2009 NCAA Tournament Mock Selection Committee

[stuy119]

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock?

 

They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor.

 

I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

[bukie]

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock?

 

They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor.

 

I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47

 

To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's?

[Derwood]

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock?

 

They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor.

 

I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47

 

To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's?

 

If you think MSU/Purdue are on par with Duke/UNC I guess, but I don't

[stuy119]

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock?

 

They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor.

 

I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47

 

To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's?

 

A, they have at least 3 wins against top 25 teams (Duke, FSU, UNC) and only lost by 4 to Pitt.

 

B, I would say that the ACC (top to bottom) is a better league than the Big 11.

[SouthSideRyan]

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock?

 

They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor.

 

I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47

 

To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's?

 

If you think MSU/Purdue are on par with Duke/UNC I guess, but I don't

 

Northwestern played MSU/Purdue 4 times. BC played Duke/UNC twice.

[Derwood]

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock?

 

They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor.

 

I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47

 

To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's?

 

If you think MSU/Purdue are on par with Duke/UNC I guess, but I don't

 

Northwestern played MSU/Purdue 4 times. BC played Duke/UNC twice.

 

true, so there's no telling what BC would have done had they had rematches. It's not a good comparison.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think I misinterpreted your post, I thought we were talking schedule, not wins. @ Purdue is probably about equal to Duke at home, but @ UNC is a lot better than @ MSU.

 

It's that Harvard loss. It's killing me. They're not just a bad team. They're a bad Ivy League team.

 

I've got BC 2nd on my ACC bubble behind Maryland, and they woulda been a virtual lock with a win last night. They're pretty safe as long as they don't lose out.

 

And I do think BC has a better case than Northwestern, but I think Northwestern's resume is being underrated by a lot of people.

[bukie]

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock?

 

They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor.

 

I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47

 

To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's?

 

A, they have at least 3 wins against top 25 teams (Duke, FSU, UNC) and only lost by 4 to Pitt.

 

B, I would say that the ACC (top to bottom) is a better league than the Big 11.

 

FSU is not an Sagarin top 25 team, as they're #40. Besides, Northwestern beat them too. According to Sagarin and the RPI, the ACC is the #1 conference while the Big Ten is #2 (Big East #3). The Big Ten takes a lot of flack for low scoring games, but there are 10 competitive teams and 9 teams deserving of tourney consideration.

 

I'm not arguing that BC doesn't deserve to be in the tournament, but they certainly aren't a lock at this point. They're above most of the bubble teams, but there are so many teams so close together in the bubble area, there's no way anyone can say for sure BC is in if they lose in the first round of the ACC tourney.

[CubInOK]

Because I love these anonymous comparisons so much...

 

Team A: 18-10 record, 1-4 vs. the top 25, 4-5 vs. the top 50, no losses outside the top 100, 8-6 R/N record, 7-5 in the last 12, SOS 16

Team B: 17-11 record, 2-3 vs. the top 25, 6-8 vs. the top 50, no losses outside the top 100, 4-7 R/N record, 7-5 in the last 12, SOS 33

Team C: 20-7 record, 0-1 vs. the top 25, 1-4 vs. the top 50, 1 loss outside the top 100, 4-6 R/N record, 8-4 in the last 12, SOS 130

 

How would you rank them?

A B C

 

Team C shouldn't get in based on this.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'd be very surprised if BC doesn't get in. They're in my top 2-3 teams outside of the near locks. I don't think they can yet be considered a lock though.

[bukie]

Oh, and today's teams A-B-C were Tennessee, Northwestern and South Carolina, respectively.

 

Tennessee is at South Carolina tonight to decide the SEC East. I don't consider necessarily in the tournament at this point, let alone a lock.

[Exile on Waveland]

Oh, and today's teams A-B-C were Tennessee, Northwestern and South Carolina, respectively.

 

Tennessee is at South Carolina tonight to decide the SEC East. I don't consider necessarily in the tournament at this point, let alone a lock.

 

B-A-C before the reveal. After, I'd be disingenuous if I switched to A-B-C.

[CubbieBum]

Because I love these anonymous comparisons so much...

