Comments on: The Tournaments before the Tournament http://hoyahoops.com/2009/03/25/the-tournaments-before-the-tournament/ The Most Comprehensive Georgetown Basketball Website. Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:48:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: big A http://hoyahoops.com/2009/03/25/the-tournaments-before-the-tournament/comment-page-1/#comment-11483 big A Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:11:44 +0000 http://hoyahoops.com/2009/03/25/the-tournaments-before-the-tournament/#comment-11483 I like Zo's rant (er, Zo's thinking). Maybe Maryland should have gotten in but a 10th seed? I think the committee definitely puts the "bubble" teams they pick for the tournament in a position to win the first game so they are justified. Also the seeds are a win-win proposition for the selection commitee. After winning a first round game you hear the comments for "bubble" teams, they proved they belong by winning. You never hear anyone say, "that 3 seed lost in the first round, they should never have gotten in." If a low seed advances then they're happy, if the higher seed wins it proves they seeded the tournament correctly. I'll go Zo one further on conference play and say that no team in any conference should get into the tournament if they have a sub-500 conference record except by winning their tournament and securing the automatic bid. If they don't like playing in the Big East, ACC, SEC, etc. then join Conference USA! (sorry for the long post, talk about a rant) I like Zo’s rant (er, Zo’s thinking). Maybe Maryland should have gotten in but a 10th seed? I think the committee definitely puts the “bubble” teams they pick for the tournament in a position to win the first game so they are justified. Also the seeds are a win-win proposition for the selection commitee. After winning a first round game you hear the comments for “bubble” teams, they proved they belong by winning. You never hear anyone say, “that 3 seed lost in the first round, they should never have gotten in.” If a low seed advances then they’re happy, if the higher seed wins it proves they seeded the tournament correctly.

I’ll go Zo one further on conference play and say that no team in any conference should get into the tournament if they have a sub-500 conference record except by winning their tournament and securing the automatic bid. If they don’t like playing in the Big East, ACC, SEC, etc. then join Conference USA!

(sorry for the long post, talk about a rant)

]]> By: Zo http://hoyahoops.com/2009/03/25/the-tournaments-before-the-tournament/comment-page-1/#comment-11478 Zo Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:27:07 +0000 http://hoyahoops.com/2009/03/25/the-tournaments-before-the-tournament/#comment-11478 What about Providence? They were 10-8 in the Big East and didn't get a bid. The ACC stinks, like always. Duke and UNC are good, everyone else is average at best- see Clemson, FSU, Wake, BC, and MD. Why should a below .500 team in the ACC (Maryland) get in over an above .500 team in the Big East (Providence). Providence beat Pitt, MD beat UNC. Providence had to play 3 #1 seeds and 2 #3 seeds. MD had 7 wins in the conference, only one of which was to a tournament team. Their other wins were GT twice, UVA, VT, MIA, and NC State. That's not a solid resume. Providence at least also beat Syracuse. The process is terrible. For the final picks, the committee just chooses who they like, end of story. What about Providence? They were 10-8 in the Big East and didn’t get a bid. The ACC stinks, like always. Duke and UNC are good, everyone else is average at best- see Clemson, FSU, Wake, BC, and MD. Why should a below .500 team in the ACC (Maryland) get in over an above .500 team in the Big East (Providence). Providence beat Pitt, MD beat UNC. Providence had to play 3 #1 seeds and 2 #3 seeds. MD had 7 wins in the conference, only one of which was to a tournament team. Their other wins were GT twice, UVA, VT, MIA, and NC State. That’s not a solid resume. Providence at least also beat Syracuse. The process is terrible. For the final picks, the committee just chooses who they like, end of story.

]]>