PDA

View Full Version : Biggest Tournament Snubs



Yachtzee
03-12-2007, 08:23 PM
My vote goes to Akron. 26-7 and lose to Miami in the MAC Championship on a last second shot and get neither NCAA tournament bid nor NIT bid.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/16886221.htm

HumnHilghtFreel
03-12-2007, 08:25 PM
I'm split between Drexel and Syracuse. Syracuse probably the bigger snub since they come from a better conference.

Akron not even getting into the NIT does suck though.

Blimpie
03-12-2007, 08:27 PM
Syracuse and Kansas State

SunDeck
03-12-2007, 08:31 PM
I think Drexel got hosed the worst. They were phenomenal on the road, against some really tough teams.

For Syracuse, I don't feel as bad because they've been there a lot.

dsmith421
03-12-2007, 08:33 PM
Syracuse probably the bigger snub since they come from a better conference.

Syracuse would get taken more seriously if they played a single game outside of New York before the New Year. Their non-conference schedule was yet another cynical attempt to produce an artificially inflated RPI by playing 15 non-conference home games against cupcakes and the occasional reputable--but not too reputable--mid-major. They lost three games--two at home, one at MSG--against teams that did not make the NCAA field. Jim Boeheim is a whiner, and deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

ESPN's entire attitude toward the Mid-Majors this year was disgraceful. You get the definite idea that they would like to close off the whole tournament and have only BCS schools qualify.

(Jay Bilas, in particular, ought to be beaten senseless for his completely mean-spirited and inaccurate tirade against Xavier, while conveniently ignoring the eight or nine lower-seeded at larges--several of whom the Musketeers beat head-to-head.)

guttle11
03-12-2007, 08:35 PM
Syracuse would get taken more seriously if they played a single game outside of New York before the New Year. Their non-conference schedule was yet another cynical attempt to produce an artificially inflated RPI by playing 15 non-conference home games against cupcakes and the occasional reputable--but not too reputable--mid-major. They lost three games--two at home, one at MSG--against teams that did not make the NCAA field. Jim Boeheim is a whiner, and deserves no sympathy whatsoever.



Exactly. When you refuse to travel and play someone in the OOC games, you can't complain if you let yourself fall to the bubble.

Heck, call a team like Texas and play them in Kansas City or something. Losing that game is better than beating 2 or 3 patsies.

Blimpie
03-12-2007, 08:44 PM
Syracuse would get taken more seriously if they played a single game outside of New York before the New Year. Their non-conference schedule was yet another cynical attempt to produce an artificially inflated RPI by playing 15 non-conference home games against cupcakes and the occasional reputable--but not too reputable--mid-major. They lost three games--two at home, one at MSG--against teams that did not make the NCAA field. Jim Boeheim is a whiner, and deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

ESPN's entire attitude toward the Mid-Majors this year was disgraceful. You get the definite idea that they would like to close off the whole tournament and have only BCS schools qualify.

(Jay Bilas, in particular, ought to be beaten senseless for his completely mean-spirited and inaccurate tirade against Xavier, while conveniently ignoring the eight or nine lower-seeded at larges--several of whom the Musketeers beat head-to-head.)In my book, you go 10-6 in this year's Big East...you deserve to be in the dance.

guttle11
03-12-2007, 08:51 PM
In my book, you go 10-6 in this year's Big East...you deserve to be in the dance.

This year's Big East was ranked 5th. A conference ranked fifth does not deserve 7 teams in the tourney.

Syracuse had the seventh best tourney resume in their conference. Compare them to Stanford, and Stanford's 18 wins are probably more impressive than Syracuse's 22.

SOS matters, and Syracuse just flat out didn't have an impressive SOS. Nothing about them screamed "tourney team" except for the name on the front of the jersey.

rotnoid
03-12-2007, 09:00 PM
In my book, you go 10-6 in this year's Big East...you deserve to be in the dance.

That's the kind of attitude that keeps the mid majors down. Since when is a winning conference record the only pre-requisite to a tourney bid? Finishing over .500 in a conference that's not as tough as some may believe, while not playing a single out of conference game out of your home state doesn't impress much. Syracuse got the easier end of the Big East schedule this year thanks to their average finish last year. They only played Pitt and Georgetown once and got them both at home. Their only truly impressive road conference win was at Marquette 2 months ago.

Highlifeman21
03-12-2007, 09:11 PM
In my book, you go 10-6 in this year's Big East...you deserve to be in the dance.

You're exactly right.

And when you win IIRC 6 out of your last 8, you should also get in, with 22+ wins.

The NCAA just hates Jimmy B, that's all there is to it. Syracuse is the biggest snub by far.

Stanford didn't deserve to get in, and neither did Illinois.

guttle11
03-12-2007, 09:17 PM
The NCAA just hates Jimmy B, that's all there is to it.

Oh boy.

Reds Fanatic
03-12-2007, 09:33 PM
Drexel is by far the worst snub this year. They do everything the committee says you should do play a tough schedule, win on the road and they still get passed over. They should have been in over Arkansas.

dsmith421
03-12-2007, 09:57 PM
In my book, you go 10-6 in this year's Big East...you deserve to be in the dance.

That's completely irrelevant: the committee looks at the big picture. If Syracuse had gone 7-9 in the BE, but in their out of conference schedule had played a Gonzaga-esque gauntlet and did well, they'd be in.

Boeheim is a complete coward when it comes to scheduling and I'm glad to see his gutless tactics punished.

Redsland
03-12-2007, 10:06 PM
That's the kind of attitude that keeps the mid majors down. Since when is a winning conference record the only pre-requisite to a tourney bid?
Some conferences have Georgetown and Pittsburgh. Other conferences have Bowling Green and Ball State.

When you go 10-6 against the Big East, you've proven you belong in the dance. Go that same .625 in the MAC, and you probably haven't.

dsmith421
03-12-2007, 10:28 PM
I hate to be the one that points this out, but the Big East was way down this year. Several flagship programs--most notably Connecticut--fell off the map entirely and its bubble teams (Syracuse, WVa) generally possessed worse resumes that its bubble teams last season (Cincinnati, Seton Hall, Syracuse, DePaul).

Given the imbalanced schedule, I don't personally believe that going 10-6 categorically entitles you to a NCAA berth. In fact, I'm generally sick of power conference teams believing that a slightly above average conference mark means they have a royal entitlement to an NCAA selection.

Hoosier Red
03-12-2007, 10:39 PM
Syracuse played Georgetown and Pittsburgh once each. Both at Home.
Next.
Old Dominion also played Georgetown of course they went on the road to do it.
Syracuse is about 4th on the list of teams I feel bad about not making it.

Honestly from about the 9th seeds down, I could probably make an argument for each team not to make it.

I don't think really anybody has a valid complaint.

Blimpie
03-12-2007, 11:05 PM
This year's Big East was ranked 5th. A conference ranked fifth does not deserve 7 teams in the tourney.I missed that one. Was that according to the "Guttle" RPI?


Syracuse had the seventh best tourney resume in their conference.According to who? Is Careerbuilder.com deciding on the brackets nowadays?



Compare them to Stanford, and Stanford's 18 wins are probably more impressive than Syracuse's 22.Probably...Why not just say absolutely? I mean, with your objectivity being of paramount importance and all.

Yachtzee
03-12-2007, 11:06 PM
Some conferences have Georgetown and Pittsburgh. Other conferences have Bowling Green and Ball State.

When you go 10-6 against the Big East, you've proven you belong in the dance. Go that same .625 in the MAC, and you probably haven't.

Unfortunately, going 13-3 or 12-4 in the MAC and having over 20 overall wins doesn't get you in either, as Akron and Kent State can attest. I can remember times when the MAC was considered a pretty strong Mid-major conference and had a pretty good chance of getting two bids in the NCAA tournament and a few more in the NIT. However, it seems like the outside view of the MAC has really tumbled in the past 5 years. I have to wonder if it's the leadership at the conference level not doing enough to promote the conference nationwide.

