[PVTree]

I thought the condoms did enough to get into the tourney. At least, I would have picked them above the solar satans. ASU had a terrific start, but finished 8-10 in the conference while U$C finished second in the conference.

Just like in football, P12 is getting no respect.

[PVTree]

I thought the condoms did enough to get into the tourney. At least, I would have picked them above the solar satans. ASU had a terrific start, but finished 8-10 in the conference while U$C finished second in the conference.

Just like in football, P12 is getting no respect.

[CowboyIndian]

Gee... too bad. 😂

[CowboyIndian]

Gee... too bad. 😂

[burger]

ASU had a couple of marquee wins against Kansas and Xavier.  The committee must have given those a ton of weight.

That said, I love thinking that Davis' half-court shot against USC was what kept them out of the Tourney.  I know it doesn't really work that way, but it's a pleasant thought.

NIT bracket out at 530 PT I believe.

[burger]

ASU had a couple of marquee wins against Kansas and Xavier.  The committee must have given those a ton of weight.

That said, I love thinking that Davis' half-court shot against USC was what kept them out of the Tourney.  I know it doesn't really work that way, but it's a pleasant thought.

NIT bracket out at 530 PT I believe.

[StanfordBB]

ASU had a couple of marquee wins against Kansas and Xavier.  The committee must have given those a ton of weight.

That said, I love thinking that Davis' half-court shot against U$C was what kept them out of the Tourney.  I know it doesn't really work that way, but it's a pleasant thought.

NIT bracket out at 530 PT I believe.

Yes  5:30 on ESPNU and Stanford is currently listed as second team OUT

[StanfordBB]

ASU had a couple of marquee wins against Kansas and Xavier.  The committee must have given those a ton of weight.

That said, I love thinking that Davis' half-court shot against U$C was what kept them out of the Tourney.  I know it doesn't really work that way, but it's a pleasant thought.

NIT bracket out at 530 PT I believe.

Yes  5:30 on ESPNU and Stanford is currently listed as second team OUT

[PVTree]

Gee... too bad. 😂

Yes, not saying that it's a bad thing, just that they did get screwed.  ;)

[PVTree]

Gee... too bad. 😂

Yes, not saying that it's a bad thing, just that they did get screwed.  ;)

[chrisk]

Stanford hosts BYU

[chrisk]

Stanford hosts BYU

[2006alum]

I think USC got snubbed because although they had an RPI of 34, they had zero signature wins. Their best two wins were Middle Tennessee and New Mexico State, which means they beat exactly one team that's dancing. They lost to UCLA twice, Arizona twice, Arizona State, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. They had lots of chances for signature wins and came away with nothing. My biggest observation about the committee over the years is that they pick teams based on their ceiling, not their floor. ASU has had atrocious losses, but they beat Kansas away and Xavier on a neutral floor. That team is capable of a big upset, which juices excitement for the tournament. USC would almost surely conform to seeding. What's the upside of that for the tournament when you're slotting an 11 or 12 seed?

[2006alum]

I think USC got snubbed because although they had an RPI of 34, they had zero signature wins. Their best two wins were Middle Tennessee and New Mexico State, which means they beat exactly one team that's dancing. They lost to UCLA twice, Arizona twice, Arizona State, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. They had lots of chances for signature wins and came away with nothing. My biggest observation about the committee over the years is that they pick teams based on their ceiling, not their floor. ASU has had atrocious losses, but they beat Kansas away and Xavier on a neutral floor. That team is capable of a big upset, which juices excitement for the tournament. USC would almost surely conform to seeding. What's the upside of that for the tournament when you're slotting an 11 or 12 seed?

[wallendar]

Per Wilner, the committee examines the “entire body of work”.  In essence, that means conference games/results have the same value as non-conference games/results.  As noted by 2006alum, this is the reason for ASU over USC.  This philosophy also hurt St. Mary’s.  Their non-conference schedule was very weak.

Personally, I do not like the idea of putting such weight on the non-conference games.  It puts the mid-majors at a distinct disadvantage.

[wallendar]

Per Wilner, the committee examines the “entire body of work”.  In essence, that means conference games/results have the same value as non-conference games/results.  As noted by 2006alum, this is the reason for ASU over USC.  This philosophy also hurt St. Mary’s.  Their non-conference schedule was very weak.

Personally, I do not like the idea of putting such weight on the non-conference games.  It puts the mid-majors at a distinct disadvantage.

