Packer & Nantz Cry about Small Schools in Dance

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:34 pm

Anyone else see those to practically tell off the selection chair because the Missouri Valley and the Colonial got 6 teams in combined?

You know what Billy and Jim? I say to you what you say to me when I walk away dismayed that BG gets shut out in 97 and 01- those teams from the "Power Conferences" just need to win their conference tournament if they want in the dance.

Please.

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:07 pm

Dayon,

I just about wanted to throw up watching that . . . The media has taken away all credibility from the Heisman turning it into a "career award" with the likes of Weinke and Crouch and now this?

Packer at one time mentioned how the power conferences "own" the Sweet 16 and the committee should look at 3 and 5 year trends and base selections of how conferences do over a 3 and 5 year period.

That was the most ridiculous thing you'll hear on CBS until Nantz creams himself worshipping Tiger and rough-less Augusta National in a few weeks.

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:12 pm

OptionQB wrote:Dayon,

I just about wanted to throw up watching that . . . The media has taken away all credibility from the Heisman turning it into a "career award" with the likes of Weinke and Crouch and now this?

Packer at one time mentioned how the power conferences "own" the Sweet 16 and the committee should look at 3 and 5 year trends and base selections of how conferences do over a 3 and 5 year period.

That was the most ridiculous thing you'll hear on CBS until Nantz creams himself worshipping Tiger and rough-less Augusta National in a few weeks.

Billy Packer is an ass. No two ways around it, that guy is the most ignorant basketball analyst in history. Some of the stuff he says is some of the most biased and rediculous crap you'll ever hear.

BGFalconfromCincy · Post by **BGFalconfromCincy** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:38 pm

I have no problem with the Missouri Valley getting 4 or the CAA getting 2, and I hated how Nantz has talking like they thought the ACC got screwed for having the same number of teams as the MVC. The teams that shouldn't be in are Texas A&M, Utah State, and Air Force. A&M is like Florida State, played no one OOC, beat a top 10 team in the final week, and the conference tourney didn't help them, if FSU isn't in A&M shouldn't be in. As for Utah State and Air Force, the only good team Utah State played was Nevada, and they lost twice to them, and Air Force played no one good OOC

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:59 pm

I just want someone to tell me how Air Force gets in over Michigan. Air Force probably couldn't have won 4 games in the B11. Utah State is just as puzzling. I know Michigan faded down the stretch, but they were without 3 of their top 6 players for a lot of the second half. Every year I see small schools get screwed in favor of larger teams getting in on account of injuries. Michigan loses a bunch of games while hurt, then gets all their players back in time for the Tourney, and still gets screwed.

Me confused. I really don't think the committee did a good job this year.

dduncan · Post by **dduncan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:25 am

I just want someone to tell me how Air Force gets in over Michigan. Air Force probably couldn't have won 4 games in the B11. Utah State is just as puzzling. I know Michigan faded down the stretch, but they were without 3 of their top 6 players for a lot of the second half. Every year I see small schools get screwed in favor of larger teams getting in on account of injuries. Michigan loses a bunch of games while hurt, then gets all their players back in time for the Tourney, and still gets screwed.

I'm not sure Michigan deserves a bid over Air Force, but I see you point. I would have loved to see Michigan make the tourney again. But they were horrid down the stretch. Dion Harris' injury was more crushing than I thought. Courtney Sims played very soft down the stretch.

Air Force making it is just strange. They were the 2nd best team from their conference and were knocked out of their tournament in, what, the semis? Their only non-conference win against anyone good was Miami-Fla, very early in the year. Didn't have a high RPI, yet the committee wanted to reward a 2nd team from the 8th best conference? Over Cinci.? That's just strange.

Just wish BG had this committee years back.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:21 am

I turned the TV off after hearing those two jackasses.

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:55 am

dduncan wrote:They were the 2nd best team from their conference and were knocked out of their tournament in, what, the semis?

Nope, Air Force didn't even manage to make it out of the quarterfinals. They lost to Wyoming in overtime.

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:29 pm

Air Force was the most puzzling selection in recent years. They weren't even considered to be on the bubble by most people.

Packer's and Nantz's behavior was embarassing. I couldn't believe how disrespectful they were to the committee chairman - they even cut him off at the en when the chairman wanted to say some nice words and thank everyone involved in the process. If I was the NCAA, I would have some harsh words for the CBS executives, who in turn should reprimand those two guys.

Nantz most ignorant comment was along the lines of the committe saying that the MVC was as good as the ACC because each had 4 teams selected. The moron failed to mention that 3 of the 4 ACC teams were seeded higher than all the MVC teams, so obviously no one was taking that position

Packer's most ignorant comment involved the numbers of the teams from which conferences historically moved along in the tournament. He failed to mention how many of those major conference teams that move along in the tournament were seeded #10 and lower(very few), which is what we are talking about when it comes down to selecting the #10 team from the Big East or the #4 team from the MVC.

dduncan · Post by **dduncan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:41 pm

Now I'm sure if these rumors are true or not, but ESPN radio this morning was reporting that the committee all sat down to watch the Utah St/Nevada game to see Utah St play. Once the game was over, they decided that Utah St was worthy of playing in the tourney. I'm not sure if they even looked at the schedule, which they didn't beat anyone worth mentioning.

What does this say to the mid-major teams that play their conference games early in the week? It tells them to schedule a championship game during the weekend. However, with the change of committee members, you just don't know what to expect.

I wonder if Akron would have made the tourney had they made the MAC finals? While I agree that the CBS guys was bad, the committee did just as bad a job selecting the teams.

Also, rumor was the Western Kentucky was the last team that missed out.

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:55 pm

Utah State has been a very good team for the last 10 years or so. No one wants to play them, especially when they were previously in the Big West since that conference isn't even considered to be at the mid-major level. In past years in the tourney, they lost at the buzzer to Kansas and beat Ohio State.

The inclusion of Air Force is far more puzzling.

dduncan · Post by **dduncan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:00 pm

Again, what does the past 10 years have to do with anything this year? Different players. You may be right that they deserve to play (I haven't seen them play this season) in the NCAAs, but it has nothing to do with how well they did against teams in the past.

manager · Post by **manager** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:02 pm

Packer has been an obnoxious and pompous a$$ for as long as he's been around. I expect it won't be long before these two and CBS will be yammering to take the automatic bids away. Her's to lots of upsets of the "powers" of college basketball.

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:17 pm

Again, what does the past 10 years have to do with anything this year? Different players. You may be right that they deserve to play (I haven't seen them play this season) in the NCAAs, but it has nothing to do with how well they did against teams in the past.

It's not supposed to be a factor, but it sure seems to be one when Arizona is given a #8 seed this year. I guess I'm just trying to say is that I'm glad a mid-major is given credit for past performance when it is usually only the majors who are given this credit (again, even if it isn't supposed to be a factor).

BTW - Utah State is just as good as Nevada, who is seeded #5.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:36 pm

dduncan wrote:I wonder if Akron would have made the tourney had they made the MAC finals?

Don't forget about the other end of the equation: Nevada.

Kent State is decent -- but no Nevada. Not this year.