At-large Tourney Bids
If we assume that the last at-large teams into the Big Dance are the 10, 11, and 12 seeds not to win their conference tourneys, we have the following teams (and their first round results):
10 Seeds
Michigan (won over Clemson)
Maryland (won over Cal)
Minnesota (lost to Texas)
11 Seeds
Dayton (won over West Virginia)
12 Seeds
Zona (possibly the LAST team in, won over Utah)
Wisconsin (possibly the SECOND TO LAST team in, won over FSU)
So what we have here is 5 out of the last 6 at-large teams into the tourney advancing to the Second Round. Guess the committee got the lower at-large seeds right and over-valued some of the high at-large bids.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:06 AM ^
I disagree with the premise that an at-large team's success in the tournament can justify that team's selection.
First, selection is based on dessert, i.e. a season-long body of work. No team can be made deserving on the basis of a single win. A committee's selection of a team should be judged by the same factors that the committee considered when making the choice. The question should be, "On the facts before the committee, was their judgement defensible?"
Second, even by your own metric, we have no way of knowing how teams that missed the cut might have performed. 1 and 2 seeds in the NIT are undefeated thusfar, so there are at least eight teams who have a plausible claim to the spots occupied by Wisconsin and Arizona. The committee could have selected Penn State and St. Mary's instead, and both teams are capable of pulling the same upsets. That would not have made that selection any more "correct" than this one.
March 21st, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
co-signed.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:50 PM ^
I didn't mean for my comment to be harsh. I find the general phenomena of upsets interesting, and I think it shows the parity at the lower-levels of college basketball this year.
I don't fault the post; I simply disagree with the implication that these wins mean anything about the performance of the selection committee.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
until a 14 seed wins the tourney, it's all B.S. posturing anyway. what's the lowest seed that's ever won? jimmy V's team? Isn't the winner always a 3 seed or better?
I think an 8 seed won it all but don't hold me to it.
was Villanova in 1985.
They were 3rd in the Big East, behind Georgetown (Patrick Ewing) and St Johns (Chris Mullen). Villanova was 0-5 against those two, and the final 4 was these 3 teams and Memphis.