OK so this bracketology stuff has me confused...

[1984Dawg]

Arkansas has the edge on Ole Miss because of the SEC record, but I don't see how they're more than just a few spots apart. And I really don't see how Florida is ahead of Ole Miss at all.

I think the discussion should start with the RPI. If teams are relatively close (inside 10-15 spots of each other) then start looking at how they played against tournament-type competition (top 50) and how they fared down the stretch (last 10/12 and conference records).

Ole Miss's RPI is 43. Florida's is 64. That should be the end of discussion. On top of that UF only finished one game ahead in the SEC (albeit, on the tougher side), UF's Top 50 record is awful, they stunk down the stretch (3-7), and Ole Miss beat them head to head (albeit, in oxford).

If they're comparable, I understand giving UF the edge so they can defend their title. Don't agree with it, but I understand it. But they're not comparable. Not close.

 

[patdog]

I don't see how Florida should be ahead of Mississippi, either. They have virtually identical records, but Florida's came against a much weaker schedule. Mississippi also beat Florida head to head (as opposed to their split with Arkansas).</p>

 

[VegasDawg13]

I 100% agree with everything you said.

1) Bad losses are already factored into the RPI. Why do they have to be looked at again? You might say the same about top 50 wins, but the difference to me is that that proves how you perform against the quality of competition you will face in the tournament, which is obviously important in determining who should be there.

2) Like you said, Ole Miss can only blame themselves, though. But even my problem with that is that someone who screwed up their chance to get in is going to get in. Why would you not want the team that has proven throughout the year that they can hang with and beat top competition.

Ole Miss has a better RPI, better record against top 50, and comparable last 12 to the following teams ahead of them (according to Joe Lunardi):
Villanova, Maryland, St. Joe's, UAB (their last 12 is 9-3, but I would argue that 9-3 in CUSA is at least as bad as 6-6 in the SEC), VCU (see UAB), Florida, AZ St, Syracuse, Ohio State, Oregon, New Mexico (see UAB), and Texas A&M. (Also, Arkansas has an edge over OM in RPI that's so small that if an opponent's opponent loses a game, they will likely be added to the list).

You can make an argument that Ole Miss shouldn't be in the tournament, but they should be ahead of most if not all of those teams listed.

 

[Brutius]

Yes. 9-7 is clearly better than 7-9 when you played the exact same schedule. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

"The only thing Arkansas is better at OleMiss at is their conference record." Not true. Arkansas has a tougher schedule, a higher RPI, fewer bad losses, and fewer home losses. Really, the only thing Mississippi has over Arkansas is 2 top 25 wins to Arkansas's 1, but is a neutral site win over #22 Clemson really all that more impressive than a road win over #35 Baylor? And they both have the same number of top 100 wins.

I said their rpi stats were virtually identical. They are 42 and 43 in the RPI, they are 9-4 and 9-5 against RPI 101+. Arkansas has more home wins, OleMiss has more road wins. Its a virtual tie in almost all RPI categories.</p>I don't understand why any team would ever schedule anyone but SWAC And MAAC schools in the pre-conference season if the only thing that matters is your record in the conference.

 

[patdog]

I don't understand why any team would ever schedule anyone but SWAC And MAAC schools in the pre-conference season if the only thing that matters is your record in the conference.

That's one of the things that's hurting Mississippi when you compare them to Arkansas. They played a significantly weaker non-conference schedule than Arkansas did. </p>

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

I know exactly what happened last year. Whether or not they were the last team in or not has no bearing on the point. The committee saw enough to justify putting them in. I don't give a 17 what the "so-called" experts say because they are usually assigned that label simply because it lends creedence to the organization they work for.

The bottom line is, in the eyes of the selection committee, Oregon St. did JUST enough to warrant putting them in the field. The committee even made them prove themselves by placing them in the UVA regional where they would have to play one of the hottest teams in the nation. In the end, Oregon St. proved the committee right and the "experts" wrong. Teams just don't go 11-1 against the competition they faced in the tourney (with all games but 2 being multiple run victories) if they don't deserve to be there.

