Are There Any Dissenting Voices? Was the Valley Treated Fairly?

[Ace Dad]

OK, we have about 900 posts about the Valley getting screwed.

Before the season many thought that four selections would be great. Now, we cry because we did not get five.

I said before the season that these guys informally look at conference affiliation and everyone told me "nope" it was the team and not the conference.

Several analysts, guys who are closer to basketball than me, clearly stated that they were surprised the MVC got as many as the ACC. Newsflash, so am I. I am not ready to say that the fifth best team in the MVC is as good as the fifth best team in the ACC. Our starting five may be competitive with ACC starters, but no way does our talent go through the 6th-9th man.

The big boys point their fingers at us having too many teams in and now we point our fingers at the Air Force Academy or another deserving team and whine and complain. We are as guilty as some of the BCS homers.

There are about 45 teams with the resume to get in. Deserving teams from other conferences did not get in because we got four teams in. If MSU gets in we would ***** about not getting 6 teams including Creighton University.

I let the rest of you guys analyze the selections. All I know is that we better win 3 out of 4 first round games or we will be the laughing stock of D1 basketball next year. If we win 1 game in the first round, the sports guys will create a new term: "the Valley effect." The Valley effect occurs when a conference is overrated due to a faulty computer system proven by the inability to beat teams in the first round of the NCAAs.

Again, I was vehement that we would never get four teams in before the season. I am glad we did. Now, somebody call Air Force and tell the Head Coach that his team stinks. That is what Gary Williams would like to do to us.

I will be rooting for all four Valley teams.

[Lurking Dog]

I'll say it. The Valley was fairly treated.

[skinny_uncle]

Looking at the seedings, the Shox are the only team who is favored. If anyone else wins their opener, it will be an "upset". Of course when SIU went to the Sweet 16 in 2002, it was as an 11 seed. That could be a good omen.
Backe to the original question, I think MSU and Creighton are both better than Cal, Utah State or Seton Hall. Some will say that is Valley bias, but I think the RPI backs me up.

[WuGameClan]

I think the Valley was fairly treated. I just think Missouri State got screwed. I am not crying about CU am I? Ists not about the Valley getting 5 its about Missouri getting screwed. How would you feel if your son played for Missouri State? He busted his *** all season long, doing things right, winning OOC and confrence games. Winning the last 8 of 10, having an RPI of 20! And they said…no thanks, Air Force is a better team…yeah, I am sure you wouldnt be bitter.:glare:

think of it like that BearDad would

[Ace Dad]

You want to play the son game?

I bet if you ask the fathers of the cadets for the Air Force team they would say the team deserved to be in?

C'mon, this is subjective. No way to make everyone happy.

Let us have some rational thinking.

If Missouri State University wanted to be assured of a slot, then the Bears should have won the MVC "Regular Season Crown" or the MVC Tournament. Not winning either put the decision in the hands of 10 men, of whom 7 come from non-BCS conferences.

Check out USA Today at www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/front.htm where you will see an unscientific poll that says Cincinatti got the biggest screw job. So, if this poll is correct and the Bearcats should get in, who goes out?

Cannot please all the schools.

[bberilam]

except MoState's Resume will go down as one of the biggest snubs in tournament history. They got screwed. RPI of 21! I realize rpi is not the only tool, but you CANNOT get an RPI of 21 without playing well enough to get in the tourney. That's why the lowest ever was 33.

[jelly_81]

AceDad your passion is compelling but the numers all say the Air Force most definetly should not be in. I'm not even saying the Missouri State should have been the other team. Because Cincinati got hosed big time as well. But the Air Force Academy most definetly shouldn't have gotten in. Their OOC SOS was in the 200+ range. I mean isn't that the exact argument they made as to why FSU didn't make it. So why did Air Force. The Bears used the system that was set up my the NCAA to figure out who was going to be in the tourney and were then screwed by said system. Doesn't hardly seem fair to me.
:salukis: :valley:

[getreal4]

Valley needs to wins some games in the Dance and prove that we deserved 4 bids or more. I'm concerned about a very possible 1-4 dance record proving that we didn't deserve 4 bids.

[Ace Dad]

You play well enough to get into the tourney by winning the regular season championship or the tournament. Not doing either allows others to determine your destiny. The RPI is only an indicator. It gives the committee a pool of schools to look at. I believe the committee was not going to give us five. Why? Well, we are just a mid-major in their eyes.

[Ace Dad]

We will never, ever agree on what teams should go in. There is subjectivity as long as people are involved. Remember the fiasco in football when they relied too much on the computer?

I bet Air Force was selected to get another team from their conference. In other words, MSU was penalized for the MVC being so good. Happens all the time in other situations where we take a weaker sister to appease a bloc of voters or a constituency (sp).