 

Team A: 18-10 record, 1-4 vs. the top 25, 4-5 vs. the top 50, no losses outside the top 100, 8-6 R/N record, 7-5 in the last 12, SOS 16

Team B: 17-11 record, 2-3 vs. the top 25, 6-8 vs. the top 50, no losses outside the top 100, 4-7 R/N record, 7-5 in the last 12, SOS 33

Team C: 20-7 record, 0-1 vs. the top 25, 1-4 vs. the top 50, 1 loss outside the top 100, 4-6 R/N record, 8-4 in the last 12, SOS 130

 

How would you rank them?

 

I'm showing Team B as 7-5 their last 12.

Whoops, I miscounted the games (To do the last 12, I just count back 12 and count the losses...I counted the last game even though it wasn't played yet). Fixed it. Still, pretty amazing, no?

 

A-B-C

 

C Really has no shot. Awful record versus top 50, a bad loss, and a easy schedule.

 

B and A are very close but I go with A because of the harder schedule and much better R/N record.

[CubInOK]

I actually see Northwestern with 2 losses outside the top 100.

[bukie]

I actually see Northwestern with 2 losses outside the top 100.

Stanford is 69, Iowa is 81. Those are their two worst losses.

[bukie]

Hey, a site that actually keeps up-to-date accurate RPI info: http://www.bbstate.com/standings/2009/rpi

[CubInOK]

I actually see Northwestern with 2 losses outside the top 100.

Stanford is 69, Iowa is 81. Those are their two worst losses.

Ahhh it's because we're using Pomeroy/Sagarin ratings and not the RPI. I know that Pomeroy and Sagarin are better measures of how good a team is than the RPI, but RPI is what the committee uses. That's why NW isn't getting as much hype as Tennessee.

[bukie]

I actually see Northwestern with 2 losses outside the top 100.

Stanford is 69, Iowa is 81. Those are their two worst losses.

Ahhh it's because we're using Pomeroy/Sagarin ratings and not the RPI. I know that Pomeroy and Sagarin are better measures of how good a team is than the RPI, but RPI is what the committee uses. That's why NW isn't getting as much hype as Tennessee.

In honesty, I use Sagarin because they already have most of the factors calculated, minimal effort to generate the anonymous comparisons. :) R/N record I grab from Pomeroy, last 12 I quickly eyeball from Pomeroy (since red = loss and green = win).

 

Even with the RPI site I linked, none of the calculations are pre-made. Pomeroy has a fantastic "nitty gritty" page on each team, and Sagarin has good quick and dirty SOS and top 25/top 50 records.

 

Also, yes, I like Pomeroy and Sagarin as better measures of how good a team is, but RPI and Sagarin's ELO are better measures of how "accomplished" a team is. The RPI is not Northwestern's friend right now.

[bukie]

Also, a reminder to those who want to participate to PM me your lists of locks and considerations by the end of tomorrow. If you posted them on here already and just want me to use that, just let me know for sure (I'm not sure who's all set and who's changing their lists as the week goes by).

 

EDIT: I received 4 PMs so far. I'll post my selections here since there's no other way for me to be held accountable for my selections.

[woodchip2153]

I actually see Northwestern with 2 losses outside the top 100.

Stanford is 69, Iowa is 81. Those are their two worst losses.

Ahhh it's because we're using Pomeroy/Sagarin ratings and not the RPI. I know that Pomeroy and Sagarin are better measures of how good a team is than the RPI, but RPI is what the committee uses. That's why NW isn't getting as much hype as Tennessee.

In honesty, I use Sagarin because they already have most of the factors calculated, minimal effort to generate the anonymous comparisons. :) R/N record I grab from Pomeroy, last 12 I quickly eyeball from Pomeroy (since red = loss and green = win).

 

Even with the RPI site I linked, none of the calculations are pre-made. Pomeroy has a fantastic "nitty gritty" page on each team, and Sagarin has good quick and dirty SOS and top 25/top 50 records.

 

Also, yes, I like Pomeroy and Sagarin as better measures of how good a team is, but RPI and Sagarin's ELO are better measures of how "accomplished" a team is. The RPI is not Northwestern's friend right now.

 

I was able to find a breakdown like you have on the team page, something called selection sheet or something like that. I can't get to it now since I'm not a member, they only let you see a couple of teams as a preview, I guess.

[SouthSideRyan]

That bbstate site is incredible, but they only allow you so many clicks before they require a paid registration.

[bukie]

My representation: Illinois (although, technically, I suppose I could participate as an unaffiliated commissioner, since I never actually attended Illinois, just root for them)

 

My locks (29):

ACC: UNC, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State

Big East: UConn, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Villanova, Marquette, Syracuse, West Virginia

Big Ten: Michigan State, Purdue, Wisconsin

Big 12: Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas

Pac-10: Washington, UCLA, Arizona State

SEC: LSU

MWC: Utah, BYU

CUSA: Memphis

HORZ: Butler

WCC: Gonzaga

A-10: Xavier

 

Deserve consideration:

Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Maryland,

Rhode Island, Dayton, Temple,

Georgetown, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Providence,

Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan, Penn State, Northwestern,

Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas A&M,

VCU,

UAB, Tulsa, Houston,

Siena,

Creighton,

San Diego State, New Mexico, UNLV,

California, Arizona, USC,

Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky,

Davidson,

St. Mary's,

Utah State

[Vanilla Ice]

My representation: Duke

 

My locks (27):

ACC -- (5): North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State

Big East -- (7): UConn, Pitt, Louisville, Villanova, Marquette, Syracuse, West Virginia

Big Ten -- (3): Michigan State, Illinois, Purdue

Big 12 -- (3): Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri

Pac 10 -- (3): Washington, UCLA, Arizona State

SEC -- (1): LSU

C-USA -- (1): Memphis

A-10 -- (1): Xavier

Horizon -- (1): Butler

WCC -- (1): Gonzaga

MWC -- (1): Utah

 

Deserve consideration:

ACC -- Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Maryland

A-10 -- Rhode Island, Dayton, Temple

Big East -- Georgetown, Notre Dame, Cincinnati, Providence

Big Ten -- Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan, Penn State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Big Twelve-- Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas A&M, Texas

CAA -- VCU

C-USA -- UAB, Tulsa, Houston

MAAC -- Siena

MVC -- Creighton

MWC -- San Diego State, New Mexico, UNLV

Pac Ten -- California, Arizona

SEC -- Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, Kentucky

Southern -- Davidson

WCC -- St. Mary's

WAC -- Utah State

[SouthSideRyan]

Illinois Rep

 

LOCKS(In no real order)

 

 

 

UNC

Duke

Clemson

Wake

FSU

Washington

UCLA

ASU

Cal

Connecticut

Louisville

Pitt

Marquette

Villanova

Kansas

Oklahoma

Missouri

Michigan St.

Purdue

LSU

BYU

Gonzaga

Memphis

Texas

Syracuse

West Virginia

 

BUBBLES (Loosely ranked in order within their conferences)

 

Providence

Cincy

Maryland

BC

Miami

VA Tech

Arizona

Washington St.

USC

OK St.

A&M

Kansas St.

Baylor

Nebraska

Michigan

Minnesota

Penn St.

OSU

Wisconsin

Northwestern

Tennessee

South Carolina

Florida

Kentucky

Auburn

Utah

San Diego St.

New Mexico

UNLV

Xavier

Rhode Island

Dayton

Creighton

Butler

St. Mary’s

Davidson

Siena

[CubbieBum]

I haven't followed enough college basketball to participate in this process, but I wondering why everyone is leaving Boston College out of the discussion as a lock?

 

They are a 20+ win team (20 now, but should get 21), have wins over Duke, FSU, and UNC, and are above 500 in arguably the toughest conference this year. While there were some lows, those are some pretty big points in their favor.

 

I can understand Maryland and VT on the bubble, but not BC. They are a lock IMO.

BC's resume: 20-10 overall, 2-4 vs. the top 25, 4-6 vs. the top 50, 2 losses outside the top 100, 6-6 R/N record, 7-5 in their last 12, SOS 47

 

To be honest, those 2 bad losses hurt their profile a lot, and they've had a fairly easy ACC schedule to get to 9-7 in the conference (the only upper tier team they played twice was Wake, while the only lower tier team they didn't play twice was VA). How is their profile that much different from, say, Northwestern's?

 

A, they have at least 3 wins against top 25 teams (Duke, FSU, UNC) and only lost by 4 to Pitt.

 

B, I would say that the ACC (top to bottom) is a better league than the Big 11.

 

What fictional conference is this?