Just consider the following.....
The committee assigns their members to conferences to cover during the year. Well, Xavier's AD was the Big East guy. Hmmmm potential to play TWO Big East teams.
Colorado not being in.....well.....the Big XII commisioner is on the committee. But he's not at all PO'd that CU is leaving his conference. Nah.
Colorado State's AD is on the committee.....they hate Colorado.
I'm just sayin'.
And the Pope is a vampire.
I'm just sayin', he looks undead.
See? I can make ridiculous claims, too!
What is ridiculous about that? If you think all intentions in that room are pure, I would brand that as ridiculous.
Quote from: Muhoops85 on March 13, 2011, 10:13:42 PM
What is ridiculous about that? If you think all intentions in that room are pure, I would brand that as ridiculous.
I like proof. Not conjecture. That's all.
I thought the Big 10 made out just fine with their representation, and FL as a 2 seed in Tampa, after getting smacked by the 4 seed Kentucky was more than interesting!
Quote from: IAmMarquette on March 13, 2011, 09:51:23 PM
And the Pope is a vampire.
I'm just sayin', he looks undead.
See? I can make ridiculous claims, too!
Man you're naive.
Quote from: IAmMarquette on March 13, 2011, 10:16:33 PM
I like proof. Not conjecture. That's all.
Watched ESPN this morning, "Outside the Lines," I believe. They had former NCAA employees talking about how greedy the NCAA is. I think politics are involved, but $$$ is the main objective. There's plenty of proof of that.
Quote from: IAmMarquette on March 13, 2011, 10:16:33 PM
I like proof. Not conjecture. That's all.
Yeah, I'm sure their is a recording of someone on the committee saying "let's give it to Colorado up the arse"
Seems to me if there was as much politics as some think, the weakest of the major BCS conferences ( the Big East ) would not have received 11 bids.
Let's not forget that VCU and UAB got in over schools like ACC Va Tech or BIG 12 Colorado.
I don't think 10 committee members, representing big and small schools and conferences all got together to conspire against any schools or leagues.
J
I tend to assume that people want to do the best job they can, and I suspect the committee was no different. Of course any time you get a group of people like this together to decide something, personal bias will come into play in some regard. Don't think it is as big a deal as some here are making it out to be.
In the end, nobody who had a 1/10 of 1% chance to win the tournament has been left out. If we didn't get in, I would have been unhappy and thought we were treated unfairly, but I would have felt it was more our fault than the committee's because of the game we blew in Louisville and our inability to take one of the last two games in the regular season.
If there is politics in college basketball, it pales in comparison to college football where the coaches and sports writers pick the "TWO BEST TEAMS" to play the championship game.
For those who like conjecture...
It occurred to me that the Big 10/11 Tournament could've been fixed to get the maximum number of teams into the NCAA's. How else do you account for the showings of Penn State, Michigan State and Michigan, three teams who were firmly on the bubble after the regular season? Won't this maximize revenues for the conference?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 14, 2011, 12:59:27 AM
Seems to me if there was as much politics as some think, the weakest of the major BCS conferences ( the Big East ) would not have received 11 bids.
J
Who says the BE is the weakest of the BCS conferences? Is it the RPI? Kenpom says otherwise.
http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?c=BE
Quote from: BrewCity on March 14, 2011, 09:45:08 AM
For those who like conjecture...
It occurred to me that the Big 10/11 Tournament could've been fixed to get the maximum number of teams into the NCAA's. How else do you account for the showings of Penn State, Michigan State and Michigan, three teams who were firmly on the bubble after the regular season? Won't this maximize revenues for the conference?
Yeah and the NFL playoffs were fixed, the NBA playoffs are fixed, black helicopters are circling overhead...oh and we have a Muslim in the White House.
Colorado wasn't screwed for the reasons outlined above. Honestly, you are arguing about a play-in game that went to VCU instead...
Politics implies some sort of "under the table" give-and-take. Your two examples imply an "intelligence advantage" for an AD's own school and the spite of a conference commissioner and rival AD. Honestly, I don't see what's being taken in the first (the guy followed 16 teams, even if he were an MU expert... what advantage is there since a) the teams played each other last year and b) Tony Bedford has been watching X video - maybe a few snippets of XXX video in between - for the past 15 hours). In the second, it's all give (or lack of giving) with no take at all.
That being said, I can also counter the first by saying the Big East makes up about one-sixth of the tournament field. By the numbers alone, X stood a 1 in 6 chance of playing a Big East team. Keep in mind that the X AD - by committee rule - is not allowed in the room when X is discussed... so unless he was bribing half the committee to show favor while he was sitting in the hall, I'm not sure how you can imply that he was the reason X matched up against a Big East team
With respect to the second, do you think a committee of 10 people plus NCAA "observers" are going to allow two committee members to act like middle-school children and exclude a team simply because they do like them? Moreover, the commish would have to leave the room while CO was discussed and the CSU AD is - again, by committee rule - not allowed to "speak unless spoken to" on any members of his same conference. Moreover, as my earlier thread indicated, there is big money in the NCAA tournament... however that money is given to CONFERENCES, not individual schools. Implying that the XII commish and CSU AD conspired against a member of their own conference just cost the XII no less than $1.4M. If that's what they did, it's not politics, it's malfeasance.