Lets say we get 5 o 6 teams in. Imagine the biased posters in several other conferences wondering how the hell MSU and CU got in.

Tomorrow at work the Maryland fans are going to give me a ration for their beloved Terps being slighted. I will say: They should have won their tournament.

[Bradleyfan]

AceDad your passion is compelling but the numers all say the Air Force most definetly should not be in. I'm not even saying the Missouri State should have been the other team. Because Cincinati got hosed big time as well. But the Air Force Academy most definetly shouldn't have gotten in. Their OOC SOS was in the 200+ range. I mean isn't that the exact argument they made as to why FSU didn't make it. So why did Air Force. The Bears used the system that was set up my the NCAA to figure out who was going to be in the tourney and were then screwed by said system. Doesn't hardly seem fair to me.
:salukis: :valley:

I agree. The Valley was treated fairly, but it was the matter of one individual team within the Valley that was not. And in all fairness, FSU, Michigan and Cincinnati, all BCS teams on top of that, can all make the same argument (whether they deserve to be there or not) about why they got chosen over for Air Force.

[1972Shocker]

Whether the MVC was treated fairly or not is somewhat subjective, as is the whole NCAA tournament selection process, and in the eyes of the beholder.

I will say this. The MVC has at least 6 of its 10 teams in post season play.

Whether everyone is exactly where they should be or whether they are seeded fairly is debatable. What is not debatable is our teams have a chance to make a statement regarding the quality of basketball in our league.

This will be determined on the court, as it should be, and whatever the results will be the most objective measure we will have to really know how we stack up.

Let the games begin and good luck to all!

:valley: :shockers: :salukis: :panthers: :braves: :bears: :jays: :sycamores: :aces: :redbirds: :bulldogs:

[MSNSaluki]

While I'm not happy with Missouri State's exclusion, I thought the Valley was treated fairly for the most part.

We got more bids than we've ever received. That's good.

I'm not sure Wichita State's profile makes the Shockers 3 seeds better than UNI, 4 better than SIU or 6 better than Bradley, but the double-digit seeds do give us a chance to do some damage against middle-of-the-road BCS teams. I chalk that up to the inconsistency shown overall by the committee.

Like everyone else has said, now we've got to win some games.

[WuGameClan]

You want to play the son game?

I bet if you ask the fathers of the cadets for the Air Force team they would say the team deserved to be in?

C'mon, this is subjective. No way to make everyone happy.

Let us have some rational thinking.



No. i really dont want to play the son game. its not about that. I am sure some of the fathers of Ill St. think they deserve a bid. the point is Missouri St. DID deserve the bid. Yes people will not be happy, but the unhappy people should be on or affiliated with the team that didnt deserve in. Yes it is subjective but come on!!! you look at Air Force's resume and then put Missouri States beside it. you tell me whos daddies should be crying!

If Missouri State University wanted to be assured of a slot, then the Bears should have won the MVC "Regular Season Crown" or the MVC Tournament. Not winning either put the decision in the hands of 10 men, of whom 7 come from non-BCS conferences.


True. So why make the second argument about Cincinnati being the team that was screwed the most. they didn’t win their conference they didn’t win the tournament. the fact is most teams in consideration didn’t do those 2 things. i do agree with you about a lot of what you said. but to say we should stop crying about it? i think Mo St fans should be mad all they want and the rest of the valley fans should not feel guilty just because they acknowledge and validate Mo St's anger.

[shocker3]

They can say all they want that teams get bids and NOT conferences, but it seems pretty obvious that Utah St and Air Force got bids because they were viewed as the second best teams in those conferences and those conferences were going to get 2 bids.

Overall the Valley wasn't treated too unfairly. BU and SIU should have gotten better seeds and MO ST should have been in over Air Force.

But it could have been a lot worse. BU was obviously one of the very last teams taken, so we were almost a three bid league.


:valley:

[skinny_uncle]

I'm also a bit surprised at Cal getting picked. Their resume (RPI 57, 3-5 against the top 50) wasn't as good as MSU or CU.

[shocker3]

I'm also a bit surprised at Cal getting picked. Their resume (RPI 57, 3-5 against the top 50) wasn't as good as MSU or CU.


Again I think it may have been a case that the PAC 10 was going to get 4 bids, so CAL was in.

I think you can say the same thing about Texas A & M and the big 12.

[Sheev]

It was fair I think. It is weird to see a team with a high RPI like Mo State's miss, but I think that it is a flawed statistic. Mo State maybe should have been in, but I don't think it is any injustice. They had to know how close it would be.

