The first President of the United States is usually the George that gets all the love in this Country. George Washington has monuments, cities and colleges named after him, and rightfully so. However, it's a different Founding Father named George that's stealing the spotlight in the NCAA Tournament. The George Mason Patriots have beaten Michigan St., N. Carolina, and Connecticut to reach the Final Four as an 11 seed. The Patriots victory over N. Carolina might have been the biggest upset of the tournament in most years. However, George Mason's victory over Connecticut has to go down as the biggest upset in not only this tournament but in NCAA Tournament history.
George Mason reaching the Final Four by beating three powerhouse teams is equivalent to an eight seed in the NBA Playoffs winning the NBA Championship. Only one eight seed in NBA Playoff history has ever beaten a one seed to even make it to the second round. George Mason only beat two teams in the RPI top 50 all season! The Patriots lost to Hofstra twice and Mississippi St. To think that this team could beat three elite teams in a row was simply unfathomable just two weeks ago.
Like its namesake, George Mason is a founding father. It is the founding father for mid-majors representation in the Final Four. The odds of George Mason beating Florida and then either LSU/UCLA are slim. However, they aren't any worse than the odds that they were going to beat MSU, N. Carolina, and Connecticut coming into the Tournament. It would truly be the biggest underdog story in sports history. An 11 seed winning the NCAA Tournament after being one of the last at-large teams selected would truly be remarkable. I hope it happens. It would certainly liven up the record books for all of history.
I've followed college basketball extensively this year on this blog. I've paid special attention to the mid-majors including the MVC and CAA. There were some mid-majors that were unfairly left out of the tournament. Just a few weeks ago when asked how mid-majors could get more respect come Selection Sunday, Billy Packer sarcastically said something to the effect of, "have you ever heard of the NCAA Tournament?" Well, three at-large mid-majors made it to the Sweet Sixteen this year and now George Mason has made it to the Final Four. The mid-majors take a lot of heat for not playing difficult schedules. The problem with that argument is that big-time schools from major conferences will not travel to George Mason, Wichita St., or N. Iowa. Big-time schools have no incentive for playing those teams on the road when they can pay teams to get blown out on their own court. The mid-major conferences have made consistent leaps over the last few years to the point that these schools have to be feared come Tournament time.
The combination of underclassmen leaving early for the NBA Draft and the reduced number of scholarships has created an environment in the NCAA where Junior and Senior laden mid-major teams can compete with Freshmen and Sophomore laden major teams. There's no question that the major schools would still dominate if underclassmen weren't allowed to leave. But, that's not the case.
Billy Packer was right about one thing. Since schools from major conferences won't travel to play solid mid-major programs, the only way mid-majors can prove themselves is in the Tournament. And that is just what they did this year. This development is good for all college basketball fans as it will result in a more exciting landscape in college basketball and the NCAA Tournament as the gap between mid-majors and majors narrows.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Same book different cover
The Lions made a bunch of noise with a coaching staff overhaul last month. The addition of Rod Marinelli,Donnie Henderson, and Mike Martz was only supposed to be the beginning of the re-tooling. Instead, the Lions have done nothing but sit while quality free agents sign with new teams. The 2005 Lions had four wide receivers (R. Williams, M. Williams, C. Rogers, and K. Johnson) that were good enough to start and one quarterback (Joey Harrington)who hadn't done anything in four seasons in the NFL. The Lions had glaring weaknesses in the secondary and offensive line. So, what did the Lions do? They went out and signed another wide receiver that is good enough to start and THREE quarterbacks who haven't done anything in the NFL. That's it. That's the retooling. Bringing in Jon Kitna, Shuan King, and Josh McNown to replace Joey Harrington is like eating Haggis instead of Black Pudding. Does it really matter?
Steve Mariucci was only half of the problem last season. The other half was the inability to run the ball consistently and stop teams from passing. No amount of brilliance from the coaching staff can make up for a deficiency in talent. Plus, who's to say that there will be brilliance from the coaching staff in the first place? The Lions have been the same team for the last 20 years. Not once in the last 20 years have the Lions had a good secondary or offensive line. Until they address those needs, the Lions will continue to be a sad franchise in a league where just about every team competes for the playoffs within a two or three year time frame.