[oldalum]

Hard to get these words out of my keyboard, but I think Wilner had it right on ASU (in terms of whether ASU deserved a bid based on the current selection criteria. The selection criteria have changed from what we are used to. Conference means nothing-- a game is a game-- and all games count equally no matter when they took place (November vs. February). No credit for playing well late, also no penalty for swooning in the last half of the season (ASU).

see https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/11/n...-weakness/

[oldalum]

Hard to get these words out of my keyboard, but I think Wilner had it right on ASU (in terms of whether ASU deserved a bid based on the current selection criteria. The selection criteria have changed from what we are used to. Conference means nothing-- a game is a game-- and all games count equally no matter when they took place (November vs. February). No credit for playing well late, also no penalty for swooning in the last half of the season (ASU).

see https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/11/n...-weakness/

[BostonCard]

*snap* that was my heart breaking.

BC

[BostonCard]

*snap* that was my heart breaking.

BC

[JJJ]

I put this on the BYU thread but maybe it fits here better;
The Dagger's take on the 5 biggest snubs (and pros and cons).

1. USC
2. Oklahoma State
3. Louisville
4. Notre Dame
5. St. Mary's

http://sports.yahoo.com/years-five-bigge...20936.html

[JJJ]

I put this on the BYU thread but maybe it fits here better;
The Dagger's take on the 5 biggest snubs (and pros and cons).

1. USC
2. Oklahoma State
3. Louisville
4. Notre Dame
5. St. Mary's

http://sports.yahoo.com/years-five-bigge...20936.html

[Treebound]

So I wonder if the committee snubbed sc because of the alleged NCAA violations and their history of denying any wrong doing or their general "lack of institutional control."    I won't be shedding any tears for them.  At least UofA sat its coach for a game when the story started to break.

[Treebound]

So I wonder if the committee snubbed sc because of the alleged NCAA violations and their history of denying any wrong doing or their general "lack of institutional control."    I won't be shedding any tears for them.  At least UofA sat its coach for a game when the story started to break.

[Ratmandoo]

So I wonder if the committee snubbed sc because of the alleged NCAA violations and their history of denying any wrong doing or their general "lack of institutional control."    I won't be shedding any tears for them.  At least UofA sat its coach for a game when the story started to break.

Well USC, Oklahoma State and Louisville were all implicated in the FBI probe at the beginning of the college basketball season (along with Arizona)

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...estigation

I definitely don't feel bad for those teams.

[Ratmandoo]

So I wonder if the committee snubbed sc because of the alleged NCAA violations and their history of denying any wrong doing or their general "lack of institutional control."    I won't be shedding any tears for them.  At least UofA sat its coach for a game when the story started to break.

Well USC, Oklahoma State and Louisville were all implicated in the FBI probe at the beginning of the college basketball season (along with Arizona)

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...estigation

I definitely don't feel bad for those teams.

[newguy]

That said, I love thinking that Davis' half-court shot against U$C was what kept them out of the Tourney.  I know it doesn't really work that way, but it's a pleasant thought.

every game counts when you're on the bubble.

[newguy]

That said, I love thinking that Davis' half-court shot against U$C was what kept them out of the Tourney.  I know it doesn't really work that way, but it's a pleasant thought.

every game counts when you're on the bubble.

[Treebound]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=18859.msg225786#msg225786 date=1520832187]
So I wonder if the committee snubbed sc because of the alleged NCAA violations and their history of denying any wrong doing or their general "lack of institutional control."    I won't be shedding any tears for them.  At least UofA sat its coach for a game when the story started to break.

Well U$C, Oklahoma State and Louisville were all implicated in the FBI probe at the beginning of the college basketball season (along with Arizona)

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...estigation

I definitely don't feel bad for those teams.
[/quote]

Thanks for that post R-man.  So it sure seems like the Selection Committee sent a nice message to all three schools.  Each of those in"famous" programs has a history of NCAA violations.  It generally takes months/years for the penalties to come out and then people complain that the players that committed the violations are long gone, so why punish the current players or program?  That's baloney to me, but this snub seems fitting for those teams that were on the bubble.  How many violations does it take before major punishment should be put forth?    Let the Lynn Swann whining begin.

[Treebound]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=18859.msg225786#msg225786 date=1520832187]
So I wonder if the committee snubbed sc because of the alleged NCAA violations and their history of denying any wrong doing or their general "lack of institutional control."    I won't be shedding any tears for them.  At least UofA sat its coach for a game when the story started to break.

Well U$C, Oklahoma State and Louisville were all implicated in the FBI probe at the beginning of the college basketball season (along with Arizona)

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...estigation

I definitely don't feel bad for those teams.
[/quote]

Thanks for that post R-man.  So it sure seems like the Selection Committee sent a nice message to all three schools.  Each of those in"famous" programs has a history of NCAA violations.  It generally takes months/years for the penalties to come out and then people complain that the players that committed the violations are long gone, so why punish the current players or program?  That's baloney to me, but this snub seems fitting for those teams that were on the bubble.  How many violations does it take before major punishment should be put forth?    Let the Lynn Swann whining begin.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Ratmandoo link=topic=18859.msg225788#msg225788 date=1520838216]
[quote author=Treebound link=topic=18859.msg225786#msg225786 date=1520832187]
So I wonder if the committee snubbed sc because of the alleged NCAA violations and their history of denying any wrong doing or their general "lack of institutional control."    I won't be shedding any tears for them.  At least UofA sat its coach for a game when the story started to break.

