Direct from the NCAA Committee Chair...

Unless next year there's a different committee, in which case they may well empasize the S-curve all over again.

I sure think this year's top 4 seeds and where they were sent makes a heck of a lot more sense than last year's, and I'm thrilled Duke is being sent out to Phoenix.
 
I like very much what the committee did. Unless there is a gross disparity of regional strength, it makes sense to reward both 1 and 2 seeds with the best location possible. This might even explain Wisconsin getting a 3 seed in the Midwest.

As the guy who has been commenting for weeks on the Big 12's top teams drawing lousy locations, I think the conference did as well as it could.

I do kind of wonder about Arizona getting to play in Phoenix if they make it that far.
 
The "pods" system (even though I don't think they're using that name this year) is a great concept - let as many teams play close to home as possible. Better for the teams, better for the fans, better basketball. A few teams get screwed but far less than when the committee just s-cureved it.
 
I guess that is what I'm saying, although that's not what I mean.

What I was thinking, is that I'm glad you posted that, since otherwise I wouldn't have been aware that's what the selection committee chairman said, and I found it a very interesting piece of information.

I don't know that I would get declarative regarding what it will mean to future selection committees, but it's important to me as a basketball fan --- and particularly as a UT basketball fan --- to know about that for this year. And I wouldn't have known it unless you had started this thread with that information.

So far from thinking you should sit back and enjoy the ride, I'm very thankful you post what you do, whether I agree with it or not.
 
Both of you guys are right, IMO.

All committees apply the guidelines, but each committee is different, and each committee is faced with a different set of candidates, and a different set of regional sites.

We're never going to be able to figure it out for sure, because, despite Dick Vitale's limited complaints last night -- "I wish they would just tell us the rule" or something like that, in evaluating Arizona vs. Arizona State -- the committee needs enough wiggle room to do what it thinks is best, without having to live under some concrete statute.

It's very possible that Tennessee and Texas did get what they got because the committee, in its judgment, thought it was reasonable to put them in those spots. In another year, with similar records, other teams might have been so good that it wouldn't have been reasonable to do that. But you can't foresee these things ahead of time, and if living by the S-curve next year is "better," then I expect they'll do that.

Personally, I think the best thing the NCAA has done in some time is open up a bit of this process to the public. I think it has kept the committees on their toes. It's been a long time since there has been a wink, a nod, a slap on the back, and some committee member's school got in just because nobody wanted to face him after they voted it out, or there was a gift seed or two passed out, same reason.

Texas did come out of this about as well as it could have. I'd rather they were in Birmingham this weekend, but you can't always get what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top