OK, I don't usually talk too much about basketball in this forum and I rarely ever complain about who got in which tournament or seeding and things like that. The selection commitees have a difficult job and many variables to look at so somebody will always be upset.
This year though I feel that I must stick up for my alma mater a little bit. They got the worst "snubbing" I have ever seen.
Akron was considered by many to be a bubble team for the NCAA tournament and didn't get in. That was something I wasn't happy about but it also was what I expected since despite Akron's 26-7 record and heartbreaking and controversial finish in the MAC championship their SOS numbers just weren't that good and their RPI was somewhere in the mid- to upper 60s.
Where the snubbing comes is in the fact that the Zips were not even included in the NIT field. How can a team on the NCAA bubble not make the NIT? How can the best team in the MAC (and nearly everyone who follows the MAC agrees the Zips were the best team, wouldn't you agree Eric?) not be playing anywhere in the postseason? When did the MAC become a league where an automatic bid was the only way you were going to play in either of the national postseason tournaments? It wasn't that long ago that the conference would get at least one team in the NCAA as an at-large in most years and more recently they at least had multiple teams in the NIT.
On top of what I have already mentioned Akron's 7 losses were by a COMBINED 21 points. There are some very highly ranked teams that have been outscored by that much in one game this year!
Being snubbed, especially royally snubbed like this, by the NIT is much worse than being snubbed by the NCAA. If you don't get in the NCAA field you probably didn't have too much of a chance of winning the tournament anyway and at least you still have games to play (possibly even at home) in the NIT. Plus you can use the NIT to try to show that you shouldn't have been passed over in the first place. When the NIT snubs a team it ends their season and worse yet the careers of their seniors without giving them a chance to show that they belong.
I feel terrible for the seniors on Akron's team. They ended their career not only with a heartbreaking controversial loss on a hail mary shot but then the team gathered first to watch the NCAA selection show and then the NIT selection show and not see their team's name called in either even though nearly everyone around the program and nationally thought they deserved to have their careers continue.
The Worst Snub of All
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
Yeah, that was....pretty bad. Akron was probably the best team in the MAC. I wasn't surprised that they didn't make the NCAA field as an at-large. I don't know if they deserved it or not, but there certainly wasn't a lot of talk about them.
The NIT snub was a shock. I was extremely surprised. I was almost 99% sure they'd be in with 27 wins and probably being the best team in the conference.
The problem here is the rule about how a conference champion that didn't win their tournament gets an automatic invite. This allowed Delaware State, Mississippi Valley State, Toledo, Marist, and East Tennessee State to get into the field. It's a dumb rule. The MEAC and SWAC, the 2 worst college basketball conferences by far, will usually get 2 bids to the NIT now because there's so much parity in those conferences because it's so bad that the 7 seed could win the conferernce tournament.
I thought that at least Akron or Kent State would be in the NIT field. That's a pretty big snub. I don't like the rule about the conference champions who didn't win the tournament getting in automatically.
The NIT snub was a shock. I was extremely surprised. I was almost 99% sure they'd be in with 27 wins and probably being the best team in the conference.
The problem here is the rule about how a conference champion that didn't win their tournament gets an automatic invite. This allowed Delaware State, Mississippi Valley State, Toledo, Marist, and East Tennessee State to get into the field. It's a dumb rule. The MEAC and SWAC, the 2 worst college basketball conferences by far, will usually get 2 bids to the NIT now because there's so much parity in those conferences because it's so bad that the 7 seed could win the conferernce tournament.
I thought that at least Akron or Kent State would be in the NIT field. That's a pretty big snub. I don't like the rule about the conference champions who didn't win the tournament getting in automatically.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
-
mountainman
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21256
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
The problem here is the rule about how a conference champion that didn't win their tournament gets an automatic invite. This allowed Delaware State, Mississippi Valley State, Toledo, Marist, and East Tennessee State to get into the field. It's a dumb rule. The MEAC and SWAC, the 2 worst college basketball conferences by far, will usually get 2 bids to the NIT now because there's so much parity in those conferences because it's so bad that the 7 seed could win the conferernce tournament.
That is the problem with the automatic bid. Just because a team wins their conference, it doesn't mean they are among the best in the field. Automatic bids promote weak scheduling. Scheduling should be a major consideration with teams in any sport getting into post season games.
People talk about how fair playoff systems are and how they are much better then just picking one and two and having the rest be exhibition matchups. No system is fair to everyone. Playoffs solve nothing except to make the regular season worthless. This is a prime example.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
I guess I don't understand how it promotes weak scheduling, but you're right. Delaware State and MVSU were the 2 best teams in their conference. They didn't win the tourney, and their regular season was deemed worthless. It didn't mean anything. Why don't they just play the conference tourney and get on with the tournament?