The Lions will likely come out throwing the ball all over the field in 2006. Martz will avoid Kevin Jones like the plague as he did with Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson. The offense will likely put up more points than the Harrington-led groups of the past few years. However, that will only force the opposition to throw more resulting in the Lions secondary getting burned even more frequently. It might be a more exciting brand of football to watch but it won't be a more productive brand of football in the win column.
Unless Rod Marinelli is as good of a coach as Bill Belichick, the 2006 Lions are doomed to repeat their sad history even with a fantastic quarterback troika reminiscent of the Chicago Bulls three-headed monster of Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, and Will Perdue.
Here is the giant splash the Lions have made in Free Agency thus far:
Corey Bradford WR
Jon Kitna QB
Josh McNown QB
Shuan King QB
Rex Tucker OT
Arlen Harris RB
Dan Campbell TE
Steve Mariucci was only half of the problem last season. The other half was the inability to run the ball consistently and stop teams from passing. No amount of brilliance from the coaching staff can make up for a deficiency in talent. Plus, who's to say that there will be brilliance from the coaching staff in the first place? The Lions have been the same team for the last 20 years. Not once in the last 20 years have the Lions had a good secondary or offensive line. Until they address those needs, the Lions will continue to be a sad franchise in a league where just about every team competes for the playoffs within a two or three year time frame.
The Lions will likely come out throwing the ball all over the field in 2006. Martz will avoid Kevin Jones like the plague as he did with Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson. The offense will likely put up more points than the Harrington-led groups of the past few years. However, that will only force the opposition to throw more resulting in the Lions secondary getting burned even more frequently. It might be a more exciting brand of football to watch but it won't be a more productive brand of football in the win column.
Unless Rod Marinelli is as good of a coach as Bill Belichick, the 2006 Lions are doomed to repeat their sad history even with a fantastic quarterback troika reminiscent of the Chicago Bulls three-headed monster of Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, and Will Perdue.
Here is the giant splash the Lions have made in Free Agency thus far:
Corey Bradford WR
Jon Kitna QB
Josh McNown QB
Shuan King QB
Rex Tucker OT
Arlen Harris RB
Dan Campbell TE
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Vindication for the wronged
Billy Packer and Jim Nantz were correct to call-out the Selection Committee Chairman but they did it for all the wrong reasons. Packer seemed to be the spokesperson for the major-conference bubble teams like Maryland, Michigan, and Cincinnati that didn't make the tournament. Packer's decision to question the Committee's selections solely on a mid-major vs. major basis disguises the real problem. Deserving teams should not be grouped into sub-categories. Packer did teams like Hofstra, Cincinnati, and Missouri St. and injustice by focusing the attention on teams like Maryland and Florida St. that didn't have a beef to begin with.
The Selection Committee clearly didn't have a problem letting in mid-majors which is what Packer was irate about. If he did his homework, he would've realized that the Committee let in the wrong mid-majors. As I mentioned last week, Utah St. and Air Force had no business whatsoever making the tournament. But, there were majors that undeservedly made the tournament as well. Seton Hall lost to Rutgers (2), Northwestern, Richmond, St. John's, and DePaul, had an RPI of 58 and still made the tournament. Packer missed the boat with his misguided diatribe. Nobody in the media made a compelling argument for Hofstra or Missouri St. Well, after the first week, I think there is vindication. Air Force and Utah St. went out in the first round without making a sound. Seton Hall was blown away by a MVC team. That same MVC team (Wichita St.) went on to beat Tennessee and is now in the Sweet Sixteen. Bradley, the team that finished 6th in the final MVC regular season standings, has beaten Kansas and Pittsburgh to fly into the Sweet Sixteen. George Mason beat Michigan St. and N. Carolina in convincing fashion.
After seeing Wichita St., George Mason, and Bradley tear up the field in the first two rounds, imagine what teams like Hofstra (which beat George Mason twice this year and finished with a better record), Missouri St. (the MVC's hottest team at the end of the regular season), and Creighton could do. Hofstra, Missouri St., and Cincinnati are tearing through the NIT tournament. It's not about mid majors or majors. It's about the teams that deserve to make it. The Selection Committee was wrong last week and they were proven wrong this week. Packer was wrong as the "major" teams that he lobbied for like Maryland lost to Manhattan in the NIT. The Tournament has been exciting as usual but the awful job by the Selection Committee and likewise by Billy Packer to accurately identify the Selection Committee's failure has left a bitter taste in my mouth. If George Mason can thoroughly beat a Michigan St. team, then imagine what Hofstra could do. The Committee's job is to pick the best at-large teams. Instead, it decided to put undeserving teams in the tournament as to not give too many teams from one conference bids (i.e. CAA and MVC). Coincidentally, the Committee has said many times in the past that they pay no attention to the number of teams from each conference.
There needs to be reform to the selection process. I might give some suggestions in the future but the Committee clearly failed miserably this year in picking the best teams. For every George Mason and Bradley that's in the tournament, there is a Creighton, Missouri St., or Hofstra that could've done the exact same thing. Thanks to the Selection Committee, we got to see Seton Hall put on a horrible performance and Utah St. and Air Force vanish in the wind.
The Selection Committee clearly didn't have a problem letting in mid-majors which is what Packer was irate about. If he did his homework, he would've realized that the Committee let in the wrong mid-majors. As I mentioned last week, Utah St. and Air Force had no business whatsoever making the tournament. But, there were majors that undeservedly made the tournament as well. Seton Hall lost to Rutgers (2), Northwestern, Richmond, St. John's, and DePaul, had an RPI of 58 and still made the tournament. Packer missed the boat with his misguided diatribe. Nobody in the media made a compelling argument for Hofstra or Missouri St. Well, after the first week, I think there is vindication. Air Force and Utah St. went out in the first round without making a sound. Seton Hall was blown away by a MVC team. That same MVC team (Wichita St.) went on to beat Tennessee and is now in the Sweet Sixteen. Bradley, the team that finished 6th in the final MVC regular season standings, has beaten Kansas and Pittsburgh to fly into the Sweet Sixteen. George Mason beat Michigan St. and N. Carolina in convincing fashion.
After seeing Wichita St., George Mason, and Bradley tear up the field in the first two rounds, imagine what teams like Hofstra (which beat George Mason twice this year and finished with a better record), Missouri St. (the MVC's hottest team at the end of the regular season), and Creighton could do. Hofstra, Missouri St., and Cincinnati are tearing through the NIT tournament. It's not about mid majors or majors. It's about the teams that deserve to make it. The Selection Committee was wrong last week and they were proven wrong this week. Packer was wrong as the "major" teams that he lobbied for like Maryland lost to Manhattan in the NIT. The Tournament has been exciting as usual but the awful job by the Selection Committee and likewise by Billy Packer to accurately identify the Selection Committee's failure has left a bitter taste in my mouth. If George Mason can thoroughly beat a Michigan St. team, then imagine what Hofstra could do. The Committee's job is to pick the best at-large teams. Instead, it decided to put undeserving teams in the tournament as to not give too many teams from one conference bids (i.e. CAA and MVC). Coincidentally, the Committee has said many times in the past that they pay no attention to the number of teams from each conference.
There needs to be reform to the selection process. I might give some suggestions in the future but the Committee clearly failed miserably this year in picking the best teams. For every George Mason and Bradley that's in the tournament, there is a Creighton, Missouri St., or Hofstra that could've done the exact same thing. Thanks to the Selection Committee, we got to see Seton Hall put on a horrible performance and Utah St. and Air Force vanish in the wind.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
The Selection Committee of Ignorance
I am currently without a home computer as my family prepares our move back to America. As a result, I won't get a chance to post as often and my posts likely won't be as thorough as they have been in the past. Also, there could be a few more typos for which I'm apologizing in advance for. However, as usual, I will do my best!
Not that it will affect the eventual winner of the NCAA Tournament, but the Selection Committee did a deplorable job in selecting the 65-team field. Most notably, the admissions of Seton Hall, Air Force, and Utah St., and the omissions of Cincinnati, Hofstra, and Missouri St. The Committee has said in the past that it doesn't take into consideration how many teams are given bids from certain conferences. There are few things I dislike more than when people say something isn't true when it obviously is. The committee is a joke and needs to be reformed. The NCAA Tournament is the envy of all sporting championships around the world. It's the model that most football fans would love to bring to the college football landscape. However, that speaks nothing about the credibility of the Selection Committee. How can there be an unbiased selection process when the ten members of the committee are often affiliated with the teams that they are judging? George Mason's Athletic Director was a member of the committee this year. The fact that George Mason received a bid, and Hofstra, who beat George Mason twice this year AND made it to the CAA Championship game and didn't receive a bid seems awfully convenient for George Mason.
Here is a brief comparison of the teams listed above:
Which teams would you pick in each comparison?
Team A or Team B?
Team A
Record: 24-6
RPI: 30
Team B
Record: 23-7
RPI: 26
Team A and Team B played twice this year, Team A won both games by at least nine points!
Team C or Team D?
Team C
Record: 20-8
RPI: 21
Wins vs. tourney teams: 6
SOS: 46
Team D
Record: 22-6
RPI: 50
Wins vs. tourney teams: 1
SOS: 158
Team E or Team F?
Team E
Record: 18-12
RPI: 40
Wins vs. RPI top 50: 4
SOS: 5
Losses to teams with an RPI of 90 or worse: 1
Conference rank: 2
Team F
Record: 22-8
RPI: 46
Wins vs. RPI top 50: 1
SOS: 102
Losses to teams with an RPI of 90 or worse: 6
Conference rank: 9
Clearly, teams A, C, and E are the obvious choice in each comparison. Those teams are Hofstra, Missouri St., and Cincinnati. For some reason (a reason that seems unfathomable to me) the Committee chose teams B, D and F which are George Mason, Air Force, and Utah St.
Don't get me wrong, I think George Mason should've made the tournament. I just used GM to show how ridiculous it is for Hofstra to be at home while GM is in the field. There is no way anybody can rationalize putting in Air Force and Utah St. into the field without using # of teams from a conference as a rationale. The Committee says that it doesn't use # of teams from a conference to determine bids. So, either the committee is lying, or it is insane.
To top it off, Seton Hall had seven losses to teams with an RPI of 75 or worse. That includes three losses outside of the RPI top 100 and two losses to fellow conference bottom dweller, Rutgers. No team with that many bad losses should make the tournament.
The teams that should've made the tournament out of these teams are Hofstra, Cincinnati, George Mason, and Missouri St. Seton Hall, Air Force, and Utah St. have no business being in the tournament.
This may seem insignificant, and it might be if the only thing that matters is who wins the tournament. These teams really have no shot at that. However, I think fairness matters. I can't respect the Committee or the selection process when it makes such terrible decisions. There needs to be reform in how teams are selected. Or, the NCAA could just add teams to the field. There is no reason why a team with an RPI of 21 (Missouri St.) should be playing in the NIT.
Not that it will affect the eventual winner of the NCAA Tournament, but the Selection Committee did a deplorable job in selecting the 65-team field. Most notably, the admissions of Seton Hall, Air Force, and Utah St., and the omissions of Cincinnati, Hofstra, and Missouri St. The Committee has said in the past that it doesn't take into consideration how many teams are given bids from certain conferences. There are few things I dislike more than when people say something isn't true when it obviously is. The committee is a joke and needs to be reformed. The NCAA Tournament is the envy of all sporting championships around the world. It's the model that most football fans would love to bring to the college football landscape. However, that speaks nothing about the credibility of the Selection Committee. How can there be an unbiased selection process when the ten members of the committee are often affiliated with the teams that they are judging? George Mason's Athletic Director was a member of the committee this year. The fact that George Mason received a bid, and Hofstra, who beat George Mason twice this year AND made it to the CAA Championship game and didn't receive a bid seems awfully convenient for George Mason.
Here is a brief comparison of the teams listed above:
Which teams would you pick in each comparison?
Team A or Team B?
Team A
Record: 24-6
RPI: 30
Team B
Record: 23-7
RPI: 26
Team A and Team B played twice this year, Team A won both games by at least nine points!
Team C or Team D?
Team C
Record: 20-8
RPI: 21
Wins vs. tourney teams: 6
SOS: 46
Team D
Record: 22-6
RPI: 50
Wins vs. tourney teams: 1
SOS: 158
Team E or Team F?
Team E
Record: 18-12
RPI: 40
Wins vs. RPI top 50: 4
SOS: 5
Losses to teams with an RPI of 90 or worse: 1
Conference rank: 2
Team F
Record: 22-8
RPI: 46
Wins vs. RPI top 50: 1
SOS: 102
Losses to teams with an RPI of 90 or worse: 6
Conference rank: 9
Clearly, teams A, C, and E are the obvious choice in each comparison. Those teams are Hofstra, Missouri St., and Cincinnati. For some reason (a reason that seems unfathomable to me) the Committee chose teams B, D and F which are George Mason, Air Force, and Utah St.
Don't get me wrong, I think George Mason should've made the tournament. I just used GM to show how ridiculous it is for Hofstra to be at home while GM is in the field. There is no way anybody can rationalize putting in Air Force and Utah St. into the field without using # of teams from a conference as a rationale. The Committee says that it doesn't use # of teams from a conference to determine bids. So, either the committee is lying, or it is insane.
To top it off, Seton Hall had seven losses to teams with an RPI of 75 or worse. That includes three losses outside of the RPI top 100 and two losses to fellow conference bottom dweller, Rutgers. No team with that many bad losses should make the tournament.
The teams that should've made the tournament out of these teams are Hofstra, Cincinnati, George Mason, and Missouri St. Seton Hall, Air Force, and Utah St. have no business being in the tournament.
This may seem insignificant, and it might be if the only thing that matters is who wins the tournament. These teams really have no shot at that. However, I think fairness matters. I can't respect the Committee or the selection process when it makes such terrible decisions. There needs to be reform in how teams are selected. Or, the NCAA could just add teams to the field. There is no reason why a team with an RPI of 21 (Missouri St.) should be playing in the NIT.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Final Tournament Projections
Here is my final projection for the NCAA Tournament. It seems pretty cut and dry to me but you never know what the Selection Committee is thinking.
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Syracuse
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Iowa
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC S. Illinois
8 MWC San Diego St.
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial NC Wilmington
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt S. Alabama
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Pacific
21 OVC Murray St.
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Monmouth
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Hampton
32 At-Large George Mason
33 At-Large George Washington
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Indiana
44 At-Large UAB
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large NC Wilmington
47 At-Large Connecticut
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Ohio St.
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Alabama
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Texas
57 At-Large Texas A&M
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large Bradley
62 At-Large Missouri St.
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large California
65 At-Large N. Iowa
Last Five In:
Bradley
The Braves proved at the end of the season that they are one of the top two teams in the MVC. If the MVC gets multiple bids, Bradley has to be in the tourney.
George Mason
George Mason's RPI is too high to be left out of the tournament. George Mason won a share of the regular season CAA title. With an RPI of 26, this team should be in over a bevy of teams with RPI's nearly 20 spots worse.
Hofstra
Hofstra seams to be the odd team out on most projections simply because most people think the committee will not take three teams from the CAA. With an RPI of 30 and three victories over NC Wilmington and George Mason, this team should definitely be in.
Alabama
Alabama's record isn't all that impressive but the Tide finished 10-6 with victories over Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and LSU. While 'Bama has a weak RPI, few teams have as many quality wins.
California
I don't think Cal should be in the tournament. Take a minute to check out its resume and you will find nothing even remotely close to impressive. Cal might just be the most fortunate college basketball team in the last decade. The Pac-10 was so bad this year that it had a worse RPI than the MVC.
Last Seven Out:
Creighton
The MVC won't get six bids. This is the odd team out.
Seton Hall
WAY too many losses to teams outside of the RPI top 90. It would be a travesty if a team with that many losses to BAD basketball teams makes the tournament.
Michigan
2-7 stretch to end the season with only three victories in the RPI top 50 is a weak resume. Throw in a plummeting RPI of 46 and this team should not make the tournament. Injuries aside, a tournament-worthy team would've at least had a pulse at the end of the season.
Air Force
Not a good year to be a pretty good at-large team.
Maryland
Too many losses and too few quality wins.
Florida St.
Same as Maryland only worse.
Colorado
If Colorado was in the Pac-10, it would be California and likely be headed to the tournament.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (4)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Arkansas
Alabama
Big East (8)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Texas A&M
Big Ten (6)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
GW
Xavier
MVC (5)
N. Iowa
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Missouri St.
Bradley
(3)
George Mason
NC Wilmington
Hofstra
1 ACC Duke
2 SEC Florida
3 Big East Syracuse
4 Big 12 Kansas
5 Big Ten Iowa
6 Pac-10 Washington
7 MVC S. Illinois
8 MWC San Diego St.
9 WAC Nevada
10 A-10 Xavier
11 Colonial NC Wilmington
12 MAC Kent St.
13 WCC Gonzaga
14 C-USA Memphis
15 Sun Belt S. Alabama
16 Horizon Wisconsin-Mil.
17 MAAC Iona
18 Big Sky Montana
19 MCC Oral Roberts
20 Big West Pacific
21 OVC Murray St.
22 Ivy Penn
23 Southern Davidson
24 Patriot Bucknell
25 Southland Northwestern St.
26 Northeast Monmouth
27 AEC Albany
28 Big South Winthrop
29 Atl. Sun Belmont
30 SWAC Southern
31 MEAC Hampton
32 At-Large George Mason
33 At-Large George Washington
34 At-Large Villanova
35 At-Large Pittsburgh
36 At-Large W. Virginia
37 At-Large Cincinnati
38 At-Large Marquette
39 At-Large Georgetown
40 At-Large NC State
41 At-Large Boston College
42 At-Large N. Carolina
43 At-Large Indiana
44 At-Large UAB
45 At-Large MSU
46 At-Large NC Wilmington
47 At-Large Connecticut
48 At-Large Ohio St.
49 At-Large Wisconsin
50 At-Large Ohio St.
51 At-Large Kentucky
52 At-Large Tennessee
53 At-Large LSU
54 At-Large Alabama
55 At-Large Oklahoma
56 At-Large Texas
57 At-Large Texas A&M
58 At-Large Arkansas
59 At-Large Arizona
60 At-Large UCLA
61 At-Large Bradley
62 At-Large Missouri St.
63 At-Large Wichita St.
64 At-Large California
65 At-Large N. Iowa
Last Five In:
Bradley
The Braves proved at the end of the season that they are one of the top two teams in the MVC. If the MVC gets multiple bids, Bradley has to be in the tourney.
George Mason
George Mason's RPI is too high to be left out of the tournament. George Mason won a share of the regular season CAA title. With an RPI of 26, this team should be in over a bevy of teams with RPI's nearly 20 spots worse.
Hofstra
Hofstra seams to be the odd team out on most projections simply because most people think the committee will not take three teams from the CAA. With an RPI of 30 and three victories over NC Wilmington and George Mason, this team should definitely be in.
Alabama
Alabama's record isn't all that impressive but the Tide finished 10-6 with victories over Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and LSU. While 'Bama has a weak RPI, few teams have as many quality wins.
California
I don't think Cal should be in the tournament. Take a minute to check out its resume and you will find nothing even remotely close to impressive. Cal might just be the most fortunate college basketball team in the last decade. The Pac-10 was so bad this year that it had a worse RPI than the MVC.
Last Seven Out:
Creighton
The MVC won't get six bids. This is the odd team out.
Seton Hall
WAY too many losses to teams outside of the RPI top 90. It would be a travesty if a team with that many losses to BAD basketball teams makes the tournament.
Michigan
2-7 stretch to end the season with only three victories in the RPI top 50 is a weak resume. Throw in a plummeting RPI of 46 and this team should not make the tournament. Injuries aside, a tournament-worthy team would've at least had a pulse at the end of the season.
Air Force
Not a good year to be a pretty good at-large team.
Maryland
Too many losses and too few quality wins.
Florida St.
Same as Maryland only worse.
Colorado
If Colorado was in the Pac-10, it would be California and likely be headed to the tournament.
Here is a breakdown of conferences with multiple bids (in no particular order):
ACC (4)
Duke
NC State
Boston College
N. Carolina
SEC (6)
Florida
Kentucky
LSU
Tennessee
Arkansas
Alabama
Big East (8)
UCONN
Syracuse
Villanova
Pittsburgh
W. Virginia
Cincinnati
Marquette
Georgetown
Big 12 (4)
Texas
Oklahoma
Kansas
Texas A&M
Big Ten (6)
Illinois
MSU
Indiana
Ohio St.
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pac-10 (4)
Washington
Arizona
UCLA
California
C-USA (2)
Memphis
UAB
A-10 (2)
GW
Xavier
MVC (5)
N. Iowa
Wichita St.
S. Illinois
Missouri St.
Bradley
(3)
George Mason
NC Wilmington
Hofstra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
