Surprise Tournament Snubs?

#1
Volru

Volru

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
1,241
Likes
0
#1
Every year the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee comes up with a somewhat different take on relative team strengths than the bracketologists project. Some are seeded noticeably higher or lower. One gets an unexpected bid. Another gets a surprise snub.

Sometimes the Committee splits the hair on a practical question. Does a team with good record in a weaker conference really deserve a higher seed than a team with two or three extra road losses in a rough and tumble major conference? Conversely, does a team that can’t muster at least a .500 conference record even in the best of major conferences deserve a bid? When major conference teams with records as good as 12-6 conference record and 23 wins overall (Mississippi) are not going to make the tournament, shouldn’t teams that do make the tournament at least have a .500 record in conference? More specifically, does a team with 10 losses in their last 15 games deserve make the field much less be considered a lock?

If there is a big surprise snub this year, Minnesota. No way does that team deserve the respect the bracketologists are giving them. Just my opinion. You may have spotted other possible surprise tournament snubs.
 
#2
#2
MTSU. Jerry Palm says there's a chance they may not get in, even with their record / RPI.
 
#3
#3
MTSU has a good shot of being out in the cold, and if Kentucky loses early in the tourney (or Tennessee, for that matter), they could be on the outside looking in.
 
#4
#4
I just hope that we're not one of them. We are in a great spot to be one of those teams. And, we don't typically get any favors from anyone.
 
#6
#6
VOLsince68 said:
I just hope that we're not one of them. We are in a great spot to be one of those teams. And, we don't typically get any favors from anyone.
Click to expand...

You got that right. Granted the SEC doesn't have its usual handful of high seeds, but I do believe road games against the bottom half of the SEC would as tough for most top 25 teams as they were for the Vols or any other SEC team with a winning conference record. Missouri sure learned going on the road in the SEC is no cake walk.

Illinois, another presumed tournament team with a losing conference record only beat Auburn by two at home.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
Some of the seeding is false too because the committee has to make sure fellow conf members don't play each other in the 1st few rounds or that anyone gets to play at home. Usually the baby conf get snubbed if an upset occurs in their tourney like happened in the SunBelt this year. I hope MTSU gets in but not at the expense of UT!!
 
#8
#8
MTSU wouldn't be the first low 30 RPI team to get a pimp smack. I could see them being left out.
 
#9
#9
Volru said:
Every year the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee comes up with a somewhat different take on relative team strengths than the bracketologists project. Some are seeded noticeably higher or lower. One gets an unexpected bid. Another gets a surprise snub.

Sometimes the Committee splits the hair on a practical question. Does a team with good record in a weaker conference really deserve a higher seed than a team with two or three extra road losses in a rough and tumble major conference? Conversely, does a team that can’t muster at least a .500 conference record even in the best of major conferences deserve a bid? When major conference teams with records as good as 12-6 conference record and 23 wins overall (Mississippi) are not going to make the tournament, shouldn’t teams that do make the tournament at least have a .500 record in conference? More specifically, does a team with 10 losses in their last 15 games deserve make the field much less be considered a lock?

If there is a big surprise snub this year, Minnesota. No way does that team deserve the respect the bracketologists are giving them. Just my opinion. You may have spotted other possible surprise tournament snubs.
Click to expand...

They love Tubb's
 
#11
#11
Volru said:
Every year the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee comes up with a somewhat different take on relative team strengths than the bracketologists project. Some are seeded noticeably higher or lower. One gets an unexpected bid. Another gets a surprise snub.

Sometimes the Committee splits the hair on a practical question. Does a team with good record in a weaker conference really deserve a higher seed than a team with two or three extra road losses in a rough and tumble major conference? Conversely, does a team that can’t muster at least a .500 conference record even in the best of major conferences deserve a bid? When major conference teams with records as good as 12-6 conference record and 23 wins overall (Mississippi) are not going to make the tournament, shouldn’t teams that do make the tournament at least have a .500 record in conference? More specifically, does a team with 10 losses in their last 15 games deserve make the field much less be considered a lock?

If there is a big surprise snub this year, Minnesota. No way does that team deserve the respect the bracketologists are giving them. Just my opinion. You may have spotted other possible surprise tournament snubs.
Click to expand...

Almost every article I have read from people coming out of the mock selection demonstrations they do, say that conference record is rarely even mentioned. The resume as a whole is looked at. The people making the selections understand that with unbalanced conference scheduling that occurs now, that 2 teams from even the same conference can play vastly different conference schedules.
 
#12
#12
zansdad said:
Almost every article I have read from people coming out of the mock selection demonstrations they do, say that conference record is rarely even mentioned. The resume as a whole is looked at. The people making the selections understand that with unbalanced conference scheduling that occurs now, that 2 teams from even the same conference can play vastly different conference schedules.
Click to expand...

The only teams I recall making it in with losing conference records got in with an automatic bid by winning their tournament. I imagine at-large bids have happened. I wonder how many times. It has to be rare.
 
#13
#13
Volru said:
The only teams I recall making it in with losing conference records got in with an automatic bid by winning their tournament. I imagine at-large bids have happened. I wonder how many times. It has to be rare.
Click to expand...

Granted, it is probably rare because losing conference record usually means a bad team. But occasionally there are good teams that play in loaded conferences with lopsided schedules. According to seed-madness.com multiple major conference teams have gotten in with as bad as 7-9 records.

