Small conference teams in!

Nevadaref · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 06:35pm

Wow, look at all the smaller schools that the committee rewarded: Utah State, Air Force, George Mason, Bradley, Wichita State.

I love it!

Nevadaref · #2 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 06:44pm

Missouri State got hosed.

Tough luck to Hofstra.

I was surprised to see Air Force instead of either of these two.

Nevadaref · #3 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 07:26pm

http://www.bracketography.com/selectioncommittee.htm

Here are the ten members of the NCAA selection committee.

This is just an FYI. By posting this, I'm not making any kind of comment on the field they chose.

I just think that it is interesting to see who these people are, where they come from, what kinds of backgrounds they have, etc.

BktBallRef · #4 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 08:13pm

7 of the 10 are from the non-power conferences.

If the Committee feels that teams from the power conferences have to play stronger schedules, why doesn't that apply to schools like Air Force and George Mason?

Forksref · #5 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 09:47pm

They should award spots based on the nicknames. If so, the Chanticleers would get in every year.

26 Year Gap · #6 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 09:56pm

The biggest surprise to me was Boston College at a #4. They should be a #2, but I think they will get to the final four in any event.

Nevadaref · #7 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 10:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by 26 Year Gap
The biggest surprise to me was Boston College at a #4. They should be a #2, but I think they will get to the final four in any event.

I have to agree, and it is all the more annoying since Nevada is the #5 in that region and could have to face BC in the 2nd round. That's a tough draw.

BktBallRef · #8 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 10:40pm

Personally, I didn't care for Tennessee being seeded as a #2. yes, I would like to have seen Carolina seeded #2 and be placed in Greensboro for the first two games. But I'm not unhappy with the #3 seed. I just feel that #2 should be better than #3 and they're not.

LSU at a #4 is strange as well. Michigan State is the strongest #6, perhaps ever, in the tournament.

Rich · #9 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 10:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Personally, I didn't care for Tennessee being seeded as a #2. yes, I would like to have seen Carolina seeded #2 and be placed in Greensboro for the first two games. But I'm not unhappy with the #3 seed. I just feel that #2 should be better than #3 and they're not.

LSU at a #4 is strange as well. Michigan State is the strongest #6, perhaps ever, in the tournament.

They didn't play each other, so how do you know?

Lunardi had Tennessee as a #5. This is clearly his worst year ever.

jbduke · #10 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 12, 2006, 11:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Personally, I didn't care for Tennessee being seeded as a #2. yes, I would like to have seen Carolina seeded #2 and be placed in Greensboro for the first two games. But I'm not unhappy with the #3 seed. I just feel that #2 should be better than #3 and they're not.

LSU at a #4 is strange as well. Michigan State is the strongest #6, perhaps ever, in the tournament.

They didn't play each other, so how do you know?

Lunardi had Tennessee as a #5. This is clearly his worst year ever.

I believe that is the committee, and not Lunardi, who had a bad year. His job is to make predictions based on a reasonable tournament selection process; I don't think this year's version fits the bill.

----------------

Tony,

I share your sentiments totally, though I can't say that I'm disappointed that our guys won't have to share the Coliseum with you and your bretheren

I haven't really looked closely yet, but wouldn't everything have been okay had the committee flipped UNC and UT? There wouldn't be nearly so many questions about UNC being a 2 as there are with UT being a 2.

[Edited by jbduke on Mar 13th, 2006 at 12:03 AM]

dave30 · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 13, 2006, 12:11am

Who will pull the shocker of the tournament or will there be one? Any 12 seed or lower teams that you feel have a legit chance? How about A&M or Iona?

missinglink · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 13, 2006, 12:28am

Quote:

Originally posted by dave30
Who will pull the shocker of the tournament or will there be one? Any 12 seed or lower teams that you feel have a legit chance? How about A&M or Iona?

The Grizzlies will beat Nevada by 4.

rainmaker · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 13, 2006, 01:12am

We're talking men's here, right? Anyone care to check in on "the other side"?

blindzebra · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 13, 2006, 02:09am

Iowa got hosed.

Won the Big Ten, beat Ohio State twice and got a lower seed than the Buckeyes, and have Texas and Duke in their region.

This year was the worst job of seeding in recent memory, IMO.

Nevadaref · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 13, 2006, 02:32am

Quote:

Originally posted by missinglink

Quote:

Originally posted by dave30
Who will pull the shocker of the tournament or will there be one? Any 12 seed or lower teams that you feel have a legit chance? How about A&M or Iona?

The Grizzlies will beat Nevada by 4.

Hey this is my thread! And that's about enough of that kind of talk.

Now shoo, back to big sky country, back...