Well U$C, Oklahoma State and Louisville were all implicated in the FBI probe at the beginning of the college basketball season (along with Arizona)

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...estigation

I definitely don't feel bad for those teams.
[/quote]

Thanks for that post R-man.  So it sure seems like the Selection Committee sent a nice message to all three schools.  Each of those in"famous" programs has a history of NCAA violations.  It generally takes months/years for the penalties to come out and then people complain that the players that committed the violations are long gone, so why punish the current players or program?  That's baloney to me, but this snub seems fitting for those teams that were on the bubble.  How many violations does it take before major punishment should be put forth?    Let the Lynn Swann whining begin.
[/quote]

I think the only message that the Selection Committee (which includes Bernard Muir) is sending to the schools that did not make it is to schedule up and beat tournament teams.  Oklahoma and Arizona State slumped over the final two months of the season. They lost to mediocre teams and did not look particularly good. But they had wins in December and January that propped them up.  ASU beat Xavier and Kansas (both #1 seeds). Oklahoma beat Wichita St, Kansas, Texas Tech and TCU.  U.SC lost to Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arizona (twice), UCLA (twice) and ASU.  U.SC resume did not measure up.

[Spiny_Norman]

[quote author=Ratmandoo link=topic=18859.msg225788#msg225788 date=1520838216]
[quote author=Treebound link=topic=18859.msg225786#msg225786 date=1520832187]
So I wonder if the committee snubbed sc because of the alleged NCAA violations and their history of denying any wrong doing or their general "lack of institutional control."    I won't be shedding any tears for them.  At least UofA sat its coach for a game when the story started to break.

Well U$C, Oklahoma State and Louisville were all implicated in the FBI probe at the beginning of the college basketball season (along with Arizona)

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/20...estigation

I definitely don't feel bad for those teams.
[/quote]

Thanks for that post R-man.  So it sure seems like the Selection Committee sent a nice message to all three schools.  Each of those in"famous" programs has a history of NCAA violations.  It generally takes months/years for the penalties to come out and then people complain that the players that committed the violations are long gone, so why punish the current players or program?  That's baloney to me, but this snub seems fitting for those teams that were on the bubble.  How many violations does it take before major punishment should be put forth?    Let the Lynn Swann whining begin.
[/quote]

I think the only message that the Selection Committee (which includes Bernard Muir) is sending to the schools that did not make it is to schedule up and beat tournament teams.  Oklahoma and Arizona State slumped over the final two months of the season. They lost to mediocre teams and did not look particularly good. But they had wins in December and January that propped them up.  ASU beat Xavier and Kansas (both #1 seeds). Oklahoma beat Wichita St, Kansas, Texas Tech and TCU.  U.SC lost to Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arizona (twice), UCLA (twice) and ASU.  U.SC resume did not measure up.

[CrazedZooChimp]

You know what's great about college basketball? It does what we all wish college football would do it. It doesn't matter how many losses you have as much as it matters that you played and beat good teams.

I'm not even convinced U$C has a more impressive conference performance than ASU. ASU beat both U$C and UCLA, U$C's best win (period, since their wins over tourney teams were two mid-major auto bids) was probably against Utah...

[CrazedZooChimp]

You know what's great about college basketball? It does what we all wish college football would do it. It doesn't matter how many losses you have as much as it matters that you played and beat good teams.

I'm not even convinced U$C has a more impressive conference performance than ASU. ASU beat both U$C and UCLA, U$C's best win (period, since their wins over tourney teams were two mid-major auto bids) was probably against Utah...

[wallendar]

Given that so many believe that only conference champions should participate in the CFP, it is interesting that college hoops has chosen to double down on the concept that conference affiliations and standings carry no more weight that non-conference games. I agree with you that college hoops has the right idea.  I do not believe conference championships in college football should be weighted more heavily than overall record. 

[wallendar]

Given that so many believe that only conference champions should participate in the CFP, it is interesting that college hoops has chosen to double down on the concept that conference affiliations and standings carry no more weight that non-conference games. I agree with you that college hoops has the right idea.  I do not believe conference championships in college football should be weighted more heavily than overall record. 

[Hulk01]

Shouldn't your headline always by punctuated with the grinning-its-ass-off emoji?  :D

[Hulk01]

Shouldn't your headline always by punctuated with the grinning-its-ass-off emoji?  :D