Not until this year

[Anonymous]

Buffalo and Miami both had RPI under 40. Buffalo was 35, Miami was 34, depending on which source you use. Some had them as high as 39, 41. But with that said NO TEAM has failed to make the NCAA tournament with an RPI under 37, ever. Well that is until this year.

The MAC conference alone was ranked the #9 toughest conference according to the RPI. No conference ranked #9 or better has failed to get 3 teams into the dance. Well that was until this year.

Buffalo record against top 100 RPI teams, was a very good 9-8, better than many teams in the dance. No team with at least 20 wins, a winning neutral site record, and above .500 record against top 100 RPI teams, has failed to make the dance.

Well that is until this year.

The MAC got screwed again. I actually believe UB record and resume is better than BG was a few years ago. Am I surprised UB got the shaft. Not at all, but everyone keeps talking, Digger Phelps, Jay Bilas, Dickey V, how good the MAC is and how they deserve to have more than one team in the dance, but no matter how much they talk about it, it never happens. I ws listening to Bob Bolsby (sp) last night and also this morning and he said Miami (OH) and Buffalo were the last ones being considered. I really only have one complaint, and that is St Mary's. Yes the beat Gonzaga, but thats it. No one else. They have 2 more wins than Buffalo, but there SOS is something like in the 270's. Northern Iowa got in to, but they are from the MVC, and we all know how they always seem to get 3 teams in. I am just glad ND, Indiana, and MD did not get in. If they did then I would have something to complain about. I do feel UB or even Miami should be in the dance over St. Mary's.

You know since the MAC always gets screwed, as I told you that no team has ever failed to make the tourny with those credentials, if it was possible for OU to be left out, do you think the selection committee would have chosen MD or Indiana over OU, if it could have? Screw the MAC some more

[Schadenfreude]

Buffalo and Miami both had RPI under 40. Buffalo was 35, Miami was 34, depending on which source you use.

This is not true.

The source you should trust is kenpom.com

Every math geek in the country failed to properly replicate the change in the NCAA's secret RPI formula -- until last week when the guy who runs kenpom.com figured out the error. Some media and Web sites have caught on. Others have not.

Miami and Buffalo both finished with RPIs in the mid-40s.

But with that said NO TEAM has failed to make the NCAA tournament with an RPI under 37, ever. Well that is until this year.

This is not true either.

Kent State was left out as a 36 a few years back. The worst stiff ever was Oklahoma, which was left out around 33 about ten years ago.

The MAC conference alone was ranked the #9 toughest conference according to the RPI. No conference ranked #9 or better has failed to get 3 teams into the dance. Well that was until this year.

The MAC was tenth this year according to kenpom.com.

The problem is that we ate our own even more this year than usual. All are teams were much closer to the mean.

The average conference RPI was 0.522, which is the equivalent of Eastern Kentucky (No. 118, or way way outside of at-large territory).

Most of the other leagues above us had a mix of Top 25 and pretty putrid teams.

The MAC, in contrast, had a whole bunch of teams that were somewhat better than Eastern Kentucky and a few bad ones.

So the conference strength argument doesn't get us very far.

That's not to say we didn't get stiffed. Buffalo deserved a bid over Alabama-Birmingham and probably one or two other programs (I'm personally not as miffed about Northern Iowa, which seems to have a similar resume to Buffalo).

[Anonymous]

Buffalo and Miami both had RPI under 40. Buffalo was 35, Miami was 34, depending on which source you use.

This is not true.

The source you should trust is kenpom.com

Every math geek in the country failed to properly replicate the change in the NCAA's secret RPI formula -- until last week when the guy who runs kenpom.com figured out the error. Some media and Web sites have caught on. Others have not.

Miami and Buffalo both finished with RPIs in the mid-40s.

But with that said NO TEAM has failed to make the NCAA tournament with an RPI under 37, ever. Well that is until this year.

This is not true either.

