VTTW Board Index

that the BCS is the only reason the SEC has all these football championships. When it was a room full of voters who decided who played whom we got shafted, and the same happens in basketball.

I read where someone on  the committee said we didn't beat anyone.......that is completely false. Did we deserve to get in? Maybe, maybe not but by them leaving out every SEC bubble team makes one question why.

We Should've Beat Bama.

In situations like this, you can drive yourself crazy playing the "what if?" game.  We went 3 of 11 from the stripe at Georgetown.  If we just go FIVE of eleven, we're in comfortably, probably with a 7-8 seed.  :banghead:

I'm not going to blame the selection committee.  Their process is mostly math, and ours didn't add up.  No one to blame but ourselves. :frown:

Our resume is better than Boise St, MTSU, and LaSalle. Fact.

Yes. MTSU is the erally egregious one, though. They have exactly one win over top 100 teams. In the past, no team has ever gotten in with such little history of beating tourney-caliber teams. MTSU being included over us (or one of several other bubble teams) is a joke. The committee criticized our road performance and praised MTSU's 28 wins, but where would we be on both counts if we didn't have to play any good teams? It's ridiculous.

The SEC got three bids and the MWC got five. That's both an indictment of SEC and the committee.

Before the selection, I thought that was all we had to do, but now I'm not sure we get in even then.

But we should have beaten them anyway....it would at least have given us more to complain about.

I sort of wonder if this is a payback for Football domination? I think the SEC may have a national reputation for sucky basketball(a sportstalk host from Florida last night was making fun of the lack of respect that the SEC got from the invitation committee)

The MWC was clearly a better conference than the SEC this year imo. FWIW, they were the best conference in the West by far, better than my Pac-12 as well.

The MWC's 5th team (Boise State) was not better than the SEC's fourth (Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky-- take your pick). I agree they were much stronger at the top. The conferences should have had 4 each, though.

I'm not trying to trash the MWC, nor prop up the SEC . . . the committee just missed here, and I think gave an already weak SEC too little credit. Missouri and Ole Miss were both underseeded in addition to the committee choosing at least two undeserving teams (MTSU, La Salle, Boise somewhat less so) over a fourth SEC team.

At least Tennessee didn't go to the CBI Tournament!

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/bracket/_/id/146/2013-college-basketball-invitational     

I think BSU is a stronger team than you think.... They have one horrendous loss, and that was to my Utes. But they steamrolled Creighton on the road, and have notched wins against UNLV, SDSU, and CSU. They made LSU look like a highschool team. And I watched them play at Michigan State, and they gave the Spartans all they could handle.

I am not saying BSU would beat the three teams you mentioned, but I would not be shocked at all if they did.

With that said, after looking at Tenn's resume, I think it is a bit stronger than BSU and they should have got in.

But I don't think BSU should have been left out. I think Colorado from my Pac-12 should be out before BSU.... Which is why I am not on the comittee as I would have CAL and Oregon both with higher seeding than Colorado... And like I said, I probably would have left Colorado out all together

I'm not sure about Cal, but Oregon for sure. I thought the seeding was odd for a number of teams this time around. It's really MTSU that upsets me more than any other. I'm sorry, but you just aren't an NCAA team if you have one top 100 win and fail to win your conference tourney. Period.

Cuonzo is calling on Slive to get involved and taking the committee to task.

Yep.  A UT team that lost twice each to Bama, UGA, and Ole Miss doesn't deserve to be in the NCAAs. 

I'm disappointed that UT didn't get in, but I am disappointed that they didn't play themselves in, not that they weren't selected by a committee.  Who else got in is really irrelevant. 

He ought to take the months of November, December, and January to task. His two UT teams have cost themselves tourney bids by not showing up until February. Win two more and you take your fate out of the committee's hands. I agree we should be in over MTSU and that does matter, but there's a simple way to avoid this problem.

Good for Cuonzo. This is an issue that goes beyond UT and it's been ongoing for several years. How many times have we bitched about UT's undeserved low seeding in the last 6 or 7 years? As for this year's tournament, you could easily substitute Alabama or Kentucky for Tennessee and make the same argument about how much MTSU/Boise/etc. don't deserve to be in the field. And it wasn't just the teams that were left out; Ole Miss and Missouri were ridiculously under-seeded.

I think some of it is the reverse problem from football.  In football, other conferences complain because, for instance, bammer gets a lot of credit for playing LSU and vice versa.  To some extent, it's like not having a job because you don't have any experience.  The best teams are perceived to be in the SEC so the whole confererence has a built in advantage.  It could be that the whole conference would not do as well if they played more than the relative handful of bowl games and actually very few OOC quality opponents, but the sample is what it is.

In basketball, there is a widespread perception - right or wrong - that the SEC is weak this year.  Thus, no matter how many times we beat UF or Missouri, it really doesn't matter that much because neither is that highly rated.

"I can't get a job because I have no experience but I have no experience because I dont have a job".


The SEC definitely is kind of weak this year, but had other teams scheduled more quality opponents and won a few the SEC would be more respected.   So that's one factor but in a general sense, having to play almost 2/3rds of your games in a conference perceived as weak is just a huge disadvantage, unfortunately.

The actions of the selection committee is/could be a preview of how the "selection committee" for the four team playoff in football will go in 2014. I look for major hissy fits to be thrown.