Jay Bilas is the guest on PTI today, and he is still defending his position that VCU should not have been in the tournament over Virginia Tech, Colorado and St. Mary's...does anyone else think that this is outlandish given VCU making the final four? I think it's ridiculous that Bilas won't stop defending his original opinion, but that's just me.
OT: Jay Bilas on PTI
The link says it better than I could.
it's too bad I didn't read that before posting...very well put.
That they've made it to the Final Four does not necessarily mean they deserved to be in. Inclusion is based on everything the team does prior to Selection Sunday, the results after which have no bearing on whether or not they should have been included.
That's not to say they haven't done exceptionally well, but who is to say a different bubble team would/could not have done the same? Whether Bilas is right or wrong about their presence in the tournament, is irrelevant, but he's correct in sticking to his opinion despite their tourney run.
EDIT: The link above says it better.
you never went to any anti-terrorist school, so make sure you don't get us all fucking killed.
is from Duke
has no bearing on whether their resume made them worthy of a bid in the first place.
That guy will be very wealthy very soon, if he so chooses.
I actually played high school basketball with Shaka in Oregon, WI. He was the senior point guard and I was a sophomore that made varsity. He was a hard-working dude and probably made fun of me the least of all the upperclassmen.
I did dunk on him several times... Just sayin...
Pretty cool to see him having this much success.
I wish I could dunk.
Making the Final Four doesn't change the fact that VCU's regular season resume did not constitute them making the tournament. I completely agree with Bilas.
He pointed out that, statistically, VCU has performed exceptionally in comparison to how they played during the regular season. No one could have predicted this run based on any evidence. The point was moot once the tournament started though. It's a different animal than the regular season.
Whether or not they deserved to get in I think they are certainly proving they have the ability to beat these teams. I think a lot of what Smart was using as motivation wasn't only whether or not they should be in the tournament but also "experts" picking against them aka Dick Vitale being shocked if they beat Kansas. Regardless, I'm rooting for them.
VCU has played great basketball and they took advantage of the opportunity put in front of them. Hard to argue with that and honestly it doesn't matter, they are in the final four.
The link to the maizedcolored glasses post, and the subsequent arguments referencing are nice, but factually incorrect. Always check your citiations.
The actual selection criteria can be found here: http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/files/BracketPrin-Proc10-5-10.pdf
"Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, pertinent information submitted on a team’s behalf by its conference, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home, away and neutral results, rankings, polls and the NABC regional advisory committee rankings."
I agree with the logical validity that IF a tournament selection was made solely on objective criteria, an unambiguous resume, then nothing VCU has done to this point would validate their inclusion. The antecedent is not true -- there are subjective criteria available to the committee-- therefore we can say nothing about the consequent, i.e. VCU's worthiness. Jay Bilas is still an ass-hat
The stated first priority of the committee is to select the 37 best at-large teams (not the 37 best seasons or "resumes"). Bayesian inference strongly suggests that VCU is and probably has been worthy of being in the tournament.
Touché. I still think that my primary argument (even if I didn't articulate that arument fully or even very well in the post) is that the committee could not have possibly foreseen that VCU could have pulled off this run. It's such a bizarre statistical anomaly that I don't think that there's any way that the committee could have extrapolated -- from what they knew on Selection Sunday -- that VCU would be a btter choice than Alabama, Harvard, Colorado, whatever. I watched VCU play this year, and considering that about half of the committee knew as much (or as little) as I did about college basketball, I can say with pretty good certainty that not too much could be subjectively analyzed to say that VCU was better than any of those teams.
Your point is trivial unless you're willing to re-evaluate the subjective decision-making process based on the actual performance of every team that seriously over- or under-performs expectations AND, as a result, that you are able to articulate how the process should be altered.
So, to take the case of VCU, where did the committee go wrong? What factor should have been more heavily weighed? Which factors less? New criteria to be included? Some to exclude?
Without answers, you just have to say they made the best (or at least a defensible) decision with the available data. VCU's run is simply improbable, but the improbable happens sometimes - doesn't mean that everything you thought you knew was wrong.
I get how the purists feel about VCU making the tourney. Cool.
I totally understand how others are pointing to their FF. Also cool.
But to still be arguing about it, Bilas, makes you look like a boobie.
Just my opinion. But to be fair, regardless of the circumstances, I'll probably have the opinion of "Bilas, you look like a boobie!"
He was on to talk generally about the basketball and the tourney, and the PTI guys asked him how he felt now about his earlier statement on VCU. He explained exactly how he felt (i.e. that this run, correctly, has no bearing on whether they had a strong enough resume to be selected).
So he wasn't the one still arguing it. He was asked a question and he answered it.
I didn't know the context. I would imagine that a lot of those guys know what each other thinks, and sometimes set bait. I appreciate that he didn't back down if that's what he truly thought. Howeva, I would have gained a significant degree of respect for him if he prefaced his comments with "Not to be a boobie, but, . . . "
I'm just sick of all the "provin' the haterz wrong" attitude from the media that's a.) in my opinion false and b.) distracting and taking away from VCU's run.
Jay Bilas is on my list of worthless airbags I hate and wouldn't mind never hearing from again.
to add teams like VCU? its foolish to think they added four more spots for major conference teams only.
It is foolish to think they added four more spots for the best conferences only, but it's also foolish to mandate that there be mid-majors in the first four. I love seeing the "little guys" play, but the first four should function to bring in the best remaining four teams regardless of conference.
VT not getting is was a joke. While, I love the VCU story, they have played far above what they did this season. Sure, they have proven they can win but what they have done in the tournament was not what they did during the season. I will root for them but I'm not sure they should have been in over those teams. On the other hand maybe COlorado shouldn't have lost to ISU and the others should have done more.
If Michigan's losses this year had come against:
Tennessee, South Florida, Richmond, UAB, Georgia St., Northeastern, Old Dominion x 2, George Mason, Drexel, and James Madison
would they have still gotten in the tournament?
My guess is not a chance.
Oh hell no. We couldn't afford more than the Indiana loss, due to our lack of marquee wins. If we added USF, GSU, Northeastern, Drexel, or JMU to our losses, we'd have been seeded substanially lower. More than one, and we could be previewing the NIT finals right now.
I think the committee got it right. We're talking about a field of 68(!) teams, so there is way too much whining over teams that got snubbed. Compare this to the BCS in football where you are trying to determine the two best teams. Colorado and Virginia Tech need to get over the hump in what is likely only a one or two game difference from being in or out.
Va Azul wins the thread. the maizecoloredglasses post sounds good, until you realize that the article it links to establish the "criteria" that the selection criteria is supposed to consider is just that -- an article -- and not the official selection criteria. So the whole "they're only supposed to consider the resume!" argument is completely false.
The actual criteria, as Va Azul points out, is that they are supposed to determine the 37 "best" at-large teams. No more, no less. RPI, record, strength of conference, etc are things that the selection committee should look at to aid in their task, but at the end of the day it's subjective. If it was purely an objective evaluation of a team's "resume", selections could be handled by computers. Thankfully, that's not the case.
Funny how so many people advocating strictly basing selections on a team's mechanical resume were, just a few weeks ago, arguing that Michigan should get in despite an underwhelming resume and no wins over top teams because of intangibles like "improving as the season went on" and "playing top teams close".
That's not really the point of the topic though. If it is a subjective analysis of teams to be at-larges then Bilas is entitled to believe that VCU should not have been in, as many others believe. That opinion still isn't going to change.
Plus, it's not like VCU was turning anyone's head in a subjective way either. Objectively, subjectively, whatever, they didn't deserve a bid.