I don't know if it was the players choice or just a missed opportunity, but the school and the conference could have really played up the fact that this Akron team was "LeBron's Boys." Three starters had played with LeBron and St. Vincent-St. Mary's. It was their best finish in years and first shot at a NCAA bid since 1987, when Bob Huggins was coach. If the selection committee was looking for one of those "Cinderella Story" teams, Akron would have been a good one. Unfortunately, I think the school and the MAC dropped the ball in promoting the team to the selection committees for the NCAAs and the NIT. And of course Coach Dambrot's whining after the loss to Miami in the championship probably didn't help.

Fil3232
03-12-2007, 11:07 PM
Some conferences have Georgetown and Pittsburgh. Other conferences have Bowling Green and Ball State.

When you go 10-6 against the Big East, you've proven you belong in the dance. Go that same .625 in the MAC, and you probably haven't.

The Missouri Valley ranked just behind the Big East as a conference (ahead of the Big 12) and only got 2 teams in. Does a winning record in the MVC deserve a spot in the Dance?

Also, the Akron snub is inexcusable. It is a slap in the face to the MAC, mid-majors, and the validity of the NIT.

WMR
03-12-2007, 11:09 PM
I'm with Dsmith on this one. Syracuse's road schedule might as well have been non-existent... we're talking Duke-esque levels here.

WMR
03-12-2007, 11:11 PM
Boeheim is a complete coward when it comes to scheduling and I'm glad to see his gutless tactics punished.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:







.....................................

:clap: And one more just for good measure. ;) :laugh:

Blimpie
03-12-2007, 11:14 PM
That's the kind of attitude that keeps the mid majors down. Since when is a winning conference record the only pre-requisite to a tourney bid? Finishing over .500 in a conference that's not as tough as some may believe, while not playing a single out of conference game out of your home state doesn't impress much. Syracuse got the easier end of the Big East schedule this year thanks to their average finish last year. They only played Pitt and Georgetown once and got them both at home. Their only truly impressive road conference win was at Marquette 2 months ago.Where in my post did I say that going 10-6 in the Big East was the "only pre-requisite" Syracuse needed to make the tourney?

Even though Georgetown was rolling every team they faced during the final six weeks of the season, you are going to dump on Syracuse for beating the Hoyas by 14 points because they had the audacity to play them at home?

Let's not get all crazy about mid-majors, all right? I like watching good basketball being played in March. I could care less which strata of conference they come from.

This thread was about the biggest tourney snubs and I named Syracuse and Kansas State. I stand by my earlier post.

Remember, George Mason is nowhere to be found this March.

Fil3232
03-12-2007, 11:15 PM
Unfortunately, going 13-3 or 12-4 in the MAC and having over 20 overall wins doesn't get you in either, as Akron and Kent State can attest. I can remember times when the MAC was considered a pretty strong Mid-major conference and had a pretty good chance of getting two bids in the NCAA tournament and a few more in the NIT. However, it seems like the outside view of the MAC has really tumbled in the past 5 years. I have to wonder if it's the leadership at the conference level not doing enough to promote the conference nationwide.

I don't know if it was the players choice or just a missed opportunity, but the school and the conference could have really played up the fact that this Akron team was "LeBron's Boys." Three starters had played with LeBron and St. Vincent-St. Mary's. It was their best finish in years and first shot at a NCAA bid since 1987, when Bob Huggins was coach. If the selection committee was looking for one of those "Cinderella Story" teams, Akron would have been a good one. Unfortunately, I think the school and the MAC dropped the ball in promoting the team to the selection committees for the NCAAs and the NIT. And of course Coach Dambrot's whining after the loss to Miami in the championship probably didn't help.

From my perspective, the MAC's downward trend in basketball success can be traced to their athletic programs having to spend money to support D1-A football programs. If you look across the landscape of college hoops, the toughest mid-majors are programs that have D1-AA or lower football program. I know, for example, that Wright St. was able to hire Coach Brownwell over other teams such as Ball St. because they could pay him more. Not having to support a football program has allowed teams such as WSU to pour money into hoops contracts, facilities, etc.

Miami Univ., another example, is paying Coach Coles significantly less than even other MAC schools, let alone MVC, Colonial, Horizon League coaches. Miami is also in the unique position of supporting a top-notch hockey program.

(Sorry, not trying to derail the thread...)

guttle11
03-12-2007, 11:23 PM
I missed that one. Was that according to the "Guttle" RPI?

According to who? Is Careerbuilder.com deciding on the brackets nowadays?


Probably...Why not just say absolutely? I mean, with your objectivity being of paramount importance and all.

According to facts, bud. Look them up sometime, they are readily available.

Syracuse did go 10-6 in the Big East, but that's the only real thing going for them. Their win against Georgetown was trumped by their losses to Oklahoma St., Drexel, and Wichita St, the latter 2 at home.

They really did nothing to separate themselves from the other bubble teams. They only won 2 games against the RPI top 50. Stanford won 4 and Illinois won 3. Syracuse had an SOS of 46, Stanford's was 35, and Illinois had a 24.

It's not hard to figure this stuff out. The fact is, guys like Lunardi and Palm had them in because of name value, they were not held out due to any grudges. Simply put, other teams were more impressive. You need to check yourself before playing the "objectivity" card.

MaineRed
03-12-2007, 11:29 PM
Who is Syracuse supposed to schedule? On top of playing in the Big East are they supposed to play half the Big Ten?

They had back to back to back games against Holy Cross (in the tourney), Witchita State (Elite 8 last year) and Oklahoma State (not Syracuse's fault they faltered down the stretch). If you want to make it four of five games, Syracuse also played Drexel, a team many consider to be the biggest snub in the land.

Look at Georgetown's non conference. They lost to Duke, Oregon and Old Dominion and have a win over Vandy. The rest of their non conference is a bunch of cupcakes. If teams are rewarded for schedules like this with two seeds then surely there is space for a 22-10 team from the Big East with a 10-6 conference record, including a win over Georgetown. That loss by the Hoyas btw is their only loss in the last TWO MONTHS. Think about that. How do you lose to a non tourney team after not losing for two months and then get a two seed? Shouldn't Georgetown be able to stand up against weaklings like Syracuse?

I see a lot of folks claiming Syracuse should have a tougher schedule. Moves like this are only going to make teams schedule weaker. Instead of bringing in Witichita and Drexel and giving some good mid majors a shot to beat him, Boeheim has to comtemplate scheduling true cupcakes so he can be like Georgetown and finish 27-6 instead of 21-9. He alluded to this today.

Everyone wants the mid majors to be given a chance, they want big time coaches to schedule games with these schools but then look what happens when a coach does that, he gets accused of having a cupcake scheule when he has to battle six freaking NCAA teams from his own conference.

Quick Jimmy B, get Coach K, Roy Williams, Bill Self and Thad Matta on the phone and lets see if they have any openings on their schedule. Lets go lose to those teams, that will impress the committee.


Originally Posted by dsmith421
Boeheim is a complete coward when it comes to scheduling and I'm glad to see his gutless tactics punished.

Most assinine thing said in this thread. Other than this years schedule you have nothing to back this up. Syracuse doesn't turn down invitations. When Maui, Alaska or the preseason NIT call, the Cuse is there. Boeheim won a national title a few years ago and had won back to back big east tourneys going into this year. To say he is a coward is an absolute joke. You make your schedule and live with it but you have no idea how it will turn out. If OSU continued down the path they were on when they beat Syracuse, the Orange are probably in. Had WSU not faltered and gotten in, Syracuse is probably in. Who knew the Big East wouldn't be as good this year.

Games with Pitt, G-Town, UConn, Marquette, Louisville, Notre Dame, Villanova and West Virginia are tough enough. Outside of maybe three or four confernces nobody is playing those caliber of teams on their entire schedule. You have to figure on being in for a battle in that conference. Otherwise, you toughen up the non-conference, lose a couple more games there and then say you go 8-8 in conference and all of a sudden you are a lock for the NIT at 18-14. I can see why Syracuse doesn't spend November traveling through the Big 12.