[Jayman]

I let the rest of you guys analyze the selections. All I know is that we better win 3 out of 4 first round games or we will be the laughing stock of D1 basketball next year. If we win 1 game in the first round, the sports guys will create a new term: "the Valley effect." The Valley effect occurs when a conference is overrated due to a faulty computer system proven by the inability to beat teams in the first round of the NCAAs.
.

I agree that the conference was treated fairly but I am not willing to say that about individual teams.

My issue is with your above statement. Doesn't seem like the well reasoned explanations you normally give. We are favored in one game. We win one and we hold serve. Less and we fall below expectations, more and we surpass expecations. Any other criticisms because of performance are sour grapes.

[Nyghtewynd]

Go away, Cheating Kitten troll. If we want your opinion on how to destroy a once-proud program, we'll give you a call.

[Lurking Dog]

It's silly to talk about the RPI in historical terms, as in "MSU has the highest RPI ever for a team not invited..." This year's RPI wasn't last year's RPI, and it probably won't be next year's RPI. They change the formula to engineer the result they want.

What they wanted was higher ratings for teams that can't schedule big non-conference games at home. Will the current formula, they accomplished that mission. But common sense has to be the primary determiner of who gets in.

[dawg_tired nemesis]

We do not have to win alot of games to justify 4 teams in the tourney. Afterall, WSU is the only favored team(by ncaa seeding), but I bet when the odds come out they will be an underdog by the gambling world. So why would we be expected to win 3 out of 4 first round games? Give us a 1, 2 or 3 seed and I bet the odds would be pretty good for a mvc team to make the sweet 16. I don't think anybody on here thinks a valley team could beat Duke, or anyother top team in the acc, but for them to think that a midpack acc team would dust the valley as well is just stupid. :shockers: :salukis: :panthers: :braves:

[jdoolsiu]

Ace,

you've NEVER been more wrong in a post.

Mizzou State got jobbed.
AFA AND Utah State are BOTH not good enough when putting their resumes against MSU, Florida State, or even Cincinnati.

hell, not even Michigan.

AceDad if you took the time to look at the seven indicators that the committee looks at you wouldn't be wasting your time posting such nonsense.

I respect you as a person, but I think my respect for you as a hoops fan has hit an all-time low.

The Valley getting four doesn't mean it's as good as the Big XII or the ACC or the Pac 10. LOOK AT OUR SEEDS! We've got crappy seeds. WE GOT FOUR CRAPPY SEEDS. Four cruddy seeds does not beat four GREAT seeds. Case closed. We're a #7 conference that has a top half that can beat any team on any given night....that's ALL THE COMMITTEE STATED.

Anyone who thinks AFA or USU gets in over Mizzou State or FSU is a crack smoker.
sorry,
john

[Sheev]

You can make a case for either Utah State or Air Force. I don't think that it is incredibly compelling though. Utah State did beat Oral Roberts twice and they did beat Nevada. Their case is stronger than Air Force's in my opinion. I don't necessarily agree with the committee but I can see how reasonable minds can differ.

[Ace Dad]

The vast majority of hoops fans are so enamored with their own conference and team that they toss logic and reason to the wind.

Forget my assessment.

You pick the 65 teams and then get on national television and report your rationale. Within a couple of hours fans of several conferences will want to hang you in effigy because you left off XXX University.

Again, no way to make everybody happy when selecting from a group of qualified teams.

Have you ever had to make a selection from a group of highly competent people?

[Ace Dad]

Couple of interesting newspaper items:

31% of 2084 USA Today voters say the Univ of Cin Bearkats got the worst screw job from the committee. Florida State comes in second at 16%. Missouri State is at 14% as of 10:54 PM EST

Some Great Quotes from a Washington Post Sports Columnist: Mike Wise
Sunday, March 12, 2006

...(Digger) Phelps, a power conference man, went ballistic on some unwatchable Missouri Valley game involving Bradley. He condescendingly referred to Lunardi's numbers as the "RPI, ARP, whatever." Lunardi, smiling smugly, replied, "Were you sitting there drinking your big-conference Kool-Aid while watching?"

....Major college coaches like Maryland's Gary Williams and Florida State's Leonard Hamilton have this year blamed humorless, number-crunchers such as Lunardi and Jerry Palm of www.CollegeRPI.com for influencing national opinion.... "Maryland is worse than their numbers," Palm said. "Three of their last six wins are over Georgia Tech. Their RPI in their last 13 games [without Chris McCray] would put them around No. 60."

Asked why the Terrapins are not part of the discussion while a seemingly inferior Missouri Valley team such as Northern Iowa is, Palm replied, Williams "wouldn't play Northern Iowa for anything. Who's he kidding?"

[shocker3]

It's silly to talk about the RPI in historical terms, as in "MSU has the highest RPI ever for a team not invited..." This year's RPI wasn't last year's RPI, and it probably won't be next year's RPI. They change the formula to engineer the result they want.

