Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ateamstupid
Here's what I wrote last night. By the way, saying UConn shouldn't have gotten a 1-seed because it went 4-3 without Dyson, failing to note that the three losses came to Pittsburgh and Syracuse in six overtimes, is misleading.
Also I disagree that the committee is telling the mid-majors they don't want them. The mids simply weren't very good this year, and although I like seeing diverse fields, I'd rather see the 65 most deserving teams. And road wins are important (Arizona would've been a lock had it won a few more games on the road), but they can't substitute for quality wins. When the best team you beat is an 11-seed in the Tournament, as is the case with both Creighton and St. Mary's, I don't care how many road wins you have, you shouldn't get in over a team that beat several high seeds in the Tournament, like Arizona did.
|
This is true, which is why I have less of a beef than I might normally.
But you can't say one thing ("We valued road wins highly this year") then do something else (take a team with TWO road wins, both over teams that were utterly horrible this year). Look at what Arizona did against postseason level teams on the road.
At Texas A&M, lost by 1
At UNLV, lost by 15
At UCLA, lost by 23
At Cal, lost by 14
At USC, lost by 1
At Arizona St, lost by 2
At Washington St, lost by 16
At Washington, lost by 5
I applaud Arizona for playing a brutal schedule every year, which is why they make the tournament every year. But the committee does not follow what they claim to do.