A coach who has won 800 games, coaching in that league is a coward? A coach who has taken his team, in the past to Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri, UCLA and Michigan State, among other places, is a coward?

Would you say that to his face?

gonelong
03-12-2007, 11:43 PM
If you want to give the mid-majors a chance ... limit home games.

GL

guttle11
03-12-2007, 11:44 PM
Who is Syracuse supposed to schedule? On top of playing in the Big East are they supposed to play half the Big Ten?

They had back to back to back games against Holy Cross (in the tourney), Witchita State (Elite 8 last year) and Oklahoma State (not Syracuse's fault they faltered down the stretch). If you want to make it four of five games, Syracuse also played Drexel, a team many consider to be the biggest snub in the land.

Look at Georgetown's non conference. They lost to Duke, Oregon and Old Dominion and have a win over Vandy. The rest of their non conference is a bunch of cupcakes. If teams are rewarded for schedules like this with two seeds then surely there is space for a 22-10 team from the Big East with a 10-6 conference record, including a win over Georgetown. That loss by the Hoyas btw is their only loss in the last TWO MONTHS. Think about that.

I see a lot of folks claiming Syracuse should have a tougher schedule. Move like this are only going to make teams schedule weaker. Instead of bringing in Witichita and Drexel and giving some good mid majors a shot to beat him, Boeheim has to comtemplate scheduling true cupcakes so he can be like Georgetown and finish 27-6 instead of 21-9. He alluded to this today.

Everyone wants the mid majors to be given a chance, they want big time coaches to schedule games with these schools but then look what happens when a coach does that, he gets accused of having a cupcake scheule when he has to battle six freaking NCAA teams from his own conference.

Quick Jimmy B, get Coach K, Roy Williams, Bill Self and Thad Matta on the phone and lets see if they have any openings on their schedule. Lets go lose to those teams, that will impress the committee.

It's not that their schedule was easy, it wasn't. But it wasn't as difficult as other bubble teams.

And they lost to Drexel, Wichita State, and Oklahoma State. The Drexel and Wichita State games were at home. Tourney teams win games like that at home. Period. If they just win one of those games, this discussion never happens.

They also lost to St Johns and Connecticut in conference play. They were the ONLY Big East team that made postseason play to lose to UConn.

They left their tournament fate into the hands of the selection committee. It's their own fault.

Hoosier Red
03-12-2007, 11:51 PM
I know New York's a big state, but how about leaving the state before New Years.

The ACC schedule is kinda difficult, but North Carolina still managed to schedule OSU. Duke still managed to schedule Indiana(on the road last year.)

The Pac-10 is no easy pass but UCLA still went on the road to West Virginia on in the middle of the conference season.

Illinois(one of the last few before Syracuse) scheduled road games at Bradley, at Xavier, at Arizona, and at Missouri. (Notice a trend)

Arkansas played at Southern Illinois, at Texas, hosted Texas Tech and West Virginia.





One fundamental flaw of the RPI is that given a weak enough opponent, your ranking can go down just by taking the court.
Lose to good teams on the road as opposed to winning against cupcakes at home and you will improve your chances.

If you don't schedule games away from home, and don't win your conference. You are inviting reasons for the committee not to invite you.
And has been mentioned a number of times teams Syracuse was counting on to be good haven't been. That's not their fault necessarily, but it's not Illinois' fault either.

Fil3232
03-12-2007, 11:56 PM
I think you have to put Florida St. in front of Syracuse in the biggest snubs pecking order. Here's a team that went 8-9 in the toughest (statistically) conference in America. On top of that, they took trips to Wisconsin and Pittsburgh while beating Florida at home. They have a better RPI, more top 50 wins, a harder overall schedule strength, and got beat in the ACC tourney by the eventual champions. I nominate FSU as the biggest snub.

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 12:05 AM
guttle, you'd make a good BCS lawyer.

"My computer told me this team ....."

Syracuse passed the only test that mattered, the eye test. The fact that you have to go diving into computer crap to explain yourself shows how big of a snub it was.

Did you ever see Syracuse play or did your computer and your rankings take up all your time?

Watch them play a few times and then tell me they aren't one of the best 34 at large teams in the land. You can't. Your computer can, but you can't.

Syracuse lost one game by double digits all year and it took Notre Dame scoring 103 for that to happen. All the other losses were by 8 or less, including six that were by 5 or less.

Stanford on the other hand lost by THIRTY FOUR to Air Force, 16 to Santa Clara and four other times by ten or more.

Stanford seems to be getting rewarded because they played 5 other pac 10 tourney teams, twice each. This isn't SOS, this is luck.

Yachtzee
03-13-2007, 12:08 AM
From my perspective, the MAC's downward trend in basketball success can be traced to their athletic programs having to spend money to support D1-A football programs. If you look across the landscape of college hoops, the toughest mid-majors are programs that have D1-AA or lower football program. I know, for example, that Wright St. was able to hire Coach Brownwell over other teams such as Ball St. because they could pay him more. Not having to support a football program has allowed teams such as WSU to pour money into hoops contracts, facilities, etc.

Miami Univ., another example, is paying Coach Coles significantly less than even other MAC schools, let alone MVC, Colonial, Horizon League coaches. Miami is also in the unique position of supporting a top-notch hockey program.

(Sorry, not trying to derail the thread...)

You're probably on to something there. It seems that the increase in bowl appearances by MAC football teams has coincided with a downward trend in its standing as a basketball conference. At least in NE Ohio, the MAC has always been considered a much more competitive conference than the Horizon League, whose local representatives are Cleveland State and Youngstown State. Unfortunately for the MAC, that view doesn't really extend much beyond the geographic territory of the MAC.

Redlegs23
03-13-2007, 12:13 AM
Put me on the list of people who think Syracuse should be in the tourney. K-State is also deserving, especially after the drubbing of Texas Tech. I would take out Arkansas & Stanford. Akron got completely screwed by the NIT. I can see the case for them being in the NCAA, but I wouldn't have put them in. But not making the NIT, no excuse for that, somebody screwed up big time.

Hoosier Red
03-13-2007, 12:14 AM
Oh give me a break Maine Red, don't go into this "computer complaints" garbage.

There are many things that my eyes tell me, but seeing every game played by every team in college basketball isn't one of them.

The RPI isn't some mystical number that's created to screw Syracuse this year, the basic formula is known. If Syracuse did a poor job taking advantage of what the RPI, and the committee values, then tough. Go win the conference or go win the tournament. If you don't then guess what you're at the "computer's"mercy.

And no I don't think if you watched Syracuse when they lost to Drexel or Wichita State in the Carrier Dome, or when the eeked out a win over an awful Cincinnati team you would find them to be better than Illinois or Arkansas or Drexel or Old Dominion.

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 12:14 AM
They were the ONLY Big East team that made postseason play to lose to UConn.

UConn is a tremendous rival of theirs and outside of Rutgers and Louisiville, nobody had to play UConn home and away. Syracuse also got them in the Big East tourney so they had to play them three times.

I know UConn was down but you don't beat a rival like that three times in the same season that easily.

Plus, Georgetown and Pitt, the top two teams from the Big East didn't have to travel to Storrs and Notre Dame didn't even play UConn. So you had the top four teams in the Big East play ONE game at UConn.

Gee, what a shocker none of those teams beat them while Syracuse, who palyed them three times, including at UConn, lost once.

guttle11
03-13-2007, 12:16 AM
guttle, you'd make a good BCS lawyer.

"My computer told me this team ....."

Syracuse passed the only test that mattered, the eye test. The fact that you have to go diving into computer crap to explain yourself shows how big of a snub it was.

Did you ever see Syracuse play or did your computer and your rankings take up all your time?

Watch them play a few times and then tell me they aren't one of the best 34 at large teams in the land. You can't. Your computer can, but you can't.

Syracuse lost one game by double digits all year and it took Notre Dame scoring 103 for that to happen. All the other losses were by 8 or less, including six that were by 5 or less.