At the end of the day, I'm not arguing that it is clear at this point whether or not UF deserves to go. They are clearly on the bubble. My point is that they don't deserve to make it based on last years team's success.

That said, I know you will argue and call me names and so on. I'm done with this discussion (at least with you) because you are basically incapable of having a rational discussion (at least with me).

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I have huge issues with. Basically your new argument is that non conference games are meaningless. Who cares that Kentucky went 6-7 with horrible losses, they did good in conference they should be in the tournament. Who cares that OleMiss beat (then) #15 Clemson, they were 7-9 in conference they don't deserve to go to the tournament.

I personally think OleMiss is more deserving than Arkansas, Illinois State, Oregon, and Ohio State.</p>

I think what we will see is OSU and Oregon losing their first game in the big ten tournament (against Michigan State and Washington State), and OleMiss winning 1 or 2 games in the SEC tournament. Then things will be even more in OleMiss favor.</p>

Correction: Only one horrible loss for Kentucky. San Diego is now a Top 100 team thanks to their winning the WCC tournament.

And I didn't say that nonconference games were meaningless. I just mentioned my second criteria, conference standing, but let's go into nonconference games now that you bring it up:

Team Record RPI SOS
Ole Miss 14-0 8 128
Ohio State 9-4 29 13
Oregon 9-3 68 162

Yes, Ole Miss has an undefeated nonconference record and are ranked #8 in the RPI in nonconference games. Ohio State has a 29 RPI with a much superior strength of schedule-- and the Buckeyes and Rebels both played Presbyterian. I will give Ole Miss the edge over Oregon as far as nonconference performance is concerned.

Comparing Ole Miss to Arkansas, Illinois State, Ohio State, and Oregon:

35 <font color="#000000">Illinois St.</font> <font color="#000000">MVC</font> 23-9 .5903 .5431 <font color="#FF0000">69</font> 0-5 5-0 13-3 5-1 8-3 62 115 8-2 9-8
42 Arkansas SEC 20-10 .5858 .5609 40 4-5 3-1 <font color="#FF0000">9-4 4-0</font> 11-3 41 87 5-5 <font color="#FF0000">5-9
</font>43 Mississippi <font color="#FF0000">SEC</font> 21-9 .5854 .5478 61 5-4 2-0 <font color="#FF0000"><font color="#FF0000">9-5</font></font><font color="#FF0000"> 5-0</font> 14-0 8 128 5-5 7-7
49 Ohio St. B10 19-12 .5777 .5702 21 <font color="#FF0000">3-9 </font> <font color="#000000">4-1</font> 6-2 6-0 9-4 29 13 <font color="#FF0000">4-6</font> <font color="#FF0000">5-9
</font> 53 Oregon <font color="#000000">P10</font> 18-12 .5727 .5657 <font color="#0000FF">30</font> <font color="#FF0000">4-8 3-2</font> 5-2 6-0 9-3 <font color="#FF0000">68</font> <font color="#FF0000">162 </font> 6-4 6-9

Illinois State
Positives: Highest RPI; best conference placement; best performance in last 10 games; best road and neutral court record.
Negative: Worst Strength of Schedule.

Arkansas
Positives: Nothing really stands out as far as Arkansas is concerned in this group of five. Probably the most average team across the board. The Razorbacks' advantage is in individual comparisons.
Negatives: Record vs. 101+; worst road and neutral court record.

Ole Miss
Positives: Best record vs. Top 100; best nonconference RPI.
Negatives: Worst conference placement; Worst record vs. 101+

Ohio State
Positives: Best overall strength of schedule; Beaten teams they've supposed to beat.
Negatives: Performance against Top 50; Last ten games; road and neutral court record.

Oregon
Positives: Peformance in 2nd toughest conference; beaten teams they've supposed to beat.
Negatives: Peformance versus Top 100 teams; Nonconference RPI & SOS.