Kent State was left out as a 36 a few years back. The worst stiff ever was Oklahoma, which was left out around 33 about ten years ago.

The MAC conference alone was ranked the #9 toughest conference according to the RPI. No conference ranked #9 or better has failed to get 3 teams into the dance. Well that was until this year.

The MAC was tenth this year according to kenpom.com.

The problem is that we ate our own even more this year than usual. All are teams were much closer to the mean.

The average conference RPI was 0.522, which is the equivalent of Eastern Kentucky (No. 118, or way way outside of at-large territory).

Most of the other leagues above us had a mix of Top 25 and pretty putrid teams.

The MAC, in contrast, had a whole bunch of teams that were somewhat better than Eastern Kentucky and a few bad ones.

So the conference strength argument doesn't get us very far.

That's not to say we didn't get stiffed. Buffalo deserved a bid over Alabama-Birmingham and probably one or two other programs (I'm personally not as miffed about Northern Iowa, which seems to have a similar resume to Buffalo).

But I was going with a very reliable source. ESPN.COM. One link here even has their RPI higher.

http://sports-att.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaat ... 5NCAAsnubs

[BGSU-Ph.D.]

Buffalo and Miami both had RPI under 40. Buffalo was 35, Miami was 34, depending on which source you use.

This is not true.

The source you should trust is kenpom.com

Every math geek in the country failed to properly replicate the change in the NCAA's secret RPI formula -- until last week when the guy who runs kenpom.com figured out the error. Some media and Web sites have caught on. Others have not.

Miami and Buffalo both finished with RPIs in the mid-40s.

But with that said NO TEAM has failed to make the NCAA tournament with an RPI under 37, ever. Well that is until this year.

This is not true either.

Kent State was left out as a 36 a few years back. The worst stiff ever was Oklahoma, which was left out around 33 about ten years ago.

The MAC conference alone was ranked the #9 toughest conference according to the RPI. No conference ranked #9 or better has failed to get 3 teams into the dance. Well that was until this year.

The MAC was tenth this year according to kenpom.com.

The problem is that we ate our own even more this year than usual. All are teams were much closer to the mean.

The average conference RPI was 0.522, which is the equivalent of Eastern Kentucky (No. 118, or way way outside of at-large territory).

Most of the other leagues above us had a mix of Top 25 and pretty putrid teams.

The MAC, in contrast, had a whole bunch of teams that were somewhat better than Eastern Kentucky and a few bad ones.

So the conference strength argument doesn't get us very far.

That's not to say we didn't get stiffed. Buffalo deserved a bid over Alabama-Birmingham and probably one or two other programs (I'm personally not as miffed about Northern Iowa, which seems to have a similar resume to Buffalo).

The MAC had a whole bunch of teams that are MUCH better than Eastern Kentucky

[Schadenfreude]

Buffalo and Miami both had RPI under 40. Buffalo was 35, Miami was 34, depending on which source you use.

This is not true.

The source you should trust is kenpom.com

Every math geek in the country failed to properly replicate the change in the NCAA's secret RPI formula -- until last week when the guy who runs kenpom.com figured out the error. Some media and Web sites have caught on. Others have not.

Miami and Buffalo both finished with RPIs in the mid-40s.

But with that said NO TEAM has failed to make the NCAA tournament with an RPI under 37, ever. Well that is until this year.

This is not true either.

Kent State was left out as a 36 a few years back. The worst stiff ever was Oklahoma, which was left out around 33 about ten years ago.

The MAC conference alone was ranked the #9 toughest conference according to the RPI. No conference ranked #9 or better has failed to get 3 teams into the dance. Well that was until this year.

The MAC was tenth this year according to kenpom.com.

The problem is that we ate our own even more this year than usual. All are teams were much closer to the mean.

The average conference RPI was 0.522, which is the equivalent of Eastern Kentucky (No. 118, or way way outside of at-large territory).

Most of the other leagues above us had a mix of Top 25 and pretty putrid teams.

