NCAAT Committee Chair Just Said
- Thread starter fisherscat
- Start date
How devastatingly sad that we, as UK fans, can almost guarantee the NCAA selection committee will screw us over.
I hate the methods of those bastards.
Also true. If they can't control tempo, or fall behind by any decent margin; both are in trouble. We saw that from UV last night.
Wisconsin doesn't scare me. We have too many big bodies to throw at Frank. And our bigs are more athletic than him. If we rebound and box out and get a fair whistle we should handle them. I don't know how Duke or Villanova is going to guard us. Either one of those games we will see Ullis on the floor with the twins and/or a twin and Booker a bunch but they still have to guard two 7 footers at the same time. We rebound their misses in those games we shouldn't have a problem there either. The Zags can't match up with us at all on either end of the floor. No worries there either. Kansas needs to get the Alexander issue resolved to even have a fighters chance. Without him they exit early again before they'll even have to see us. Zona is the only team I think can match up with us 5 on 5. But our quality depth should give us a win. I think if we get a fair whistle the whole tourney only UK can stop UK. Doesn't matter to me who they throw at us.
You may be right, but if Duke wins the ACCT I think they would be 2nd. And how many freakin games can KU lose and still be a 2? It's 7 now. Maryland has 2 less, and they play in a tough conference as well. When does KU not having played anyone outside the top 150 cease to matter?
So Wisconsin lost one game without Kaminsky and Jackson (and also did not have Jackson for the Maryland loss), and also lost to Duke...yet you want to give a one seed to a team that has lost to 3 NIT teams at best (all non NCAA teams)?
Explain that logic because I'm not buying it one bit. The Big Ten is also a vastly superior conference to the near mid major Pac 12. Arizona has beaten the Fraud Gonzaga and more and more apparent by the week the Fraud Utah...big deal.
So if geography becomes the primary factor after they said it wouldn't be then Gonzaga has to stay out west with zona as a 1. If they are going to move Gonzaga they will have some heavy explaining as to why they didn't move them to uks bracket. You can't use geography as a rationale for one bracket and not another. Then what the hell does geography mean? The first two rounds? The regionals? I think it is a culmination of all factors. You could send Wisconsin east and the geography is negligible. Similar distance to Omaha and a couple hours more to Syracuse. I see the east or Midwest the only two regions that make sense for KU.
So again
UK/KU
Virginia/Wisconsin the 2 seed goes to Omaha
Duke/Gonzaga bc Gonzaga would play in Seattle 2and 3 rd
Villanova/Arizona 1 seed goes to Pittsburgh for rd 2 and 3
If you were to average out travel time and distance for rds 2 -4 combined this make most sense.
So again
UK/KU
Virginia/Wisconsin the 2 seed goes to Omaha
Duke/Gonzaga bc Gonzaga would play in Seattle 2and 3 rd
Villanova/Arizona 1 seed goes to Pittsburgh for rd 2 and 3
If you were to average out travel time and distance for rds 2 -4 combined this make most sense.
1. If the South Region was actually IN THE SOUTH(sorry, Texas is not part of the South)then UK could be put in its natural region.* Kentucky is not now nor has it ever been considered a Midwest team except to the bozos on the selection committee.
*This is the main reason UK got totally roped over in 2010 because Syracuse(East Region)was like 20 miles closer to Lexington than Houston(South Region).
2. This whole idea of 'fairness' is merely some kind of feel-goodism/equality/'let's not slight anyone' BS hatched by the eggheads that permeates society as a whole these days. The only benefactor of 'fairness' should be the overall #1 seed and the other 1 seeds. Everyone else is slotted as seeded on the S curve(if that indeed still exists).
This post was edited on 3/8 2:40 PM by Zakk Wyldcat
*This is the main reason UK got totally roped over in 2010 because Syracuse(East Region)was like 20 miles closer to Lexington than Houston(South Region).
2. This whole idea of 'fairness' is merely some kind of feel-goodism/equality/'let's not slight anyone' BS hatched by the eggheads that permeates society as a whole these days. The only benefactor of 'fairness' should be the overall #1 seed and the other 1 seeds. Everyone else is slotted as seeded on the S curve(if that indeed still exists).
This post was edited on 3/8 2:40 PM by Zakk Wyldcat
Where Gonzaga will go will depend on where on the seed line they are......like everyone else.
If Gonzaga is the last two seed.........the the others are Arizona, Wisconsin and KU like most think......well then Gonzaga is going East.