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21256
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
If you just have to win your conference, why schedule tough OOC games? That is how it promotes weak scheduling. There is more parity in b-ball then in football, so it makes it harder to compare teams. Teams deserving get shut out and others make it. Basketball has two post season tournaments and they still can keep anyone happy.
The big point is that playoffs so not, and will never, be any better solution then the system football uses. Football at least, by keeping the bowl system in tact, is preserving the integrity of the regular season.
The big point is that playoffs so not, and will never, be any better solution then the system football uses. Football at least, by keeping the bowl system in tact, is preserving the integrity of the regular season.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
Spence, I don't know that I totally agree with you that selecting a conference champion for an auto bid promotes weak scheduling. It may be true that teams at both ends of the spectrum (the big names and the very smallest schools) can get away with weak schedules because it won't matter much come March. The big guys can finish 6th in their league and get in no matter who they played and the tiny guys know they have to win the conference tourney regardless of what happens OOC. But scheduling is everything to the guys in the middle, at least everyone but the teams that end up winning the conference tournament. Then again playing a strong OOC is important for preparing you to win your conference title anyway.
In fact, the NCAA selection committee has told Akron that the largest determining factor in the Zips not making the NCAA was their strength of schedule. I'd say that is pretty good incentive for playing a tougher schedule in the future.
The problem with tougher scheduling is exactly the same for a school like Akron in basketball as it is in football. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to come to Akron and play the preseason MAC favorites. The Zips had a deal with Pittsburgh ready to go and the Panthers pulled out at the last second so they could play Buffalo (another MAC school but one projected to have a "down" year) instead. The Zips are now 40-2 at home the last three seasons and big name opponents are shying away from the Zips with regularity but no selection committee ever takes note of this. The only top 25 team Akron played at home this season was Nevada, which had to play a return game there by virtue of ESPN's Bracketbuster rules and even they brought their conference officials with them.
I do agree, though, that the NCAA taking the conference tournament champion lessens the importance of the regular season. I have always thought it strange that the college basketball conferences reward the team that wins three or four games at the end of the season more than it rewards the team that played the best throughout the season.
It seems more logical to me that the regular season conference champ should get the auto bid to the NCAA and not the tournament winner. The problem there comes with what incentive a team has to play in their conference tournament if they've already sewn up an NCAA bid.
Eric, I personally like the regular season conference champion getting an auto bid to the postseason simply because those teams are most often the ones that are more deserving than even the conf tourney champ. Since every conference is represented they really should be NCAA teams.
The problem with the NIT is that in addition to adding the auto bids they also decreased the size of the field from 40 to 32. If anything the number should have gone up not down! That, along with the fact that the entire selection commitee consists of retired coaches from "power" conferences, is what doesn't make any sense to me about the NIT.
In my opinion, the NIT needs to make a lot of changes from who is on the selection commitee to the size of the tournament field and even in the way they seed the teams. Seeding should be done based on certain criteria and not by objective decision. Once it is determined who is in why not just seed the teams and fill the brackets by using either RPI or Sagarin rating or a combination of ratings indicies like that. I mean that way no one can complain how unfair their seed was.
In fact, the NCAA selection committee has told Akron that the largest determining factor in the Zips not making the NCAA was their strength of schedule. I'd say that is pretty good incentive for playing a tougher schedule in the future.
The problem with tougher scheduling is exactly the same for a school like Akron in basketball as it is in football. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to come to Akron and play the preseason MAC favorites. The Zips had a deal with Pittsburgh ready to go and the Panthers pulled out at the last second so they could play Buffalo (another MAC school but one projected to have a "down" year) instead. The Zips are now 40-2 at home the last three seasons and big name opponents are shying away from the Zips with regularity but no selection committee ever takes note of this. The only top 25 team Akron played at home this season was Nevada, which had to play a return game there by virtue of ESPN's Bracketbuster rules and even they brought their conference officials with them.
I do agree, though, that the NCAA taking the conference tournament champion lessens the importance of the regular season. I have always thought it strange that the college basketball conferences reward the team that wins three or four games at the end of the season more than it rewards the team that played the best throughout the season.
It seems more logical to me that the regular season conference champ should get the auto bid to the NCAA and not the tournament winner. The problem there comes with what incentive a team has to play in their conference tournament if they've already sewn up an NCAA bid.
Eric, I personally like the regular season conference champion getting an auto bid to the postseason simply because those teams are most often the ones that are more deserving than even the conf tourney champ. Since every conference is represented they really should be NCAA teams.
The problem with the NIT is that in addition to adding the auto bids they also decreased the size of the field from 40 to 32. If anything the number should have gone up not down! That, along with the fact that the entire selection commitee consists of retired coaches from "power" conferences, is what doesn't make any sense to me about the NIT.
