Updated Tournament Watch!

[Arizona's Finest]

Again this comparison thing is getting real old. You would think that something a little trickier that the word "Arizona" being in both teams titles wouldn't throw so many people off.

Here is the bottom line. You weren't competing with us. The Head to Head match up was irrelevant. By your logic Memphis should be the #2 and Tennessee should be #1 because Tenn beat Memphis in Memphis this year. We had a tough season but we managed to play well despite much adversity. It doesn't really matter that you beat us head to head to head. We were not one of the last 4 in according to the seeding and you were almost assuredly one of the last 4 out.

So go b---h at Villanova, South Alabama, and Kentucky.

As usual we occupy a different stratosphere when it comes to big time college hoops. Repeat. We were NOT your competition.

 

[Russ Smith]

Stupid selection committee, so if you schedule a hard OOC and lose all the games thats better than winning more games? Ridiculous ASU should be in over UofA they got the shaft, UofA will get bounced quick!

It's not so much the system I object to but their insistence on what criteria they use. Mao is right, every coach knows SOS and RPI are huge, but every year you hear someone from the selection crew deny that saying it's just one factor blah blah.

If UK plays Kansas and loses by 30 they get SOS and RPI points for that game. For the rest of the season everytime kansas wins, that loss HELPS UK's RPI(and SOS). That's an extreme example of course exaggerated to make the point that even close losses are losses. Nobody wants to see the old Georgetown or Syracuse style of playing a bunch of hyphen teams who all come to your gym, win big and say hey we won 28 games we're a top seed, but when teams are in the same conference it's only logical to value conference standings and head to head.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Again this comparison thing is getting real old. You would think that something a little trickier that the word "Arizona" being in both teams titles wouldn't throw so many people off.

Here is the bottom line. You weren't competing with us. The Head to Head match up was irrelevant. By your logic Memphis should be the #2 and Tennessee should be #1 because Tenn beat Memphis in Memphis this year. We had a tough season but we managed to play well despite much adversity. It doesn't really matter that you beat us head to head to head. We were not one of the last 4 in according to the seeding and you were almost assuredly one of the last 4 out.

So go b---h at Villanova, South Alabama, and Kentucky.

As usual we occupy a different stratosphere when it comes to big time college hoops. Repeat. We were NOT your competition.

Ugh, this discussion is already old, but I can't help myself, your comment is just too ridiculous. I would imagine you understand the concept of a "bubble team". I know you went to U of A, and think they should be a 1 seed every year, but believe it or not, U of A was a "bubble team" this year. Having a sub .500 record in conference, and being the first team in the Pac-10 to make the tournament with that distinction is one of many factors making you a bubble team.

In addition, many analysts compared ASU and U of A because they play the same conference competition, and play head to head twice a year. What about this doesn't make sense?

 

[Arizona's Finest]

Ugh, this discussion is already old, but I can't help myself, your comment is just too ridiculous. I would imagine you understand the concept of a "bubble team". I know you went to U of A, and think they should be a 1 seed every year, but believe it or not, U of A was a "bubble team" this year. Having a sub .500 record in conference, and being the first team in the Pac-10 to make the tournament with that distinction is one of many factors making you a bubble team.

In addition, many analysts compared ASU and U of A because they play the same conference competition, and play head to head twice a year. What about this doesn't make sense?

Again - let look at this from this POV. If they were comparing the last 4 in and last 4 out, UA wouldn't have been in the discussion. Sure were a bubble team - perception wise - and yes i was sweating it. But the seeding shows UA was always in and with room to spare.

As for your comment as they play the same competition. Yes they do. During the conference schedule. But thats what the Sun Devils are failing to comprehend. Its the ENTIRE season. I mean is a 1 pt loss in Lawrence or playing Memphis tough without our best player the same as say beating an Xavier or Stanford at home? Road venues are how they look at teams and we acquitted ourselves in every road game other then UCLA ( we got hammered) and maybe that last Oregon game. The UW game was bad too but we followed that up by beating a #4 seed - drum roll please - on the road.

So sure we were a "bubble team" according to national prognosticators and Devil fans. But when you look at body of work (and not just SOS or RPI but road games and injury factors as well) we were a pretty solid team to make it. I mean think about it. You guys maxed out, had perfect health, and still only won 19 games.

You had a great season and you were screwed by LSU and others you played in the Maui tournament falling off the map. But thats why you schedule more big boys Devil fans. Thats just a fact.

 

[Russ Smith]

Again - let look at this from this POV. If they were comparing the last 4 in and last 4 out, UA wouldn't have been in the discussion. Sure were a bubble team - perception wise - and yes i was sweating it. But the seeding shows UA was always in and with room to spare.

As for your comment as they play the same competition. Yes they do. During the conference schedule. But thats what the Sun Devils are failing to comprehend. Its the ENTIRE season. I mean is a 1 pt loss in Lawrence or playing Memphis tough without our best player the same as say beating an Xavier or Stanford at home? Road venues are how they look at teams and we acquitted ourselves in every road game other then UCLA ( we got hammered) and maybe that last Oregon game. The UW game was bad too but we followed that up by beating a #4 seed - drum roll please - on the road.

