Is the NCAA punishing teams for speaking out against them?
I live in Bucky territory and Wisconsin fans are livid about their 8 seed, and as non bias fan, I can't wrap my head around it either. Wisconsin fans are starting to come up with conspiracy theories that the NCAA is punishing them for Nigel Hayes' behavior. If you recall, Nigel is very outspoken vs the NCAA and the treatment of its college athletes. Here are some examples of his quotes -
"You make a company millions. They "pay" you with only a college education. Fair, right?" "The @bigten made nearly $450 million. My scholarship is about $160,000. If only there was enough money to pay us."
""(Wisconsin) just changed to Under Armour, who just gave us a couple hundred million dollars. I'm sure that's not enough to pay us for our playing, because that's not enough money."
And you may also recall him getting national attention showing up at ESPN's College Gameday with a sign saying "Broke college athlete, anything helps".
All that also got me thinking of Cincinnati head coach Mick Cronin who ripped the NCAA this month for saying the tournament is only about money and selling tickets, and they drop team's seeds to get the "big matchup". Cincinnati was expected to be a 4-5 seed and they get a 6 and sent all the way across the country to Sacramento.
The big bear doesn't like being poked and it seems some players and coaches are started to speak up which the NCAA doesn't like. What you think?
March 13th, 2017 at 11:57 AM ^
Wisconsin was 9-0 against RPI SUB 150 teams. Five wins were against RPI 300+ teams. That's why they got an 8 seed. Schedule somebody with a pulse, please.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:00 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:02 PM ^
It is, but unfortunately I think the committee still really values it.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:11 PM ^
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/mens-basketball-select…
The criteria includes RPI and strength of schedule, two things that benefit Minnesota. It also includes "Player and coach availability." Minnesota will be without one of their starters. That should have bumped them down to a 6 seed. Minnesota actually has a decent resume, if you care to look at their whole season.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/teamId/135
March 13th, 2017 at 12:43 PM ^
Yea some of the "questionable" seeds make a lot more sense when you look at SOS and RPI, RPI especially
March 13th, 2017 at 12:12 PM ^
They played UNC, Tennessee, and Georgetown on a neutral court. They played @Marquette and @Creighton. They played Syracuse at home. That is enough. There is absolutely no reason for them to get a seed below Minnesota or Maryland. They were 3-0 against Minnesota and Maryland and finished higher (2nd) in both the B1G regular season and tournament.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:14 PM ^
they were 32nd in RPI and 83 in strength of schedule.
Minnesota was 21 and 17.
It is what it is.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:27 PM ^
Wisconsin SOS is #39 on KenPom. Minnesota is #49. Maryland is #54. And your RPI SOS number for Wisconsin did not include the neutral site game against Michigan yesterday.
Selection and seeding has to be about more than just RPI and SOS too. Who did Minnesota or Maryland beat? How did they do in conference play? And then add in that Minnesota lost their starting SG for the season during the B1G conference tournament and it just doesn't make sense. And a couple of Wisconsin's losses came while Bronson Koenig was hurt.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:33 PM ^
if you use the criteria that the committee published: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/mens-basketball-select…
Of the teams you listed that Wisconsin played, Syracuse, Georgetown, and Tennessee didn't make the tournament. Marquette is a 10 seed. Wisconsin has 1 RPI top 50 road win. Minnesota has three RPI top 50 road wins. If you use the selection committee's criteria, it makes sense. Anyone can take a few games here and there and make a case. Should OSU be seeded higher than us? They beat us in Ann Arbor. Obviously, that's silly. You have to take the whole season in consideration. Wisconsin did not play enough games against teams in the top 300 of the RPI and they only have one good road win and only 1 good neutral court win.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:11 PM ^
Hm. Strange. You conveniently left out how they played against teams in the top 150 in RPI.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:16 PM ^
Wisconsin was 16-9 and Minnesota was 19-9. 19>16.
P.S. I must've missed the memo that we've stopped hating Wisconsin basketball.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:20 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^
Wisconsin was 14-9 against the top 100 with no losses against any team +100. Minnesota was 13-9 against the top 100 with one +100 loss.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:39 PM ^
Vs RPI top 50, Minnesota was 8-7, Wisconsin was 5-7.