Illinois State's positives outweigh Ole Miss's in my book, and the Redbirds are in.

Arkansas and Ole Miss are fairly similar teams, which is why unlike others on this board, I've not said that Arkansas is a lock. That being said, when comparing the two schools Arkansas has an ever-so-slightly better RPI, a better SOS, an ever-so-slightly better performance against 101+ teams, and was ahead of the Rebels by two games in the SEC, so they're in.

Ohio State's strength is Ole Miss's weakness and vice versa. The Buckeyes have a better strength of schedule and conference record and have performed better against teams they're supposed to beat. Ole Miss's strength of schedule pales in comparison and they've not beaten teams they're supposed to beat; however, the Rebels have a fantastic record against Top 100 teams. So the question is, does the Committee select the Apple (Ole Miss) or the Orange (Ohio State)? Right now, I'd say it's the Orange.

Oregon. I think Oregon's the weakest of the five teams in this comparison. They're hanging their hats on a .500 record in a good conference and their ability to beat the teams they're supposed to defeat.

In order, I'd go: Arkansas, Illinois State, Ohio State, Ole Miss, and then Oregon.

I agree. If Ohio State and Oregon lose their conference tournament games, they are out. The questions then would be: Will Ole Miss take advantage? Will it matter anyway? After all, Butler (to use an example) could lose the Horizon tournament and get an at-large bid. </p>

 

[Goat Holder]

That said, I know you will argue and call me names and so on. I'm done with this discussion (at least with you) because you are basically incapable of having a rational discussion (at least with me).

You were done with this discussion a couple of posts ago, pal.

 

[Brutius]

has beaten nobody. They are 0-5 against the top 50 RPI. They got schooled in the conference tournament...by THIRTY POINTS. How the hell do they deserve to go to the tournament over OleMiss?

 

[patdog]

Illinois St. has no business even being mentioned as a bubble team.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

<font color="#000000">...and his tale of the tape:

35</font> <font color="#000000">Illinois St.</font> <font color="#000000">MVC</font> <font color="#000000">23-9 .5903 .5431 69 0-5 5-0 13-3 5-1 8-3 62 115 8-2 9-8
43</font> <font color="#000000">Mississippi</font> <font color="#000000">SEC</font> <font color="#000000">21-9 .5854 .5478 61 5-4 2-0 9-5 5-0 14-0 8 128 5-5 7-7
</font>
Better RPI - <font color="#FF0000">Illinois State
<font color="#000000">Better Record -</font> Illinois State
<font color="#000000">Better SOS - Ole Miss</font>
</font>Better Conference Standing - <font color="#FF0000">Illinois State</font>
Better Performance vs. Top 50 - Ole Miss
Better Performance vs. Top 100 - Ole Miss
Better Performance vs. 101+ - <font color="#FF0000">Illinois State</font>
Better Nonconference Standing - Ole Miss
Better Nonconference RPI - Ole Miss
Better Nonconference SOS - <font color="#FF0000">Illinois State
</font>Better Performance over last ten games - <font color="#FF0000">Illinois State
</font>Better Road/Neutral Court Record - <font color="#FF0000">Illinois State

<font color="#000000">Tale of the Tape: Illinois State 7, Ole Miss 5</font>

</font><font color="#000000">Illinois State has outperformed Ole Miss over the course of the season. Yes, they lost to Drake by 30 points in the MVC tournament final, but the Redbirds have a better conference record, a better performance over the last ten games, and have beaten the teams they're supposed to beat. The Rebels have a mediocre conference record, mediocre performance over the past ten games, and haven't done quite as well as Illinois State when playing the teams they're supposed to beat. </font>

 

[Brutius]

but comparing a conference record in the MVC to a conference record in the SEC is just a horrible comparison. I can't even come up with a funny metaphor to say how stupid a comparison it is. Same thing with the last 10 games. It's a lot easier to have a good record the last 10 games when you are playing Missouri State (twice), Wichita State, Northern Iowa, and Evansville instead of Arkansas, Mississippi State, Kentucky etc.</p>

Illinois State doesn't deserve to be in jack squat. They beat a bunch of horrible teams and lost to every good team they played.</p>

 

[The Lord Humongous]

If you'll read my posts on this board, you'll find that the last thing I am is an MSU homer that doesn't give Mississippi credit when it's due. I'm one of the ones who said even last year when we went to the CWS that overall UM still has a better baseball program than we do.