What they wanted was higher ratings for teams that can't schedule big non-conference games at home. Will the current formula, they accomplished that mission. But common sense has to be the primary determiner of who gets in.


Actualy I believe this year's RPI IS last year's rpi.

The committee made some changes to the rpi last year but I don't think they made any changes for this year. :valley:

[outpost]

I think the Valley was treated fairly in terms of number of bids.

Seedings should have all been slightly higher, though. Except for the Shocks. I like our seed, and was pleasantly surprised that we didn't end up in the 8-9 game.

[JVShocker]

I thought the Valley was treated fairly until Packer and Nantz opened their mouths.

If the Valley was going to get 4 teams, and it comes down to Bradley and MSU, they're probably taking Bradley. MSU's UG-LY exit out of the MVC tourney in the first round was noticed.

[DawgFan]

By the criteria used in the past, even the recent past, Missouri State should of received a bid.

They did not, yet Air Force, Utah State and Seton Hall did.

I rarely understand the seeding process, although I catch the drift on BCS teams getting prime seeds and non BCS teams getting lower seeds.

That said, I think Bradley was seeded too low.

So yeah, the MVC was dissed. And that is nothing new with this process.

[CreightonRx]

Utah St has 1 win against a top 50 team.

Air force has 0.

MSU has 4 and CU has 6. and both MSU and CU have higher RPI's than those teams.

So I do believe their is reason to voice displeasure. It's not about the ACC getting 4 and the MVC getting 4, look at the seeds! They have some pretty elite teams, we have 6 solid teams. The comittee may say teams get bids not conferences, but this disproves that. And why was the MVC the largest source of discussion in the war room if conferences don't matter? This is the biggest joke of a committee, and it's not just valley fans. Bracketology experts like Palm and Lunardi are calling them out as well.

[Little Eddie]

Any team that loses twice to my alma mater, the University of Wyoming, not only deserves to be left out, they should be too embarrassed to accept an NIT bid as well.

C'mon Wyoming was RPI 191 when the beat the Farce the 2nd time around...the Cowpatties (I say that w/ affection) just aren't good this year and if Air Farce couldn't beat them 2 out of 3 times I think they needed to be left out in the cold in Colorado Springs.

I don't think CU deserved that bid but MSU and CU deserved much moreso than Air Farce...nobody will ever be able to tell me different.

[calshockfan]

I believe that the last MVC regular season champion to be left out of the NCAA tournament was Evansville. I'm sure that Ace Dad would agree that was very fair since it was a subjective process. This year a whopping 8 at large bids went to non BCS conference schools. Two to absolutely horrible PAC 10 schools Arizona and California.

The Missouri Valley fared better in the NCAA tourament when only one team from each conference was allowed in. The expansion of the tournament field was designed to benefit the larger conferences. Thus the outcry from the larger conferences when their superiority is threatened.

[Aargh]

Now that I've calmed down a bit from seeing MSU having at least 2 of the 3 best RPI's ever getting left out, I'm able to put this whole thing into a different context.

It's like officiating. It will never be perfect, but you have to play with what gets called.

The ONLY thing that makes a Valley team a "lock" is winning the auto or winning the regular season. 2nd or T2nd has been NIT 2 years in a row.

The seeds the Valley got are maybe where they should be. BU got in by the skin of its teeth with a late-season run. SIU tried to self-destruct but got the auto. UNI was in free-fall late in the season and also barely pulled out an invite.

It would be hard to put MSU in front of either Bradley or UNI. Pardon me, Bears fans, but UNI and BU have more "upside". MSU has more "downside". I hate to use NBA terms, but it's still a race for TV audience and hype. UNI has the big wins. BU has the big man. Both translate into viewers.

This NCAA is the MVC/BEast showdown. UNI and SIU will be underdogs. Opening line on WSU/SH is WSU by 2. BU is probably the best team in the Valley for a matchup with KU.

According to the seedings 1/4 is where the Valley should be. I don't think 3/4 is out of the question.

[cpacmel]

I think the MVC was not treated fairly. MO State should have been in. They did more this season than Air Force and Utah State.

Also the seedings are nonsense.

Valley needs to make a statement in this postseason.

We also need to make a statement next season, that we as a conference are not going to let the Billy Packers of the world push us around. Luckily we have a guy like Doug Elgin, who isn't going to let that happen.

Barry has been a great mouthpiece for this conference. I fully expect for him to let his feelings be known about this.

When Dick Vitale and Jay Bilas both agree that Missouri State got the "screw job" (bilas's words) you know something is fishy.