So sure we were a "bubble team" according to national prognosticators and Devil fans. But when you look at body of work (and not just SOS or RPI but road games and injury factors as well) we were a pretty solid team to make it. I mean think about it. You guys maxed out, had perfect health, and still only won 19 games.

You had a great season and you were screwed by LSU and others you played in the Maui tournament falling off the map. But thats why you schedule more big boys Devil fans. Thats just a fact.

I don't care enough to check but you're incorrectly assuming that all 11 and lower seeds were at large entries when many weren't. San Diego is a 13 but got an auto entry for example, Georgia a 14 got an auto entry.

When you truly look at the last X teams to get in they're usually not 15 and 16 seeds they're usually in the 10-12 area.

I don't know where UA falls this year would take too long to compute, they were obviously ahead of for example K State an at large with an 11.

The argument for conference schedule being more telling is that it's the true measure of how good you are because you're playing the same teams twice, everyone knows everyone. Everyone knows make Bayless go left, make Harden go right, pumpfake on Hill etc. Conference games are usually closer(unless Oregon State is involved) precisely because of familiarity.

I did have a vague recollection of the Kansas game but looked up the boxscore to remind me.
It was the 3rd game Rush played and the first time he played more than 16 minutes, he was playing with a big brace on and was clearly not 100%. Sherron Collins didn't play at all. That's 2 of their top players who were also either out with injury or impaired. So that game wouldn't count under the ignore games with injuries rule.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Cute jab, but that is your MO. Most ASU fans realize that seeds in the tourney aren't based on who is the best team, but based on abstracts such as accounting for injury and tradition.

I wonder why Syracuse has been left out the last two years. Surely they have a comparable or better tradition than Arizona and even lost one of their best players in Eric Devendorf for most of the year to injury. No way a team with tradition and injuries like Syracuse would get bounced with nineteen wins. Oh wait, I know why the COmmiitee has left them out the last two years - because they never schedule anybody, they never leave New York until January and when they do play on the road they lose. There's been a consistent theme with the selection process for as long as I can remember that no ASU fans ever seem to acknowledge: Schedule well and do well away from home and you get the benefit of the doubt, schedule poorly and underpform on the road and you leave it up to the committee. So should you choose to look at only the two local schools, who lived up to the committee's preferences and who did not? You relaly think the committee wants to set the precedent that you can go play a bunch of nobodies in the preseason then play .500 ball in your conference and go dancing every year? Don't we already have enough of that awful tradition in college football where some bad coaches (see Mike Stoops, Dennis Franchione) can load on cupcakes so even a losing confernece record ensures a bid to the universityofphoenix.com Bowl?

And the idea that Arizona beat nobody OOC this year is laughably dumb as well. If you combined UA and ASU's top 10 non-conference W's then Arizona probably has eight of them including three on the road compared to ASU's respective two and zero. The Illinois, LSU, Princeton did not live up to standards excuse is a cop-out as well as illustrated repeatedly today by Bob Kemp. All of those schools were picked to finish in the lower tiers of their conferences as early as the spring of 2007 or long before the scheduling was completed. We're not talking rocket science here, Arizona did what the Selection Committee has repeatedly asked while ASU did not. End of story.

Time to look in the mirror. Although to be fair, I think ASU deserved to be there based on the eyeball test. Not at the expense of Arizona however.

 

[sly fly]

Why? You're in the NIT, we're in the dance. We have the last laugh this year no matter what happened earlier in the season.


Arizona didn't get in on reputation, they got in because the committee has ALWAYS rewarded teams that play difficult OOC schedules. Just as the committee always penalizes teams for playing weak schedules. This isn't some big secret, every AD and coach in the country knows how they pick and choose teams on Selection Sunday. It's really not difficult a concept to grasp that the selection had absolutely nothing to do with ASU vs. UA. UA got in with a fair amount of breathing room, ASU's biggest speed bumps in the selection process were teams like 'Nova and Kentucky who might or might not have better overall resumes than ASU.

I know you ASU fans are new at this whole college basketball thing, but it's probably time you brush up on the NCAA Selection process and how the Tournament works. Almost every ASU fan on this board is coming off as very uninformed.

Wow. You're surprising me with with myopia and plain being an ass.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Wow. You're surprising me with with myopia and plain being an ass.

Explaining the reality of the selection process isn't myopia. It's not my fault your fellow Sun Devils can't come to grips with it. Fortunately for you guys it sounds like Lisa Love has which is probably why she logged a phone call to the chair of the committee today most likely to discuss how to improve ASU's Tournament chances going forward. At least there's accountability somewhere in Tempe.

And as far as being an ass goes, well, consider it karma for the constant trolling of the UA board by ASU fans since it's conception. I guess I was also being an ass when I said repeatedly on this very thread that ASU belonged in the Tourney.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

I don't care enough to check but you're incorrectly assuming that all 11 and lower seeds were at large entries when many weren't. San Diego is a 13 but got an auto entry for example, Georgia a 14 got an auto entry.