How can you say that UM is more deserving than Arkansas? They played the exact same conference schedule. Arkansas finished with a winning record. UM finished with a losing record. Saying that UM deserves to be in over Arkansas is ********. At least with the others it's debatable because you don't have any good way to compare the teams directly. But with UM-Arkansas you do have a damn good way of comparing them directly. And Arkansas was clearly the better team through the duration of the SEC schedule.

You aren't a homer but completely refuse to use the words "Ole Miss"? UM, Mississippi....c'mon admit it....certainly won't offend anyone. You're a homer.
</p>

 

[ChroamOneHundred]

What I like about college basketball is all this "bubble" stuff only matters to the teams that don't get the automatic bid from the conference. Every team has a chance to play their way in by winning on the court. The "bubble" only matters to at-large teams that didn't cut it in their conference tournament. If any team doesn't make it to the NCAAT, they have to look no further than the game they lost that made them hope for an at-large bid in the first place.

In the SEC, every team gets to play in the SECT, so it's really no ones fault but their own if they don't make the NCAAT. Not some other team in some other conference that had 0.4 better RPI; or 1 more win over Top 50 RPI teams; or one less "bad" loss; or because some dudes sitting around a table s-curved your *** right into the NIT. You want to dance? Win.

 

[patdog]

You're actually comparing Ilinios St. and Mississippi's conference records and records in the last 10 games (which are very closely related)? That's ridiculous. Mississippi plays in the #4 ranked conference. Illinois St. plays in the #8 ranked conference. Can you not begin to see that if they swapped conferences, their conference records and records in the last 10 games would likely be very, very different?

 

[Maroon Eagle]

You're actually comparing Ilinios St. and Mississippi's conference records and records in the last 10 games (which are very closely related)? That's ridiculous. Mississippi plays in the #4 ranked conference. Illinois St. plays in the #8 ranked conference. Can you not begin to see that if they swapped conferences, their conference records and records in the last 10 games would likely be very, very different?

Yes, I am serious. The committee has been known to pay attention to the last ten games played. For instance, they might be interested to see that Illinois State won a road game at #64 Southern Illinois to clinch 2nd place in the MVC while Ole Miss lost at #159 LSU.</p>

Besides the last time the 8th ranked conference failed to send two teams to the NCAA tournament was in 2001 when the MWC sent one team, BYU. That is the only year it's occurred since 1999 according to kenpom.com.
</p>

The last time a conference runnerup from an 8th ranked conference was not invited to the tournament was 2005. Wichita State finished second in the MVC, but was left out in favor of regular season champion Southern Illinois, third place Northern Iowa, and tournament champion Creighton.
</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

I agree with that. If you don't make the tourney, you might be able to gripe some, but the ultimate blame goes on your own team for not winning more. If we don't make it, it'll be because we didn't take care of some bad teams on our schedule, not because the selection committee screws us. The selection committee can't screw you if you take care of your own business.

 

[cutbaitdawg]

ole miss still has a shot do you? Other than winning the SECT outright, you guys are toast and you know it.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Second, it's easy to say that this team or that team won't win the SECs since you have an 11 in 12 chance of being right. That being said, let's look at Ole Miss's path.