In my opinion, the NIT needs to make a lot of changes from who is on the selection commitee to the size of the tournament field and even in the way they seed the teams. Seeding should be done based on certain criteria and not by objective decision. Once it is determined who is in why not just seed the teams and fill the brackets by using either RPI or Sagarin rating or a combination of ratings indicies like that. I mean that way no one can complain how unfair their seed was.
Oops! I forgot one thing in my previous post. This is, in part, in response to Eric's comment about the NIT auto bids....
In Akron's case it shouldn't have mattered the Zips not only should have made the NIT field but they should have been at very worst a 4 seed guaranteeing at least one home game if not more.
In Akron's case it shouldn't have mattered the Zips not only should have made the NIT field but they should have been at very worst a 4 seed guaranteeing at least one home game if not more.
-
RazorHawk
- Athletic Director
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 6:30 pm
- Location: Inverness, FL
- Contact:
How about Iowa, tied for 4th place in the Big Ten and by the tiebreakers was the 4th seed in the Big 10 tourney. Six teams make the big dance and Iowa also does not even make the NIT.
I don't think they belonged in the NCAA tourney, but not getting invited to the NIT was ridiculous.
I don't think they belonged in the NCAA tourney, but not getting invited to the NIT was ridiculous.
Hawkeye and Razorback fan in Florida
Razorhawk, conference standings something that the committe MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT! I don't know if Iowa was the 4th best team in the Big 10 or not (it didn't look like they played that way down the stretch) but they did finish 4th in the Big 10. Doesn't that count for something? How did the 7th best team in the conference get a 9 seed when the 4th best team in the conference didn't even get a bid to the NIT? Something is screwy there 
Do you know why Michigan State got in? Because they're Michigan State. Same thing with Arizona. In all reality, the Wildcats should've been on the bubble with the way that they have played. They got clobbered against Oregon in their tournament. But they get an 8 seed which means that the committe classified Arizona as a lock. They were never in danger of not getting a bid to the tournament. But you take a team like Clemson who finished 7-9 in the ACC, ONE GAME behind Duke, and they aren't even considered. Duke gets a 6 seed and Clemson is in the NIT. Now, a team that finishes one game behind another must be pretty even in talent. If Clemson didn't make it, then Duke should have at least been on the bubble. Oh, but they're Duke, give 'em a free pass, it's just been a flukey season, they're Duke, they should be in the tournament no matter what
It's the same thinking with Michigan State. They're Michigan State, let's overseed them. Exact same thing. A team that finishes 3 places behind another gets a 9 seed in the Big Dance while that team ahead of them can't even find a spot on the lesser of the 2 dance floors. What's up with that?
Back to Akron anyway, the Zips should've been in the NIT. If they left the tournament number alone and didn't hand out bids to East Tennessee State, Delaware State, and MVSU, Akron would've been in. I think it's a shame that the MAC doesn't even get that much respect. I thought that Toledo, Kent State, and Akron were all good enough to play in the NIT.
Considering the top of the MAC, I would rank it ahead of the Sun Belt definitely, not the WAC or MWC, but also ahead of C-USA. I think the conference is on par with the A-10. The A-10 was a 2 bid conference. It's not like it's as bad as the Big South, Big Sky, or Atlantic Sun. That's the problem with a lot of fans and even the selection committe; they clump all of the mid-majors into one category.
The MAC, C-USA, MWC, and WAC are at different levels than the MidCon, Big Sky, and WCC. I think that, usually, these 4 conferences are probably good enough to get 2 bids into the tourney. C-USA outside of Memphis was terrible, the MWC should have 3 bids, and the WAC should have 2 like they did. The MAC is disrespected I guess. Unlike a couple of past seasons, I thought the basketball this year was pretty good.
I'm not usually a guy that picks teams based on conferences, but you need a certain idea of conference strength. That is my point. I don't think those conferences above are entitled to 2 bids, I'm just saying that they usually have 2 teams that are capable of playing in the NCAA tournament unlike the NEC, MAAC, or America East.
Do you know why Michigan State got in? Because they're Michigan State. Same thing with Arizona. In all reality, the Wildcats should've been on the bubble with the way that they have played. They got clobbered against Oregon in their tournament. But they get an 8 seed which means that the committe classified Arizona as a lock. They were never in danger of not getting a bid to the tournament. But you take a team like Clemson who finished 7-9 in the ACC, ONE GAME behind Duke, and they aren't even considered. Duke gets a 6 seed and Clemson is in the NIT. Now, a team that finishes one game behind another must be pretty even in talent. If Clemson didn't make it, then Duke should have at least been on the bubble. Oh, but they're Duke, give 'em a free pass, it's just been a flukey season, they're Duke, they should be in the tournament no matter what
It's the same thinking with Michigan State. They're Michigan State, let's overseed them. Exact same thing. A team that finishes 3 places behind another gets a 9 seed in the Big Dance while that team ahead of them can't even find a spot on the lesser of the 2 dance floors. What's up with that?