Stanford on the other hand lost by THIRTY FOUR to Air Force, 16 to Santa Clara and four other times by ten or more.

Stanford seems to be getting rewarded because they played 5 other pac 10 tourney teams, twice each. This isn't SOS, this is luck.

Come on.

I saw Syracuse play a handful of games this year. They are a good team. The problem is, your "eye" test doesn't hold any water.

How many Stanford games did you watch? How about Drexel?

Teams in the Big East get seen more than basically every other conference. They have a deal with ESPN that puts virtually every game on one of the ESPN outlets, be it ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN360, or ESPN Full Court.

The only way for an unbiased committee to judge all teams fairly is through objective data.

The "eye test" is what the BCS is, considering 2/3 of the BCS formula is derived from the human eye. This is not even close. In fact, it's pretty much the complete antithesis of the BCS.

WMR
03-13-2007, 12:20 AM
I saw Syracuse play a number of times and they were one of the biggest "Jekyll and Hyde" teams I saw this season (and I should know since I watch one every night).

I do love that #11, though. That kid is going to be something special if he sticks around.

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 12:25 AM
Oh give me a break Maine Red, don't go into this "computer complaints" garbage.

There are many things that my eyes tell me, but seeing every game played by every team in college basketball isn't one of them.

The RPI isn't some mystical number that's created to screw Syracuse this year, the basic formula is known. If Syracuse did a poor job taking advantage of what the RPI, and the committee values, then tough. Go win the conference or go win the tournament. If you don't then guess what you're at the "computer's"mercy.


I never said it was created to screw Syracuse. Did I?

The forumula is not known. SOS is a big factor and just scheduling name teams doesn't mean a thing. As I mentioned, Syracuse got UConn three times and they are penalized for it because UConn isn't the normal UConn. If UConn is a top five team as they usually are and SU plays them 3 times isn't their strength of schedule going to be a lot better?

You are more at the mercy of how the teams on your schedule fare.

Hoosier Red
03-13-2007, 12:30 AM
Yep, you sure are.

Tough break. Should Illinois be penalized because Conneticut sucked?

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 12:32 AM
Teams in the Big East get seen more than basically every other conference. They have a deal with ESPN that puts virtually every game on one of the ESPN outlets, be it ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN360, or ESPN Full Court.

The Big 12, Big 10, SEC and ACC have similar deals. Don't make it sound like the Big East is the only conference on TV. There is never a major college game that can't be viewed.

The only way for an unbiased committee to judge all teams fairly is through objective data.

It just isn't objective, thats all.

guttle11
03-13-2007, 12:35 AM
It just isn't objective, thats all.

But your "eye test" is?

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 12:37 AM
Yep, you sure are.

Tough break. Should Illinois be penalized because Conneticut sucked?

Did I say Illinois should be penalized or that Syracuse WAS penalized by this?

My point was when you have UConn in your league and you have them on your schedule twice you are looking for a big boost in SOS. When they stink you shouldn't have people calling your coach a coward because the SOS isn't as strong as some other teams. I never said that was reason for the Orange to be in.


You said they know the formula going in. I said they don't. You agreed.

jmcclain19
03-13-2007, 12:40 AM
I have no real pity for "bubble" teams who don't make the tourney.

Seriously - everyone is quibbling over who the 66th, 67th & 68th best teams are in basketball.

In my opinion - it goes to show why sports fans will never be happy with any sort of playoff system in college football - no matter how big the playoff is. If you make it 8 teams the 9th & 10th will complain. If you make it 16 - then 17 thru 19 will cry.

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 12:45 AM
People thought George Mason shouldn't get in last year, including Billy Packer IIRC.

So it is more than quibbling over the 66th best team. Last year it was quibbling over the 3rd best team when all was said and done. That is why people care. This is an open tournament where anything can happen. Teams and fans want a shot. College football is unlikely to deliever multiple shocking wins by the same team each year like hoops does. And basketball has more good teams. There are never 8 national title contenders in football. Five at the most.

People might never be happy with a play-off system in football but they'd be HAPPIER.

Yachtzee
03-13-2007, 12:49 AM
I have no real pity for "bubble" teams who don't make the tourney.

Seriously - everyone is quibbling over who the 66th, 67th & 68th best teams are in basketball.

Just goes to show why sports fans will never be happy with any sort of playoff system in college football - no matter how big the playoff is. If you make it 8 teams the 9th & 10th will *****. If you make it 16 - then 17 thru 19 will cry.

I think the level of talent is much more even across basketball conferences than it is for football conferences.

WMR
03-13-2007, 12:49 AM
Oh god please not a Billy Packer reference in hopes of gaining support for an opinion related to mid-majors getting into the Big Dance.

Yachtzee
03-13-2007, 12:53 AM
Oh god please not a Billy Packer reference in hopes of gaining support for an opinion related to mid-majors getting into the Big Dance.

I think the classic 5-12 upset special arose from a tendency for the powers that be to overrate mediocre major conference teams and underrate good mid-major teams. I'm not saying open the flood gates to the mid-majors. But I think the presence of mid-majors makes the tournament a lot more interesting than if it were just a bunch of teams from major conferences playing each other.

dsmith421
03-13-2007, 02:45 AM
I'm with Dsmith on this one. Syracuse's road schedule might as well have been non-existent... we're talking Duke-esque levels here.

Boeheim has been pulling this crap for years and I'm just totally sick of it, and even more sick of his enablers at ESPN who treat it like some crime against humanity when a name program doesn't get an at-large nod.

dsmith421
03-13-2007, 02:50 AM
I have no real pity for "bubble" teams who don't make the tourney.

Seriously - everyone is quibbling over who the 66th, 67th & 68th best teams are in basketball.


90% of the programs in D-I know, realistically, that they have no shot at a national championship. For many, obtaining an NCAA bid makes for a successful season, a huge boost to school pride and alumni contributions. It's the same principle as smaller bowl games.

To the objective observer with no dog in the fight, it may not be a big deal. For a lot of us though, it's the difference between a so-so and a great season. Plus it's a lot of fun to be a fan of a team in the field, especially if you get to go to the venue.

Blimpie
03-13-2007, 07:57 AM
According to facts, bud. Look them up sometime, they are readily available.

Syracuse did go 10-6 in the Big East, but that's the only real thing going for them. Their win against Georgetown was trumped by their losses to Oklahoma St., Drexel, and Wichita St, the latter 2 at home.

They really did nothing to separate themselves from the other bubble teams. They only won 2 games against the RPI top 50. Stanford won 4 and Illinois won 3. Syracuse had an SOS of 46, Stanford's was 35, and Illinois had a 24.

It's not hard to figure this stuff out. The fact is, guys like Lunardi and Palm had them in because of name value, they were not held out due to any grudges. Simply put, other teams were more impressive. You need to check yourself before playing the "objectivity" card.You said their conference "ranked fifth". You then told me to "look it up," but I still haven't heard which ranking system you were citing.

When they lost by four points to Oklahoma State, OSU was 15-1 at the time. It is not Syracuse's fault that the Cowboys went on a losing streak after that.

By the way, they won three games versus the RPI top 50--not two....

Maybe you should look it up....Bud.

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 08:58 AM
Boeheim has been pulling this crap? What crap is that, being the coach of a national power in what is usually a top 2 conference?

North Carolina only played at Tennessee and at St Louis. Where is the bed they made for themselves? Oh, look a number one seed.

Wisconsin played one out of state road game before the Big Ten schedule, vs Missouri State.

Kansas played two road games before January.

Florida brought in Kansas and Ohio State but they never left the sunshine state until they played an SEC road game. This is what coaches do.


You said their conference "ranked fifth". You then told me to "look it up," but I still haven't heard which ranking system you were citing.

When they lost by four points to Oklahoma State, OSU was 15-1 at the time. It is not Syracuse's fault that the Cowboys went on a losing streak after that.

He's talking RPI.

