Tournamentology

#27
#27
tidwell said:
Ah, well please allow me to readjust my bracket because VolinArizona says a team is overrated. :)
Click to expand...
now that's funny right there.......:eek:lol:
BigPapaVol said:
That gets to the heart of the debate. Is it about the 65 BEST teams, or is it about resume, or is it about timing, etc? There is no formula for entry so we end up with this debate annually. Bottome line is that the teams residing on the bubble were there because they had serious deficiencies and none had overwhelming argument for inclusion.
Click to expand...
yep.....can you imagine a similar mess if there were a college football playoff system where it wasn't the 35th or 65th best team getting left out, but the 9th or 17th best team being left out....and that decision being based on a "comittee"? ouch..it'd be even uglier....
 
#28
#28
VolinArizona said:
*sigh*

Seriously? Can you really not figure out why I put that? Lawgator said a team playing well in their last 4 games under difficult conditions make a tournament worthy resume. That's all he said.
Click to expand...

I think the inference was that it could make a questionable resume tournament worth, not a lousy one.

In this case, although they would never admit it, I think the committe considered the SEC to be a good enough league to merit more than 4 bids and Arkansas was the best of the bunch after their tournament performance.
 
#29
#29
cotton said:
I think the inference was that it could make a questionable resume tournament worth, not a lousy one.

In this case, although they would never admit it, I think the committe considered the SEC to be a good enough league to merit more than 4 bids and Arkansas was the best of the bunch after their tournament performance.
Click to expand...
Easy there, don't be putting logical inferences into LG's mouth. That would cut against every fiber of his being.
 
#30
#30
cotton said:
I think the inference was that it could make a questionable resume tournament worth, not a lousy one.

In this case, although they would never admit it, I think the committe considered the SEC to be a good enough league to merit more than 4 bids and Arkansas was the best of the bunch after their tournament performance.
Click to expand...

See, now that is very well said. I agree with all of this.
 
#31
#31
BigPapaVol said:
That gets to the heart of the debate. Is it about the 65 BEST teams, or is it about resume, or is it about timing, etc? There is no formula for entry so we end up with this debate annually. Bottome line is that the teams residing on the bubble were there because they had serious deficiencies and none had overwhelming argument for inclusion.
Click to expand...

VolinArizona said:
So, if a team plays well in their last 4 games in difficult conditions, they have a good enough resume to make the tournament? Regardless if they're 4-27, 19-17, etc?
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
And clearly someone thought their recent run was compelling.
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
Easy there, don't be putting logical inferences into LG's mouth. That would cut against every fiber of his being.
Click to expand...


In my profession, when there is an appeal, there are a number of different legal standards that can come into play as the standard for review. One of them is "de novo," meaning that the appellate judges review the case all over again, as if they were the original decider. Another is "abuse of discretion," meaning that they give the trial judge credit for being on the spot and overturn it only if he was clearly wrong or misapprehended some important fact or point of law.

With the NCAA tournament, you either win your conference tournament or get yourself 20-22 wins (if major conference) or 24-25 (if mid-major), and by virtue of that you take the issue out of the hands of people weighing your resume against others.'

But if you put yourself on the bubble, then you have to live with the consequences. There is no appellate review, but even in the minds of us mere mortals, it is obvious that in the court of public opinion the standard of review is abuse of discretion. That is to say, reasonable people can differ on whether Arkansas should have gotten in over, say, Syracuse.

As long as it is a reasonable choice, no one can complain about it.
 
#32
#32
LG, I won't quote all that, but I agree there, too.

We're arguing over the slightest differences in resumes.
 
#35
#35
BigPapaVol said:
This has been proven wrong ad infinitum.
Click to expand...


In most NCAA tournaments, by the second weekend, no one is talking about mid-majors anymore. There are exceptions, such as George Mason last year. But unusual.

However, in my experience, by the second day of the tournament, no one is talking about who should have gotten in but didn't. And I cannot remember any exceptions to that.
 
#39
#39
They can play defense but they can't score worth a damn. about 85% - 90% of the teams in the tourney are more athletic than they are.
 
#42
#42
Neither does Stanford.. Their resume is pitiful. I don't care if Lopez missed some games, they have NIT written all over them.

Besides, they'll be a first round casualty in Lexington..
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top