The MAC, in contrast, had a whole bunch of teams that were somewhat better than Eastern Kentucky and a few bad ones.

So the conference strength argument doesn't get us very far.

That's not to say we didn't get stiffed. Buffalo deserved a bid over Alabama-Birmingham and probably one or two other programs (I'm personally not as miffed about Northern Iowa, which seems to have a similar resume to Buffalo).

But I was going with a very reliable source. ESPN.COM. One link here even has their RPI higher.

http://sports-att.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaat ... 5NCAAsnubs

ESPN has it wrong.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/w ... i.blunder/

[hammb]

Look, I'm not real big into the whole RPI thing, and it would turn out that the selection committee isn't either. As I said in another thread, Sportscenter had some former guys from the committee in last week. They basically said that they use RPI as a starting point, but it is not the final determining factor in ANYTHING.

I don't much care for the RPI, because its just another computer formula that spits out who it thinks is best, similar to a lot of the BCS formulas. I watched a LOT of MAC basketball this year, including the first four games at the Gund. It is my opinion that the MAC is very average this year. I don't care what the conference rating RPI says, or anything like that. My eyes tell me that the conference isn't that special.

Case in point? Bowling Green. Look at our team objectively. We had no point guard worth a crap. We had poor center play for the most part. Our SG struggled on many nights, and excelled on others. On the whole we depended solely on 2 players to put up the bulk of our scoring, rebounding, and play tough defense. We rode those 2 like I've never seen another team rely on 2 players. Our team was full of holes, yet we still managed an above .500 league record and wins over both Miami & Buffalo (the teams that everyone is thinking deserved a look). To me that doesn't speak real well for those teams that are at the top of the conference.

I know that its the en vogue thing to whine about not getting selected, and who got snubbed on this day. I know that everyone here thinks the MAC deserves multiple bids. I guess my beef is that I thought this year there was LESS of an argument for the MAC to have multiple bids. Looking back to the '01-'02 season, I would say there were 3 teams in the MAC that year that would have owned this conference this season. BG, BSU, and KSU of that season were all far superior to any team in the conference this year. Still, we only got one team that year.

I'm sorry, but if you throw out the RPI numbers and just look at the teams none of the teams in the MAC this season seem to be any more worthy of a big dance bid than those that got in. Northern Iowa had just as good a resumé as anyone in the MAC. I saw them in their conference tourney, and they certainly looked as good as anyone in the MAC, I have no problems with them being chosen. UAB doesn't have a real great resumé, but I'm sure their recent successes IN the tourney played a factor in that. Even still watching them in their conference tourney I'm not sure that they're a worse team than what UB or MU are.

When I look at my bracket UAB is the ONLY team that I would question how they got in. Even if you take them out there is no guarantee that UB is going to get in over ND, Maryland, or Indiana. ND had a pretty good resumé as well, and likely would've gotten in had they not choked in the first round of their conference tourney.

It would be nice to get multiple teams in, but I don't think this year's snub is any worse than years past.

[orangeandbrown]

I watched a LOT of MAC basketball this year, including the first four games at the Gund. It is my opinion that the MAC is very average this year.

I know that everyone here thinks the MAC deserves multiple bids. I guess my beef is that I thought this year there was LESS of an argument for the MAC to have multiple bids.

Nice post. I agree with both. I think the MAC was even, but not spectacular. I think there have been far worse situations.

[Schadenfreude]

I watched a LOT of MAC basketball this year, including the first four games at the Gund. It is my opinion that the MAC is very average this year.

I know that everyone here thinks the MAC deserves multiple bids. I guess my beef is that I thought this year there was LESS of an argument for the MAC to have multiple bids.

Nice post. I agree with both. I think the MAC was even, but not spectacular. I think there have been far worse situations.

I think this is the worst since 1999 or 2000, when Kent was left out as a 36.

[kdog27]

IMO this year has been the worst screwing the MAC has received. I think the MAC was at its all time best this year. Most teams had good OOC records and we had six teams with 19+ wins,

So no teams stood out? No team ran away with their division?. So frickin what? Why should the conference be penalized for having parity? Which would you rather have? A conference with three really good teams and 10 bad teams, or a conference with 8 good teams, a couple medicore teams and a couple bad teams? My logic would say the conference with 8 good teams is far better. You should not be penalized for having to go up against a good team on almost every game. With the way they select it is better to have a few superior teams and ten awful teams so the three teams have an inflated record. It pisses me off that they use parity as a reason to leave teams out. Parity is a good thing.

I am with people like Hammb who say we only have ourselves to blame for not making the tourney. I think the selection process is unfair and biased but we cannot excuse the fact that we know it is. Therefore, we know our only way in is to win the tournament and it is quite sad that we have never done it in all the years they have had conference tournaments.

[Warthog]

Dakich didn't think that Buffalo deserved to go. But I don't understand half his logic but here is what he said on The Ticket. Buffalo didn't deserve to go. They lost seven league games in the MAC. Any one who loses seven games in the MAC does not deserve to go. But then went on to say that Buffalo should have made it over Northern Iowa and Miami should have been ahead of Buffalo. But the MAC won't get two bids as long as we keep playing an 18 game league schedule and beating each other up. And finally, if BG doesn't lose to Central on the last weekend of the season and the refs don't blow that last second tip-in call in the Ball St-Miami game, we could have had nine teams tied at 11-7 for first place in the MAC.

That's what he said. You figure out what argument he was trying to make.

[orangeandbrown]

Wart, heard the interview, and that's not quite right. What he said was that once your lose your sixth game in the conference, he believes THE COMMITTEE begins to eliminate you. He thinks Buffalo deserved a bid, and he thinks the conference is under respected and that it is very frustrating to him. He also thinks the regular season champ deserves first consideration for an at-large bid.

Furthermore, he says that if the committee is beyond reproach, why do we need Laing Kennedy on the committee--if they are above reproach, it shouldn't make a difference.

[Falconboy]

That Miami(Oh) got the shaft. DD was saying that Northen Iowa shouldnt' have gotten in over Miami(Oh). Now don't know if Northern Iowa played an even tougher pre-conference schedule or not , that might play a role too somewhere. But DD probably is very right on the fact the these commitee people have intrest in seeing their favorite teams or schools or whatever in the Tourney. The commitee should probably be expanded with more AD's from small confences like the MAC on the committee. I think we've got Kent States AD on the committee now , who knows if that effects anything in the future.

[UK Peregrine]

That Miami(Oh) got the shaft. DD was saying that Northen Iowa shouldnt' have gotten in over Miami(Oh). Now don't know if Northern Iowa played an even tougher pre-conference schedule or not , that might play a role too somewhere. But DD probably is very right on the fact the these commitee people have intrest in seeing their favorite teams or schools or whatever in the Tourney. The commitee should probably be expanded with more AD's from small confences like the MAC on the committee. I think we've got Kent States AD on the committee now , who knows if that effects anything in the future.

Question of the day: Who is Laing Kennedy? And you can't answer Orangeandbrown.

[Anonymous]

Kennedy is AD for Kent State Univeristy? Why?

Also, for those who wonder why Northern Iowa made it dancing. Well the head of the selection committee is from the MVC, hence, like last year, 3 teams making to the NCAA Tourney.

[Anonymous]

But starting this year, and I believe its Sept 2005, Kennedy is replacing Bob Bowlsby, current chair of the NCAA selection committee.

The NCAA Division I men’s basketball committee oversees the administration of the men’s basketball championship, including the selection of teams to the championship and staffing tournament sites.

So that will hopefully mean more MAC schools daning in the future.

My only question is how long will Kennedy be the chair of the selection committee. Is this a position that gets voted on, or can he stay there for as long as he is liked?