When you truly look at the last X teams to get in they're usually not 15 and 16 seeds they're usually in the 10-12 area.

I don't know where UA falls this year would take too long to compute, they were obviously ahead of for example K State an at large with an 11.

The argument for conference schedule being more telling is that it's the true measure of how good you are because you're playing the same teams twice, everyone knows everyone. Everyone knows make Bayless go left, make Harden go right, pumpfake on Hill etc. Conference games are usually closer(unless Oregon State is involved) precisely because of familiarity.

I did have a vague recollection of the Kansas game but looked up the boxscore to remind me.
It was the 3rd game Rush played and the first time he played more than 16 minutes, he was playing with a big brace on and was clearly not 100%. Sherron Collins didn't play at all. That's 2 of their top players who were also either out with injury or impaired. So that game wouldn't count under the ignore games with injuries rule.

Kstate, Nova, South Alabama, and Kentucky are all at large berths in 10 -12 range just off the top of my head.

Listen Russ I agree that conference schedule is important and should be taken into account. But I think saying that SOS and RPI shouldn't matter at all is very wrong. Both arguments on either side - it should ALL be taken into account. Neither necessarily more than the other.

Look at it this way. ASU played like the 200ths rated schedule and had 19 wins.

We played the first (or 2nd depending on various reports) toughest schedule and also had 19 wins.

Does that not count for something. Am i overextending logic here to think that if the schedules were reversed ASU likley has a couple more losses and UA likely has a (at least!) a couple more wins?

Does that make UA a better team then what they are? No. But if they have 24 wins are we even having this discussion? Probably not.

So tell me again how strength of schedule is not important?

 

[Russ Smith]

Kstate, Nova, South Alabama, and Kentucky are all at large berths in 10 -12 range just off the top of my head.

Listen Russ I agree that conference schedule is important and should be taken into account. But I think saying that SOS and RPI shouldn't matter at all is very wrong. Both arguments on either side - it should ALL be taken into account. Neither necessarily more than the other.

Look at it this way. ASU played like the 200ths rated schedule and had 19 wins.

We played the first (or 2nd depending on various reports) toughest schedule and also had 19 wins.

Does that not count for something. Am i overextending logic here to think that if the schedules were reversed ASU likley has a couple more losses and UA likely has a (at least!) a couple more wins?

Does that make UA a better team then what they are? No. But if they have 24 wins are we even having this discussion? Probably not.

So tell me again how strength of schedule is not important?

I didn't say SOS isn't important. One issue is of course there is no formula, this isn't passer rating in football where the formula is there for all teams to see. They use both SOS and RPI, but RPI has SOS as a factor itself so SOS
is somewhat double counted? I have actually read that Sagarin ratings correspond much better to who gets in or out that either RPI or SOS.

By Sagarin UA is 28th, ASU is 41st, which is one reason I can't believe ASU didn't get in. S. Alabama is 55, Kentucky 58, Kansas State is actually 31st which surprises me but I think probably explains why they got in.

What I don't like is the tourney people essentially said they don't look at head to head. They do, they just do it only in conference tourneys. In conferences where only 1 team gets in the winner of the conference tourney is in, the other is out(assuming they played head to head). So saying we don't look at head to head or conference record is misleading they do. But every year someone says nobody has ever gotten a bid from Conference X with less than a .500 record and we're told "we don't look at conference records." They clearly do they just don't apparently look at it as closely as RPI, SOS, or mainly Sagarin.

I'd have no problem if they just picked the tourney via Sagarin everyone would understand what they needed to do to get in, but the current method is arbitrary and this year is a perfect example.

Mao is right, UA gets in Syracuse doesnt' entirely over SOS/RPI, it's completely true but they didn't play each other or in the same conference so that's the best criteria to use to choose one over the other.

 

[Mr. Boldin]

Stupid selection committee, so if you schedule a hard OOC and lose all the games thats better than winning more games? Ridiculous ASU should be in over UofA they got the shaft, UofA will get bounced quick!

We lost to Kansas, Memphis, and Virginia...

Granted the UVA loss was a bad one, but we lost close games to #1 seeds. It isnt like we scheduled the entire top 10 and lost to every one of them. Look who Sendek scheduled OOC... Dont give me the bid about Maui being down this year. If you schedule even 2 or 3 mid majors over Cal Poly, Florida Gulf Coast, Delaware St., Montana St., Idaho, or St. Francis (PA) you are in without question and nobody is bitching about UA.

If you have a problem with being left out you should look at Baylor, South Alabama, Kentucky, Nova, Georgia, ect as the culprits. Oh yeah, lets not forget Oregon, who was hand in hand with you guys on the bubble and they got a 9 seed.

 

[ajcardfan]

Here is the bottom line. You weren't competing with us. The Head to Head match up was irrelevant. By your logic Memphis should be the #2 and Tennessee should be #1 because Tenn beat Memphis in Memphis this year.

The chair of the tournament committee just said in the play-in game that the reason Duke was a #2 and Wisconsin was #3 is that Duke beat them this year. So, there it was plain as day. They do use head-to-head as a criteria when they choose to.