Packer & Nantz Cry about Small Schools in Dance

BGSUfalcons · Post by **BGSUfalcons** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:41 pm

Although I have lived through many MAC teams getting screwed over the years, BG in particular, I get no joy in seeing unworthy "mid majors" get bids over teams with better profiles. Both Utah St. and Air Force are baffling, especially since there were other "mid majors" that had better profiles, let alone Cincy and Mich.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:44 pm

I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with the decisions of the committee.

If you want to go to dancing, then you know what you must do - WIN!

Plain and simple. Anything else and.........well, you saw what happened to UC. They aren't going.

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:45 pm

Packers historical trend argument (or lack thereof) was probably the stupidiest thing he has ever said.

If you want to look at historical trends, then look at who always wins the tournament. Almost without fail it is a 1 or 2 seed. Therefore, what difference does it make which teams make it in after the top 8? For that matter, just change the thing to an 8 team field.

The big conference teams (like Michigan this year) that got overlooked need to look at their schedules and stop scheduling every OOC game at home against a lower tier D-1 school. It is their own fault.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:56 pm

transfer2BGSU wrote:I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with the decisions of the committee.

If you want to go to dancing, then you know what you must do - WIN!

Plain and simple. Anything else and.........well, you saw what happened to UC. They aren't going.

There is some truth to this.

In football, many programs begin the season with no hope of a so-called "national championship," no matter what they do on the field.

Not true in basketball.

dduncan · Post by **dduncan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:56 pm

But it really isn't that simple. The committee for years have been saying teams (especially mid-major) to play a good non-conference schedule. Yet, when it comes down to it, Air Force and Utah St neither played a good non conference schedule and still made it.

Miami probably could have scheduled 3 other teams to play other than Alabama, Wichita St, and Michigan and made their record all that better for this year's committee. But they didn't, they probably wanted to impress NCAA members in March with a decent SOS, hoping that it could be the difference. According to this year's committee, they had no chance unless they had more than 20 wins.

What happens next year when some of these mid major teams win against soft competition, (20+ wins with <10 losses) and reward the major schools because of SOS.

NCAA needs to install something rather than personal bias when selecting the teams. Consistency is needed.

BGSUfalcons · Post by **BGSUfalcons** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:09 pm

dduncan wrote:But it really isn't that simple. The committee for years have been saying teams (especially mid-major) to play a good non-conference schedule. Yet, when it comes down to it, Air Force and Utah St neither played a good non conference schedule and still made it.

Miami probably could have scheduled 3 other teams to play other than Alabama, Wichita St, and Michigan and made their record all that better for this year's committee. But they didn't, they probably wanted to impress NCAA members in March with a decent SOS, hoping that it could be the difference. According to this year's committee, they had no chance unless they had more than 20 wins.

What happens next year when some of these mid major teams win against soft competition, (20+ wins with <10 losses) and reward the major schools because of SOS.

NCAA needs to install something rather than personal bias when selecting the teams. Consistency is needed.

I'm in total agreement. Excluding Gonzaga, a team that really isn't a "mid major", Miami was the "mid major" that played the toughest non-conference schedule (that I can think of) -- at Alabama, Xavier, at Wichita St., at Michigan, at Cincinnati. The question is: why bother? If the whim of the committee is to go with inflated records one year and solid SOS the next, what is a MAC team to do?

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:20 pm

BGSUfalcons wrote:
dduncan wrote:But it really isn't that simple. The committee for years have been saying teams (especially mid-major) to play a good non-conference schedule. Yet, when it comes down to it, Air Force and Utah St neither played a good non conference schedule and still made it.

Miami probably could have scheduled 3 other teams to play other than Alabama, Wichita St, and Michigan and made their record all that better for this year's committee. But they didn't, they probably wanted to impress NCAA members in March with a decent SOS, hoping that it could be the difference. According to this year's committee, they had no chance unless they had more than 20 wins.

What happens next year when some of these mid major teams win against soft competition, (20+ wins with <10 losses) and reward the major schools because of SOS.

NCAA needs to install something rather than personal bias when selecting the teams. Consistency is needed.
I'm in total agreement. Excluding Gonzaga, a team that really isn't a "mid major", Miami was the "mid major" that played the toughest non-conference schedule (that I can think of) -- at Alabama, Xavier, at Wichita St., at Michigan, at Cincinnati. The question is: why bother? If the whim of the committee is to go with inflated records one year and solid SOS the next, what is a MAC team to do?

You guys nailed it. For some reason the committee totally went outside the norm this year. That's fine, and is a good thing for BG fans, but the teams this year were playing within a set of rules which apparently no longer applies. I think the committee is far too abstract and needs to be reigned in a bit, or else they may see fit to change the criteria every year, leaving the entire country in doubt.

One example is the RPI. We've been told the last few years that the RPI and it's components are major tools used by the committee. This year, it seems as if they didn't use it at all. I read a story a while back that explained how the MVC had cracked the RPI code. If it's not going to be useful for fans or the committee, let's just throw it out and never speak of it again. What's the point of having a unit of measure that all teams aspire towards that isn't used as a basis for a decision come March?