Conversely if they were the best two seed, they'd go West. If Zona was the next team, they would go MW and we'd avoid Wisconsin.
People are upset about this but it's not difficult at all. They go down the seed list team by team.
It should noted that this is how they've done it for several years. It's not about us. Turns out they weren't trying to set up duke ky in 2012, that's just how the system works.
2014 Villanova was top two seed, they went to New York. Michigan went to Indianapolis. Kansas to Memphis. Wisconsin was ranked the worst two seed and they had to go to California. (1-7, 2-8, 3-6, 4-5)
2013. Miami was considered the best two and they went to D.C. Duke went to Indianapolis. Georgetown to Arlington. Ohio state was the worst and they went to California.(1-6, 2-5, 3-7, 4-8)
2012. Kansas went to st Louis. Duke to Atlanta. Ohio state to Boston. Missouri to Phoenix. (1-6, 3-5, 2-7, 4-8)
2014 Villanova was top two seed, they went to New York. Michigan went to Indianapolis. Kansas to Memphis. Wisconsin was ranked the worst two seed and they had to go to California. (1-7, 2-8, 3-6, 4-5)
2013. Miami was considered the best two and they went to D.C. Duke went to Indianapolis. Georgetown to Arlington. Ohio state was the worst and they went to California.(1-6, 2-5, 3-7, 4-8)
2012. Kansas went to st Louis. Duke to Atlanta. Ohio state to Boston. Missouri to Phoenix. (1-6, 3-5, 2-7, 4-8)
Exactly.
it's just how it is.
It's not to screw UK or anyone for that matter. These are the rules. Everyone has to play by them.
I'm sure Wisconsin isn't thrilled about playing UK early lol
Wisconsin averages 72 ppg this year and over73 ppg last year, the score in the final four was74-73. They haven't been a slow it down team the last couple of years.
They average 59.1 possessions per game. That's 345th overall.
On offense they avg 21.5 seconds .....that's 349th.
They very much play at a slow pace.
They just score a bunch because they are the number 1 team in offensive efficiency
This post was edited on 3/8 2:57 PM by The_Answer1313
So much money on the line for Vegas. If we are undefeated going into the NCAA, we will find out if Vegas has any of these Refs in their back pocket or not, whoever we play.
Yeah, but when has the top 1 and top 1 ever been paired? I don't see it on that list. Funny how they are going to allow that this year.
The greater point is that the system is set up incorrectly. I'm not going to bore you with reposting all my research but basically in the last 40 years the western United States has had 5 different schools in the Final Four. 5....that's it in nearly 40 years. UCLA, UNLV, Arizona, Utah and Stanford. In that same time frame dating back to 1976 the South has had 15 different schools, the east has had 13 schools and the midwest has had 21 different schools! History tells us that the West doesn't produce enough quality basketball to deserve there own region which makes this whole geographic approach horse s%^*....put the West regional in Oklahoma City, Denver, Salt Lake City, Houston, Omaha, Albuquerque but it should never go more west than that and the geographical approach needs to be thrown out the freakin window.
It's all going to depend on the teams overall seed list. They will go in direct order #1 overall gets their closest, 2 next, 3 next , 4 leftover, then 5 gets first dids on their closest so either Wisky needs to move up to the 4 overall or down to the 7/8 overall spot to avoid MW.
http://www.seed-madness.com/
This is a really good site for seeing how far each team is from the 4 regions (don't pay much attention to how they pick the teams this site is terrible at that but great for other stuff)
This post was edited on 3/8 3:04 PM by HenryMuto
http://www.seed-madness.com/
This is a really good site for seeing how far each team is from the 4 regions (don't pay much attention to how they pick the teams this site is terrible at that but great for other stuff)
This post was edited on 3/8 3:04 PM by HenryMuto
Two words...
Who Cares
Just win baby. To be the best you have to beat the best.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Who Cares
Just win baby. To be the best you have to beat the best.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It's not really about "allowing" it or not tho. The geography thing has only been going on for a few years now (they did the S Curve before that so this wouldn't happen).
It's just that it never happened. It could have happened tho. It's not as if they made sure in the past it didn't happen. Just geography prevented it from happening until now.
And lets be honest......we still have conference tournaments......alot can change so it doesnt happen this year. What if Wisconsin wins the Big Ten and Nova losses in the first round of the BE? Then Wisconsin will be shipped West as the 1 seed.