Oklahoma State was 10-0 after beating Syracuse. They started 15-1 before going on their slide. Witichita State got off to a similar hot start and then faded. They were a top 10 team early in the season. Despite playing these teams when there were considered among the best in the nation, Syracuse actually played the teams that fell off the map in everyones mind. And everyone keeps saying they should have beaten Drexel. Well Drexel won at Villanova the game before winning in the Carrier Dome. If losing to Drexel at home means something, why is Nova in? Syracuse finished ahead of Villanova in the Big East.

Roy Tucker
03-13-2007, 09:33 AM
It could be worse...

http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-bcs13mar13,1,3886552,full.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-sports

guttle11
03-13-2007, 11:33 AM
You said their conference "ranked fifth". You then told me to "look it up," but I still haven't heard which ranking system you were citing.

When they lost by four points to Oklahoma State, OSU was 15-1 at the time. It is not Syracuse's fault that the Cowboys went on a losing streak after that.

By the way, they won three games versus the RPI top 50--not two....

Maybe you should look it up....Bud.

You're right, it's not their fault Oklahoma State went into the toilet. But it is their fault they lost to them. It is their fault they lost to Wichita State and Drexel.

People look at the entire body of work, not just the good times. Wichita State was a mediocre team, as was Oklahoma State. Drexel was a true bubble team. You don't stand out when you lose those games.

Again, when you let yourself fall onto the "bubble" you have no room to complain.

MaineRed- Villanova may have lost to Drexel, but they separated themselves from the bubble by beating Texas OOC.

RichRed
03-13-2007, 12:24 PM
Remember, George Mason is nowhere to be found this March.

George Mason came within 6 points of beating 27-6 VCU in the CAA final.

To answer the question posed, Drexel is the biggest snub. As dsmith421 and others mentioned, they did everything the NCAA asks a team to do: specifically, win games on the road against good competition.

Drexel was 13-4 on the road, including wins at Villanova, Syracuse, Temple, Creighton and conference foe ODU, a tourney at-large invitee.

Drexel is easily the biggest NCAA snub, in my biased opinion. (Full disclosure: I am an alum of a CAA school, James Madison, albeit one that has been lousy at basketball for the past several years.)

But I agree about Akron. How they don't even get invited to the NIT is beyond me.

Puffy
03-13-2007, 12:44 PM
Who is Syracuse supposed to schedule? On top of playing in the Big East are they supposed to play half the Big Ten?

They had back to back to back games against Holy Cross (in the tourney), Witchita State (Elite 8 last year) and Oklahoma State (not Syracuse's fault they faltered down the stretch). If you want to make it four of five games, Syracuse also played Drexel, a team many consider to be the biggest snub in the land.

Look at Georgetown's non conference. They lost to Duke, Oregon and Old Dominion and have a win over Vandy. The rest of their non conference is a bunch of cupcakes. If teams are rewarded for schedules like this with two seeds then surely there is space for a 22-10 team from the Big East with a 10-6 conference record, including a win over Georgetown. That loss by the Hoyas btw is their only loss in the last TWO MONTHS. Think about that. How do you lose to a non tourney team after not losing for two months and then get a two seed? Shouldn't Georgetown be able to stand up against weaklings like Syracuse?

I see a lot of folks claiming Syracuse should have a tougher schedule. Moves like this are only going to make teams schedule weaker. Instead of bringing in Witichita and Drexel and giving some good mid majors a shot to beat him, Boeheim has to comtemplate scheduling true cupcakes so he can be like Georgetown and finish 27-6 instead of 21-9. He alluded to this today.

Everyone wants the mid majors to be given a chance, they want big time coaches to schedule games with these schools but then look what happens when a coach does that, he gets accused of having a cupcake scheule when he has to battle six freaking NCAA teams from his own conference.

Quick Jimmy B, get Coach K, Roy Williams, Bill Self and Thad Matta on the phone and lets see if they have any openings on their schedule. Lets go lose to those teams, that will impress the committee.



Most assinine thing said in this thread. Other than this years schedule you have nothing to back this up. Syracuse doesn't turn down invitations. When Maui, Alaska or the preseason NIT call, the Cuse is there. Boeheim won a national title a few years ago and had won back to back big east tourneys going into this year. To say he is a coward is an absolute joke. You make your schedule and live with it but you have no idea how it will turn out. If OSU continued down the path they were on when they beat Syracuse, the Orange are probably in. Had WSU not faltered and gotten in, Syracuse is probably in. Who knew the Big East wouldn't be as good this year.

Games with Pitt, G-Town, UConn, Marquette, Louisville, Notre Dame, Villanova and West Virginia are tough enough. Outside of maybe three or four confernces nobody is playing those caliber of teams on their entire schedule. You have to figure on being in for a battle in that conference. Otherwise, you toughen up the non-conference, lose a couple more games there and then say you go 8-8 in conference and all of a sudden you are a lock for the NIT at 18-14. I can see why Syracuse doesn't spend November traveling through the Big 12.

A coach who has won 800 games, coaching in that league is a coward? A coach who has taken his team, in the past to Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri, UCLA and Michigan State, among other places, is a coward?

Would you say that to his face?

Please - I lived in Syracuse for 10 years and I can tell you I've heard this crap about Boeheim forever.

He has for the last 31 years refused to schedule away games. He plays in state teams and makes them come to the Carrier Dome. He plays in pre-season tourneys once every four or five years and he never schedules a North Carolina or a Texas.

I used to hate all things SU - living in Syracuse can do that to a person. But I've grown to respect Boeheim. He's a real good coach when he has little talent(but a too talented team and he becomes a much less effective coach. Those teams with Owens and Colemen should have won championships). But you cannot deny that he feasts on small schools (which is fine) and won't leave the Carrier Dome (again, I understand this - the Dome makes mucho money for the Cuse). In this new era he needs to adjust and getting left out of the tourney should signal this to him. He's gonna need to travel a little, get a big game or two on the schedule every year and then he won't have these problems.

Puffy
03-13-2007, 12:47 PM
As for the snubs:

Syracuse was a victim of two things - one was Boeheim's schedule and not leaving New York before January. Two was the unbalanced schedule of the Big East. It just didin't give them enough quality wins.

Drexel was 1 and 5 against the top teams in the Colonial. That and not making a better showing in the conference tourney did them in.

Arkansas getting in over either of these two was a joke.

The Big Ten was WEAK this year. It was OSU, then Wisconsin then everyone else. Getting 6 teams from them was a joke. I'm talking to you Purdue and Illinois.

Puffy
03-13-2007, 12:53 PM
Boeheim has been pulling this crap? What crap is that, being the coach of a national power in what is usually a top 2 conference?

North Carolina only played at Tennessee and at St Louis. Where is the bed they made for themselves? Oh, look a number one seed.



And at Arizona - you conveniently left that out. Plus they Gonzaga on a neutral floor, Ohio State at home, should I go on?

rdiersin
03-13-2007, 01:03 PM
As for the snubs:

Syracuse was a victim of two things - one was Boeheim's schedule and not leaving New York before January. Two was the unbalanced schedule of the Big East. It just didin't give them enough quality wins.

Drexel was 1 and 5 against the top teams in the Colonial. That and not making a better showing in the conference tourney did them in.

Arkansas getting in over either of these two was a joke.

The Big Ten was WEAK this year. It was OSU, then Wisconsin then everyone else. Getting 6 teams from them was a joke. I'm talking to you Purdue and Illinois.

I don't quite see how it is a joke. I think legitmate arguments can be made for both Purdue and Illinois. Personally I thought only one of them would get in, but it seems you are saying neither should have gotten in. I don't quite see that.

Chip R
03-13-2007, 01:04 PM
Perhaps Syracuse did get screwed. But when you play in a conference with 16 teams you don't get a lot of sympathy from people.

Puffy
03-13-2007, 01:08 PM
I don't quite see how it is a joke. I think legitmate arguments can be made for both Purdue and Illinois. Personally I thought only one of them would get in, but it seems you are saying neither should have gotten in. I don't quite see that.

