Ohio draws Fla

[It's the Journey...]

Maybe we can get some more sound bites from Dakich on how little the MAC commissioner does for basketball in the NCAA.

[BGGrad01]

Northern Iowa was more impressive than Alabama-Birmingham. That one irks me a little more. And you guys may be right about Iowa State...

Could not agree more. UAB was around that 70-80 RPI range, 5-1 in their last 6, but 5-5 in their last 10. The ONLY reason they got in was because of their success last year. If any of those morons on the committee says otherwise, they're lying.

[BGGrad01]

Looking at the RPI at collegerpi.com, the MAC had the 4 highest rated non-tournament teams - Miami, Buffalo, Kent State, and Akron, all of which were in the top 40.

I'm bothered by NC State as well. They finished at 19-13 with only notable wins over Ga. Tech (twice) and a Chris Paul-less Wake Forest in the ACC Tournament. They beat no one outside of the ACC that was even worth mentioning and the only reason I see to invite them is because Julius Hodge is a good player that came back for a 4th year, so let's reward him.

[BGorDeath]

All MAC coaches, except OU's O'Shea, should be dismissed immediately for their failure to get into the NCAA tournament. It is a travesty that they cannot manipulate the minds of the committee to understand that the MAC deserves more than one team. Dakich should be the first to go because its been since 1968 since we've been there. It's his fault. Not Larranaga. Not Weinert. Not Fitch or any other coach since then. It is his fault and every other coach in the league. My gawd, lets just disband the MAC because of this. It has been going on much too long. It is time to put it in its final resting place.

[Schadenfreude]

Looking at the RPI at collegerpi.com, the MAC had the 4 highest rated non-tournament teams - Miami, Buffalo, Kent State, and Akron, all of which were in the top 40.

CollegeRPI.com is out of date and it uses an incorrect formula.

I'd love to see an analysis based on kenpom.com.

[BGGrad01]

Looking at the RPI at collegerpi.com, the MAC had the 4 highest rated non-tournament teams - Miami, Buffalo, Kent State, and Akron, all of which were in the top 40.

CollegeRPI.com is out of date and it uses an incorrect formula.

I'd love to see an analysis based on kenpom.com.

Based on kenpom.com, Miami was the highest rated team left out. Wichita State was 2nd and Buffalo 3rd. All ahead of UAB at 49, Iowa State at 63, and NC State at 65. I think Buffalo should have been in over these 3 teams, but it wasn't meant to be. Hopefully Buffalo, Miami, WMU, and any other MAC teams that make the NIT can do something and prove that we deserve 2 or more teams next year.

[Germainfitch1]

He is still around? It seems like forever ago that he was at BG.

This has to be his senior (4th or 5th) year. He did have to sit out a year after transferring so that could make it seem like he should have had his 4 years of elgibility by now...

I am pretty sure he is a junior
Freshman 01-02
Sat out 02-03
Sophomore 03-04
Junior 04-05

[TG1996]

yes, this is his junior year.

http://unipanthers.collegesports.com/sp ... rik00.html

[Buddy Urban Larranaga]

According to Charlie Coles:

“We’re the ninth- or 10th-rated conference, and we never get anybody in,” Coles said of the MAC. “The excuse was made that Miami didn’t dominate the conference. You got to dominate the conference? Or do you have to win it?”

[Buddy Urban Larranaga]

According to the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Miami, Wichita State and 22-9
Buffalo – like the RedHawks, a
member of the Mid-American Con-
ference – were the only three teams
with RPIs in the top 50 not going to
the NCAA. Miami was the only
team with an RPI in the top 44 not to
get in. Teams with the No..40-44
RPIs – Minnesota, Stanford, Texas,
Iowa and Creighton – all are in.

“There were a whole bunch of
teams under consideration that
looked a lot like the MAC teams –
with 16, 17, 18, 19 wins,” Robert
Bowlsby, chair of the Division I
men’s basketball committee, said
during a conference call after the
pairings were announced. “It was a
very difficult selection and seeding
process. There were 34 institutions
that had better portfolios than any
of those (MAC) teams.”

Miami also is believed to have the highest RPI of any team not invited to the NCAA Tournament since No. 33 Oklahoma in 1994.

[kdog27]

I am pretty sure he is a junior
Freshman 01-02
Sat out 02-03
Sophomore 03-04
Junior 04-05

Wow, it just seems like it was longer ago to me. I guess I got my years mixed up when he played here. I was thinking he was on the team when Stacey was a senior. My mistake.

[kdog27]

According to the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Miami, Wichita State and 22-9
Buffalo – like the RedHawks, a
member of the Mid-American Con-
ference – were the only three teams
with RPIs in the top 50 not going to
the NCAA. Miami was the only
team with an RPI in the top 44 not to
get in. Teams with the No..40-44
RPIs – Minnesota, Stanford, Texas,
Iowa and Creighton – all are in.

“There were a whole bunch of
teams under consideration that
looked a lot like the MAC teams –
with 16, 17, 18, 19 wins,” Robert
Bowlsby, chair of the Division I
men’s basketball committee, said
during a conference call after the
pairings were announced. “It was a
very difficult selection and seeding
process. There were 34 institutions
that had better portfolios than any
of those (MAC) teams.”