Could there be bias... absolutely, but not in your two examples given. Does that bias rise to the level where ulterior motives are allowed to rule the committee process? Of course not.
Edited: corrected per the below.
Sometimes the committee comes up with some whimsical pairings - one of my favorites this year is Tenn/Mich - Pearl is in the dognouse and Beilein is the ethics committee chair.
Quote from: BrewCity on March 14, 2011, 09:45:08 AM
For those who like conjecture...
It occurred to me that the Big 10/11 Tournament could've been fixed to get the maximum number of teams into the NCAA's. How else do you account for the showings of Penn State, Michigan State and Michigan, three teams who were firmly on the bubble after the regular season? Won't this maximize revenues for the conference?
I was thinking this the way Wisconsin laid down for Penn State and Purdue laid down for Michigan State. That tournament went pretty much perfectly for maximizing Big 10 bids.
We are talking about the 60-70th best teams and saying they were screwed or there was politics ...
Win one more game and they take themselves out of the conversation.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 14, 2011, 12:59:27 AM
Seems to me if there was as much politics as some think, the weakest of the major BCS conferences ( the Big East ) would not have received 11 bids.
Reagrding basketball, the Big East is anything but the weakest, in terms of revenues, reputation and level of play. I realize, of course, that hoops revenue pales in comparison to football, but I don't think the BE goes into the selection process as a weaker (or weakened) participant.
I very much doubt that there's a conspiracy to screw teams, but anyone would be naive to think there's isn't a certain amount of horse-trading and politicking that goes on. That kind of thing is pretty much inherent in the process.
I wasn't sure where else to post this, but I think it's kinda funny that Louisville's first round game is against Morehead St.
Quote from: downtown85 on March 14, 2011, 09:49:30 AM
Who says the BE is the weakest of the BCS conferences? Is it the RPI? Kenpom says otherwise.
http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?c=BE
I believe that Chicos was speaking in terms of political clout in the NCAA.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 14, 2011, 11:51:23 AM
Reagrding basketball, the Big East is anything but the weakest, in terms of revenues, reputation and level of play. I realize, of course, that hoops revenue pales in comparison to football, but I don't think the BE goes into the selection process as a weaker (or weakened) participant.
I very much doubt that there's a conspiracy to screw teams, but anyone would be naive to think there's isn't a certain amount of horse-trading and politicking that goes on. That kind of thing is pretty much inherent in the process.
I agree, but I'm talking about overall weakest conference...football, basketball, etc....Big East is definitely the weakest BCS conference.
We agree...no conspiracy. Heck, the overwhelming conclusion by most is the East is the toughest bracket. That's where they stuck Ohio State who happened to have their AD as the chairman. If politics were going on, I'd expect an easier path for OSU.
Quote from: Benny B on March 14, 2011, 09:55:59 AM
Politics implies some sort of "under the table" give-and-take. Your two examples imply an "intelligence advantage" for an AD's own school and the spite of a conference commissioner and rival AD. Honestly, I don't see what's being taken in the first (the guy followed 16 teams, even if he were an MU expert... what advantage is there since a) the teams played each other last year and b) Tony Bedford has been watching X video - maybe a few snippets of XXX video in between - for the past 15 hours). In the second, it's all give (or lack of giving) with no take at all.
That being said, I can also counter the first by saying the Big East makes up about one-sixth of the tournament field. By the numbers alone, X stood a 1 in 6 chance of playing a Big East team. Keep in mind that the X AD - by committee rule - is not allowed in the room when X is discussed... so unless he was bribing half the committee to show favor while he was sitting in the hall, I'm not sure how you can imply that he was the reason X matched up against a Big East team
With respect to the second, do you think a committee of 10 people plus NCAA "observers" are going to allow two committee members to act like middle-school children and exclude a team simply because they do like them? Moreover, the commish would have to leave the room while CO was discussed and the CSU AD is - again, by committee rule - not allowed to "speak unless spoken to" on any members of his same conference. Moreover, as my earlier thread indicated, there is big money in the NCAA tournament... however that money is given to CONFERENCES, not individual schools. Implying that the XII commish and CSU AD conspired against a member of their own conference just cost the XII no less than $1.4M. If that's what they did, it's not politics, it's malfeasance.
Could there be bias... absolutely, but not in your two examples given. Does that bias rise to the level where ulterior motives are allowed to rule the committee process? Of course not.
CSU is not in the Big Twelve.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 14, 2011, 10:45:08 AM
I was thinking this the way Wisconsin laid down for Penn State and Purdue laid down for Michigan State. That tournament went pretty much perfectly for maximizing Big 10 bids.
I hope you're not implying that WVU laid down for us!
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 14, 2011, 01:40:04 PM
CSU is not in the Big Twelve.
My oversight... corrected.