Virginia Tech. It's still Duke, and that's always worth a seed line. This year, it's at the expense of the SEC champion.

^ from an article on bleacher report but not letting me link it.
 
Volbound1700 said:
Would they? I saw a lot of bad losses on Michigan's resume as well.

Frank Martin made a great response about Alabama. Alabama is 19-14 and they struggling against a lot of SEC teams but were a 6 seed simply because of two games (Baylor at home and the win @ Gonzaga). Texas A&M won @ Alabama yet Alabama is deemed by the committee to be leagues ahead of A&M and other SEC programs that were regularly beating them.

IMO, the OOC is too weighted. Also none of the CBB teams are at their peak performance in November and December and there are more UPSETs then. I am not sure why the emphasis is so heavy on the early season/OOC schedule but Conference Tournaments are meaningless.
Click to expand...

Beating 2 #1 seeds will help you in seeding. Lol. They also beat Miami, South Dakota State, and Houston OOC, played the #1 OOC SOS and have the #1 overall SOS. They beat Tennessee, LSU, amd Arkansas in the SEC. Are they playing good ATM, no, but the entire schedule makes up a resume. The OOC portion makes up 1/3 of the schedule. Bama probably played to a #2 seed OOC, and a #10/#11 seed in SEC play. Pretty much split the difference.
 
ericd7633 said:
Beating 2 #1 seeds will help you in seeding. Lol. They also beat Miami, South Dakota State, and Houston OOC, played the #1 OOC SOS and have the #1 overall SOS. They beat Tennessee, LSU, amd Arkansas in the SEC. Are they playing good ATM, no, but the entire schedule makes up a resume. The OOC portion makes up 1/3 of the schedule. Bama probably played to a #2 seed OOC, and a #10/#11 seed in SEC play. Pretty much split the difference.
Click to expand...

I understand the logic to a degree and Alabama got screwed one year when they went 12-4 in the SEC but played terrible OOC schedule while Tennessee went 7-9 that year but made it due to beating UConn and Georgetown back when they were good.

I just think the OOC schedules are too weight and the committee doesn't look at Conference performance enough. Where you end up in conference standings should matter just as much as OOC wins.

By the way, great discussion. I know we are arguing against each other but it is a very fun discussion with you.
 
Volbound1700 said:
@ericd7633 and @rmilia1

Don't get me wrong, I think you both are making great arguments for Michigan but Michigan only had one top tier win (Purdue) and was pretty much got credit for beating other B1G teams.

Take conference comparisons:

1. The SEC was ranked ahead of B1G in most rankings: NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings (updated today)
2. SEC teams went out and got MAJOR wins: Alabama @ Gonzaga, Kentucky @ Kansas, Arizona @ Tennessee, Baylor @ Alabama
3. The SEC won the Big12-SEC Challenge
4. SEC had a lot of depth, one of the deepest leagues this year

Yet the NCAA Selection Committee thought 9 teams from B1G should make it and only 6 from SEC. That means, according to the committee, the B1G was massively better than the SEC (and Big12 but that is another argument). I don't see it.

Pac12 3 teams vs. B1G 9 teams - Even more ridiculous.

I just don't see how the B1G is good enough to deserve 9 bids.
Click to expand...

Michigan also had a sweep of Iowa. That's important in the discussion you seem to be leaving out. And beat San Diego State OOC.

The SEC and B1G we're very even this year, I would lean the SEC being better, but the NET had the B1G as the better conference, but it's close. And yes the SEC has alot of high level wins OOC, and their seeding is reflective of that(outside TN, who I though should have been a #2)

Also, teams get selected, it doesn't matter what conference you're affiliated with.

If you're taking one or multiple B1G teams out, you have to have a good replacement for them. I said A&M should have gotten in, but not at the expense of a B1G team. Nobody else really deserved it IMO.
 
Volbound1700 said:
I understand the logic to a degree and Alabama got screwed one year when they went 12-4 in the SEC but played terrible OOC schedule while Tennessee went 7-9 that year but made it due to beating UConn and Georgetown back when they were good.

I just think the OOC schedules are too weight and the committee doesn't look at Conference performance enough. Where you end up in conference standings should matter just as much as OOC wins.

By the way, great discussion. I know we are arguing against each other but it is a very fun discussion with you.
Click to expand...

I've never thought conference placement should have any indication on selection/seeding. Not all P5/6 conferences are created equal and with the imbalanced schedules, teams can have a better record while not being as good of a team. It's why in football a team that finished 9-3 in the SEC should be ranked higher than a team that finished 9-3 in the P12 or ACC.

There are some bad teams in the bottom of the leagues. If you're fortunate enough to play the bottom of the league a ton, that really doesn't indicate you're a good team. That's why that Alabama team got left out, and I'd guess a poor OOC record as well. OOC is weighted pretty heavily, but I think it's good. The reason why the P12 only has 3 teams is because the league shit the bed OOC. Going 11-7 or 12-6 in that league this year doesn't mean a whole lot.
 
ericd7633 said:
Michigan also had a sweep of Iowa. That's important in the discussion you seem to be leaving out. And beat San Diego State OOC.

The SEC and B1G we're very even this year, I would lean the SEC being better, but the NET had the B1G as the better conference, but it's close. And yes the SEC has alot of high level wins OOC, and their seeding is reflective of that(outside TN, who I though should have been a #2)

Also, teams get selected, it doesn't matter what conference you're affiliated with.

If you're taking one or multiple B1G teams out, you have to have a good replacement for them. I said A&M should have gotten in, but not at the expense of a B1G team. Nobody else really deserved it IMO.
Click to expand...

I do think Iowa was probably under seeded but they are not a top tier win. I don't think they were in the top 10 this season (granted the polls do not mean much) and their RPI is 26: College Basketball Rankings 2021-22 - RPI.

Texas A&M beat Arkansas 2x who is a 4 seed with an RPI of 22 and Auburn who is a 2 seed with an RPI of 7. (Purdue came in at 12 in the RPI so Auburn, on a neutral court, is a bigger win than anything Michigan achieved).

I am not saying RPI should have been the be-all, end-all but all of these items should have been factored.

It was clear that the Committee setup the bracket last week and only did minor tweaks this week.

In the scheme of things, Tennessee did NOT screwed as bad as teams like Texas A&M or Virginia Tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top