I'm saying that one deserved to be in maybe, but not both. I could have lived with 5 teams making it, but 6? No way.

The ACC was a way better conference last year than the Big Ten was this year and the ACC got only 4 in (in 2006). I just don't see how you give 6 bids to the Big 10 this year.

dabvu2498
03-13-2007, 01:09 PM
As for the snubs:

Syracuse was a victim of two things - one was Boeheim's schedule and not leaving New York before January. Two was the unbalanced schedule of the Big East. It just didin't give them enough quality wins.

Drexel was 1 and 5 against the top teams in the Colonial. That and not making a better showing in the conference tourney did them in.

Arkansas getting in over either of these two was a joke.

The Big Ten was WEAK this year. It was OSU, then Wisconsin then everyone else. Getting 6 teams from them was a joke. I'm talking to you Purdue and Illinois.


Stanford getting in is the worst.

NJReds
03-13-2007, 01:10 PM
I was buying into the Syracuse snub hype, but looking at their schedule all I can say is 'wow'. Only one significant road win...at Marquette. You can't just hang your hat on wins over Marquette, Georgetown and Villanova and say your in. The NIT is a nice fit for them this year.

Puffy
03-13-2007, 01:17 PM
Stanford getting in is the worst.

Yeah, I forgot them - the theory is that they survived without two of their better players and now those players are back.

But 18-12 is 18-12. With 100 20 win teams this year there sure were more deserving teams.

rdiersin
03-13-2007, 01:18 PM
The ACC was a way better conference last year than the Big Ten was this year and the ACC got only 4 in (in 2006). I just don't see how you give 6 bids to the Big 10 this year.

Personally, I think its just because the alternatives weren't that great either. It seems that college basketball is just more top-heavy this year than last. I agree that the Big Ten was weak, but I also think that Purdue and Illinois are as good or better than the other options of Drexel and Syracuse. Maybe an argument for FSU could be made.

Puffy
03-13-2007, 01:23 PM
Personally, I think its just because the alternatives weren't that great either. It seems that college basketball is just more top-heavy this year than last. I agree that the Big Ten was weak, but I also think that Purdue and Illinois are as good or better than the other options of Drexel and Syracuse. Maybe an argument for FSU could be made.

Yeah, I hear ya - but when your big wins are against other weaker Big Ten teams it kinda skews things.

I see this in football all the time - the Big 12 racks up RPI points by beating each other yet they mostly suck. Thats why Oklahoma got in the title game a couple of years ago even though they got crushed in the conference title game.

And after all my railing on Syracuse i still think they deserve to be in over Illinois. Really my point about Syracuse is I have no sympathy for them because Boeheim is famous for this schedule and he got called on it this year. Again, hopefully this serves as a lesson for him (although I doubt it cause he's already saying things like "this is what we've done for 31 years" - as Dylan said - these times they are a changin)

rdiersin
03-13-2007, 01:24 PM
Stanford getting in is the worst.

I agree that the 18 wins is a bit suspect, but I think the committee must be taking injuries into account. In the womens brackets I was surprised to see Purdue as a number 2 seed even though Ohio State beat them twice during the regular season. But, I guess, OSU's best player is out, so they drop to a 4 seed. I can only imagine it worked in reverse for the men's Stanford team.

dabvu2498
03-13-2007, 01:26 PM
Yeah, I forgot them - the theory is that they survived without two of their better players and now those players are back.

But 18-12 is 18-12. With 100 20 win teams this year there sure were more deserving teams.

Those two kids (Goods and Lopez) missed 4 and 5 games respectively and were never out at the same time.

If that's the committee's justification for Stanford, then I say BS.

They lost to Air Force... by 34... with both those kids playing. At home.

They lost to Santa Clara... by 16... with both those kids playing. At home.

Exactly one good nonconference road win... @ UVA.

Puffy
03-13-2007, 01:28 PM
Hey, I agree with you - I'm just telling you what I heard from Katz and Gottlieb

dabvu2498
03-13-2007, 01:32 PM
Gottlieb

Does ESPN do criminal background checks?

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 01:38 PM
He has for the last 31 years refused to schedule away games. He plays in state teams and makes them come to the Carrier Dome. He plays in pre-season tourneys once every four or five years and he never schedules a North Carolina or a Texas.

For most of those 31 years he knew he had to go on the road and face Nova, G-Town, Pitt, UConn, St Johns, Providence, BC and Seton Hall, a road schedue few teams outside the Big East could match up with. The schedule is unbalanced now but add in Louisiville, West Virginia, Notre Dame, Marquette. There of course are some cupcakes but when you play in the Big East, I don't see why you should be in a rush to travel around during your non conference schedule. Maybe Boeheim wants teaching time. Maybe he wants to keep the kids IN school with all the travel they will be involved in after the first of the year. Its a 3 month whirlwind once conference play begins. Lots of Saturday night, Monday night turn around games against really good teams. But calling him a coward is a joke. If he was a coward he'd have left Syracuse a long time ago.

I'm well aware that there is talk like this, even in Syracuse, doesn't make it true. They have nothing else to talk about in Syracuse and just like here with the Reds there will never be total agreement on ANYTHING. Why would you expect that to be any different in Syracuse? 30,000 passionate people go to the games up there. Nobody can match that in this country. But the only things every single one of those fans agrees on is their favorite team.

It is a little strong to say that he REFUSES to schedule road games. Like I said, just off the top of my head I recall road games AT Arizona, Michigan State, Tennessee, Missouri, UCLA, Notre Dame before they joined the Big East, NC State. I'm sure there are plenty more.

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 01:46 PM
Only one significant road win...at Marquette. You can't just hang your hat on wins over Marquette, Georgetown and Villanova and say your in.

Wisconsin is hanging their hat on the same thing with the exception being they beat OSU instead of Georgetown and Pitt instead of Nova. Nothing else is impessive about any of their wins, especially on the road. And they are a 2seed.

They did however beat the teams early in the season they should beat. They beat their Oak Sate (FSU) and their Drexel (Winthrop). In now way am I saying Syracuse should be a 2 seed but based on Wisconsin I don't see how times are changing.

If Syracuse had beaten OSU, Drexel and Witchita State and maybe won at Nova to end their season they would be in the hunt for a 2 seed instead of being out.

Wisconsin is not being penalized for a weak schedule and no road wins, etc, etc. They are being rewarded greatly for taking advantage of the same system Boeheim has been talking about for 31 years. This isn't college football. Its about what you do in the tourney, not about what you do in December. Just look at Wisconsin.

dabvu2498
03-13-2007, 01:46 PM
30,000 passionate people go to the games up there. Nobody can match that in this country.

Foul!!!

Syracuse 2006-07 attendance:

ATTENDANCE SUMMARY GAMES TOTALS AVG/GAME
HOME.................... 20 429769 21488


Kentucky 2006-07 attendance:

ATTENDANCE SUMMARY GAMES TOTALS AVG/GAME
HOME.................... 16 374737 23421



In fact, Kentucky has led the nation in attendance 9 out of the past ten years despite having a smaller venue than Syracuse.

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/m_basketball/attendance/top25.pdf

Puffy
03-13-2007, 01:48 PM
For most of those 31 years he knew he had to go on the road and face Nova, G-Town, Pitt, UConn, St Johns, Providence, BC and Seton Hall, a road schedue few teams outside the Big East could match up with. The schedule is unbalanced now but add in Louisiville, West Virginia, Notre Dame, Marquette. There of course are some cupcakes but when you play in the Big East, I don't see why you should be in a rush to travel around during your non conference schedule. Maybe Boeheim wants teaching time. Maybe he wants to keep the kids IN school with all the travel they will be involved in after the first of the year. Its a 3 month whirlwind once conference play begins. Lots of Saturday night, Monday night turn around games against really good teams. But calling him a coward is a joke. If he was a coward he'd have left Syracuse a long time ago.

