How in the hell did a 17-14team get in the turny? Or is that the forbidden question.
Don't understand..
- Thread starter treyforuk
- Start date
That's barely nit worthy. I would be ashamed if UK excepted that bid.
2018 Bama was in the tourney at 19-15. That is the only team I can think of that got in with 15 losses. It has probably been a while since a team got in with only 17 wins though. A quick Google search didn't turn up anything other than worst records overall (which were teams that won the auto bids). Maybe @dukedevilz knows the worst records ever to get at large tourney bids?
Georgia got an at-large bid in 2001, @ 16-14..--And was an 8 seed.
I think they had the #1 SoS. They had 6 wins versus ranked teams too.
Also it may have been someone else. It was either Harrick or Mark Gottfried that one year said if they didn’t get in with the schedule they played they were going to schedule nothing but cupcakes the next season and just do everything they could to pad their record.
They were awfully close to tying Georgia for the worst record all-time for an at-large team. The 2001 Georgia team was 16-14 heading into the tournament. The reason why schools like Michigan and '01 Georgia get into the tournament is because of SOS and quality wins. Not saying either team necessarily merits an at-large, but that is the rationale from the committee's perspective.
Yup. Would this thread exist if we swapped the Arizona loss for a IUPUI win? 18-13 is better than 17-14 after all.
Michigan:
SOS 5
Kenpom 32
Sagarin 24
Torvik 26
NET 34
We got what… the 42nd seed? Big deal.
I don't have a big problem with them getting in, but I think Oklahoma and maybe A&M are better.
All of these metrics are based on assumptions. They assume that Michigan played the 5th toughest schedule. The list of "tough" teams are also complied on assumptions. They may be accurate as hell but still are not science.
So we are not dealing in math. We deal with assumptions.
This can be corrected with a data base that gets all the data fed in and crunches the numbers. Politics and bias go straight to hell.
So we are not dealing in math. We deal with assumptions.
This can be corrected with a data base that gets all the data fed in and crunches the numbers. Politics and bias go straight to hell.
Last edited:
But they don't play in the big ten.
Complete nonsense they got in over A&M.
They got a clown coach as well.
They got a clown coach as well.
Probably a big reason they got in. NCAA needs that drama and loves those storylines. More $$$$
Yep. Their coach embarrassed the school, then the NCAA "family" embarrassed everyone. Buzz put the committee on notice, and opened Pandora's box.
Toledo, Towson, and North Texas should have made it over both if we're just going by records.
Well Michigan did not do as good SEC's Alabama.
Alabama had 13 losses. They lost their last two regular season games and the opening game in the SEC Tourney. They got a 6 seed.
The committee needs to explain that one too.
But they can't justify not taking Texas A&M.
Alabama had 13 losses. They lost their last two regular season games and the opening game in the SEC Tourney. They got a 6 seed.
The committee needs to explain that one too.
But they can't justify not taking Texas A&M.
Last edited:
Being ashamed of your team accepting a bid to play more basketball anywhere is cringeworthy.
The shitty record should embarrass anyone. Plus getting in over much more worthy teams. Sad.
Does OP realize I’m the only Michigan fan here and have been seasoned by much more accomplished trolls?
A&M went on a 8 game losing streak in Jan-Feb.
Also the committee has made it clear—don’t wait until your conference tourney to get a few decent wins. They don’t value the conference tourneys that much
Also the committee has made it clear—don’t wait until your conference tourney to get a few decent wins. They don’t value the conference tourneys that much
This time last year, this was practically a Michigan home board.
You guys have the best bandwagoners this side of Auburn.
The committee? We know who the committee is. They do not represent the Division 1 of the Power 5 conferences. 7 of the 12 are from at best "mid-major" leagues. Why do they over represent the committee?
You sure don't follow SEC basketball if you think A&M was not good. Unlucky but they were good.
The bias is so bad. Alabama get a 6 seed with 13 losses. Texas A&M get no bid with 12 losses. But the Committee had an Alabama rep. How piss poor.
They had a couple loudmouth goons that were comparable to AuHoosier. I think there were several posting, til the minute they lost of course.
I doubt that. This wasn't the first time the committee was blasted by a coach and won't be the last. They don't give a shit what anyone thinks. Fact is, no matter who gets left out or put in there will always be legitimate gripes.
It doesn't really matter what schools the committee members work for in their regular occupations. When they are on the committee they simply represent the NCAA and they are nothing but puppets.
Cause there were a lot of 20+ win SEC teams that needed snubbing.
Bullshit.
Alabama got the bid because they had a man on the committee, even though Alabama lost their last three games.
Kevin, I have been around the SEC too long to believe that Alabama having a voting member on the committee did not matter.
Alabama has a good team but there is no logic to them getting the bid instead of Texas A&M. It is simply crooked, i.e. not fair.
I am a really big SEC fan and I honestly hope that Alabama loses their first game in the NCAA because they did not earn it. Their rep did not represent the sport but the school.
How do you justify Alabama getting a 6 seed? Good luck because it cannot be justified. Michigan's 11 seed looks good compared to Alabama's 6th.
Thats like saying UL didnt make it last year bc barnhart was the committee chair, despite us being in, in like 90% of the “bracketologists” brackets.
Alabama is in for who they beat, notably baylor and gonzaga. Does anyone have more impressive ooc wins than beating 2 one seeds? Plus alabama finished the sec regular season higher than a&m. Arguing a&m should be in is one thing, but over bama is another.
Alabama is in for who they beat, notably baylor and gonzaga. Does anyone have more impressive ooc wins than beating 2 one seeds? Plus alabama finished the sec regular season higher than a&m. Arguing a&m should be in is one thing, but over bama is another.
Stop it. Alabama did not get a bid because their AD is on the committee, that's ridiculous. Go compare the other 6 seeds against Alabama (LSU, Texas, CSU). They all have mediocre resumes too and Bama had some much better quality wins. Matter of fact, Bama AD isn't allowed to have any input at all. "Athletic directors are required to leave the room when their team is being discussed, and conference executives when any team from their conference is being discussed. They can't vote if their team or teams are on a ballot and can "only answer factual questions about their team," Worlock said. "When 24 or fewer teams are in the pool of teams from which we are selecting or seeding, and one of the teams is represented by a committee member, that person is not allowed to participate in that vote. And again, if the team comes up for discussion, they must leave the room."
Do you think the Bama AD was just going around getting friendly with everyone else on the committee and slipping them cash or something just so they would put his team in the field? LOL....c'mon man.
Read this if you truly want to get an idea of how it works rather than simply throwing around baseless accusations because YOU don't think Alabama deserved to get in. It's from 2015 but I am sure the same basic principles still apply. Also take a look at all the variables that go into making the selections (Hint: It's not just based on records and Bert's eye test).
CLICK HERE
Similar threads
