Texas A&M's Coach Speaks Out Against NCAA Selection Committee
- Thread starter Pryght
- Start date
He's a melodramatic cry baby.
"I've lost all faith in the NCAA blah, blah, blah..."
Then quit, pumpkin head. Stop torturing yourself.
"I've lost all faith in the NCAA blah, blah, blah..."
Then quit, pumpkin head. Stop torturing yourself.
My one thought, when I listened to his rant, was: how did you find the time to game prep when you spent all that time compiling detailed research on past selection committee decisions? Shouldn't you be coaching your team, Buzz?
Could you have made a case for A&M to be in the tournament? Sure, but at best they’d have been on of the last couple teams in. And when you’re that close to the cut line, you have to realize that it’s a crap shoot.
Had IU missed the tournament, I would have been upset and annoyed, but it would have been only IUs fault for losing too many games to begin and not being safely in
Had IU missed the tournament, I would have been upset and annoyed, but it would have been only IUs fault for losing too many games to begin and not being safely in
If IU hadn’t made it we could have pretended we would have been champs had we been selected. Now we actually have to win games
I thought the same thing. Focus on the damn NIT. That’s what I would have expected.
My guess is that he lost out on some performance bonuses. I imagine his players wish he would STFU.
Come back and bitch about it 3 days later? That's just throwing red meat to the fan base and boosters.
I studied it after watching that epic rant. I think the case between IU, UM, Iowa St., and Texas A&M is very close, each with some strengths and weaknesses.
Looking at A&Ms weaknesses, one of them is losing 9 of 10 at one stretch. Another is losing at home to Missouri late in the season. But yes, they have a pretty close case.
If you compare IU directly to A&M, it's possible that IU would not have made it if they hadn't played as well as they did against Iowa or if Iowa had lost badly to Purdue in the final.
With Iowa St. it was a matter of good road wins and wins outside the conference, but they didn't end strong.
Anyway, once you get yourself on the bubble someone isn't going to be happy and it's going to be a close call. I would like to see if A&M could beat Minnesota or Nebraska.
Looking at A&Ms weaknesses, one of them is losing 9 of 10 at one stretch. Another is losing at home to Missouri late in the season. But yes, they have a pretty close case.
If you compare IU directly to A&M, it's possible that IU would not have made it if they hadn't played as well as they did against Iowa or if Iowa had lost badly to Purdue in the final.
With Iowa St. it was a matter of good road wins and wins outside the conference, but they didn't end strong.
Anyway, once you get yourself on the bubble someone isn't going to be happy and it's going to be a close call. I would like to see if A&M could beat Minnesota or Nebraska.
The lesson here is stay off the bubble. If A&M had been picked over us, Woodson could have made the same claim but that wouldn't have made it more valid. As has been stated here, there are a fixed number of at-large bids. A couple of teams are always left out that are just as deserving as the last two or three that got in. That doesn't make it sinister or some conspiracy against your team. Be good enough that you don't have to worry about being in that position.
I think the biggest thing was that A&M was barely a bubble team before the SEC tournament. Before the tournament They had 2 good but not great wins, and a couple bad losses. They did have 21 total wins, but only because they played a awful nonconf. You can play yourself from the bubble into the tournament (IU) with conference tournament wins, but you can’t really leapfrog the entire bubble to get in.
At the end of the day, only maybe 10 seeds and better “deserve” to be in the tournament, and the rest of the teams are there to round out the field.
Exactly. If you leave it in the committee's hands, at some point you're going to be disappointed, and maybe have a legit gripe, but you'll still be out of the tournament. Enjoy the NIT, Buzz!
Actually, I think he makes some fair points. Texas A&M got screwed - especially since Bama made it. Same conference record. TAMU with a better overall record. TAMU runner-up in SEC Tourney. Etc.
It makes no sense.
But this isn’t the way to go about making a legitimate complaint. Especially sitting there in front of an NIT backdrop. I’m sure the NIT organizers were thrilled with him using their platform to make this particular complaint.
This should’ve been done behind closed doors. But I do think the selection committee has something to answer for.
Bama also had wins over Gonzaga, Houston, Baylor, and Miami.
Oh I know. And that’s a great batch of wins. I’m sure they played a role.
I’m simply saying that I think he has a legit gripe. He just chose a really bad way to go about making it.
I could argue that it's splitting hairs between them and a few that made it, like Rutgers and Miami. But not all the bubble teams are going to make it, and having a stretch where you go 1-9 is hard to overcome.
And we know all about those kinds of streaks, don't we?
You're right that not all bubble teams are going to make the field. There are always some who have to get left out.
But TAMU getting snubbed is one of the more egregious ones in recent history, IMO. If we had their resume and didn't make it, we'd be furious -- particularly considering some that did. And rightfully so.
So I have no issue with the substance of Buzz's complaint. If I were him, I'd be wanting answers from the selection committee. But to use a postgame presser at the NIT to do this is inappropriate.
Legit gripe? maybe, but more like a minor quibble and it wasn't some complete miscarriage of justice either like he is making it out to be.
Most bracket people did have them in (and predicting brackets is the one thing about basketball that above average fans probably have more insight on than coaches) but the general consensus was that they were one of the last 1 or 2 or so teams in the tournament. So at most the committee's subjective judgement call bumped them at most 2 or 3 spots from where most people valued their resume.
Also, he was saying that he wasn't given a clear answer about the decision to leave them out. But I'm guessing that he was provided a fairly direct response, but he just didn't like the answer.
From how things were seeded, its clear that the committee valued 1a) quality non-conf wins and 1b) quality regular season conference wins and 2) conference record and cared little about non-conf losses, and completely ignored non-conf wins against weak opponents.
The only at large team that seemed to benefit from conference tournament wins was IU. VT was probably out too had they not beaten Duke
And we know all about those kinds of streaks, don't we?
You're right that not all bubble teams are going to make the field. There are always some who have to get left out.
But TAMU getting snubbed is one of the more egregious ones in recent history, IMO. If we had their resume and didn't make it, we'd be furious -- particularly considering some that did. And rightfully so.
So I have no issue with the substance of Buzz's complaint. If I were him, I'd be wanting answers from the selection committee. But to use a postgame presser at the NIT to do this is inappropriate.
Teams that were maybe debatable seeded over A&M
(only team that I think A&M deserved to be in front of was ND, so in no way was it an egregious snub)
-Iowa St, only team with a truly bad conference record (7-11), but they also had non-conf wins against Iowa, Creighton, and Memphis, and were tied for 4th nationally with 9 quad 1 wins, more than double A&M
-Alabama, same conference record as A&M but double A&M's Quad 1 wins including nonconf wins against Baylor, Gonzaga, Miami, and Houston and only played a single quad 4 game compared to 8 by A&M
-Michigan - better conference record in a better conference, and more quad 1 wins and more wins against tournament other at large teams
-Davidson - Fewer quad 1 wins, but dominated (15-3) a conference that had a chance for multiple at large bids, and lost by only 2 in their conference championship game. Probably the most subjective, but I think a quality mid major like that deserves to be in
-ND - fewer quad 1 wins, and a head to head loss to A&M, but had a 15-5 conference record and had a better non-conf win against UK - maybe the most questionable, but its going to be hard to keep out the 2nd place team in a major conference even if an exceptionally weak year.
-Rutgers - more quad 1 wins and a better conference record in a better conference. Only bad part to resume was bad non-conf losses
-Wyoming - same quad 1 wins, and 13-5 in a good mid-major conference which deserve an additional bump over mediocre major conference team.
-IU - Same quad 1 wins, but fewer bad losses (only quad 3 loss was to at-large Rutgers), and had better wins before the conference tournament
Also, Dayton was apparently the 1st out ahead of A&M, with non-conf wins against Kansas, Miami, and VT and a 14-4 conference record which again deserves an additional bump over mediocre major conference team.
Last edited:
Lost all respect for Buzz after this crybaby bull shit. What a little bitch. What kind of message does this send to his team? Then TAM sends out his research to “support” his argument? I hope they get their ass stomped in the NIT
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
gameday crew already setting the table to screw us- Latest: Big Red Crimson Buffalo
-