I'm well aware that there is talk like this, even in Syracuse, doesn't make it true. They have nothing else to talk about in Syracuse and just like here with the Reds there will never be total agreement on ANYTHING. Why would you expect that to be any different in Syracuse? 30,000 passionate people go to the games up there. Nobody can match that in this country. But the only things every single one of those fans agrees on is their favorite team.

It is a little strong to say that he REFUSES to schedule road games. Like I said, just off the top of my head I recall road games AT Arizona, Michigan State, Tennessee, Missouri, UCLA, Notre Dame before they joined the Big East, NC State. I'm sure there are plenty more.

Its so obvious he doesn't - you can throw out some big name schools over 31 years and I don't believe I'm the one who used "refuses" but I might have. But you and I both know the reason Boeheim schedules all those home games is for the money. Living there I can say this with 100% certainity. The Dome is always going to sell out (even against the Niagara's of the world) and it puts money in SU's pocket. I have no problem with that. SU is a good school - its no LeMoyne College :) Its not the coaching time, its not that he wants to keep them in classes (cause he went thru a ten year period where less than 5% of his players graduated), its because of the money.

He needs to come into the 21st Century is all I'm saying. If this doesn't teach him that then I dare say this won't be the last time he gets snubbed (and not by his hot, younger wife)

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 01:54 PM
And at Arizona - you conveniently left that out. Plus they Gonzaga on a neutral floor, Ohio State at home, should I go on?

The subject was teams road scheduling, not overall schedule. That is why I didn't mention Gonzaga or Ohio State.

When I looked at their schedule all I saw was Saint Louis and Tennessee as far as road games. I didn't look beyond the start of conference games as most teams are done playing non conference games at that point so I did miss Arizona. It wasn't on purpose.

As for these teams scheduling Ohio State, were teams like North Carolina and Florida aware that Ohio State would be that good when they scheduled home games with them? Did Nova know Kevin Durant would be playing for Texas? This seems like luck more than tough scheduling.

MaineRed
03-13-2007, 02:00 PM
I've sat in Dome crowds that were close to 33,000. Nobody can match that.

Do that many come out for games vs. Canisus? No.

dabvu2498
03-13-2007, 02:09 PM
I've sat in Dome crowds that were close to 33,000. Nobody can match that.

Do that many come out for games vs. Canisus? No.

Kentucky could match it... if they had a dome.

BTW, Kentucky vs. Mich. St. NCAA record crowd. 78,129 @ Ford Field

http://store.fansonly.com/msu/store/Vendor42/fullscale/FFKentucky218-c.jpg

Puffy
03-13-2007, 02:14 PM
The subject was teams road scheduling, not overall schedule. That is why I didn't mention Gonzaga or Ohio State.

When I looked at their schedule all I saw was Saint Louis and Tennessee as far as road games. I didn't look beyond the start of conference games as most teams are done playing non conference games at that point so I did miss Arizona. It wasn't on purpose.

As for these teams scheduling Ohio State, were teams like North Carolina and Florida aware that Ohio State would be that good when they scheduled home games with them? Did Nova know Kevin Durant would be playing for Texas? This seems like luck more than tough scheduling.

Carolina played Ohio State in the ACC-Big Ten challenge - so yes, they know they will be good when they play. They'll play again next year because they both were the top seeds (1 plays 1).

Also, UNC plays Kentucky every year for the past 6 and they played a home and home with Arizona. Next year I think they play Villanova in a home and home.

Plus they play in some kind of pre-season tourney every year.

And I do know that you were just looking at away games - my point was that you brought UNC into a comparsion with Syracuse and thats not fair to Syracuse. Carolina is almost always going to have a tougher schedule while Boeheim is the coach. Even more so with the unbalanced scheduling.

IslandRed
03-13-2007, 02:14 PM
I think you have to put Florida St. in front of Syracuse in the biggest snubs pecking order. Here's a team that went 8-9 in the toughest (statistically) conference in America. On top of that, they took trips to Wisconsin and Pittsburgh while beating Florida at home. They have a better RPI, more top 50 wins, a harder overall schedule strength, and got beat in the ACC tourney by the eventual champions. I nominate FSU as the biggest snub.

One of the things that some have pointed out is that the selection committee turns over a lot from year to year, so there doesn't seem to be consistency in terms of how they separate teams. Some years, finishing .500 in the conference seems to be a requirement, some years it isn't. Sometimes it's road wins, sometimes it's the non-conference schedule, sometimes they worship at the altar of RPI, sometimes conference tournaments matter more than other years, sometimes they're suckers for the last-ten hot streak. You just never know.

Sham
03-13-2007, 02:17 PM
Drexel, and it's not even close.

registerthis
03-13-2007, 03:48 PM
It just isn't the NCAA Tournament without Marist.

Puffy
03-13-2007, 04:31 PM
It just isn't the NCAA Tournament without Marist.

Ric Smits, baby!!!!!

Matt700wlw
03-13-2007, 04:33 PM
UC.

:D :cool: :p:

MaineRed
03-14-2007, 01:29 PM
Kentucky could match it... if they had a dome.

Nobody is stopping them from building one. I'm sure millions are being spent right now on the campus of UK, buidling something or the other, but none of it is going into expanding the baskeball arena.

Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead but someone made a good point on ESPN Radio. I don't remember who it was. They were saying that Syracuse is forced, his word, not mine to play more home games because the football team doesn't pull its weight like it does at a lot of other big time schools.

The dome helps with basketball but I think it only sits 50,000 for football which dooesn't compare to most big time schools. Even when full they are behind the 8 ball compared to a Michagan who has more that twice that.

So maybe it isn't Boeheim, perhaps it is the AD. It doesn't put money in Boeheims pocket to play more home games. It gives more money to the school, not sure why this would change with another coach. If the theory that was mentioned on the radio is correct, a new hoops coach isn't going to improve the Domes capacity for football.

Chip R
03-14-2007, 04:32 PM
Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead but someone made a good point on ESPN Radio. I don't remember who it was. They were saying that Syracuse is forced, his word, not mine to play more home games because the football team doesn't pull its weight like it does at a lot of other big time schools.

Boeheim was actually the one who said that. And I'm sure he has quite a bit of say on where they play their non-conference games.

Hoosier Red
03-14-2007, 04:58 PM
Maine Red,

I hate to keep kicking the dead horse. But really it's been this way for as long as I've been following basketball.

Syracuse, Georgetown and St.Johns(when they used to be relevent) would all schedule cupcakes at home in the preseason knowing their Big East name recognition and strength would keep the invitations coming.
The problem is this year the Big East was down, the rest of the country caught up and Syracuse didn't have the out of conference wins to point out to anybody.
Now this may or may not be their fault, but you can't argue that Syracuse deserved to make the tournament on the merits that the Big East schedule wasn't as strong as they expected. You have to objectively look at who the teams played and pick the most deserving team based on the actual strength of schedule, not what was expected at the beginning of the year.
From here on out, it is in Syracuse's best interest to schedule some true road games against credible opponents in the pre season, then even if the Big East isn't as strong, the resume will have some extra bullet points.

Puffy
03-14-2007, 05:00 PM
Maine Red,

I hate to keep kicking the dead horse. But really it's been this way for as long as I've been following basketball.

Syracuse, Georgetown and St.Johns(when they used to be relevent) would all schedule cupcakes at home in the preseason knowing their Big East name recognition and strength would keep the invitations coming.
The problem is this year the Big East was down, the rest of the country caught up and Syracuse didn't have the out of conference wins to point out to anybody.
Now this may or may not be their fault, but you can't argue that Syracuse deserved to make the tournament on the merits that the Big East schedule wasn't as strong as they expected. You have to objectively look at who the teams played and pick the most deserving team based on the actual strength of schedule, not what was expected at the beginning of the year.
From here on out, it is in Syracuse's best interest to schedule some true road games against credible opponents in the pre season, then even if the Big East isn't as strong, the resume will have some extra bullet points.

And lets not forget that both Georgetown and St Johns have scheduled Duke for the past couple of years. Both teams have figured out the landscape is changing and have tried to get more meaningful non-conference games. Syracuse and Boeheim have not, sitting back and saying the Big East schedule will save us. Well, it didn't. Learn from it.