[WSUfan]

I don't know if the Valley was treated unfairly (but I certainly think it was). If the selection process is a fair, nonpolitical process which follows the stated rules and guidelines, then one should look at the NCAA criteria and guidelines and see if these were followed. For example, I believe that teams and not conferences receive bids. If a careful and fair analysis of the field reveals that the process was not fair (e.g. teams got bids because of their conference affiliations), then someone, perhaps the MVC, got screwed. I suspect that on the basis of established criteria, Missuori State had a better case than a couple of teams that got in.

[shockersup]

Did the MVC get fairly treated? Mostly.
Did Air Force have a tourney resume? No chance.
Did MoSt. get humped? Yes they did.

What can you do? I'm not saying that MoSt. wouldn't have recieved the proverbial shaft even if Air Force hadn't recieved a bid? No. But there is no doubt that there are a number of teams like Hofstra, Mo.St, Creighton and some others that had much better resumes.

sup

[redbirdtim]

I think even the players fathers (and mothers too) would agree that we absolutely stunk this year and do not deserve a bid...

I do think MSU got the shaft. They played the selection committee game...great RPI, top 50 wins, etc., and got shafted. I have read that the committee thought the #2 team (AFA) from the #8 conference should have made it in (last year's #2 team from the #8 conference-Wichita St.). This after saying that it isn't the conference, it's the team that determines who gets in. The committee dropped the ball on this one. They need to determine better criteria than lining their pockets (the Kentucky's, Zona's, etc.), or helping out conferences (the MWC).

[Pocket Aces]

I believe that the last MVC regular season champion to be left out of the NCAA tournament was Evansville. I'm sure that Ace Dad would agree that was very fair since it was a subjective process. This year a whopping 8 at large bids went to non BCS conference schools. Two to absolutely horrible PAC 10 schools Arizona and California.

The Missouri Valley fared better in the NCAA tourament when only one team from each conference was allowed in. The expansion of the tournament field was designed to benefit the larger conferences. Thus the outcry from the larger conferences when their superiority is threatened.


The only time Evansville has won the Valley was in 1999 and they did get an at-large bid to the tourney.

[DUShock]

My two cents.

The young men from AFA absolutely deserve to be in the tourney.

In fact the young men and women in the service academy schools and the Ivy League are the only vestige of what being a true scholar athlete is all about. They don't need tutors and are students first and athletes second. I know the cause of this is greed and much larger social & societal issues but do not discriminate against those who get it done and get it done correctly.

Go Valley!!

Go Shocks!!!!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Ace Dad,

Who the heck cares what the public says in unscientific polls. I guarantee you that 95% of those people are far from being informed enough to actually make that decision. Its like trying to take a poll on which day of the week the space shuttle should take off, based on weather and other such factors. Only a small percentage of people have even a clue what they are talking about.

(I'm not saying selecting the NCAA field is nearly as difficult as being a worker at NASA, but you get my point)

[Ace Dad]

Got it.

Valleytalk posters are informed enough to criticize the selection process but other sports fans are not.

As of 12:50 (EST) 8,312 people have voted regarding who got the shaft from the committee:

Cincinnati: 35%

Florida State: 17%

Michigan: 17%

Missouri State: 17%

Maryland 9%

Hofstra: 7%

St Joes: 5%

Creighton Univ: 4%

[Myopicraiderfan]

I think the Valley was treated fairly. We would have liked more but some teams get left out. The best way for Creighton and Mo St. to prove they deserved in is to win some NIT games. Granted they are not on the center stage but if they make it to Madison square garden then I think that helps the Valley as much as some round "upsets".

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I never said Valleytalk fans were any more credible.

However, I feel that I am. I know this sounds bad, as it is easy for anyone to say that they are credible, but I feel that I am. I am a math and numbers person. I am about to graduate with an engineering degree, mostly because my love of numbers got me into it.

I spent several hours each week for the past 2 months analyizing the numbers. I analyized teams from the last 6 or 7 years, and compared their resumes to what the selection committee lists as their critieria. I analyized how the committee choose which teams it did.

I analyized this year's teams. I compared teams head to head, using multiple methods. I watched lots of basketball, seeing nearly every bubble team play atleast once.

All this said. Missouri State deserved a bid before Air Force did. I say this both according to my opinion of which team was more deserving, and according to which team met the committee's criteria from past years.

The committee members change some from year to year, and this year's committee did not follow the same guidelines and decision making processes of past committees. I wonder how much having a new head on the committee changed things.

Anyway, this is how I feel. I know it isn't politically correct for me to say that "I'm better than most people", and other than my occasional goofyness under my screen name of JH4P, I generally try to stay as humble as possible, but when it comes to this matter, I honestly feel more qualified than most people out there.

[Ace Dad]

You and I are the exact opposite. Although I have taken several statistic classes in college and for my master's, I am not a numbers guy.