I was surprised that Minnesota got a 5 and Wisconsin only got an 8 like everybody else. But when you look at the criteria, and the resumes, it starts to make more sense. Still, Minnesota should have been dropped to a 6 based on that kid's injury, and Wisconsin could've been a 7.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/teamId/135
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/sort/RPI/teamId/275
It's like how Brian says Michigan needs to do a better job of gaming the RPI system. The same applies to Wisconsin. Their non-conf SOS was 304.
March 13th, 2017 at 11:59 AM ^
I tend not to put much credence in conspiracy theories, but seeding for the Big Ten was strange across the board. Minnesota has no business being a 5 seed and state should be a 10 seed at best. I would definitely be pissed if I was a Wisconsin fan.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:10 PM ^
It's not a "conspiracy theory" to think that the NCAA people are human and have their biases like everyone else does. People are people. You piss them off and they retaliate when they can.
Unfortunately, speaking out against NCAA hypocrisy while you are still in school is like going to a restaurant and calling the cook an asshole just before he cooks your food. Nothing good will come of it.
No conspiracy: just humans being human.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:18 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:41 PM ^
I love when schools criticize the NCAA. YOU ARE THE NCAA. It's just that most of the time the NCAA is working in their interest to pad their wallets. Occasionally when something disfavorable occurs, schools act like it's some arbitrary ruling body from Mars.
Substitute NCAA with USA and schools with voters. Then you can see how being a part of a whole can still piss a bunch of people off.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:55 PM ^
Yes.
The NCAA is unwieldy and incompetent, not some sort of evil genius organization. The selection committee has an incredibly hard job balancing all of the considerations it has to take into account. What teams deserve better seeds? How do we place certain higher seeds in favorable locations? What if BYU makes the tourney and can't play on Sundays?
They do some stuff poorly. But the idea that somehow they deliberately considered the comments of one basketball player on one team and made the collective decision to violate their principles and punish the seeding of that player's team is absurd. It's amazing how much traction the "such and such organization has it out for MY team" myth gets in virtually every fanbase. Totally irrational, yet totally ubiquitous.
Mark Hollis, Michigan State University AD
Mitch Barnhart, University of Kentucky AD
Janet Cone, UNC Asheville AD
Tom Holmoe, Brigham Young University AD
Paul Krebs, University of New Mexico AD
Bernard Muir, Stanford University AD
Bruce Rasmussen, Creighton University AD
Peter Roby, Northeastern University AD
Jim Schaus, Ohio University AD
Kevin White, Duke University AD
These are the people who care about what some Wisconsin student-athlete might have said six months ago? And are punishing Wisconsin by, what, giving them an 8 seed?
Oooo! That showed that Wisconsin guy! An 8 seed! Please. None of those people care what that Wisconsin player said, and probably 8 of the 10 are unaware that the guy even exists.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^
The annoying this is that last year the committee was all like "oh I guess RPI kind of sucks actually? OK we will change it." Fast forward to this year and they, of course, valued RPI highly when doing the seeding.
Hollis can't prevent MSU from imploding what makes you think he would actually know anything about his conference and be any good at his other job?
March 13th, 2017 at 12:05 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:06 PM ^
Is anyone happy with their seeding? Duke pissed they didn't get 1 seed. UNC is upset they are in the South with Kentucky and UCLA. We're pissed about the 7 seed, etc
March 13th, 2017 at 12:12 PM ^
going out on a limb here, but I would guess Minnesota and MSU are both happy with their seeding
March 13th, 2017 at 12:21 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:42 PM ^
While I believe the NCAA to be a vindictive place, I don't think they express it in terms of tournament seeding. What is clear from seeding year over year is that there is some severe disagreement and widely varied understanding and weighting on what exactly is important in the end when these decisions are being made.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:07 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:11 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:11 PM ^
Maybe they shouldn't have lost 6 of their last 10 games.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:17 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:20 PM ^
If they can even beat Miami, they're gonna get stomped on by Josh Jackson. It's gonna be hilarious considering some of their "fans" were telling the kid to kill himself on twitter when he committed to Kansas last year.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:18 PM ^
There are certain rules to the bracket - e.g., (1) if possible, teams from the same conference can't meet until the Round of 16 and (2) if possible, regular season match-ups are to be avoided in the Round of 64 and Round of 32. Cincinnati going to Sacramento was a result of that.
