Comments on: Reactions to the 2007 NCAA Tournament Bracket http://www.bracketography.com/blog/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/ NCAA Tournament Predictions and Projections Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:23:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: David Mihm http://www.bracketography.com/blog/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-9 David Mihm Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:22:09 +0000 http://bracketography.com/archive/david-mihm/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-9 @Gary: Thanks for the note about Drexel's CAA loss; obviously, the game was not on TV so I was relying on the box score for that comment. @Roger, I have to point out that Andy Glockner, College Hoops Editor over at ESPN.com, did suggest that Syracuse may not have been as safe as most of us thought prior to the selection show. But I'm certainly in agreement that Syracuse deserved a place in the field. The win over Georgetown late in the year and the mid-season road win at Marquette should have been enough. @Daniel, I'm actually not in favor of expanding the Tournament beyond its present state, because I feel it would lose a bit of the special quality you point out by doing so. And even if you expand the Tournament to 80 or 128 teams, you're still going to have the bubble discussion around the teams at the end of the S-Curve. Now that the NCAA owns the NIT, it's also in their best interest to ensure that tournament remains a quality product, so I don't think the four-letter version will expand anytime soon. @Brett, I actually think that Kansas might be the one to gripe about this--the Jayhawks got the same "bargain" that Memphis did last year as a #1 seed in a California-based region against #2 UCLA. Personally, I thought UCLA's entire body of work merited a one seed, so this was a nice consolation prize for the Bruins. I'm not ready to jump on board the conspiracy bandwagon on this one... @Matthew, Matthew, I'd definitely have seeded Nevada, UNLV, and Arizona higher than Duke. All three were much better away from home than was Duke, and UNLV and Nevada in particular ended their seasons far better than the Blue Devils. I also had Duke as a 7 seed (the last 7 on my S-Curve), but I thought they got an exceedingly good draw in Buffalo, potentially against a slumping Pittsburgh team in round two. @Gary: Thanks for the note about Drexel’s CAA loss; obviously, the game was not on TV so I was relying on the box score for that comment.

@Roger, I have to point out that Andy Glockner, College Hoops Editor over at ESPN.com, did suggest that Syracuse may not have been as safe as most of us thought prior to the selection show. But I’m certainly in agreement that Syracuse deserved a place in the field. The win over Georgetown late in the year and the mid-season road win at Marquette should have been enough.

@Daniel, I’m actually not in favor of expanding the Tournament beyond its present state, because I feel it would lose a bit of the special quality you point out by doing so. And even if you expand the Tournament to 80 or 128 teams, you’re still going to have the bubble discussion around the teams at the end of the S-Curve. Now that the NCAA owns the NIT, it’s also in their best interest to ensure that tournament remains a quality product, so I don’t think the four-letter version will expand anytime soon.

@Brett, I actually think that Kansas might be the one to gripe about this–the Jayhawks got the same “bargain” that Memphis did last year as a #1 seed in a California-based region against #2 UCLA. Personally, I thought UCLA’s entire body of work merited a one seed, so this was a nice consolation prize for the Bruins. I’m not ready to jump on board the conspiracy bandwagon on this one…

@Matthew, Matthew, I’d definitely have seeded Nevada, UNLV, and Arizona higher than Duke. All three were much better away from home than was Duke, and UNLV and Nevada in particular ended their seasons far better than the Blue Devils. I also had Duke as a 7 seed (the last 7 on my S-Curve), but I thought they got an exceedingly good draw in Buffalo, potentially against a slumping Pittsburgh team in round two.

]]> By: Matthew Lofton http://www.bracketography.com/blog/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-8 Matthew Lofton Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:04:39 +0000 http://bracketography.com/archive/david-mihm/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-8 Tell me who should be higher-seeded than Duke that is lower? Keep in mind Duke SOS 3, RPI 15, 8-7 against top 50 RPI teams. 7-6 in road-neutral games. Who is lower-seeded that should be higher than Duke? Now, before you reply, I believe they should be a seven. At least you give a reason instead of just saying they are seeded too high. However, a top-50 win at home is better than no top-50 win at all. I just disagree with you stating they were DRAMATICALLY overseeded. --Matthew Lofton Tell me who should be higher-seeded than Duke that is lower? Keep in mind Duke SOS 3, RPI 15, 8-7 against top 50 RPI teams. 7-6 in road-neutral games. Who is lower-seeded that should be higher than Duke? Now, before you reply, I believe they should be a seven. At least you give a reason instead of just saying they are seeded too high. However, a top-50 win at home is better than no top-50 win at all.

