Officially lost interest in the NCAA tournament...

[shock10]

Tennessee cheated there way in and there coach lied about it they should not be in. While I'm at it Ohio State's football teams cheats makes me wonder about there basketball team. U Conn. there in trouble for cheating and don't forget USC birds of a feather!!

[NCAABound]

Holy crap...Looks at USC and some of their losses and "good" wins.

http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Southern California

Ahh hell...I don't know why this keeps changing the last word to another team with a similar name!

[shox1989]

Re: Officially lost interest in the NCAA tournament...

For the first time in 44 years, I have officially lost interest in this event.

It's rigged, it's rigged, it's rigged. Force the BCS conferences to play the legitimate Mid majors and let the records speak for themselves. The whole set up is sickening to me and I'll give my ratings to CNN before I give it to the tournament.

This x 1,000. The only things that kept me intrigued last year were UNI beating the Chickenhawks and Butler's magical performance. If GMU or VCU or someone like that goes on a run, consider me interested. Otherwise, not so much.

Me too. Unless a team like UAB or Indy St catches fire and wins some games I am not watching this event.

I will pay attention to the NIT and Shocker baseball and be done with the BCS dance.

[ShockerFever]

College basketball is my favorite sport and this event is top dog. But I also get less and less interested in it with the BCS lovefest. Now granted, the two teams that deserved to be in the least were middies this year - VCU and UAB. Kinda ironic.


In terms of seeding, I haven't had a chance to stare at the brackets too much, but how can a 30-3 Utah State team who won their conference tournament and was ranked 17th in the country given a FREAKING 12 SEED?

A 12 SEED? Seriously? That means if they would've lost last night, they were NIT-ing.

That is asinine and complete JOKE.


On CBS, when they went to the camera on the Utah State reactions as they were being announced. You could see all of them looking at it, stunned and kinda shellshocked. A FREAKING 12 SEED??!

[shox1989]

Holy crap...Looks at USC and some of their losses and "good" wins.

http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Southern California

Ahh hell...I don't know why this keeps changing the last word to another team with a similar name!

USC with an rpi of 67 and 19 wins, has 14 losses including losses to: Rider, Bradley (233 rpi), TCU (208), and Oregon St. (219). They also lost in the second round of the Pac 10 tourney.

I can't imagine any team with 3 200+ losses getting into the dance.

Someone on the committee must be related to someone at USC.

[1979Shocker]

Holy crap...Looks at USC and some of their losses and "good" wins.

http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Southern California

Ahh hell...I don't know why this keeps changing the last word to another team with a similar name!

Maybe because it doesn't like your space.

http://kenpom.com/team.php?team=Southern%20California

[shox1989]

College basketball is my favorite sport and this even is top dog. But I also get less and less interested in it with the BCS lovefest. Now granted, the two teams that deserved to be in the least were middies this year - VCU and UAB. Kinda ironic.


In terms of seeding, I haven't had a chance to stare at the brackets too much, but how can a 30-3 Utah State team who won their conference tournament and was ranked 17th in the country given a FREAKING 12 SEED?

A 12 SEED? Seriously? That means if they would've lost last night, they were NIT-ing.

That is asinine and complete JOKE.


On CBS, when they went to the camera on the Utah State reactions as they were being announced. You could see all of them looking at it, stunned and kinda shellshocked. A FREAKING 12 SEED??!

I am confused about VCU getting in to, but UAB should have been a lock.

They won the regular season title of the #8 conference, they had a rpi of 31, they had 9 road wins and they had 10 top 100 wins.

If UAB didn't get in this year, there would be little hope for WSU or other Valley teams getting an at large in future years.

Winning the regular season title in the #8 conference with an rpi of 31 should account for something.

To me the biggest surprises were USC and Clemson. Neither of those teams should have been there.

[wusphlash]

Arizona 2008-2009, 19-13 overall, 9-9 in Pac 10

USC this year

Gotta keep those West Coast demographics.

[rjl]

Just to salve the mid-major wounds, the selection committee sacrificed Colorado as the BCS lamb.

[rjl]

CNN?

So you are the one that watches them.

People who like news watch CNN.

[ShockerFever]

College basketball is my favorite sport and this even is top dog. But I also get less and less interested in it with the BCS lovefest. Now granted, the two teams that deserved to be in the least were middies this year - VCU and UAB. Kinda ironic.


In terms of seeding, I haven't had a chance to stare at the brackets too much, but how can a 30-3 Utah State team who won their conference tournament and was ranked 17th in the country given a FREAKING 12 SEED?

A 12 SEED? Seriously? That means if they would've lost last night, they were NIT-ing.

That is asinine and complete JOKE.


On CBS, when they went to the camera on the Utah State reactions as they were being announced. You could see all of them looking at it, stunned and kinda shellshocked. A FREAKING 12 SEED??!

I am confused about VCU getting in to, but UAB should have been a lock.

They won the regular season title of the #8 conference, they had a rpi of 31, they had 9 road wins and they had 10 top 100 wins.

If UAB didn't get in this year, there would be little hope for WSU or other Valley teams getting an at large in future years.

Winning the regular season title in the #8 conference with an rpi of 31 should account for something.

To me the biggest surprises were USC and Clemson. Neither of those teams should have been there.

It should count for something if the teams composed of that conference aren't all mediocre and therefore inflate the RPI to appear better in standing than it actually is.

Who did UAB beat of significance again? It's the same reason MSU was left out.

[Capitol Shock]

Actually, I can't stand CNN and the point I was trying to make was that I would rather watch the most biased, least trusted network with the lowest ratings then give my ratings point to the BS...in mean BCS tournament.

Sorry, just felt like I should clarify.

[pinstripers]

I got it the first time.

[shox1989]

College basketball is my favorite sport and this even is top dog. But I also get less and less interested in it with the BCS lovefest. Now granted, the two teams that deserved to be in the least were middies this year - VCU and UAB. Kinda ironic.


In terms of seeding, I haven't had a chance to stare at the brackets too much, but how can a 30-3 Utah State team who won their conference tournament and was ranked 17th in the country given a FREAKING 12 SEED?

A 12 SEED? Seriously? That means if they would've lost last night, they were NIT-ing.

That is asinine and complete JOKE.


On CBS, when they went to the camera on the Utah State reactions as they were being announced. You could see all of them looking at it, stunned and kinda shellshocked. A FREAKING 12 SEED??!

I am confused about VCU getting in to, but UAB should have been a lock.

They won the regular season title of the #8 conference, they had a rpi of 31, they had 9 road wins and they had 10 top 100 wins.

If UAB didn't get in this year, there would be little hope for WSU or other Valley teams getting an at large in future years.

Winning the regular season title in the #8 conference with an rpi of 31 should account for something.

To me the biggest surprises were USC and Clemson. Neither of those teams should have been there.

It should count for something if the teams composed of that conference aren't all mediocre and therefore inflate the RPI to appear better in standing than it actually is.

Who did UAB beat of significance again? It's the same reason MSU was left out.

And exactly who did Utah State beat? They only have like one or two top 100 wins. And by the way I agree with you about Utah State. It just appears to me that you are trying to hold UAB to a much higher standard than Utah St. Even though Utah St won the 13th best conference and UAB won the 8th best.

I know you are not a BCS guy but the arguments you just made about UAB sound like the same things Billy Packer said about the Valley in 2006.

UAB won the 8th best conference, they picked up 10 top 100 wins and 9 road wins in the process and a rpi of 31 that should be good enough to get into a field of 68.

They shouldn't have to beat a Texas (which a lot of mediocre teams did) to prove they belong.