College Basketball Idiocy

Jay Bilas believes the RPI is fallible, especially this season. That's fine. But then he basis which teams should make the NCAA tournament on strength of schedule. Florida State shouldn't make it in because they haven't played anyone, he says. That may be, but the strength of schedule is based on teams' RPI. If he doesn't believe the RPI is accurate, reason says that any statistic based on the RPI would be inaccurate as well.

He also argues that teams should be in the tournament based on his arbitrary analysis. Missouri State can win some games in the tournament, but they’re not better than Michigan, so Michigan is in and Missouri State is out. I already used the word that describes this process of selection, arbitrary.

Billy Packer is much worse. He and Jim Nance believe that mid-majors should not get in because they would struggle if they were in the big conferences. Billy Packer also says that the RPI is fallible. He wonders how many live games the computer that calculates RPI has watched. I wonder how many George Mason games Billy Packer has watched, and they can be on television, they don't have to be live. I am guessing that Billy Packer has seen less live GMU games than I have, considering I didn't see him at the Patriot Center.

Of course Billy Packer cannot see every team play live, but his comment above is very hypocritical, when he beleaguers a computer for not seeing the same games live that he also has not witnessed.

Jim Nance is very busy with golf and football, so I'm guessing he hasn't seen GMU play either. The fact is that GMU is a very talented team. Six different players can put up big scoring numbers on any given night. They are undersized, but GMU would be around a .500 team in the conference if they played in the BIG 10 or Big 12. Of course, I have no proof, but neither does Bilas or Packer.

The fact of the matter is that GMU's RPI is very high. I don't mind pushing the importance of this to the side. UNC-Wilmington has been projected as high as a number 9 seed. But GMU won that conference and played well out of the conference. How can GMU be left out and a team lower in their conference be ranked so high? Our record is good, and if it is based on wins and losses to some degree, we win that argument. I'm not sure how you decide who is better than whom (besides doing so arbitrarily) if there is not some formula. GMU should be in the tournament. Let them play the top teams. They won't lose by forty like some of the other bubble teams from big conferences.