My years of having to use criteria to choose among many qualified people, organizations, or whatever, tells me that no matter what you do, someone else thinks they can do it better.

The selection process is not a science nor is it an art. The process requires using the best from the quantitative (RPI) with knowledge from the qualitative (subjective intuition based on play) and then deciding how much politics will play.

No doubt that the committee was never, ever going to give us five bids. The cat is out of the bag.

I would love to talk to you in about 20 years when you have had some jobs where you have had to choose among many qualified for one selection and see if you have mellowed somewhat.

Imagine sitting on a promotion board with 11 other Colonels and Generals and using criteria to select 18 Battalion Commanders from a pool of 145 very qualified Army officers. No matter who is selected, someone will feel slighted.

Imagine sitting on a parole board and voting whether or not a prisoner will be released. The criteria are qualitative and morped into quantitative selections. No matter what you do, the community, the inmate's family, and the victim have an opinion.

8856 fans have voted and the Bearkats lead the "screw meter" with 35%.

[CaliRdBrd]

Treated fairly? Are you kidding? Not only did we not get the 5 teams in that we deserved, we were unfairly treated with our seedings.

Cal with a 7 seed? Indiana with a 6 seed? Montana a 12 seed? OU a 6 seed?

This is total BS.

Now were looking at a possible 1-3 record in the first round (due to seeding) and that opens the door to all the BCS homers telling us we didn't deserve more than two teams.

I can't epxress how important it is for us to have 3-4 advance - it has to happen if we are to move to the next level in the NCAA myopic mindset.

M

[philcski]

except MoState's Resume will go down as one of the biggest snubs in tournament history. They got screwed. RPI of 21! I realize rpi is not the only tool, but you CANNOT get an RPI of 21 without playing well enough to get in the tourney. That's why the lowest ever was 33.

On the same note, Hofstra would have broken the record at 30 if Mo State did get in. Either way, I can understand the exclusion as the RPI is NOT the be-all and end-all. They had a weaker overall profile than the 4 Valley selections in every category except the overall RPI, and while I believe conference affiliation shouldn't affect selections, they did. No question about it. The only reason Air Force and Utah State got in (according to Littlepage) is "they finished second in the 8th and 9th ranked conferences."
If the Big East had 14 deserved candidates, take them all. If the CAA has 3 deserved candidates, take them all. If the Mo Valley had 6 deserved candidates, take them all.

[dawg_tired nemesis]

You do know thare are alot more bcs fans than NON bcs fans voting in that pole? Not that I can prove it, but I think anyone would agree with me....

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Ace Dad,

I understand what you are saying about people will disagree no matter how you pick. Selecting the field is a very hard process.

I guess my main point is that the process has the advantage of more concrete numbers than most similarly tough decisions. Based on my interpretation of the numbers from a mathematical standpoint, the committee changed their standards this year from the standard's they have used in years past. Every bit of statistician in me tells me that this is true. The fact that the basketball fan inside me also says Missouri State was a better team simply reinforces this idea for me all the more.

This is the source of my frustration.

[ColdHardFacts]

You want to play the son game?

I bet if you ask the fathers of the cadets for the Air Force team they would say the team deserved to be in?

C'mon, this is subjective. No way to make everyone happy.

Let us have some rational thinking.

If Missouri State University wanted to be assured of a slot, then the Bears should have won the MVC "Regular Season Crown" or the MVC Tournament. Not winning either put the decision in the hands of 10 men, of whom 7 come from non-BCS conferences.

Check out USA Today at www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/front.htm where you will see an unscientific poll that says Cincinatti got the biggest screw job. So, if this poll is correct and the Bearcats should get in, who goes out?

Cannot please all the schools.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am 99% certain it was you who earlier this years infatically said the Valley would get 3 teams max. And you scoffed at anyone who though otherwise.

That said, I can see why and where you are coming from in this thread. :wink:

:bears:

[IAJay]

Ace,

you've NEVER been more wrong in a post.

Mizzou State got jobbed.
AFA AND Utah State are BOTH not good enough when putting their resumes against MSU, Florida State, or even Cincinnati.

hell, not even Michigan.

AceDad if you took the time to look at the seven indicators that the committee looks at you wouldn't be wasting your time posting such nonsense.

I respect you as a person, but I think my respect for you as a hoops fan has hit an all-time low.

The Valley getting four doesn't mean it's as good as the Big XII or the ACC or the Pac 10. LOOK AT OUR SEEDS! We've got crappy seeds. WE GOT FOUR CRAPPY SEEDS. Four cruddy seeds does not beat four GREAT seeds. Case closed. We're a #7 conference that has a top half that can beat any team on any given night....that's ALL THE COMMITTEE STATED.