Georgia - who they handled pretty easily on their home court this past Saturday
Kentucky - who they almost beat at Rupp with Patterson
State/Florida/Bama - teams who they were 3-2 against, right?
Tennessee - who they played to the buzzer on their home court

Don't let hate blind you. OM got a good draw and are a decent bet to be playing on Sunday.

 

[muddawgs33]

We can come at from another angle since you are hung up on MSU not winning the CWS last year.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. You're the dumbass that brought this up and winning the national championship and making it to the CWS have nothing in common.

Oregon St. got to defend their title last year because they earned the right to do so, not because they were champs the year prior.

Wrong. They didn't earn anything. They were one of the last teams in and there was some controversy of them getting in.

</p>

If not for winning two of its last three games at UCLA, the Beavers probably would have been left out of the NCAA Tournament altogether, after they finished sixth in the Pac-10 standings with a 10-14 record. Many believed the Beavers were invited to the NCAAs only because they were the defending champions.</p>

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=2915438

But I guess I proved your point. </p>

</p>

Why was Florida not given the opportunity to defend their NC in football 2 seasons ago at the end of this year? I know you will make the argument that football at D1A is not a tourney format, but even in the tourney format, someone has to make the decision on who is included & who is not.

Ummm... I don't know... Maybe because they didn't EARN the right to play for the championship. Why would I use that as an argument, when I can just say that D1 football has a formula to decide who plays for the national championship? And the last time I checked, there wasn't a component in the formula that gives the defending national champion extra points.

</p>

Why should a team that is full of players that basically had no part in the previous 2 NCs be rewarded for something they did not accomplish?

So, by your reasoning, we shouldn't even refer to Florida as the 2 time defending champs, because the players that won it aren't there anymore. The last time I checked the University of Florida won the national championship and they got the trophy. So like I said earlier, if the University of Florida are competing for bids with other teams with similiar resumes, then they should get the chance to defend their title.
</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

I agree that our draw is favorable. I definitely think anyone that isn't on the UT/Vandy/Arkansas side of the bracket got the more favorable draw.

I still don't think we make it to Sunday though. At best, I see us making it to the semis. I just don't think we can play well consistently enough to make a 3 or 4 game run. We should beat UGA, and we'll have a chance to beat UK, but I don't have a lot of faith in our team to do too much.

 

[cutbaitdawg]

..short of winning the SECT. do you think I am the only person who thinks that?

 

[muddawgs33]

Whether or not they were the last team in or not has no bearing on the point. The committee saw enough to justify putting them in.

So you're a hypocrite. I mean it's ok for the committee to think that oregon st. deserved to be in but if the committee thinks florida deserves to be in then it's BS. You're getting as bad as coach is about back tracking when proven wrong.

I don't give a 17 what the "so-called" experts say because they are usually assigned that label simply because it lends creedence to the organization they work for.

So basically what your saying is because they prove you are wrong, then they are dumbasses and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

The committee even made them prove themselves by placing them in the UVA regional where they would have to play one of the hottest teams in the nation. In the end, Oregon St. proved the committee right and the "experts" wrong. Teams just don't go 11-1 against the competition they faced in the tourney (with all games but 2 being multiple run victories) if they don't deserve to be there.

What's the difference of the committee putting Florida at a 10, 11, or 12 seed? I'll answer that none. They still would have to face better competition and earn their wins. I just don't understand how it's ok for a bubble baseball team to get a chance to prove the "paid experts" wrong but it's not for Florida.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I think they need some help. As in no real shockers in the remaining conference tournaments. With that and a run to the finals on Sunday, I think they get in. Again, if someone unexpected gets in from the ACC, Pac 10, Big 10 or 12 or East, then their chances are reduced. Their margin of error is zero.

 

[Cains Major]

champions in lesser(NOT MID MAJOR, they don't like that) leagues, OM might need to win more than I thought. Not as many spots left.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

So you're a hypocrite. I mean it's ok for the committee to think that oregon st. deserved to be in but if the committee thinks florida deserves to be in then it's BS. You're getting as bad as coach is about back tracking when proven wrong.