I'm just really perplexed by the actions of the committee this year.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:03 pm

My least favorite comment made by the chair of the committee, Craig Littlepage, was when he talked about the “I-AA teams and mid-major schools” representing the field of teams this year. Ah, newsflash Mr. Chairman…..there aren’t any I-AA teams in D-I basketball, they are all D-I. I understood the comment he was trying to make as he misspoke with his terms, but as the chair of the committee, you shouldn’t be talking I-AA when all the teams you are dealing with are D-I.

jacojdm · Post by **jacojdm** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:04 pm

BGSU33 wrote:My least favorite comment made by the chair of the committee, Craig Littlepage, was when he talked about the “I-AA and mid-major” schools representing the field of teams this year. Ah, newsflash Mr. Chairman…..there aren’t any I-AA teams in D-I basketball, they are all D-I. I understood the comment he was trying to make as he misspoke with his terms, but as the chair of the committee, you shouldn’t be talking I-AA when all the teams you are dealing with are D-I.

i saw him earlier in the day (before the selections were made), and he mentioned "I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA"

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:07 pm

jacojdm wrote:
BGSU33 wrote:My least favorite comment made by the chair of the committee, Craig Littlepage, was when he talked about the “I-AA and mid-major” schools representing the field of teams this year. Ah, newsflash Mr. Chairman…..there aren’t any I-AA teams in D-I basketball, they are all D-I. I understood the comment he was trying to make as he misspoke with his terms, but as the chair of the committee, you shouldn’t be talking I-AA when all the teams you are dealing with are D-I.
i saw him earlier in the day (before the selections were made), and he mentioned "I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA"

Are you serious? I hope for his sake he meant Divisions I, II & III.

jacojdm · Post by **jacojdm** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:08 pm

BGSU33 wrote:
jacojdm wrote:
BGSU33 wrote:My least favorite comment made by the chair of the committee, Craig Littlepage, was when he talked about the “I-AA and mid-major” schools representing the field of teams this year. Ah, newsflash Mr. Chairman…..there aren’t any I-AA teams in D-I basketball, they are all D-I. I understood the comment he was trying to make as he misspoke with his terms, but as the chair of the committee, you shouldn’t be talking I-AA when all the teams you are dealing with are D-I.
i saw him earlier in the day (before the selections were made), and he mentioned "I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA"
Are you serious? I hope for his sake he meant Divisions I, II & III.

yeah, he was talking about the, as i recall, "different levels inside of division I" or something to that effect. maybe someone else has a better recollection of his comment's context.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:39 pm

jacojdm wrote:
BGSU33 wrote:
jacojdm wrote:
BGSU33 wrote:My least favorite comment made by the chair of the committee, Craig Littlepage, was when he talked about the “I-AA and mid-major” schools representing the field of teams this year. Ah, newsflash Mr. Chairman…..there aren’t any I-AA teams in D-I basketball, they are all D-I. I understood the comment he was trying to make as he misspoke with his terms, but as the chair of the committee, you shouldn’t be talking I-AA when all the teams you are dealing with are D-I.
i saw him earlier in the day (before the selections were made), and he mentioned "I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA"
Are you serious? I hope for his sake he meant Divisions I, II & III.
yeah, he was talking about the, as i recall, "different levels inside of division I" or something to that effect. maybe someone else has a better recollection of his comment's context.

That would at least make a little more sense if that’s what he meant. Maybe he was referring to a three tier system of sorts for D-I? If that’s the case, I’d say they probably consider the MAC a tier II type of a conference, which I would agree with.

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:01 pm

Didn't Littlepage also say that the computer ratings didn't mean that much, or was I hearing things?

dduncan · Post by **dduncan** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:24 pm

I can't believe this is true, but I totally forgot how old Greg Gumbel is. 59. Heard it while listening to a radio interview with him today.

That guy has to be tired after the whole weekend of introducing different audiences/games for 12 hours a day the first 2 days.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:27 pm

jacojdm wrote:
BGSU33 wrote:My least favorite comment made by the chair of the committee, Craig Littlepage, was when he talked about the “I-AA and mid-major” schools representing the field of teams this year. Ah, newsflash Mr. Chairman…..there aren’t any I-AA teams in D-I basketball, they are all D-I. I understood the comment he was trying to make as he misspoke with his terms, but as the chair of the committee, you shouldn’t be talking I-AA when all the teams you are dealing with are D-I.
i saw him earlier in the day (before the selections were made), and he mentioned "I-A, I-AA, and I-AAA"

We know what I-A is, and we know that I-AA refers to the other Division I football schools.

I-AAA refers to the nonfootball schools.

I guess it's another way of tackling the concept of the high majors versus the others

(With the decline of Conference USA and the Atlantic 10, is there a non-BCS league that can be properly thought of as "high major" any more?)