Anyone who thinks AFA or USU gets in over Mizzou State or FSU is a crack smoker.
sorry,
john"

I could not agree with this poster more. While the committee did throw us four bids, they gave us games that will be very difficult to win. I would love to take a questionable team like Bama or Cal or even Indiana. Instead the valley gets the team with he best chance to make alot of noise, Bradley, matched up against one of the hottest and most talented teams in the country. I just hope that those who think the valley got a fair take, stop listening to those who benefit most from having the big-time programs make it far. I have watched most of these teams in the tourny now, and I had a the oppurtunity to go to Iowa's home games this year. Here's the thing, while the major conferences might have the "athletes" they don't have the basketball players, like the Valley has. That is how Iowa goes on to finish second in the conference, and that is how the valley has leveled the playing field. As far as AFA and Utah State, I watched these teams play in the conference tournaments and it seemed to be like the Valley from a couple years ago, when it just wasn't very good. The Valley can't accept the old scraps, because the teams are better then this.

[shocker3]

.



No doubt that the committee was never, ever going to give us five bids. The cat is out of the bag.

.


You are clearly right about this year ,4 bids was our max.

What really disappoints me about this is that conference HASN'T mattered in the past. I remember two years in a row 1998 and 1999, I believe when the A-10 got 5 bids each year.

Noboby threw a big fit then.

I guess you can get 5 bids if your from the East Coast, but not if you are a farm state hick league.

Hopefully we are making progress.

Our league may be even better next year. Hopefully this years 4 bids will pave the way for 5 bids next year.

Of course, we need to get some wins in this years dance to make that happen and the committee has really made it hard on us by giving us some bad seeds.

(Bradley's seed is even worse than it looks because Ku should really be a three seed.):valley:

[shockersup]

The facts are the comittee did a horrible job all the way around this year. Look at some of the top seeds locations and then look at who they are playing. So much for the pod system. Look at Montana getting a 12 seed or Indiana getting a 6 or George Washington getting an 8. Look at Utah st, AFA getting in over Mo st or Hofstra... The fact is that the SC put politics ahead of all the numbers. AFA is in becuase they are the #2 team in the 8th ranked con according to ESPN. Most is tied for #2 of the #6 and aren't in. That excuse is BS. Most has a better RPI, better SOS and played and won more gamse vs the RPI top 50 then both AFA and Utah St combined. The reason why Mo.St. got jobbed is the SC didn't want to have to listen to any crap about how the MVC got more bids then the ACC and Big12 and Pac-10. Ace dad, I respcet you very much but this bit that 4 bids makes us as good as the ACC or any other BCS (-Pac10 who we are better then) is silly. Our seeds are 7, 10,11,12. Hell the PAC-10 is 2-8.... 2-8!!!!!!!!??????? HOW!? Arizona shouldn't even be in and they are seeded higher then 3/4 of the MVC teams which all have better resumes and played in a harder league. Texas A&M got in simply because they needed a 4th Big 12 team even though they played one of the worst OOC's in the nation and went 10-6 in a WEAK big12 this year. Your simply not seeing the forrest for the trees on this one I'm affraid.

sup

[wushockduke]

As much as Missouri State deserved to be in, I can't say they deserved it more than George Mason. The Colonial Athletic Conference finished 10 or 11 in the RPI, and that is deserving of two NCAA Bids in my opinion. They also had a very good year, along with UNC Wilmington. So, if George Mason getting in means the Valley only getting 4, that is fine with me. Now, Air Force, I don't know about much, but it sounds like they received a gift.

[Ace Dad]

USA Today partial article:

Projecting the MVC

Fox Sports Net Midwest television analyst Charlie Spoonhour, who coached five NCAA Tournament teams at Southwest Missouri State (now Missouri State) and three at Saint Louis, breaks down the first-round games involving Missouri Valley Conference teams:

Bradley-Kansas: "I think it depends a little on if Bradley is not awed by the situation. Kansas is a young team, but they've played in very big games and played so well Sunday (against Texas). Bradley is athletic enough to play with them if they can mentally face up to it. When they go inside to (center Patrick O'Bryant), very few people have had an answer. Bradley can force turnovers, block shots and change shots, which gives them a chance."

Northern Iowa-Georgetown: "At first blush, you ask how is Northern Iowa going to play against all these good athletes, but they've proven they can do that. Anybody that can win at LSU can play with anybody. They know their roles and know how to play. They won't be intimidated."

Southern Illinois-West Virginia: "Southern Illinois' strength is going out and pressuring and making you make mistakes. People who pressure West Virginia have run into problems because they cut so well, they back-cut and set up threes off all that. It's a difficult draw for Southern Illinois, but they won't quit guarding or quit playing."