Miami also is believed to have the highest RPI of any team not invited to the NCAA Tournament since No. 33 Oklahoma in 1994.

There were a lot of strange seeding too I thought. Louisville as a #4 is a slap to their face. UofL was disappointing in their last two tournaments but they had unjury problems late in the season both of those years. This year they are playing great and don't get rewarded it for it???

I thought Buffalo had the best case of any team on the bubble. They had a good RPI, 22 wins, and they lost the conference tourney on a final second tip in. Instead they let in teams like NCSU and Iowa in, teams to which it probably is not even a big deal to. You know Buffalo would bring a lot more emotion to the dance then these teams.

[hammb]

The thing I keep reading is that their RPI was this or that. That so & so has this RPI while so & so has a better RPI.

The thing I haven't seen mentioned is that nobody really pays attention to RPI. Sportscenter had a little segment earlier this week where they had some analysts, and a couple people from the NCAA (one of whom used to sit on the selection committee) all analyze the bubble teams. They went through the type of process they would use to narrow down who got into the dance.

They went over records against top 50 teams, records overall, how they fared in their conference & conference tourney, etc. Finally the ESPN announcer said that everyone was asking what about RPI? The people that were from the NCAA basically said that they look at it as a starting point, but that it has very little role in the actual decisions to be made.

So baasically, from the sounds of it, while everyone slathers about RPI and whatnot it appears that the selection committee puts VERY little validity into the whole thing. It should be noted that strange formulas like the RPI are what gets the most ridicule when it comes to the BCS come fooball season.

[BGSU-Ph.D.]

The thing I keep reading is that their RPI was this or that. That so & so has this RPI while so & so has a better RPI.

The thing I haven't seen mentioned is that nobody really pays attention to RPI. Sportscenter had a little segment earlier this week where they had some analysts, and a couple people from the NCAA (one of whom used to sit on the selection committee) all analyze the bubble teams. They went through the type of process they would use to narrow down who got into the dance.

They went over records against top 50 teams, records overall, how they fared in their conference & conference tourney, etc. Finally the ESPN announcer said that everyone was asking what about RPI? The people that were from the NCAA basically said that they look at it as a starting point, but that it has very little role in the actual decisions to be made.

So baasically, from the sounds of it, while everyone slathers about RPI and whatnot it appears that the selection committee puts VERY little validity into the whole thing. It should be noted that strange formulas like the RPI are what gets the most ridicule when it comes to the BCS come fooball season.

I don't give a crap about the RPI. I just compare schedules/results and I just don't see how N. Iowa, UAB, or St. Mary's had a better year than Buffalo. St. Mary's had one good win against Gonzaga and that is it. UAB beat Depaul twice. Depaul isn't a tourney team. In fact, I don't UAB beat one tourney team, not one. N. Iowa beat Iowa St. and a couple decent teams in conference, but they also had some very bad losses to very bad teams.

[BleedOrange]

The thing I keep reading is that their RPI was this or that. That so & so has this RPI while so & so has a better RPI.

The thing I haven't seen mentioned is that nobody really pays attention to RPI. Sportscenter had a little segment earlier this week where they had some analysts, and a couple people from the NCAA (one of whom used to sit on the selection committee) all analyze the bubble teams. They went through the type of process they would use to narrow down who got into the dance.

They went over records against top 50 teams, records overall, how they fared in their conference & conference tourney, etc. Finally the ESPN announcer said that everyone was asking what about RPI? The people that were from the NCAA basically said that they look at it as a starting point, but that it has very little role in the actual decisions to be made.

So baasically, from the sounds of it, while everyone slathers about RPI and whatnot it appears that the selection committee puts VERY little validity into the whole thing. It should be noted that strange formulas like the RPI are what gets the most ridicule when it comes to the BCS come fooball season.

The problem with the RPI is that it's soooo crude, mathematically. Also, it ignores fundamental elements that it should include. Sagarin's approach is a far more sophisticated formula, but it's proprietary and therefore private. Because it's private, the committee cannot justify using it in the selection process (how can they justify using a formula's results when they can't know the formula?).

This is the first year that the RPI was ignored to this extent. Naturally, this was the year that the MAC had great RPIs (conspiracy anyone?)

Like everything else associated with NCAA basketball, the fairness of selection process is flawed. There are a much larger number of teams clustered on the bubble than there are at-large bids. The decision criteria are 100% subjective and effectively arbitrary. The arguments for and against the relative merits of the teams rely on hairsplitting and contrived rationales (Grant, would you use the word 'sophistry' here?). What's the difference between the last team in and the last team out? For that matter, the last 5 in and the last 5 out? Frankly, I would prefer a damned lottery to the pompous horsesh1t that we endure now.

What actually WOULD be better, IMO, is a sophisticated formula such as Sagarin's, that is agreed upon by NCAA member schools and made public. Selections would be based on hard data. Decision criteria built into the calculation would be selected democratically. Although the selection of one set of criteria over another set would be ultimately subjective, these criteria would be agreed upon by all of the schools and applied uniformly to all of the teams. The ratings could be followed throughout the season. Subjectivity diminishes and fairness improves.