Disagree with which part of my statement? The part that we would not have gotten in with Syracuse's resume as the 9th place ACC team, or that I suspect Syracuse would have gotten in with our 6th place finish and resume?
VT gets NIT Bid
- Thread starter Hampton Roads 6
- Start date
My bad Jolly, I thought you were saying VT should have gotten in over Syracuse. I was just pointing out Syracuse had a better resume. I'm sure their name helped but they have proven they belong. VT didn't help themselves by losing in the 2nd round of the NIT. A good run would have helped them next year in the committees mind. But if VT takes care of business on the court next year it will take care of itself.
Texas A&M was ranked #25 at the time and UConn was ranked #18. When you're talking about quality wins that would get you in the tourney, I don't see how those were it.
I don't think anyone here is defending VT's OOC performance this year. The OOC schedule wasn't good and the play was even worse. But to totally and blatantly dismiss and disregard 10 wins in the toughest conference in the country - including wins over two top 10 teams (one of which is favored by the BPI to win the national title) - is just ignoring cold, hard facts because you blindly choose to. And that's fine if you choose to...but then don't promote two teams that finished lower in the standings and who didn't have those quality wins in our place.
You can cite Syracuse's wins over much lesser teams all you want, but the committee is supposed to be grading teams on what they accomplished this year...and Syracuse really didn't accomplish much, period. Neither did Pitt (one win all season over a ranked team...#15 Duke)
Last edited:
I'm just saying the selection committee will look for reasons not to leave Syracuse out of the dance. They invent reasons to leave out VT. They actual lower the historical bar for Syracuse and raise it for VT. The selection committee doesn't do any favors for VT. VT never gets in from the bubble, they have to leave no doubt and be at least a solid 5 seed to nail down their bid. Its been so biased its almost amusing, although not to our fans.
Our NIT results aren't relevant to the discussion of getting into the dance, although I will say that I would have rather faced either of Syracuse's first and second round NCAA tournament opponents on neutral courts than to have to go play a 25 win BYU team in their building in our second round NIT game. I believe if we played as well against those same two neutral site opponents as we did on the road at BYU I think we'd be in the Sweet 16 too.
Our NIT results aren't relevant to the discussion of getting into the dance, although I will say that I would have rather faced either of Syracuse's first and second round NCAA tournament opponents on neutral courts than to have to go play a 25 win BYU team in their building in our second round NIT game. I believe if we played as well against those same two neutral site opponents as we did on the road at BYU I think we'd be in the Sweet 16 too.
Your OOC schedule killed your RPI, that's a fact has nothing to do with taking a bigger name. Syracue playing and beating Texas A&M and UConn was a big deal especially for their RPI. VT never was on the radar because your RPI was never on the radar. I have to believe Buzz steps that up next season and that will not be a problem next post season.
But the selection committee also pushed up the bar again on how high an RPI they would accept in order to take Syracuse. If you don't think that's related to their name then you are mistaken. They would not have taken VT this year with Syracuse's RPI this year.
Syracuse got in because their crooked coach cried to selection committee in the week leading up to selection Sunday. The committee fell for his whining and then seeded them 10th hoping they would win a game or 2, to make committee look good. Once they were in, they should have been seeded 16th and played a one seed.
Syracuse's RPI was 72 while VT's RPI was 89...not much difference. But getting back to selection committee basics, the fact that they look at RPI at all shows how flawed the entire selection process is. RPI totally fails the common sense test that any normal 8 year old would have, and should not be included in any credible selection criteria to begin with.
Either way, though, the committee obviously ignored Syracuse's poor RPI altogether when including them in the field, whereas VT's RPI would be the first reason cited for omitting them. It's a crooked, heavily biased system that does not evaluate teams equally. I think the committee only uses RPI to discredit certain teams (like VT any year) while ignoring poor RPIs for other teams (like Syracuse this year). That's not right.
Wow, some of you guys got the Rodney Dangerfield no respect routine down pat....if VT had a better RPI than Syracuse, which would have meant you played a better OOC schedule you would have gotten the nod over them......but you didn't and that's why you didn't get in. It's really not that hard to understand.
Its not hard to understand when you open your eyes to how its being used. The RPI, which is actually a terrible SOS "tool", is really intended to provide exclusionary criteria for certain teams when it has been convenient to do so, i.e., when the NCAA wants a different one. But when the RPI becomes an inconvenient argument for one of their favored teams, they simply adjust it upward like they did for Syracuse, in this case 5 places beyond the previous high of 67, and move on to a different argument, such as the stupid argument Boeheim made. Its not that they bought that argument, nobody is that stupid. Now, if they were really so worried about rewarding teams with stronger RPIs, they would have taken Princeton with an RPI of 39, instead of Syracuse, with an RPI that's 33 points worse.. This is nothing more than contrived intentional ambiguous selection criteria that allows the NCAA more marketing leverage by allowing them to hand pick the cast they want for their show.
Not sure what this even means? Facts are facts, Syracuse has won both games and proved they belong. Mich St. got upset! So were they overrated or did they just have a bad day? I think we all know the answer....
or did Syracuse have 2 lucky games, Facts are Facts they got in on their past history, just like Dukes 3 seed. They won 2 games maybe they should be a 1 seed........................................................................
I guess when you only get NIT bids you don't really understand how the NCAA Tournament works.....be like me discussing the Bowl selection process....
same thing , names go along ways there too. VT has received better games than deserved, because of attendance numbers. Also way to many bowl games like teams in the tournament.I guess when you only get NIT bids you don't really understand how the NCAA Tournament works.....be like me discussing the Bowl selection process....
I must be missing something. If UVA keeps advancing, doesn't that make our program and the ACC look stronger. Lot of people talk about how the Big 12 and Big 10 are better basketball conferences than the ACC. So we should only root for the other 5 ACC teams to win and for UVA to loose? Heck, I don't particularly like any of the remaining ACC teams, but I'm rooting for them just as I'm rooting for Virginia. C'mon, pull for Iowa State?
The ACC is the best basketball conference, and has been for more years than I can remember.
There is a good possibility that ACC could have a team in NC game, to go along with a team in football championship game, back in January. ACC team also won college baseball championship. The ACC and the SEC are the 2 best conferences in the NCAA. (sorry Big 10).
There is a good possibility that ACC could have a team in NC game, to go along with a team in football championship game, back in January. ACC team also won college baseball championship. The ACC and the SEC are the 2 best conferences in the NCAA. (sorry Big 10).
Yeah. I've been pulling for them too. Especially after that horrible "foot on the line" call last night. But winning games once they get in doesn't have anything to do with whether they deserved to be selected, or how smart the selection committee was for picking them. What about all the selection committee's misses?Did anyone notice Syarcuse won again.....that selection committee has no clue.
Jolly, I was just excited the ACC won all 4 last night.....big payday for all ACC teams. I read where the ACC has already accumulated just short of $40,000,000 so far. Will be a nice payday with 2 teams guaranteed to be in final 4.
I've been pulling for them hard (and will again tomorrow), but they still didn't deserve a bid. They didn't earn it on the court of play this year. Invites are not supposed to be based on potential or based on the name on the jersey, but instead they are supposed to be based on a team's merits, which Syracuse sorely lacked this season. The committee failed that miserably, and all of the public and media outcry after the announcement of their invite verified that fact. Lanardi in particular had some choice words for the committee with how bad they blew it this year.Did anyone notice Syarcuse won again.....that selection committee has no clue.
Now, having said all that, I hope Syracuse wins the whole darned thing. That would be one heck of a story.
Horse shit. Just means they took advantage of the opportunity. Not to mention only one of Cuse's wins came against a higher seed, and that was a mid-major. Boeheim boohooed his team into the field, and it's revolting how people white knight Syracuse for "overcoming difficulties." This is the second time Boeheim has gotten Syracuse in trouble in his career. They got caught cheating (again) and paid the price. You would think it's a frame job, though, the way the commentators are verbally blowing Boeheim.
Credentials aren't considered as part of some post hoc argument; by every meaningful metric the committee supposedly uses, Syracuse had no business being in the tournament and I don't care how many games they win.
Well I guess since it's all about the money, we can all forgive and forget UNCHEAT. NOT..................................................................
Finally someone hit on the one and only reason that the cues were selected. The NCAA is money oriented and the cuse are like cash in the bank compared to VT.
I do not believe that we were ready for an invite to play in the big dance. Our only chance was to win the ACC championship which we did not do. We were better served to get the NIT invite and we played two games and played them well. Proud of Buzz and our team as they really came together this year.
The cuse are a very good BB team but they should not have received an invite to the big dance because of their play this year and the fact that they are disreputable.
Guys this tournament is all about the money. Why do you think UNC is there?
While that is an obviously true statement, I don't think anybody was saying VT deserved to be selected instead of Syracuse. Just that Syracuse didn't have the resume this year either. Money driving the decision is an unstated given for most of us by now.
Nor did I indicate that anyone said they shpuld have been invited. There were comparisons made to us being as ready as the cuse. I am saying plainly that neither of us should have been there. As to everyone understanding the money thingee, yeah, I agree most people do I but I'm surprised at the people who use rational regarding Bowls and NCAA berths that don't take this into consideration. So while it may be a given it is not always in the equation.
Guess I misunderstood what you meant when you said Syracuse compared to VT.
Speaking of Syracuse, how 'bout them Orange? Nice comeback win over the hoos. 9 seed in ACC and 10 seed in dance and now in the Final 4. Just shows how close the teams in the ACC really are to each other.
Wouldn't it be something if Blowheim and Williams and the two cheating programs play for the title.
The Orange team is very good . Better right now than they were at the end of the season. Their coach is ver,very,good.He realized what it would take to beat UVA and even though they weren't as successful in the first half as they should have been , they turned it on in the second half.
What really impressed me was that they were able to come from 14 back against UVA. Until last night I hadn't seen a team better than UVA at playing with a lead. I think Syracuse's athleticism really caused UVA to come unglued.
Similar threads
