re: NCAA Tournament Selection - SEC

I don't at all. Just because you say clearly this and clearly that doesn't mean crap. Many people who know a lot more than you don't see it that way. No matter what straw,an you use

I'm just saying its a legit debate only. It's just your opinion. It isn't clearly anything. You value a win over Iona better than one over Hofstra. I don't think that's clearly anything.

quote:

---

did it about 50 posts ago. Jesus Christ dj. I listed about ten things that are relevant. It's over your damn head.

---

I saw that list and you never specified which of those factors was adv sc over Tulsa. Maybe that request went over your head?

quote:

---

Compare How each did vs the top 50

---

Why top 50? Why not top 60? If you use the top 60, Carolina's record is much better than Tulsa's. It's arbitrary where you draw the line I guess.

quote:

---

quote:
Compare How each did vs the top 50


Why top 50? Why not top 60? If you use the top 60, Carolina's record is much better than Tulsa's. It's arbitrary where you draw the line I guess.

---

Just the way it is. Same reason they do top 25's in polls. It's a fair number.

quote:

---

quote:
Why top 50? Why not top 60? If you use the top 60, Carolina's record is much better than Tulsa's. It's arbitrary where you draw the line I guess.


Came back to post this.

What's so darn important about top 50? Heck, if we do top 49, Tulsa's 4-5 is now 3-5....yikes

If we do top 61, South Carolina is 5-1.....

If RPI is what we live and die by, then why not take the team ranked 57 (South Carolina) and not 60 (Tulsa)....

---

The bar has to be set somewhere and 50 is a fair spot.

Realtime rpi has sc at 65th and Tulsa at 58th btw.

quote:

---

What's so darn important about top 50? Heck, if we do top 49, Tulsa's 4-5 is now 3-5....yikes

---

I stated it earlier. The top 50 is where most of your tourney teams are going to come from. That alone makes those wins so important. That is also where most of your stronger teams all season long are going to rank. Your mid majors may rank outside that top 50, but by in large, all your solid teams are going to be in that top 50.

If you are picking a team to participate in something, you want to know how they did against teams who also will qualify. You want the best games you can get. You don't want blow out games, though they will happen with auto bids. You want the best slate of games as you can get. The only barometer for that, is to see how said team did against a certain group of teams and how many times they did that. Did they go out of their way to challenge themselves outside of the league? Did they get challenged once they got into league play?

Ill also add something else...SCar only played Kentucky and Texas A&M once. This didn't help either. Also only played Vanderbilt once. So, if we changed things and Carolina had played both UK and aTm twice and split those games, I think it may have helped some. That puts Carolina at 4 top 50 games, and another game against Vandy puts the Cocks at another game against a tourney team. Nothing Carolina can do about league scheduling. Though, there is something they can do about the OOC schedule.

quote:

---

top 60 is where most of your tourney teams come from

---

51. Pitt- IN
52. Florida- OUT
53. Chattanooga- IN
54. Butler- IN
55. Monmouth- OUT
56. Hofstra- OUT
57. South Carolina- OUT
58. Michigan- Play In Game
59. Davidson- OUT
60. Tulsa- IN

5/10 from 51-60 are in or in the play in game. From 1-50, there is not a group of ten with that much disparity. 4/10 are in for sure. There isn't that much disparity in any other group of ten 1-50.

That is why you go with top 50. There are 36 at large bids to the NCAA tourney. There are many auto qualifiers who are not in the top 50, nor the top 60.

Resume factors such as record v's Top 50 and sos are both advantage Tulsa, and as much as you hate them, the committee places much value on them.

Again, what relevant factors are adv sc? Maybe it's a request over your head, but Until you can answer this, you have an incredibly weak argument.

Maybe so but that Florida team that struggled mightily down the stretch at home against the other SEC bubble teams pounder the s### out of one of the best teams in your league West Virginia. LSU who we've all been laughing at had Oklahoma on the ropes and blew a big lead to lose at the buzzer. Arkansas took down another tourney team in Texas Tech. Alabama beat Notre Dame, Wichita State, and Clemson away from home and nearly knocked off #1 seeded Oregon after a big halftime lead. It wasn't like the SEC bubble teams weren't competitive and didn't have any good non conference wins. The SEC for whatever reason lately has been judged with a higher standard than the other Power 5 leagues. South Carolina and their impressive 24 wins was the SEC victim this year.

I think 3 bids is very low considering the amount of pretty good teams in the conference this year but there's no arguing that each SEC bubble team has only themselves to blame for the lack of consistency.



Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Ole Miss all came within 1 or 2 "bad losses" or "good wins" from being in the field.

I'd also include LSU in this group even though their lows at the season's end were particularly ugly and Vandy even though they made it but hardly did much to really separate themselves from this group either.


It's certainly not the sign of a "horrible" conference to have 7 or 8 teams with real chances of making the tourney going into the final couple of weeks.


I'd add that it certainly didn't help that three teams with worst resumes/RPIs up to the mid-point of the season (Miss St, Tennessee and Arkansas) all had decent upswings late in the season where they knocked off the bubble teams.


Again, that's somewhat due to those bubble teams being good but not great but also some credit is due to good coaches at all three of those who actually had their teams improving and playing hard down the stretch.