Monday, March 13, 2006

NCAA Tournament Seeding Reactions

George Washington got screwed

George Washington had a weak schedule this season. There is no getting around it. But they did win every game they played, save two. They play in the expanded Atlantic 10 Conference, which is weak this season. But they did not lose a game during the conference regular season. It is inconceivable to me that George Washington should receive an 8 seed. Wins and losses should count for something.

I knew Syracuse would get a ridiculously high seed. Maryland got a 4 seed after winning the ACC Tournament a few years ago despite beginning post season on the bubble. But Syracuse has 9 more losses than GWU. UAB has 4 more losses than GW and didn't play anyone either. Wichita State lost 6 more games than GW. West Virginia lost 8 more. California, in a down season for Pac 10, also lost 8 more games. The point is that GW should have received a much better seed. They were ranked 6th in the nation in the AP poll, which history proves, does a better job of ranking the schools than the selection committee.

Small Beefs

Boston College got a 4, while UNC got a 3. That doesn't make much sense given the fact that BC beat UNC this week. Florida, who will struggle in the tournament, got a 3 seed after winning the SEC tournament, while Tennessee's team was shocked to hear that they were a 2 seed.

Did the selection committee watch any Big East basketball outside of the tournament?

I don't want to berate Syracuse as a 5 too much. I'll say it again, I knew it was coming. But Marquette and Georgetown were in another class in the Big East this season and they find themselves with worse seeds than the 9th best team in the same conference.

The mid-majors

I was glad to see George Mason and four Missouri Valley teams get in. The Mountain West and WAC conferences are always underrated. I don't believe Air Force should have gotten in, but one criticism I heard was that they didn't look like a tournament team. That is horrible reasoning. Not only does it make no sense, it's wrong. They have a quirky Princeton-style offense that is very effective. They have a great chance at pulling of an upset.

Packer and Nantz are idiots

I could go one of two ways now. I could give a reasoned analysis on why Jim Nantz and Billy Packer are total douches or I can go on a really insane rant about the subject. I feel like I started to make a rational case when I addressed College Basketball Idiocy. But how can you effectively argue against ridiculousness? So here goes nothing...

Jim Nantz and Billy Packer are the only announcers that I can't stand during CBS's NCAA tournament coverage, year in and year out. Billy Packer is so old and out of touch with reality it makes Ross Perot cry. What in the hell does Iowa's 1980 Final Four run have to do with Bradley making the tournament over Cincinnati? And why does his wife constantly call me for sex, assuming that she's still alive.

I'd like to see Al McGuire announce the championship game over Billy Packer. I'm aware he's dead.

But the reasoning they gave was so unbelievably stupid. Look at five year trends? What the hell does that have to do with anything? There are only four years of college athletic eligibility to begin with! He wants to look at conference five year trends. The committee rightfully doesn't even take the number of teams from a conference into consideration for this year! Why on earth should they do so for five years ago? Maryland beat UNC-W in the tournament several years ago, so George Mason shouldn't get in this year? That's what you're saying, you old fart.

Why are Billy Packer and Jim Nantz on the big conferences' dicks (assuming that inanimate objects, such as conferences, actually contain parts of the male anatomy)? My earlier comment about the amount of games Billy Packer has actually watched from the teams that he disparages stands (Digger Phelps falls into this category, nice save Jay Bilas).

I wonder if Billy Packer had a girl who left him for a man from a small conference school. Maybe that's it. Or maybe he's just so fucking old, he has no idea what he's saying anymore.

I hope you've noticed I haven't said much about Jim Nantz directly thus far. I like Nantz outside of his college basketball duties. But while sitting next to Billy Packer, he is just a tool. He really has no idea. He announces his Big 10 game of the week and thinks he knows shit about shit, which he does not. My real beef is with Billy Packer. The Washington Post had a nice article about how stupid and senile he is. So do most blogs on the internet. It's nice to know that we can at least agree that this old white man is an idiot anyway.

No comments: