|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 19, 2024 12:22:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 19, 2024 12:44:53 GMT -5
Apparently the ACC ADs did a lot of lobbying to get UVA in. Val is staying silent on all this and hoping it will go away. I am failing to see how the ACC's athletic directors lobbying to get UVA in is translatable to the commissioner of a league doing the same thing. Why aren't you criticizing the athletic directors then? You are acting like you know that all Val Ackerman is doing here is issuing that statement and nothing else. I find that very hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 19, 2024 12:48:33 GMT -5
Apparently the ACC ADs did a lot of lobbying to get UVA in. Val is staying silent on all this and hoping it will go away. I am failing to see how the ACC's athletic directors lobbying to get UVA in is translatable to the commissioner of a league doing the same thing. Why aren't you criticizing the athletic directors then? You are acting like you know that all Val Ackerman is doing here is issuing that statement and nothing else. I find that very hard to believe. The only way there is change is transparency and fairness. As Danny Hurley has publicly stated the selection committee is palsying a shell game. If you look through the career backgrounds of the committee members alot of the members have ties to the ACC, Big Ten and SEC. I didn’t see any with ties to the Big East except Barry Collier.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 19, 2024 12:49:40 GMT -5
I think the Big East got screwed, but I don't think "transparency" would have yielded a different result. Most of the decisions the committee made are defensible (except maybe Virginia), even if I disagree with some of them.
It's important to keep in mind that the larger number than normal auto-bids (who otherwise would have not made the tournament at all) is the main reason why much of this stuff happened. If NC State didn't win the ACC tournament, or others, St. John's would have been in, and then while we still only have 4 bids, it's a lot less egregious.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 19, 2024 13:05:26 GMT -5
I think the Big East got screwed, but I don't think "transparency" would have yielded a different result. Most of the decisions the committee made are defensible (except maybe Virginia), even if I disagree with some of them. It's important to keep in mind that the larger number than normal auto-bids (who otherwise would have not made the tournament at all) is the main reason why much of this stuff happened. If NC State didn't win the ACC tournament, or others, St. John's would have been in, and then while we still only have 4 bids, it's a lot less egregious. Nope. If you look at it the Big East got disproportionately screwed. Can you honestly with a straight face say that these Mountain West teams, a bad UVA team, or mediocre Texas & A&M should be in there over Seton Hall, St John’s, Providence. Even Villanova could beat these teams. UVA choked away the semi final vs NC State. You would know if you actually watched the game. Why should they be rewarded for letting NC State get the auto bid when they were responsible for choking at the end of that game.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,856
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Mar 19, 2024 13:32:48 GMT -5
The only thing the Big East Conference administration should (and can only really do) after this screw job is to ensure the conference has adequate representation on the selection committee. Short of that, I don't think there's much to say. While UConn and Villanova have certainly done the conference proud in the NCAAs the past several years, the performance of the mid-tier conference teams (this from memory) I think has been lackluster. One important thing the conference teams can do to help our cause is for the mid-tier teams to win games against higher seeds in the tournament. That's probably our best argument for strength of conference and deserving of more bids year to year. Each conference gets only one rep on the selection committee. Our rep is Barry Collier AD from Butler. But he has to be out of the room when the Big East teams are discussed.
Apparently the ACC ADs did a lot of lobbying to get UVA in. Val is staying silent on all this and hoping it will go away. This certainly seems hypocritical by the committee. On the one hand, it's "we pick teams, not conferences," but on the other hand it's painting the entire conference with a broad brush when handling recusals. Of course, the same procedures apply to other leagues, but it still seems ham-fisted. Does the recusal rule apply to any team that your school played in the non-league schedule? Or just conference members?
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 19, 2024 15:24:26 GMT -5
If the BE had gotten 2 or even 3 of the first 4 out, I would have probably agreed that their fate was sealed by unforeseen bid stealers.
But that wasn't even the case. The first 4 out was Oklahoma, Seton Hall, Indiana St., and Pitt. So yes, the Pirates were in theory 2 bid stealers away from the dance. But that's also saying that SJU and Providence's resumes were basically dead on arrival coming into NYC, even before considering Providence beat Creighton and SJU beat SHU while staying extremely competitive against a 1 seed. And that's very, very wrong.
I found it interesting that supposedly, NET is not even a criteria for selection. It's only used for seeding after selections are made. NET was the only criteria (outside of just raw numbers of wins) that UVA was even remotely competitive against when comparing against SJU, SHU, and Prov. If there's something out there that definitively supports UVA getting in over any of the excluded BE teams outside of just raw number of wins or some cop-out argument of "well the BE teams could've done more to get in," I'd love to see it.
Look, overall I appreciate Val. She led us out of the darkest times of 2013 when we weren't even sure we'd have a conference anymore. The initial TV deal with Fox Sports has been a net positive since the league reformed. And, if she's able to secure a competitive deal when the current contract expires, she will have done her job. But that benign statement yesterday and giving off the perception that she didn't go to bat for multiple institutions in the conference over the past few days was a big miss.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 19, 2024 15:33:34 GMT -5
Each conference gets only one rep on the selection committee. Our rep is Barry Collier AD from Butler. But he has to be out of the room when the Big East teams are discussed.
Apparently the ACC ADs did a lot of lobbying to get UVA in. Val is staying silent on all this and hoping it will go away. This certainly seems hypocritical by the committee. On the one hand, it's "we pick teams, not conferences," but on the other hand it's painting the entire conference with a broad brush when handling recusals. Of course, the same procedures apply to other leagues, but it still seems ham-fisted. Does the recusal rule apply to any team that your school played in the non-league schedule? Or just conference members? My understanding is that you have to recuse yourself for any discussion involving the teams that are in the league you represent. So Collier has to leave the room when Seton Hall, st John’s, Providence, Connecticut, Marquette and Creighton are discussed. However it appears that you do not have to leave the room if its not the current league you represent even if you worked for or played for that team/school previously. For example Keith Gill represent the Sun Belt but played for Duke. He would have to leave the room if a Sun Belt team is discussed but wouldn’t have to leave the room if Duke or ACC team is discussed. This is probably where ACC lobbying or horse trading can occur. Doing a quick perusal of backgrounds, Below is a list of committee members who have some nexus to a bubble school/league but didn’t have to leave the room. The other thing I noticed was that surprisingly not one committee member had worked for or playef for a Big East school during their careers except Barry Collier (Butler AD) Charles Mclleland, selection committee chair went to Texas A&M. Bubba Cunningham, vice chair UNC AD Mark Coyle Minnesota AD (former AD at Boise S and Syracuse, FSU alum) Keith Gill, Sun Belt, Duke alum. Arthur Johnson Temple AD. 1999 UNC Admin Assistant
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 742
|
Post by rhw485 on Mar 19, 2024 15:40:01 GMT -5
i'm not sure I fully agree with it, but the committee is clearly sending a message on non-conference scheduling / results. Non conference strength of schedule per NET
Mountain West Bubble Colorado State: 82 Boise State: 32
Big East Bubble: Providence: 230 Seton Hall: 227 St. Johns: 172
Now I left out Nevada and their 247 strength of schedule, but they got knocked down to 10 seed despite going 13-5 in that league.
Seton Hall beat Missouri but lost to Rutgers, Iowa, USC. Now I personally thinking 13 BE wins should be enough but they lacked a signature non conference win. I cant believe the committee discounted their UConn win because Clingan got hurt in 2nd half (while still charging them losses while Richmond was hurt). They really do seem to be the one who got hosed and without the bid stealers they're in.
Should St. John's losing to Michigan by 16 really matter today? That being said, 4-10 in Q1 is pretty damning, as is going 1-7 against the 3 BE tourney teams. Lost to Boston College and Dayton as well
Providence can boast 21 wins but 11 were Quad 4. 10-10 in the BE sounds great but if you take away the 4 free squares everyone got, saying you went 6-10 against the rest of the Big East (that still included Xavier and Butler who were not particularly close to the bubble), that certainly feels less exciting.
And frankly, none of these teams looked super impressive playing Gtown. Like I was not watching those games thinking these are really solid tourney teams.
Virginia is the most egregious admission, if you swapped them w Seton Hall I think everyone would generally be fine? Either way I hope this encourages the BE teams to really make sure they're scheduling appropriately.
|
|
jester
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,006
|
Post by jester on Mar 19, 2024 16:04:47 GMT -5
I agree with this. By eye test St John's did not look great against some pretty bad teams (overall)..thats not a criteria but it doesn't scream to me that they warranted inclusion from an absolute basis (if not relative basis).
The teams excluded had 1) less than compelling non conference SOS and 2) not enough quantity of top level wins (or some combo) of those 2.
We may want different criteria but I would say there was some consistency
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 19, 2024 16:14:14 GMT -5
i'm not sure I fully agree with it, but the committee is clearly sending a message on non-conference scheduling / results. Non conference strength of schedule per NET Mountain West Bubble Colorado State: 82 Boise State: 32 Big East Bubble: Providence: 230 Seton Hall: 227 St. Johns: 172 Now I left out Nevada and their 247 strength of schedule, but they got knocked down to 10 seed despite going 13-5 in that league. Seton Hall beat Missouri but lost to Rutgers, Iowa, USC. Now I personally thinking 13 BE wins should be enough but they lacked a signature non conference win. I cant believe the committee discounted their UConn win because Clingan got hurt in 2nd half (while still charging them losses while Richmond was hurt). They really do seem to be the one who got hosed and without the bid stealers they're in. Should St. John's losing to Michigan by 16 really matter today? That being said, 4-10 in Q1 is pretty damning, as is going 1-7 against the 3 BE tourney teams. Lost to Boston College and Dayton as well Providence can boast 21 wins but 11 were Quad 4. 10-10 in the BE sounds great but if you take away the 4 free squares everyone got, saying you went 6-10 against the rest of the Big East (that still included Xavier and Butler who were not particularly close to the bubble), that certainly feels less exciting. And frankly, none of these teams looked super impressive playing Gtown. Like I was not watching those games thinking these are really solid tourney teams. Virginia is the most egregious admission, if you swapped them w Seton Hall I think everyone would generally be fine? Either way I hope this encourages the BE teams to really make sure they're scheduling appropriately. Boise St Net ranking is fake. Their quad one wins are all against other mountain west teams and a WCC team. Both conferences are not elite conferences. bballnet.com/teams/boise-stateDid they even beat a power six school? I
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,864
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 19, 2024 18:11:32 GMT -5
i'm not sure I fully agree with it, but the committee is clearly sending a message on non-conference scheduling / results. Non conference strength of schedule per NET Mountain West Bubble Colorado State: 82 Boise State: 32
Big East Bubble: Providence: 230 Seton Hall: 227 St. Johns: 172Now I left out Nevada and their 247 strength of schedule, but they got knocked down to 10 seed despite going 13-5 in that league. Seton Hall beat Missouri but lost to Rutgers, Iowa, USC. Now I personally thinking 13 BE wins should be enough but they lacked a signature non conference win. I cant believe the committee discounted their UConn win because Clingan got hurt in 2nd half (while still charging them losses while Richmond was hurt). They really do seem to be the one who got hosed and without the bid stealers they're in. Should St. John's losing to Michigan by 16 really matter today? That being said, 4-10 in Q1 is pretty damning, as is going 1-7 against the 3 BE tourney teams. Lost to Boston College and Dayton as well Providence can boast 21 wins but 11 were Quad 4. 10-10 in the BE sounds great but if you take away the 4 free squares everyone got, saying you went 6-10 against the rest of the Big East (that still included Xavier and Butler who were not particularly close to the bubble), that certainly feels less exciting. And frankly, none of these teams looked super impressive playing Gtown. Like I was not watching those games thinking these are really solid tourney teams. Virginia is the most egregious admission, if you swapped them w Seton Hall I think everyone would generally be fine? Either way I hope this encourages the BE teams to really make sure they're scheduling appropriately.& I don't like this comparison, the MW schools have to schedule more HM teams in order to compensate for the weaker teams in their conference. Sure PC had gimmies with DePaul & Gtown but how is that different from Colorado State playing Air Force(260KP) & San Jose State(247KP)? We can add 238KP Fresno State to the list too. 6-10 for PC should be judged against the 3 top 15 KP teams as well as the other 5 were all top 70 most of the year
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,518
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 19, 2024 19:27:56 GMT -5
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 742
|
Post by rhw485 on Mar 19, 2024 19:46:27 GMT -5
i'm not sure I fully agree with it, but the committee is clearly sending a message on non-conference scheduling / results. Non conference strength of schedule per NET Mountain West Bubble Colorado State: 82 Boise State: 32
Big East Bubble: Providence: 230 Seton Hall: 227 St. Johns: 172Now I left out Nevada and their 247 strength of schedule, but they got knocked down to 10 seed despite going 13-5 in that league. Seton Hall beat Missouri but lost to Rutgers, Iowa, USC. Now I personally thinking 13 BE wins should be enough but they lacked a signature non conference win. I cant believe the committee discounted their UConn win because Clingan got hurt in 2nd half (while still charging them losses while Richmond was hurt). They really do seem to be the one who got hosed and without the bid stealers they're in. Should St. John's losing to Michigan by 16 really matter today? That being said, 4-10 in Q1 is pretty damning, as is going 1-7 against the 3 BE tourney teams. Lost to Boston College and Dayton as well Providence can boast 21 wins but 11 were Quad 4. 10-10 in the BE sounds great but if you take away the 4 free squares everyone got, saying you went 6-10 against the rest of the Big East (that still included Xavier and Butler who were not particularly close to the bubble), that certainly feels less exciting. And frankly, none of these teams looked super impressive playing Gtown. Like I was not watching those games thinking these are really solid tourney teams. Virginia is the most egregious admission, if you swapped them w Seton Hall I think everyone would generally be fine? Either way I hope this encourages the BE teams to really make sure they're scheduling appropriately.& I don't like this comparison, the MW schools have to schedule more HM teams in order to compensate for the weaker teams in their conference. Sure PC had gimmies with DePaul & Gtown but how is that different from Colorado State playing Air Force(260KP) & San Jose State(247KP)? We can add 238KP Fresno State to the list too. 6-10 for PC should be judged against the 3 top 15 KP teams as well as the other 5 were all top 70 most of the year I don’t disagree, just highlighting what the committee is expecting and using to judge as criteria. The Big East can disagree or they can schedule harder out of conference
|
|
hoyaguy
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,848
|
Post by hoyaguy on Mar 19, 2024 22:25:32 GMT -5
Virginia is currently down 26 points to Colorado state...what a joke.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 19, 2024 22:26:27 GMT -5
Well, the committee selected poorly. And they got a predictably poor result. Let the criticism continue, because that can't be allowed to happen again without some very public, timely, and pointed dissent.
|
|
hoyaguy
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,848
|
Post by hoyaguy on Mar 19, 2024 22:34:10 GMT -5
Finished 67-42, Virginia scored 14 points in the first half, and it wasn't until the last minute they got over 40 points. Honestly pathetic performance even if we played Colorado st at least it would be an entertaining blowout.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 19, 2024 22:50:54 GMT -5
I think the Big East got screwed, but I don't think "transparency" would have yielded a different result. Most of the decisions the committee made are defensible (except maybe Virginia), even if I disagree with some of them. It's important to keep in mind that the larger number than normal auto-bids (who otherwise would have not made the tournament at all) is the main reason why much of this stuff happened. If NC State didn't win the ACC tournament, or others, St. John's would have been in, and then while we still only have 4 bids, it's a lot less egregious. Nope. If you look at it the Big East got disproportionately screwed. Can you honestly with a straight face say that these Mountain West teams, a bad UVA team, or mediocre Texas & A&M should be in there over Seton Hall, St John’s, Providence. Even Villanova could beat these teams. UVA choked away the semi final vs NC State. You would know if you actually watched the game. Why should they be rewarded for letting NC State get the auto bid when they were responsible for choking at the end of that game. I agree the Big East got screwed, and I told you already I thought the Virginia choice was not defensible. Texas A&M had a bunch more good wins than Seton Hall, for example. That's what I mean. I may not agree with it all, but some of those calls are defensible. I think St. John's and Seton Hall have good cases for being screwed. Not as much for Providence.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,427
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Mar 19, 2024 23:43:30 GMT -5
Well, BE 0-3 in NIT.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,657
|
Post by seaweed on Mar 20, 2024 3:30:40 GMT -5
That really showed the skeptics
|
|