First, SMU was the #21 seed (the best #6 seed). They were getting preference among the #6 seeds, and are playing in the geographically logical spot of Tulsa. Being the best #6 seed, SMU also gets a play-in winner - and tha game can't include K-State to avoid a possible K-State/Baylor Round of 32 game. Thus, K-State vs Wake becomes the other play-in game.
Second, Cincinnati played both URI and Xavier (other 11 seeds) in the regular season, so they couldn't match-up with eihter of them. Cincinnati had to play the winner of K-State/Wake.
Third, Cincinnati vs. K-State/Wake couldn't be moved to Orlando (and Maryland vs. Xavier moved to Sacramento) because that would set up a theoretical Florida State/Wake Forest Round of 32 game.
That left Sacramento as Cincinnati's landing spot. Initially, I DID sthink it was suspicious. But on further review, it's not a conspiracy.
+1. knowledge
March 13th, 2017 at 12:17 PM ^
gone pro if he wanted to get paid. Early entry or NBDL.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:18 PM ^
Two things were apparent to me this year regarding seeding:
1. Confernce tournament wins meant zilch. It was as if the committee did the seeding pre-tournaments and then anything that happened aferwards was ignored.
2. RPI is king with these bozos. It's better to schedule tough teams and get drilled by them (see State, Michigan) than beat easier opponents in the RPI ratings so somehow MSU is consdered the 35th best team in the land with their 14 losses.
Michigan, Wisconsin, Cinci and others got screwed over but not because they are malicious IMO, it's because they're stupid old men who don't understand anything more complex than a deeply flawed ranking system and don't care to learn.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:50 PM ^
Especially considering the Head Bozo of the committee had his school benefit from the seeding. Althrough SPARTY will cry about being on the 8/9 line. Too bad, they should just be happy that they are in the tournement.
They way this was set up actually rewarded teams to lose, that is just simply half ass backwards. It one thing to schedule tough competition, but you should only get credit IF YOU ACTUALLY BEAT THEM. The whole idea that they get brownie points for merely playing tough competition is just wrong.
I am convinced that the committee literally mailed in the seeding process BEFORE any of the tournements were played.
(Unless, of course, a certain team could of had a big tourney run, then they would have been bumped up to a 4/5 seed). Heavy /s here.....
March 13th, 2017 at 12:19 PM ^
March 13th, 2017 at 12:56 PM ^
You missed the OSU game?
March 13th, 2017 at 12:22 PM ^
I wouldn't have a problem with Wisconsin's seed if I thought the committee was remotely consistent. I think at-large entry to the tournament should be based on entire season, but seed should largely, if not entirely, be based on how teams are playing. Wisconsin had a bad stretch to end the season. They're not playing better than an 8 seed right now. Problem is, the committee doesn't seem to really seed that way.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^
No I don't think there's a conspiracy theory. I just think Hayes needs to quit bitching and realize how fortunate he is that he gets to graduate from college (a great college at that) without owing a dime to anyone. The thousands of other students who go to Wisconsin paying their own way, racking of thousands of dollars of debt, would kill to be in his position. I would happily put up with hours of practice, games and working out if it meant I got a free, world-class education.
You want to get paid? Go to the league. Get some perspective, pal, because I really don't feel sorry for you.
As for Wisconsin dropping to an 8 seed, well, don't shit the bed the last month of the season and lose 6 of 8 games. Also don't get blown out by an 8 seed in the conference title game.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:24 PM ^
concurs.
March 13th, 2017 at 12:33 PM ^
The whole seeding for the Big Ten was bizarre. Minnesota and MSU are significantly overvalued by probably 2 seed lines. Michigan and Wisconsin OTOH seem 2 seed lines too low.
Call me biased, but I don't know how a 19-14 MSU team with a bad loss to Northeastern gets a 9 seed. They should be playing in Dayton and a lot of teams with their resume would be in Dayton if you remove the Izzo-factor