Wichita State-Seton Hall: "I think back to Wichita State's game against Illinois on a neutral floor and Wichita State had Illinois beaten with four seconds to go (Illinois won on a layup as time expired in South Padre Island, Texas). That gets my attention. Wichita State defends very well and they'll defend Seton Hall's shooters all day."

[shockersup]

As much as Missouri State deserved to be in, I can't say they deserved it more than George Mason. The Colonial Athletic Conference finished 10 or 11 in the RPI, and that is deserving of two NCAA Bids in my opinion. They also had a very good year, along with UNC Wilmington. So, if George Mason getting in means the Valley only getting 4, that is fine with me. Now, Air Force, I don't know about much, but it sounds like they received a gift.

That may be the case and I too believe that GMU deserves to be in but I don't think being #2 in the #10/11 con had jack to do with it. I think it had to do with record and RPI. We've been told over and over tha the comittee selecets teams not conferences so a selection like GMU had little to do with the fact that the CAA deserved 2 bids, heck thy deserved 3. The #8 con is where AFA came from and that same excuse was used in an ESPN article that the #2 school from the #8 con deserved to be in. Well what happened to not giving bids to cons but teams on that one? If that's the case then how can MSU whom is tied for 2nd in the #6 con with a better profile be left out? Well they didn't want 5 MVC teams is the only explination since they dodged and weaved and changed reasons for allowing #2 teams in the 6-11 cons this year. Simply put they failed on a major level IMO.

sup

[pawball]

All of this talk is why I am for taking the humans out of the selection process and just relying on the best computer model that can be created for doing this. Things that supposedly were points of emphasis in the past weren't this year. Maybe the RPI needs to be adjusted to partially take into account margin of victory, up to a point, and change the Road Win from a 1.4 to 1.2 and vice versey for a Home Loss.

When well over 90% of the people who follow hoops seem to be at a loss to explain why a team like Air Force got in, something's not right. When a committee decides one team gets in and another doesn't just by how they looked in the last game they played (Utah State, my how last impressions seem to matter more in this business), something's not right. Impressions are why Harding was elected President. Had nuttin to do with competency.

[7hottamales]

The only real problem I have with it was Bradley's 13 seed. I think they definitely deserved a higher seed than Montana. They probably deserved a better seed than Utah State and Kent State as well.

I think thee 4 teams that should have gotten in did get in. I don't think Missouri State should. I do think they have a better case than Utah State & Air Force, but I also think there are 3 or 4 better teams (than MSU) that were also left out.

To be 100% fair, I'm not sure WSU wasn't seeded a spot higher than they should have been.

So I guess my answer is the Valley was treated very fairly in balance. WSU probably could have been an 8, Bradley a 12, but the right teams got in.

:shockers:

[DawgFan]

I've respected Utah State's program for a long time. They were screwed hardcore in '04 (funny how they couldn't get a bid in the Big West with more credentials and a 2nd reg season, 2nd tourney in the WAC got it done).

But, I watched that Nevada/Utah State game closely. I'm not sure what was impressive about blowing a point blank lay-up to win in regulation. Or their 33 year old point guard or their shooting guard unable to get looks against Nevada's athletes.

This was a fine year for them to be in the NIT.

[ColdHardFacts]

USA Today partial article:

Projecting the MVC

Fox Sports Net Midwest television analyst Charlie Spoonhour, who coached five NCAA Tournament teams at Southwest Missouri State (now Missouri State) and three at Saint Louis, breaks down the first-round games involving Missouri Valley Conference teams:

Bradley-Kansas: "I think it depends a little on if Bradley is not awed by the situation. Kansas is a young team, but they've played in very big games and played so well Sunday (against Texas). Bradley is athletic enough to play with them if they can mentally face up to it. When they go inside to (center Patrick O'Bryant), very few people have had an answer. Bradley can force turnovers, block shots and change shots, which gives them a chance."

Northern Iowa-Georgetown: "At first blush, you ask how is Northern Iowa going to play against all these good athletes, but they've proven they can do that. Anybody that can win at LSU can play with anybody. They know their roles and know how to play. They won't be intimidated."

Southern Illinois-West Virginia: "Southern Illinois' strength is going out and pressuring and making you make mistakes. People who pressure West Virginia have run into problems because they cut so well, they back-cut and set up threes off all that. It's a difficult draw for Southern Illinois, but they won't quit guarding or quit playing."

Wichita State-Seton Hall: "I think back to Wichita State's game against Illinois on a neutral floor and Wichita State had Illinois beaten with four seconds to go (Illinois won on a layup as time expired in South Padre Island, Texas). That gets my attention. Wichita State defends very well and they'll defend Seton Hall's shooters all day."


Is this in the right thread?