Seed Madness
 
#14
#14
zansdad said:
Granted, it is probably rare because losing conference record usually means a bad team. But occasionally there are good teams that play in loaded conferences with lopsided schedules. According to seed-madness.com multiple major conference teams have gotten in with as bad as 7-9 records.

Seed Madness
Click to expand...

I imagined the Big East might have had a couple get in that way. Interesting though that your source has Minnesota a little more on the bubble than Lunardi and Palm do.
 
#15
#15
Volru said:
I imagined the Big East might have had a couple get in that way. Interesting though that your source has Minnesota a little more on the bubble than Lunardi and Palm do.
Click to expand...

I like Seed-Madness for quick little tidbits of info like worst teams selected and such. They also have some nice links down on the bottom left of the page to other sites I like but I am yet to be sold on their ability to predict the field well. I think if you go to the bracket projects page (which appears down right now) seed madness doesn't grade out very well. Having said that they have the Golden Gophers at an 11 seed which is pretty solidly in the field. There really aren't a lot of bids out there left to be stolen.
 
#16
#16
zansdad said:
I like Seed-Madness for quick little tidbits of info like worst teams selected and such. They also have some nice links down on the bottom left of the page to other sites I like but I am yet to be sold on their ability to predict the field well. I think if you go to the bracket projects page (which appears down right now) seed madness doesn't grade out very well. Having said that they have the Golden Gophers at an 11 seed which is pretty solidly in the field. There really aren't a lot of bids out there left to be stolen.
Click to expand...

Lunardi and Palm have them a 9 seed. Minnesota's second half of the season will surely raise some eyebrows on the committee. Enough to exclude them? Probably not. If they lose to Illinois in the Big Ten tournament, they'll be sweating Sunday though.
 
#17
#17
zansdad said:
There really aren't a lot of bids out there left to be stolen.
Click to expand...

This is very true, seems like the window is smaller than in years past. The field is really pretty much all set, except for about the final 4 spots IMO. Nova and Iowa state may be safe even with a 0-1 showing in conference tourney.

I really think there's about 4 spots left, and that's assuming no more bids get stolen. Competing for those 4 spots you've got: Boise, La Salle, Kentucky, Tennessee, MTSU, Virginia, Iowa, Ole Miss, Baylor and Bama.
 
#18
#18
bleedingTNorange said:
This is very true, seems like the window is smaller than in years past. The field is really pretty much all set, except for about the final 4 spots IMO. Nova and Iowa state may be safe even with a 0-1 showing in conference tourney.

I really think there's about 4 spots left, and that's assuming no more bids get stolen. Competing for those 4 spots you've got: Boise, La Salle, Kentucky, Tennessee, MTSU, Virginia, Iowa, Ole Miss, Baylor and Bama.
Click to expand...

We should know by Friday night about any off-the-bubble teams are still left to make runs in the major conference like the Georgia team in 2008. As long as that doesn't happen the bubble is pretty firm. Just figuring out which side of it your on from that point out. I like UT's chances with the 10 you list. Most places I look already have MTSU, Baylor, and Iowa out. So in my mind it's 7 teams for 4 places.

Virginia is the wildcard and will show which counts more, good wins or bad losses.
 
#19
#19
zansdad said:
We should know by Friday night about any off-the-bubble teams are still left to make runs in the major conference like the Georgia team in 2008. As long as that doesn't happen the bubble is pretty firm. Just figuring out which side of it your on from that point out. I like UT's chances with the 10 you list. Most places I look already have MTSU, Baylor, and Iowa out. So in my mind it's 7 teams for 4 places.

Virginia is the wildcard and will show which counts more, good wins or bad losses.
Click to expand...

If Nc. State takes care of them in the Cavs first game there's no way IMO they are in.
 
#21
#21
Volru said:
On the other hand, when the committee compares head to head you would rather see some bubble teams other than Virginia look bad.
Click to expand...

Huh?

Nothing UVA can do at this point will make that look like a bad loss. We need them to lose much more than we need them to win.
 
#23
#23
bleedingTNorange said:
Huh?

Nothing UVA can do at this point will make that look like a bad loss. We need them to lose much more than we need them to win.
Click to expand...

Just saying Boise St losing helps more than Virginia losing. The committee will look more closely at head to head and common opponents than Lunardi, Palm, or RPI do. Good that we beat two good Atlantic 10 teams.
 
#24
#24
Volru said:
Just saying Boise St losing helps more than Virginia losing. The committee will look more closely at head to head and common opponents than Lunardi, Palm, or RPI do. Good that we beat two good Atlantic 10 teams.
Click to expand...

We want them all to lose, nobody in their right mind is hoping for UVA to go on a run and win the ACCT.

Like I said, nothing UVA can possibly do now that makes our loss at their place look bad...and head to head is one of the things they don't really look at. Going off that though, why would you root for a team that head to head beat us and is competing with us for a bubble spot?

You're theory is very flawed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#25
#25
bleedingTNorange said:
We want them all to lose, nobody in their right mind is hoping for UVA to go on a run and win the ACCT.

Like I said, nothing UVA can possibly do now that makes our loss at their place look bad...and head to head is one of the things they don't really look at. Going off that though, why would you root for a team that head to head beat us and is competing with us for a bubble spot?

You're theory is very flawed.
Click to expand...

The committee will be looking at the quality of every win and loss not just broad categories like "good wins" and "bad losses" like the media does. They will also campare. You are assuming Lunadri and Palm have this too precisely pegged. They never do.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top