That's the point. Some of us don't agree with how it works.
Basketball BIG 10 CHAMPIONSHIP: PENN STATE VS PURDUE PREVIEW AND GAME THREAD - 3:30 PM - CBS
- Thread starter Dylan Callaghan-Croley
- Start date
The point is that those who have had the power to determine these things want to keep doing it their way behind the curtain without having to explain the many inconsistencies in their methods and putting their thumbs on the scale.
i think we all get it
if ohio state or syracuse were the ones making a run from the bubble to the conference tournament final they would jump up to a 5 seed after a massive push from the talking heads
if it's someone like penn state or northwestern in the exact same position they go from the bubble to still on the bubble
Even if they cut off Saturday morning....
Why are MSU and Iowa seeded as high as they are? It sounds to me like they cut off sooner than that.
sounds to me like they were looking at names and seeding based on things coaches did years ago
We hear those types of things year after year...and yet again, history doesn't prove it as being true at all.
Biggest seeding snub that people seem to point to is Duke being under-seeded as a 4. Is that because they aren't a big enough school?
Biggest surprise getting in was Nevada...is that because of their brand name that will bring in more viewers?
Yet again...bracketmatrix has Michigan St as a 7 (which they are), and Iowa as a 9 (ended up as an 8, so one spot off). They landed pretty close to where they were both expected to land, and coaches names had nothing to do with it.
If the disagreement is with the bracketing principles and procedures, then I can understand the argument. If the criticism is that the committee did something wrong in pairing A&M with PSU based on our seeds on the s-curve...well, they did exactly what they were supposed to do.
what if they manipulated the seeds to try and create texas vs texas a&m, or to punish a coach who dared to criticize their process? do you think that's exactly what they are supposed to do? because it seems like they did at least one of those things
I don't think they did either of those. Geographically, both Texas and TA&M made sense in this pod. And I definitely don't buy the "they punished Buzz for speaking out". But it seems like with anyone that people feel are underseeded, or matchups that might have subplots, that the theory is that there was something more behind it.
Based on expectations before the tournament games were played
well i see it differently and i hope they get Colgate-Penn State as their reward for playing these games with seeds.
Illinois also beat Texas and UCLA in the non conf....PSU didn't take advantage of chances to win vs VT and Clemson, which would have helped the resume
i do hope Micah changes one thing after this season, and that is the scheduling. He made the error of scheduling a cupcake nonconf. it never helps unless your goal is sweating it out on selection sunday or going to the NIT
Exactly. Even just a few tweaks makes a big difference...we don't need to be playing Kansas. But replace Delaware State with a MAC or MVC team. Replace Lafayette with one of the favorites in the Patriot League. Get one more home and home with a Power 5 school in place of Canisus. Nothing drastic, but teams like Delaware State and Loyola were expected to be bad, and just drag down the rest of the schedule.
VT especially, since it would have also updated our last game in Charleston from Colorado State on a neutral to Charleston on the road.
No question....one of the many next steps as a program would be next level non conf games...and being able to qualify for the tournament without needing a herculean run in Chicago. Obviously this was super fun and inspiring to watch...but no doubt, next steps are needed to become more consistent as a program
i would just try and get Villanova, Temple, Penn, Bucknell on the schedule every year. that would probably be sufficient to bump up the sos, and we used to play them all pretty often
I think we used to have games against most of them almost annually in the Parkhill/Dunn years. then it just kind of went away
Disagree. Otherwise Indy would have moved down and PSU would have moved up. You even admitted that a lot of these were locked in days ago.
I'm talking about the theories with the actual committee...people on the bracketmatrix had to submit a bracket today. How much they consider late results is up to them, however it's a lot easier for a person to shift around their bracket than the committee as it's currently structured.
agreed on that
in retrospect just playing it out would have been much better and we may have even won
Definitely agree...I'm always a play it out guy when you've got the other team in transition. That timeout really allowed Painter to set his D and get the matchups he wanted (plus put Edey out there to defend the inbounds pass, which proved to be huge).
To win it all, you have to beat the best. Playing a tough team first should not matter. I think that TAMU has more to worry about than Micah. They have not defended any team like Penn State. The Lions can beat any team when they hit their 3s. Pickett is a unique match up for any defense.
Wouldn’t have helped us at all because neither made the tournament.
Tell your first sentence to the number one seeds…they don’t have to beat the best until they get to the sweet 16 or maybe even the elite 8. As a ten seed, you have to first beat a seven seed, and a seven seed isn’t usually as good as A&M.
Agree. We had this discussion a few days ago when PSU scored an All-American and I said it would help with the selection committee when we were on the bubble. It is about money. Nobody is going to watch March Madness to catch a PSU game. We, frankly, haven't earned that over the decades.
I think grabbing one or both of those would have helped in general...the KenPom and many of these system metrics are so flimsy. Beating two ACC teams would have helped at least provide a buffer for some of the disappointing losses we had.
Not many in the east when the game doesn't start until 10:00pm.
Yes, and I have an 8 hour drive the next am. We finally make the tournament, and they screw us every which way (seed, opponent that should be seeded higher, game played in a further region, and time of game exceedingly tough for east coast viewers). Unfortunately, I won't get to watch it.
yeah...its pretty bad. I try not to get paranoid but this was about the worst possible seed given the reality of the situation. I guess we just have to win.
The positive is that this team has come together and looks now like they can play with anyone. Even Dread has his confidence back after a really rough patch.
the game is an inside, outside game with all of these kids practicing the 3-pointer all of their lives. It isn't dominated by Bigs. PSU has gotten hot down the stretch. And they had no pressure until Purdue. Step up and knock it down. Funk kind of came out of nowhere. When you've got 3 or 4 kids standing on the perimeter who are hitting 3s at over 40% that is a load on the defense. Our Achilles heel is defending the low post.
Let's hope the kids just go out and have fun without feeling the pressure.
the speech after the game had to be you just came within one shot of beating a final 4 team. they will be ready
I get it that we lost twice to both Wisconsin and Rutgers. That should count against us but tournament wins over Northwestern and Indiana should count for us and I don't think they did.
We we're 10-10 in the BiG. We were 13-11 which is better than teams ahead of us.
reading the gripes from other schools, the consensus seems to be that the committee did a pretty bad job this year
a few other things i didn't notice like they tried to set up Bill Self vs Illinois in round 2, and put Houston in the same bracket with Texas and A&M, trying to maximize the chances that a Texas team plays in the final 4 in Houston. Aside from Texas A&M and psu, they also underseeded Memphis for who knows what reason
this is all total bs that they should not be doing. and they do it by manipulating seeds which a bunch of teams are affected by
Last edited:
Dr Redfield testified to the House committee last week that funding came from NIH, CDC, the State Dept and DOD.