I just disagree with you stating they were DRAMATICALLY overseeded.

–Matthew Lofton

]]> By: Brett Conrad http://www.bracketography.com/blog/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-7 Brett Conrad Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:03:59 +0000 http://bracketography.com/archive/david-mihm/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-7 You have the AD from UCLA on your Committee and UCLA gets beat in the first round of the PAC 10 tournament and you penalize them by giving them the #2 SEED in the WEST REGIONAL. UCLA is going to play it's first four games in CALIFORNIA . That's . I don't care about the bubble teams when you can't even begin to start the bracket right. --Brett Conrad You have the AD from UCLA on your Committee and UCLA gets beat in the first round of the PAC 10 tournament and you penalize them by giving them the #2 SEED in the WEST REGIONAL. UCLA is going to play it’s first four games in CALIFORNIA . That’s . I don’t care about the bubble teams when you can’t even begin to start the bracket right.

–Brett Conrad

]]> By: Rev. Daniel J. Decker http://www.bracketography.com/blog/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-6 Rev. Daniel J. Decker Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:01:30 +0000 http://bracketography.com/archive/david-mihm/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-6 I would like the Committee to add teams to the Tournament. I think it's about time. There are more outstanding basketball programs that are being left out year after year. This tournament is tremendous. There is no tourney like it. The NFL, NBA, MLB, and other professional sports can not come close to the exciting play. By adding more teams it will eliminate the need for college students to walk on pins and needles every week of their athletic career. After all aren't they students? I think our kids deserve the best don't you? --Rev. Daniel J. Decker I would like the Committee to add teams to the Tournament. I think it’s about time. There are more outstanding basketball programs that are being left out year after year. This tournament is tremendous. There is no tourney like it. The NFL, NBA, MLB, and other professional sports can not come close to the exciting play. By adding more teams it will eliminate the need for college students to walk on pins and needles every week of their athletic career. After all aren’t they students? I think our kids deserve the best don’t you?

–Rev. Daniel J. Decker

]]> By: Roger Corp http://www.bracketography.com/blog/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-5 Roger Corp Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:00:47 +0000 http://bracketography.com/archive/david-mihm/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-5 I would like to say that the worst travesty in the history of the selection committee has occurred with the omission of Syracue. I have looked at every possible angle and can only conclude that either there was some kind of personal vendetta, or the members of the committee are simply clueless. It was intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that Syracuse belonged in the Tournament. Never in the history of the Big East has a 10-6 team been omitted. How can the fifth place team in the powerful Big East be left out??? It is unfathomable! --Roger Corp I would like to say that the worst travesty in the history of the selection committee has occurred with the omission of Syracue.

I have looked at every possible angle and can only conclude that either there was some kind of personal vendetta, or the members of the committee are simply clueless. It was intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that Syracuse belonged in the Tournament. Never in the history of the Big East has a 10-6 team been omitted. How can the fifth place team in the powerful Big East be left out??? It is unfathomable!

–Roger Corp

]]> By: Gary Moore http://www.bracketography.com/blog/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-4 Gary Moore Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:59:38 +0000 http://bracketography.com/archive/david-mihm/reactions-to-the-2007-ncaa-tournament-bracket/#comment-4 I agree, last year's exclusions were far more egregious than this year's. But still, Illinois and Stanford had no business being in over an Appalachian State or even Drexel for that matter. Also, I wanted to point out that Drexel didn't make an ugly early exit. They lost in the semis to VCU and it was relatively close for the first 14 minutes of the game before VCU started pulling away (they didn't pull what I affectionately call now an "Air Force", ie lose in your conf quarters to a sub .500 team). I was there and that first 14 minutes of the game was NCAA tournament quality till VCU started pulling away (I think Duke's guards will have significant trouble vs. that press). --Gary Moore, Mid Major Hoops I agree, last year’s exclusions were far more egregious than this year’s. But still, Illinois and Stanford had no business being in over an Appalachian State or even Drexel for that matter.

Also, I wanted to point out that Drexel didn’t make an ugly early exit. They lost in the semis to VCU and it was relatively close for the first 14 minutes of the game before VCU started pulling away (they didn’t pull what I affectionately call now an “Air Force”, ie lose in your conf quarters to a sub .500 team). I was there and that first 14 minutes of the game was NCAA tournament quality till VCU started pulling away (I think Duke’s guards will have significant trouble vs. that press).

–Gary Moore, Mid Major Hoops

]]>