Or maybe Wisconsin losses early in the tournament and Arizona and Gonzaga jump them. Then one of those teams will go Midwest and Wisconsin most likely East.
Alot can happen still
So basically the committee is taking the approach that all 2 seeds are created equal?
So why do we continue to hear things like, "the number 1 -2 seed"?
This is insane. The difference just in ranking between the best 2 seed and the worst 2 seed is 4 spots in the polls.
Count me in the group that thinks of Duke was the top overall seed everyone would get loads according to their standing not where they are freakin located. This is ridiculous from a fairness standpoint. It's about the ncaa making money
So why do we continue to hear things like, "the number 1 -2 seed"?
This is insane. The difference just in ranking between the best 2 seed and the worst 2 seed is 4 spots in the polls.
Count me in the group that thinks of Duke was the top overall seed everyone would get loads according to their standing not where they are freakin located. This is ridiculous from a fairness standpoint. It's about the ncaa making money
Sort of.
But then there's this in the procedures:
After the top four seed lines have been
assigned, the committee will review the
relative strengths of the regions by adding the
"true seed" numbers in each region to
determine if any severe numerical
imbalance exists. Generally, no more than
five points should separate the lowest and
highest total.
But based on my research from previous tournaments, they don't do this lol.
Karlito told Karl to have no fear..... got to go beat somebody so it might as well be Wisconsin as anybody.
This post was edited on 3/8 3:28 PM by CatCrazyChuk
This post was edited on 3/8 3:28 PM by CatCrazyChuk
I hope everyone in BBN understands this for what it really is a $$$$$$ money grab by the NCAA. They used to go by the S-Curve and then when CBS signed the deal with Turner and suddenly every game was available on cable game attendance fell off a cliff. Why fly halfway across the country and spend that kind of money to watch your team play in Anaheim or L.A. when you can go with all your friends to the local Buffalo Wild Wings and see ALL the games. So in 2012 the ditched the S-Curve and went with a geography model in hopes of boasting ticket sales. Remember the NCAA doesn't get any money from the college football playoff there ENTIRE operating budget comes from the income of March Madness. The geography approach is a ploy to increase ticket sales nothing more.
It's all about matchups/ratings/money. No matter what justification they put forth.
UK being undefeated is a cash cow for this tournament. With every matchup; more and more people will turn in to see if we lose.
So you can basically guarantee a potential big name match up in every game; once we're past the opening game.
You can basically count on some variation of IU, UL, OSU, Wichita and either Wisconsin/Duke/KU alol being in our path on the road to the final 4.
UK being undefeated is a cash cow for this tournament. With every matchup; more and more people will turn in to see if we lose.
So you can basically guarantee a potential big name match up in every game; once we're past the opening game.
You can basically count on some variation of IU, UL, OSU, Wichita and either Wisconsin/Duke/KU alol being in our path on the road to the final 4.
Yes, agree. Forget Wisconsin. They will be a #1 seed. The interesting shake out will happen in the conference tournaments. Does Villanova and Virginia (with their injuries) lose in their conference tourneys? I believe KU will drop to a three seed unless they win their conference tourney. Could UK be the #1 in the South and move dUKe to the East if Villanova loses in the Big East Tourney? Lots of variables that could factor in....
But we've already seen they don't protect duke with this system. Duke has gotten screwed as much anybody else.
Look at that 2012 year. Duke was the second best #2 seed. Did they send them out west to pay the worst #1. Nope, they got put in the same region with the number one seed in the whole tournament.
Look at 2013. Again they were the second best #2 seed in the whole tournament. Did they ship them out west to pay the worst number one? Gonzaga who everyone seems to think they are destined to get? No. Did they move them to nearby washington dc to play the second worst number one seed? No. They shipped them to Indianapolis to pay Louisville, who was the number one overall seed that year.
You people really need to give up this ghost that duke gets protected, because it is factually been shown that it does not now.
This post was edited on 3/8 4:00 PM by SaguaroCat
Good post and I agree. Seems like most UK fans think the NCAA selection committee are a bunch of devils in suits that live in Indianapolis that are Duke, Indiana, UNC, and Syracuse grads and hate UK, have horns and despise bourbon and horse racing. In reality it's the following people:
ADs at LSU, Wake Forest, Utah State, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Creighton, Northeastern, and BYUConference commissioners of Big Sky and CUSA
They aren't sitting around conspiring how to screw over UK or any other team. They aren't trying to create the best matchups or increase TV dollars. If there's an issue with the teams or the brackets, I think generally you can say it's because you can't get 10 people to agree on anything or the limitations/rules of the process.