MaineRed
03-14-2007, 05:31 PM
Maine Red,

I hate to keep kicking the dead horse. But really it's been this way for as long as I've been following basketball.

Syracuse, Georgetown and St.Johns(when they used to be relevent) would all schedule cupcakes at home in the preseason knowing their Big East name recognition and strength would keep the invitations coming.
The problem is this year the Big East was down, the rest of the country caught up and Syracuse didn't have the out of conference wins to point out to anybody.

Now this may or may not be their fault, but you can't argue that Syracuse deserved to make the tournament on the merits that the Big East schedule wasn't as strong as they expected. You have to objectively look at who the teams played and pick the most deserving team based on the actual strength of schedule, not what was expected at the beginning of the year.
From here on out, it is in Syracuse's best interest to schedule some true road games against credible opponents in the pre season, then even if the Big East isn't as strong, the resume will have some extra bullet points.

I would saying losing to Drexel, Oklahoma State and Witchita State at home had more to do with being snubbed than the Big East being down.

You guys are telling me that if we take away home wins against two crappy teams and play on the road at Texas and at UCLA and lose those games that they deserve to be in? That makes no sense. I thought you got in for being good, not for showing you have the guts to play games you probably can't win.

Forget the Big East being down, if Syracuse flys through that crappy non conference schedule unscathed, they are probably a 25-7 three seed. They certainly aren't sitting home right now because the Big East was down or because they didn't schedule anyone, which makes all these warnings to Boeheim about the landscape changing and this and that a crock.

I'm not saying the Big East being down is the reason they should be in. The Big East being down helps explain the weak schedule this year. If UConn is UConn, Syracuse gets screwed as they are one of the three teams in a 16 team league who has to play them twice. A normal year that is like playing UNC at home and traveling to Duke. That counts for something. Most leagues don't have one team like this, let alone two, three or more. But this year was different and personally think Syracuse would be making the same mistake if they schedule a bunch of powers out of conference and then had to play in the normal Big East. What if they drop 4 games early to the 4 best teams in America, then go 8-8 in the league and bow out in the quarters of the conference tourney. They getting in at 19-13? It would be just as questionable as this year.

I know why Syracuse isn't in and it isn't because the Big East is weak, it is because they lost 3 non conference home games they could have won. If they were wins, we wouldn't be having this landscape has changed discussion and be bashing Syracuse's schedule.

Seems to me they need to beat Drexel and WSU at home before worrying about traveling to Kansas so they can lose another game.

MaineRed
03-14-2007, 05:33 PM
And lets not forget that both Georgetown and St Johns have scheduled Duke for the past couple of years. Both teams have figured out the landscape is changing and have tried to get more meaningful non-conference games. Syracuse and Boeheim have not, sitting back and saying the Big East schedule will save us. Well, it didn't. Learn from it.

Not sure when you are claiming this landscape change happened but Duke and St Johns have been playing each other for more than just the last couple of years. The meeting has turned into nothing more than another cupcake on Duke's schedule and another loss for St.Johns. A loss that has done nothing to help them.


Boeheim was actually the one who said that. And I'm sure he has quite a bit of say on where they play their non-conference games.

So are you calling Boeheim a liar?

Chip R
03-14-2007, 05:56 PM
So are you calling Boeheim a liar?

How am I calling him a liar? I'm saying he was the one who said it. I also said that he has quite a bit of influence on where they play their non-conference games. If the AD came in and told him that they had games lined up for them at Southern Illinois, Gonzaga, Duke and UCLA, you think Boeheim would say, "No problem"?

Puffy
03-14-2007, 06:08 PM
Not sure when you are claiming this landscape change happened but Duke and St Johns have been playing each other for more than just the last couple of years. The meeting has turned into nothing more than another cupcake on Duke's schedule and another loss for St.Johns. A loss that has done nothing to help them.





That was in response to Hoosier Red saying that that St Johns, G'town and SU all used to schedule cupcakes b/c of the brutality of the Big East schedule. And I said a couple of years because G'town and Duke have only played the last two and I combined them and St Johns instead of saying St Johns and Duke have played the last 6 years and G'town and Duke have played the last two.

MaineRed
03-14-2007, 06:38 PM
Chip, you said it was JB who said the school needed to schedule a lot of home games to make up for lost football revenues but you also claim it is him who has a say on where he plays.

The question isn't what JB would say if the AD told him he was going to those four places, it is what would the AD say if Boeheim was telling him that instead of bringing about 80,000 into the dome for 4 games, he was going to go on the road instead? Does the AD, given the football issue, go for that? I'm sure the school wants a certain number of home games and I think college hoops is going to have to change a lot more before the school or Jimmy B blink over the issue.

I have no doubts that the coach has a major say in who they play. But if the school is looking for the basketball team to create revenues to help the other sports, I'd say Boeheim has some responsibility to keep his team at home.

And again, it wasn't the lack of road games that kept the Cuse out, it was the 3 home losses in the non conference. Scheduling Duke and losing does them no good. 21-11 looks no better than 22-10 with no Duke on the schedule. Maybe it changes the RPI and all that crap but I don't think that is how you evaluate teams. I don't believe in rewards for who you play unless you win. This is the same reason I don't expect to see some 6-5 SEC team in an 8 team NCAA play-off if we ever get that far just because they played the toughest schedule in the country.

WMR
03-14-2007, 06:46 PM
Maybe it changes the RPI and all that crap but I don't think that is how you evaluate teams.

Thing is, the selection committe DOES utilize such statistics when selecting at-large bids.

Traveling down tobacco road with these past couple incantations of the University of Kentucky Wildcats to play the Tarheels sure as hell hasn't been fun, and few UK fans have expected our boys to come out with a W, but you schedule that home and home game for a reason. A close loss AT NORTH CAROLINA absolutely should--and does--affect your placement and selection at the end of the year by the Selection Committee.

Chip R
03-14-2007, 06:59 PM
Chip, you said it was JB who said the school needed to schedule a lot of home games to make up for lost football revenues but you also claim it is him who has a say on where he plays.

The question isn't what JB would say if the AD told him he was going to those four places, it is what would the AD say if Boeheim was telling him that instead of bringing about 80,000 into the dome for 4 games, he was going to go on the road instead? Does the AD, given the football issue, go for that? I'm sure the school wants a certain number of home games and I think college hoops is going to have to change a lot more before the school or Jimmy B blink over the issue.

I have no doubts that the coach has a major say in who they play. But if the school is looking for the basketball team to create revenues to help the other sports, I'd say Boeheim has some responsibility to keep his team at home.

And again, it wasn't the lack of road games that kept the Cuse out, it was the 3 home losses in the non conference. Scheduling Duke and losing does them no good. 21-11 looks no better than 22-10 with no Duke on the schedule. Maybe it changes the RPI and all that crap but I don't think that is how you evaluate teams. I don't believe in rewards for who you play unless you win. This is the same reason I don't expect to see some 6-5 SEC team in an 8 team NCAA play-off if we ever get that far just because they played the toughest schedule in the country.


I don't see how that is inconsistent. Boeheim has a say where they play their games and he chooses to play most of them at home. I don't know whether that is because he fears playing on the road or it is to make up for the alleged lack of football revenue. Perhaps if he had played UCLA at UCLA or Duke at Duke or in the Meadowlands or Charlotte the TV revenue for those games would have more than made up for the loss of revenue in scheduling Cupcake U and/or Cupcake State at home. And it might have got them into the NCAAs which equals even more revenue. Seems to me Boeheim and the AD were penny wise but pound foolish. It may have also made them a better team.

Now they did run into a bit of bad luck. When they played Wichita St., WSU was undefeated and ranked in the top 15. If they hadn't have slumped and stayed in the top 20, that would have been a good loss for Syracuse.

Did they get screwed? Perhaps. But I'm not going to cry for a team in the Big East that didn't get in.