That is not what I said at all. I have never once in this discussion said UF does not deserve to be in. I have said that they are clearly on the bubble. What I have said repeatedly is that they do not deserve to be in the field simply based on the fact that they were the NCs for the last 2 years. If the committee feels justified putting them in the field of 65 this year based on this year's accomplishments then fine.

So basically what your saying is because they prove you are wrong, then they are dumbasses and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

They did not prove me wrong. They regularly prove themselves wrong. They said OSU did not belong in the tourney. OSU won the CWS. A couple of years ago, they said UF did not belong on the football field with Ohio St. UF promptly beat their ***. My point is people are often labeled experts simply because they have been in a certain field for an extended period of time regardless of their results.

What's the difference of the committee putting Florida at a 10, 11, or 12 seed? I'll answer that none. They still would have to face better competition and earn their wins. I just don't understand how it's ok for a bubble baseball team to get a chance to prove the "paid experts" wrong but it's not for Florida.

There is no difference. As I said above, IF the committee deems UF worthy of a bid, then fine. They are on the bubble and an argument can be made either way. My point all along has been that UF does NOT deserve a bid simply because they won the NC the last 2 seasons.

It is funny that you label me like Coach and accuse me of backtracking when you apparently don't have the cognitive skills to even comprehend my posts. I have never changed positions. I have always said that UF is a bubble team. Clearly OSU was a bubble team as well which meant that the committee had justification for putting them in the tourney; justification that extended beyond them being the previous year's NC. If that happens this year with UF, fine. UF should not be given special consideration based on results from the previous two years. Is this clear at all to you yet?

 

[Goat Holder]

nm

 

[wpnetdawg]

The bottom line is, in the eyes of the selection committee, Oregon St. did JUST enough to warrant putting them in the field. The committee even made them prove themselves by placing them in the UVA regional where they would have to play one of the hottest teams in the nation.-

It has generally been my experience that the stronger the regional a team has been placed in, the weaker the team is perceived to be by the committee.

It might even be argued that Oregon State was considered to be a strong #3 because the NCAA sometimes uses an S-curve (strong 1, weak 2, strong 3, weak 4).

To argue that the NCAA put them in that regional to prove themselves makes little sense to me. Under that theory, Florida will be placed in the tourney as a 13-seed in a strong regional in order to prove themselves.

Looking back after the fact, there is no doubt that Oregon State deserved to be in the tourney. My question is this, if a pre-NC Oregon State team with the same resume tried to get in the NCAAT, would they have gotten in? I am not saying that I have the answer, but it is a point worth pondering.

 

[wpnetdawg]

Not saying that is right or wrong, just that is the way I feel it is going to be.

I think Bracketology doesn't even have them listed in the "Last Four Out" or "Next Four Out". That guy is usually pretty good (doesn't he usually get 62 or 63 right?). That means they'll have to pass eight teams and that assumes there isn't a rash of upsets.

There also seems to be this nationwide sentiment that the SEC is weak this year, which won't help the league get six.

I will say this though. If Ole Miss wins two and doesn't get in, it will be an injustice.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

you have nothing to add. I have been clear in my points. You can't understand, so you insult. It is your M.O. & that is fine.

 

[VegasDawg13]

Someone who had a chance to earn their way in but blew it is going to get in. In this case we're talking about Illinois State (lost by 30 in their conference tournament) and Ole Miss (lost to Auburn twice, South Carolina, Bama, and LSU) but could be talking about a number of teams.

If a team like that will get in, why would you not want to take the one who has proven throughout the year that they can not only compete with but beat top notch competition (Ole Miss) instead of the one that has proven that they can't (Illinois State)?</p>

 

[RebelBruiser]

It has generally been my experience that the stronger the regional a team has been placed in, the weaker the team is perceived to be by the committee.

It might even be argued that Oregon State was considered to be a strong #3 because the NCAA sometimes uses an S-curve (strong 1, weak 2, strong 3, weak 4).

To argue that the NCAA put them in that regional to prove themselves makes little sense to me. Under that theory, Florida will be placed in the tourney as a
13-seed in a strong regional in order to prove themselves.

Looking back after the fact, there is no doubt that Oregon State deserved to be in the tourney. My question is this, if a pre-NC Oregon State team with the
same resume tried to get in the NCAAT, would they have gotten in? I am not saying that I have the answer, but it is a point worth pondering.

</p>

I disagree with your thoughts on how regional placement works. In baseball, they seem to do their placements more geographically than anything else. Take Vandy's regional last year as an example. RPI-wise, they got probably the weakest 2 seed. They also got a fairly weak 3 seed in their regional. However, they got one of the strongest 4 seeds in the tourney in Austin Peay. A few teams get shipped off across the country, like Oregon State did, but they seem to do the rest of it regionally. Oregon State last year was definitely one of the last at large bids to get invited to the NCAA tourney, but they got hot and were able to win it all. That has a much better chance of happening in baseball than it does in basketball.

 

[wpnetdawg]

I was more addressing his specific points. More broadly, the committee is more worried about geography like you said. But if the committee throws that out the window and are looking at regional strength, I think his points were invalid.

You also have to consider the baseball committee isn't as formalized as the basketball committee. It was just last year, they sent two teams from the same conference to the same regional and had to flip-flop them later in the afternoon (isn't that right).

Anyway, your point about geography is dead on.

 

[Goat Holder]

nm

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

I'm not following you on your line of reasoning. My original premise was OSU was probably one of the weaker 3 seeds based on their record & the committee put them in a tough regional (UVA). Your first point was</p>

It has generally been my experience that the stronger the regional a team has been placed in, the weaker the team is perceived to be by the committee.

It seems to me that you basically said the same thing I just said, just reworded it. Then, you seem to me to contradict yourself with this

It might even be argued that Oregon State was considered to be a strong #3 because the NCAA sometimes uses an S-curve (strong 1, weak 2, strong 3, weak 4).

So, are you saying the OSU was a weak team in a strong regional or a strong 3 seed in a strong, weak, strong, weak regional?

To argue that the NCAA put them in that regional to prove themselves makes little sense to me. Under that theory, Florida will be placed in the tourney as a 13-seed in a strong regional in order to prove themselves.

My thought process on this is this: The committee put them in a difficult regional based on the fact that they were one of the last teams in. In essence, the committee said, "Hey OSU, you were a bubble team that we could have just as easily left out. Be glad you are here. We have given you a chance by putting you in the tourney, but we are not doing you any favors by putting you in an easy bracket just because of who you are (i.e. last year's NC)". Along the same line of thinking, I think the selection committee would be justified in putting UF in a difficult bracket as a low seed on the basis that they are a bubble team at best and bubble teams don't deserve any intentional favors of seeding or level of difficulty of the bracket they are in just because they happen to be the defending N.C.s.

My question is this, if a pre-NC Oregon State team with the same resume tried to get in the NCAAT, would they have gotten in? I am not saying that I have the answer, but it is a point worth pondering.

I don't have an answer to that. Like UF, I can make a compelling argument for both sides of the discussion. Also, I don't think there would be near the discussion of this topic if UF was not the 2 time defending champs. From another angle, would Miss State be in the discussion as a bubble team if they were in Florida's current position (record, rpi, sos wise) minus the N.C.s?

P.S. I appreciate the civil discourse and intelligent thought in your post.

 

[muddawgs33]

It is funny that you label me like Coach and accuse me of backtracking when you apparently don't have the cognitive skills to even comprehend my posts.

That's funny coming from you. You say that the committee thought enough of Oregon St. to put them into the tourney, but there were arguably more deserving teams than Oregon St.. But yet you say it's ok that they let them in based off the fact that they were the defending national champs. But it's not ok for Florida to get a bid over teams with similiar resumes based off them being the defending national champs. Makes sense.