Back to Akron anyway, the Zips should've been in the NIT. If they left the tournament number alone and didn't hand out bids to East Tennessee State, Delaware State, and MVSU, Akron would've been in. I think it's a shame that the MAC doesn't even get that much respect. I thought that Toledo, Kent State, and Akron were all good enough to play in the NIT.
Considering the top of the MAC, I would rank it ahead of the Sun Belt definitely, not the WAC or MWC, but also ahead of C-USA. I think the conference is on par with the A-10. The A-10 was a 2 bid conference. It's not like it's as bad as the Big South, Big Sky, or Atlantic Sun. That's the problem with a lot of fans and even the selection committe; they clump all of the mid-majors into one category.
The MAC, C-USA, MWC, and WAC are at different levels than the MidCon, Big Sky, and WCC. I think that, usually, these 4 conferences are probably good enough to get 2 bids into the tourney. C-USA outside of Memphis was terrible, the MWC should have 3 bids, and the WAC should have 2 like they did. The MAC is disrespected I guess. Unlike a couple of past seasons, I thought the basketball this year was pretty good.
I'm not usually a guy that picks teams based on conferences, but you need a certain idea of conference strength. That is my point. I don't think those conferences above are entitled to 2 bids, I'm just saying that they usually have 2 teams that are capable of playing in the NCAA tournament unlike the NEC, MAAC, or America East.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
-
mountainman
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21256
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
mountainman wrote:So, is your contention that after 65 teams are selected for the NCAA tournament and 32 teams are selected for the National Invitational Tournament .... this process still cannot get it right?
This is proof positive that football needs a playoff. 96 teams make the post season and still it isn't enough teams.
I'm not arguing who should have been in either tourney and who shouldn't be in. I don't follow basketball enough to know. Just that how many teams would be enough? Someone will always be unhappy and will be justified. I like the way football does it. Two teams play, the winner is champion. The rest is exhibition to determine next year's good teams.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
I agree with you. It'll never end no matter how many teams get in. If 1-A football found a way to include all 119 teams in a playoffs, Southern Illinois and Montana would cry that they are better teams than the Dukes and the Temples. Everybody wants it to be like it is in the professionals where all subjectivity is taken out and seeding is based on their record. The problem is that there are too many teams to do that and everybody doesn't play everybody. They don't play all of the same competition like other pro sports do. That is what I think makes college sports that much more compelling.
I'd rather watch any College World Series game besides any regular season MLB game that doesn't include the Tigers. Now, I like the MLB, but I always find myself asking "what purpose does this game have in determining the fates of the two ballclubs?" In college football, you have a much clearer vision of a team's future because the regular season means something. You can have some kind of idea of the impact on a team if they win/lose this/that game. It's like a "one-and-done" scenario. No second shots. That's what's cool about the college football season--it means so much more than it does in other sports.
All regular seasons determine seeding. However, bowl games are IT. No conference tournaments, they don't play 81 or 162 games, no NIT, etc.
I'd rather watch any College World Series game besides any regular season MLB game that doesn't include the Tigers. Now, I like the MLB, but I always find myself asking "what purpose does this game have in determining the fates of the two ballclubs?" In college football, you have a much clearer vision of a team's future because the regular season means something. You can have some kind of idea of the impact on a team if they win/lose this/that game. It's like a "one-and-done" scenario. No second shots. That's what's cool about the college football season--it means so much more than it does in other sports.
All regular seasons determine seeding. However, bowl games are IT. No conference tournaments, they don't play 81 or 162 games, no NIT, etc.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 21256
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
That is the point and I agree. It really doesn't matter who wins the championship, playoff or not, everyone has a different opinion of what is fair. The regular season and the quest for the big game are what sets CFB apart from other sports. Ohio State got beat by 2 of the three number 1 seeds during the regular season. Those games do not matter at all. Ohio State still got a prime seeding and an opportunity to play in the NCG. In football that would never happen. In football you have to win, period.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
Spence wrote:. In football you have to win, period.
And even if you do that it still may not amount to a championship, ask Boise State or Utah.
When people ask me if I think there should be a playoff in college football I usually say no. This isn't because I don't think a playoff is a good way to choose a champion it is simply because I don't think the "powers that be" would ever create a fair format that would also maintain much of the bowl structure. In any playoff each conference champion would have to be included in the interest of fairness, they'd never do that. The only type of CFB playoff I would ever be in favor of would be one that was similar to what the NFL does (conference champs and possibly a very few wild cards).
The one thing basketball does have going for it is that no matter who you are if you make the postseason and keep winning you will be crowned as champion. That isn't necessarily the case in football.
Still what makes college football the best is that the regular season games mean just as much as the postseason ones in most cases.
Return to “College Basketball”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest