*** Official Selection Sunday Thread ***

[BillBrasky4Cy]

As much as I think the committee is incompetent, we didn't get screwed...UCONN did. Would you rather play Wash St/Drake or FAU? Would you rather play BYU/ILL or Auburn? And then, if they make it, they have us. And they ain't played nobody like us in 2 years.

Even in the 2nd round, would you rather player Wash St/Drake or Michigan State, TX A&M, or TCU? Those are all the teams the #1's may have to play.

Oh Iowa State got screwed. I'm really not that worried about the first two games but potentially catching 6 seeded BYU in the sweet 16 is a load of crap. Every metric had them as a 5 seed but the committee dropped them to a 6 because they don't play on Sundays. The number of weird things in the East region is insane.

 

[mctallerton]

ISU was seeded # 10 on February 17th. We were already 2 spots ahead of Duke, 7+ spots ahead of Creighton and only 1 spot behind Baylor. Between Feb 17th and March 9th, ISU went 5-2. Duke also went 5-2. Creighton went 5-1. Baylor went 4-3. So we definitely should have been seeded no worse than # 9 on March 9th.

Somehow ISU going 3-0 and blowing out 3 quality Big 12 tournament opponents was only good enough to move us from # 9 to # 8. I don't think so. The field was set before we played against Baylor and Houston. Those games didn't change squat.

Bracketology: Purdue, UConn, Houston and Arizona are No. 1s as NCAA reveals early top seeds

The NCAA selection committee revealed its official early top 16 seeds Saturday on CBS

www.cbssports.com

We were 11th not 10th.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

ISU was seeded # 10 on February 17th. We were already 2 spots ahead of Duke, 7+ spots ahead of Creighton and only 1 spot behind Baylor. Between Feb 17th and March 9th, ISU went 5-2. Duke also went 5-2. Creighton went 5-1. Baylor went 4-3. So we definitely should have been seeded no worse than # 9 on March 9th.

Somehow ISU going 3-0 and blowing out 3 quality Big 12 tournament opponents was only good enough to move us from # 9 to # 8. I don't think so. The field was set before we played against Baylor and Houston. Those games didn't change squat.

Bracketology: Purdue, UConn, Houston and Arizona are No. 1s as NCAA reveals early top seeds

The NCAA selection committee revealed its official early top 16 seeds Saturday on CBS

www.cbssports.com

You don’t think Baylor would have gotten a 2 seed if they beat us in the second round?

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Iowa State went 2-2 against non con teams in the top 80 of KemPom (Texas A&M, Iowa, VA Tech, VCU)....we also went 2-2 against the top 230: Green Bay was the next best team we played at 231. We beat Grambling by 55, and played 6 of our 13 non con games against teams worse than them. Our one true road non con game was against DePaul (307) that won 3 games all year.

KemPom rates UNC's non con at 36. The other 2 seeds are at 10, 21, and 23. Iowa State is at 351......not a typo.

The Big 12 was an incredible league by any measure and our performance in those games played a role in seeding. The non con was absolute trash by any measure and also played a role in seeding.

What was total Strength of Schedule for the teams mentioned above?

The teams that really hurt us were Iowa and DePaul. A f*cking annual rivalry game and a conference challenge that we have zero control over.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

UConn message boards are not happy getting ISU in their region and they all seem to think that ISU was the 4th/5th best team overall. The Big East bias is horrible. Marquette is a good team, but they have zero business being a 2 seed. The committee is saying a 9 loss team in a weaker conference than the Big 12 has a more impressive resume than Iowa State? How do they justify that garbage? They beat Kansas out of conference, but Kansas has proven they're not that good (Kansas getting a 4 seed is a joke. Kansas should be a 6). UNC's resume is trash compared to ours.

Probably because we are...

 

[Halincandenza]

The Izzo March stuff is mostly based on what he did many years ago.

 

[mark82]

Yeah, I would imagine UConn fans aren’t happy. As I said in my previous post, in the committee’s attempts to punish ISU as much as they could get away with they also screwed over the overall #1 seed in the process. I don’t make a habit of feeling bad for UConn fans, but they got absolutely hosed by having us, Illinois, and Auburn in their region.

As for us, despite being placed in the East and having SDSU and potentially Drake as our Omaha opponents, all that said we should have no problems getting to the second weekend once you get over the outrage/annoyance.

I can't feel bad for UConn. They have 4 games in their own backyard. No matter who they play, that is a sizable advantage. UConn should be the overwhelming favorite to go the Final 4 from the East.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Yeah, I would imagine UConn fans aren’t happy. As I said in my previous post, in the committee’s attempts to punish ISU as much as they could get away with they also screwed over the overall #1 seed in the process. I don’t make a habit of feeling bad for UConn fans, but they got absolutely hosed by having us, Illinois, and Auburn in their region.

As for us, despite being placed in the East and having SDSU and potentially Drake as our Omaha opponents, all that said we should have no problems getting to the second weekend once you get over the outrage/annoyance.

Placing UCONN, Iowa State, Auburn, and Illinois in the same region really exposes the committee's laziness and it needs to be called out by the media. They clearly had this bracket made before Saturday's games were played, otherwise there's no way they place 4 out of the 5 PF tournament champs in the same region.

 

[MeanDean]

I was traveling all day yesterday and couldn’t follow all this really close. I’m catching up now and something I’ve been thinking is the Big 12 tournament wins are devalued by the committee because they see them as close to home games. I know there are metrics they look at that consider pretty much anything you want to look at, but the two knocks I’ve see against ISU is non con scheduling and a “mediocre” road/neutral record. Both of those things are BS reasons to make us a #8 overall. I think if we won the tournament if it was played in Texas with 1/3 of the fans we had in KC it would have weighed heavier. That’s a bunch of BS too. Home/away/neutral we have the most impressive win anyone had this entire year beating Houston the way we did.

Regardless, we are a 2 in Omaha. The tournament was never going to be easy. We are built for this. We are damn good, people don’t want to play us, and I don’t blame them.

As far as I know distance to neutral site games is a non-factor. UNC (and Duke and NCState) all played their tournament in NC - the same ******* state! No one is saying "UNC played in their own state and LOST so it's like losing a home game to a ****** team (NCState)."

If the committee is so adamant that "You can control your OOC SOS" why can't they say, "Your fans suck and don't support your team at a neutral site. That's not our problem, bit***s."

If it WAS a factor it just proves that the MBB committee is just like the Football committee. They do whatever the **** they want then pick some weird reason to justify it.

Edit: ACC Tourney was in DC. Still about the same distance from Chapel Hill as Ames is to KC. About 40 miles further.

 

[trevn]

As far as I know distance to neutral site games is a non-factor. UNC (and Duke and NCState) all played their tournament in NC - the same ******* state! No one is saying "UNC played in their own state and LOST so it's like a home game."

If it WAS a factor it just proves that the MBB committee is just like the Football committee. The do whatever the **** they want then pick some weird reason to justify it.

Oh I agree. I don't think this is a written rule thing at all. I think it's part of the unwritten politicking that takes place. I think the committee devalued our Big 12 tournament wins because even though they were "neutral" the committee likely saw them as more home. It's BS no matter how you look at it, but it doesn't matter now anyway. Just win. And I think we will.

 

[Cyclonepride]

247 has us ranked as the 3rd best team in the tournament (1. UConn, 2. Houston)

March Madness bracket: Ranking the NCAA Tournament's 25 best teams on Selection Sunday

With the NCAA Tournament's Field of 68 to be revealed Sunday night, here are the 25 best.

247sports.com

"Iowa State was the Big 12's runner-up to Houston before the Cyclones returned the favor and toppled the Cougars head to head in Saturday's league tournament title game. Truthfully, the Cyclones are dangerous and appear to be playing their best basketball of the campaign following their waltz through the postseason. One of those three wins in the conference tournament included a rematch with Kansas State, who gave Iowa State its only loss of the month in the regular-season finale."

 

[ZRF]

Big East got screwed. We got screwed. Uconn got screwed. North Carolina was gifted a great route to the finals. This committee blew this bracket super bad. It's almost unreal how bad they screwed up the seedings.

We got shafted, a lot of teams in the East bracket (including Uconn) got shafted, MSU and Wisky received the hand of god, and NC was gifted an "easy" trip to the Final Four as the worst number 1 seed.

It's clear they don't know how to properly use those tools, decide when those tools are extremely flawed (SOS in particular can overvalue losses to quality teams, overvalue the difference of a home win between lower Q2 and Q4 schools, and undervalues a non-con schedule like Kansas'). With that said we nor ISU can or will change the committtee so we need to adapt. Don't want to get hosed out of a seed? Don't schedule a weak non-con as history shows you will likely be penalized for it. It's better to schedule AND lose to some high quality teams than it is to win against cream puffs.

Disappointing performance by the committee but nobody should really be that surprised.

 

[Thomasrickj]

Probably because we are...

I know. That's why I was saying that. It's to further highlight the committee being a pooptastic bunch of poopheads making poopy brackets because of their poopy bias.

 

[Clonefan32]

The 8th overall thing sticks in my craw, but I still love our chances. Vegas has us at, what, the 6th best odds to win it all? That's remarkable and gives a more objective view at our chances.

I'm going to chose to look at it as a blessing. TJ will have their attention and this team playing with a chip on their shoulder is a dangerous thing. We don't have to look back too far to see the dangers of getting too high on yourself after winning the conference tournament. A bit of a jolt back to reality may be a good thing.

 

[Thomasrickj]

Looking at it, I don't hate our draw in Omaha. We shouldn't be concerned about a 15 seed, and I think we matchup extremely well with Drake. I don't have a clue on Wazzup but a non Big12 team on 1 day practice I like our odds.

The bigger issue is with the East and seeds overall. The projected East sweet 16 matchups would make sense as elite 8 matchups too. It's clear whatever criteria used to place teams was independent of actual team strength

I'm wondering if it's a bias because Drake is an Iowa team, but it seems like everyone on CF is picking Drake to win their first game. I think Wazzu is going to absolutely steamroll Drake by double digits.

 

[Thomasrickj]

The 8th overall thing sticks in my craw, but I still love our chances. Vegas has us at, what, the 6th best odds to win it all? That's remarkable and gives a more objective view at our chances.

I'm going to chose to look at it as a blessing. TJ will have their attention and this team playing with a chip on their shoulder is a dangerous thing. We don't have to look back too far to see the dangers of getting too high on yourself after winning the conference tournament. A bit of a jolt back to reality may be a good thing.

Vegas doesn't have us at 6th overall. We're number 10 now.

 

[bawbie]

You choose who you play in non-con, not in the conference. Did you decide to make your schedule more difficult or not.

That makes sense if the overall SOS is low, or if the conference is not strong, that provides a better picture to evaluate a team and put their SOS in context. But to ignore a high overall SOS, because you didn't choose to make it harder, is deciding that one metric is more important than the whole picture.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

The thing that frustrates me with this whole process of the committee remains me of the football playoff committee. There is no set structure of how they are going to come up with the teams, it changes every year. So this season non-conference schedule strength mattered more than conference tournament results and overall SOS. Next year this same committee will come out and be saying the opposite and talk about how this team moved up the seed line because of the way it finished out their season.

Set the criteria, tell everyone what it is and stick to it, stop looking at the name on the front of the jersey and start looking at how they actually played and who they played. Results matter, stop changing the criteria every year. This is just like the 13th data point.

 

[bawbie]

You don’t think Baylor would have gotten a 2 seed if they beat us in the second round?

I think they may have had Baylor as a 2 if we didn't beat Houston.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Placing UCONN, Iowa State, Auburn, and Illinois in the same region really exposes the committee's laziness and it needs to be called out by the media. They clearly had this bracket made before Saturday's games were played, otherwise there's no way they place 4 out of the 5 PF tournament champs in the same region.

That's not even the most egregious one. They assumed VCU was going to win and when Duquesne did they just gave Duquesne VCUs resume and didn't re-order the list. Duquesne is, at least, two seed lines higher than the should be.

If the NET is the metric they're set on just release the formula and then use it to select and seed. Stop with the subjective ********.