Clearly OSU was a bubble team as well which meant that the committee had justification for putting them in the tourney; justification that extended beyond them being the previous year's NC.

You are clearly right. Since Oregon St. lost 8 out of 12 to close out the season and being 10-14 finishing 6th in the pac-10, the committee had every justification for putting them in the tourney and didn't base it off them being the defending national champs. I can now see why you think that Oregon St. deserved to be in the tourney.

 

[muddawgs33]

In essence, the committee said, "Hey OSU, you were a bubble team that we could have just as easily left out. Be glad you are here. We have given you a chance by putting you in the tourney, but we are not doing you any favors by putting you in an easy bracket just because of who you are (i.e. last year's NC)".

Did you really just post that? Basically, you just said that OSU got in based off their reputation of being the defending national champs, but I do like the spin. They weren't placed into an easy bracket based off them being defending national champs. Your post have more twist in them than a freaking twizzler.

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

You say that the committee thought enough of Oregon St. to put them into the tourney, but there were arguably more deserving teams than Oregon St..

Yes, which is the same situation UF is in & is driving this whole discourse. OSU was a bubble team. There were teams that it could be argued that were more deserving just as arguments can be made the OSU was more deserving. An argument can be made for including them & for leaving them out. UF is a bubble team currently. An argument can be made for including them & for leaving them out as I have said all along.

But yet you say it's ok that they let them in based off the fact that they were the defending national champs.

I have never said this. I have said that they proved that the committee made the right decision to include them, but not that it would be OK to let them in just b/c they were the previous champ. However, I disagree with the premise that they were let in just because they were the previous champion.

Edit to reply to other muddawg post & cover two replies in one place.

Basically, you just said that OSU got in based off their reputation of being the defending national champs

Nope, I said they got in because they were a bubble team that the committee deemed worthy (which was proven by the way by their 11-1 tourney record). I then said that the committee did not do them any favors by putting them in an easier bracket just because of who they were.</p>

Let's recap:
-Bubble team, got in b/c committee deemed them worthy.
-Committee said don't expect any favors b/c of your rep. You are heading to UVA.
</p>

 

[muddawgs33]

However, I disagree with the premise that they were let in just because they were the previous champion.

If you can't look at the FACTS and can't tell that Oregon St. was let into the tourney based off being the defending national champs, then God can't help you buddy. If that were any other team, you can bet your *** they would have been watching instead of playing in the tourney.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

<font color="#FF0000">Someone who had a chance to earn their way in but blew it is going to get in. In this case we're talking about Illinois State (lost by 30 in their conference tournament) and Ole Miss (lost to Auburn twice, South Carolina, Bama, and LSU) but could be talking about a number of teams.

If a team like that will get in, why would you not want to take the one who has proven throughout the year that they can not only compete with but beat top notch competition (Ole Miss) instead of the one that has proven that they can't (Illinois State)?</font>

Here's the difference to me between Illinois State and Ole Miss: The Redbirds earned their way to the tournament prior to being beaten by Drake. I had them a 9-seed prior to their loss.

Illinois State beat Southern Illinois on the road (incidentally a team MSU lost to on a neutral site court) to clinch second place in the MVC. They reached the finals of the MVC tournament (where they lost to the #1 team in the conference, a team that's been a Top 20 RPI team for most of the season-- incidentally the other two losses to Drake were by six on the road and three at home, so one could argue that the one 30-point loss was an aberration).

Ole Miss hasn't yet earned their way to the tournament. They're 7-9 in the conference, which is the seventh best record in the SEC. The Rebels have five bad losses, which to me isn't an aberration. Instead, it tells me that Ole Miss is an inconsistent team that plays to the level of their competition. Case in point: the Rebels lost to the worst team in the conference twice.

I think Ole Miss needs to reach the final of the conference tournament to have a chance thanks to teams like San Diego and Western Kentucky earning at-large bids.</p>