Monday, March 13, 2006
Bracket Complaints
The brackets were released yesterday, in case you are living under a rock. A lot of controversy arose upon the release, not only in regard to teams that were snubbed (Cincinnati, Florida State, Missouri State) but also the seeding has outraged many, me in particular. I love how guys like Jerry Palm and Joe Lunardi attempt to predict the bracket hours before it is actually released. Why do I love this, because these guys are actually good and their projections are normally pretty darn accurate. However, this year they were insanely off on some of their picks, that is it almost humorous. Let's take a look, to show how the tournament committee managed to even bewilder the best of the "bracketologists":
Tennessee - 2 seed
Lunardi=5 seed
Palm= 5 seed
Cincinnati- not in tourney
Lunardi= 9 seed
Palm= 9 seed
Air Force- 13 seed
Lunardi= not in tourney
Palm= not in tourney
Boston College- 4 seed
Lunardi= 3 seed
Palm= 2 seed
Nevada- 5 seed
Lunardi= 7 seed
Palm= 7 seed
These are just a few examples in regard to how bad the committee did. I haven't seen so many people complain about a committee like this one, and rightfully so. Some are even yelling conspiracy, and the argument made is compelling.
Link of the Day: Clip of Allan Ray's gruesome eye injury....watch at your own risk!
Tennessee - 2 seed
Lunardi=5 seed
Palm= 5 seed
Cincinnati- not in tourney
Lunardi= 9 seed
Palm= 9 seed
Air Force- 13 seed
Lunardi= not in tourney
Palm= not in tourney
Boston College- 4 seed
Lunardi= 3 seed
Palm= 2 seed
Nevada- 5 seed
Lunardi= 7 seed
Palm= 7 seed
These are just a few examples in regard to how bad the committee did. I haven't seen so many people complain about a committee like this one, and rightfully so. Some are even yelling conspiracy, and the argument made is compelling.
Link of the Day: Clip of Allan Ray's gruesome eye injury....watch at your own risk!
2 Comments:
What killed me about the way this bracket was constructed was its general inconsistency. In almost every possible facet, the selection committee showed a sense of skitzophrenia with the way they approached the bracket. With the idea of the regional pods, the committee rewarded 1 seeds like Duke and Villanova, but failed to reward Memphis, putting them in Dallas with a potential matchup with Arkansas. Florida got a favorable pod in Jacksonville, but North Carolina and Boston College were screwed over, getting Dayton and Salt Lake City pods.
With the seeding and at-large selections, the inconsistency continued. One great example is in the usage of the RPI. Arizona, for example, received a very high 8 seed mainly because of their strength of schedule and their RPI. They had no good wins, but also didn't really have that many bad losses. However, Missouri State, who had a 21 RPI, a high strength of schedule, and no bad losses as well, didn't even make the field. Why does the RPI matter for Arizona and doesn't matter for Missouri State?
In addition, the soft strength of schedules were inconsistently applied. George Washington, for example, was penalized heavily for a 324 non-conference SOS. Florida State was also punished for their poor non-conference schedule by not making the field. However, Air Force, who also played a soft schedule with only one decent win (Miami), was rewarded with a bid despite the relative weakness of the Mountain West. Why should Florida State be punished for SOS and Air Force not be? I'm not saying FSU deserved a tournament bid, but they certainly did over Air Force.
Finally, the last 10 games was applied with incredible inconsistency. Within the field, NC State fell from a potential top 4 seed to a 10 because of a poor finish. Michigan missed the field largely because of losing 7 of 9 down the stretch. Both these seedings were pretty fair. Then, we see Tennessee getting a 2 seed despite losing 4 of 6. Why does a poor finish not matter in that situation? Tennessee probably didn't deserve the 5 people were giving them, but a 2 seed with that poor finish? I simply don't get it.
I could go on and on. The applications of the conference tournaments were extremely inconsistent as well, with Illinois as a 4 because of an early exit and Tennessee as a 2 despite the early exit. The injury factor was also applied inconsistently, with Bradley getting a 13 because the results without Patrick O'Bryant were included, but San Diego State getting a high 11 because the committee gave them leeway for their poor start without Mohammad Akubar. But I'd be here all day. What makes it even worse is that Jim Nantz and Billy Packer refused to acknowledge any of this, instead picking on the Missouri Valley, which deserved none of their criticism.
Obviously this doesn't matter, because it's March Madness and that makes everything exciting. But it's unfortunate the committee did not do better. It's telling that the last team left out was Western Kentucky, who got a 6 seed in the NIT. I wish the committee will be more consistent in their criteria in the future than they were this year.
Thanks for the comments Pradamaster. The inconsistencies you noted should be acknowledged by all college basketball fans, but even more importantly, the NCAA. Picking what teams go into the tournament is obviously a subjective task, and when a group of people screw up like they have done I don't think they should ever be allowed to be on the committee again.
What is sad about what has occurred is the fact that starting Thursday all sports fans will embrace the tournament and media attention will turn to the beginning of March Madness and all will forget about the injustices teams like Cincinnati, Missouri State, and Florida State received from this committee. I am sure these schools will reluctantly accept invitations to play in the NIT, leaving a bitter taste in their mouths as they watch arguably inferior teams play in the "real" tournament.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home