Duke and UNC didn't win their titles because the NCAA set it up that way just like UK hasn't been screwed over by them either.
ADs at LSU, Wake Forest, Utah State, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Creighton, Northeastern, and BYUConference commissioners of Big Sky and CUSA
They aren't sitting around conspiring how to screw over UK or any other team. They aren't trying to create the best matchups or increase TV dollars. If there's an issue with the teams or the brackets, I think generally you can say it's because you can't get 10 people to agree on anything or the limitations/rules of the process.
Duke and UNC didn't win their titles because the NCAA set it up that way just like UK hasn't been screwed over by them either.
Ouch. Hadn't thought of that OSU-Cleveland connection. Will cause nightmares of D. Russell going all Devin Downey on us.
They will go line by line and put them according to geography. They will consider the S-curve when two or three teams on the same line are closest to the same site.
It's going to work like this (based on right now):
Rank the 1 seeds.
1. UK- Midwest
2. UVA- East
3. Duke- South(closest remaining site)
4. Nova- West(last 1 seed is sent West)
Then rank the 2 seeds.
5. UW- Mdwest(closest site)
6. Zona- West(closest site)
7. Zaga- South(closest remaining site)
8. KU- East(only site remaining)
Zaga might go East if the committee has KU higher and have them in Houston.
What they do after that is adjust the 3 and 4 seeds accordingly until the Region is "balanced." They want the overall number around 34.
So the Midwest would be have #1 and #5, so 6 points. They would need to have a fairly weak 3 and 4 seed in order to get the overall number close to 34.
So UK gets the top 2 seed (#5), but a low 3 seed (#11-12) and low 4 seed (#15-16).
That way the region isn't considered loaded. The Midwest comes in at somewhere between 32 and 34.
Since they have been doing this the biggest discrepancy among regions has been a region with a score of 38 and a region scoring 30 in the same tourney. I think that is what I read somewhere.
That is how they justify it. It's not whether the 1 and 2 are balanced, it's the 1-4 seeds in the bracket. I'm sure they look at the rest of the region, but from what I have read, the top 4 are the ones they really look at to keep things "balanced."
It's going to work like this (based on right now):
Rank the 1 seeds.
1. UK- Midwest
2. UVA- East
3. Duke- South(closest remaining site)
4. Nova- West(last 1 seed is sent West)
Then rank the 2 seeds.
5. UW- Mdwest(closest site)
6. Zona- West(closest site)
7. Zaga- South(closest remaining site)
8. KU- East(only site remaining)
Zaga might go East if the committee has KU higher and have them in Houston.
What they do after that is adjust the 3 and 4 seeds accordingly until the Region is "balanced." They want the overall number around 34.
So the Midwest would be have #1 and #5, so 6 points. They would need to have a fairly weak 3 and 4 seed in order to get the overall number close to 34.
So UK gets the top 2 seed (#5), but a low 3 seed (#11-12) and low 4 seed (#15-16).
That way the region isn't considered loaded. The Midwest comes in at somewhere between 32 and 34.
Since they have been doing this the biggest discrepancy among regions has been a region with a score of 38 and a region scoring 30 in the same tourney. I think that is what I read somewhere.
That is how they justify it. It's not whether the 1 and 2 are balanced, it's the 1-4 seeds in the bracket. I'm sure they look at the rest of the region, but from what I have read, the top 4 are the ones they really look at to keep things "balanced."
Does not matter. After the first game which is a cupcake you will get an 8/9 which will be like an Iowa/Texas/UCLA type of program from a major conference. Sweet sixteen will be a #4/5 seed followed by a 2/3. Then you have the Final Four. No matter how you slice it we will play 4-5 good teams to win the title. I would rather be in our shoes versus any other scenario. Win 6 games and it does not matter.
Thought it. Didn't want to say (write) it.
I don't know what the numbers are... just hope they have moved firmly to the Vegas-will-make-more-off-of-the-people-betting-against-UK by the time the Championship comes.
Folks, forget the seedings. The one thing you need to remember is that as long as Cal is at UK, we will not be given a break in the post-season. If that means that we will be under-seeded like last year or paired up with the strongest #2 seed this year, then that is what will happen.