Hollis throws Wisky & Purdue under the bus to buy support for MSU ...

[BoilerBonz]

With its worst team in years, MSU is in serious danger of being left out of the NCAA tourney field.

And anyone who has ever served on a committee such as this one, where each member brings their own self-interested objectives to the table, which can't all be satisfied, knows that it doesn't take long for the implicit "logrolling" and "horse trading" to begin among the members whose objectives are in jeopardy, even if such self dealing is explicitly prohibited (as it always is).

Every committee member is there to fight for his team, conference, or those who can serve his interests, regardless of what they'll admit. But no one gets to walk away with all that they want. So one has to be selective in terms of what they'll give up, to get what they truly want the most.

Given Purdue rarely gets any national respect, and has relatively little bargaining power in terms of offering side payments such as home-and-away match ups guaranteed for national TV (i.e., UK vs. KU), it's not too hard to understand why Purdue was left out. But the omission of Wisconsin points directly to Hollis and his beginning of a process that will under-seed the best B1G teams in order to horse trade MSU into the tail of field.

So:
-- Hollis effectively gives a public apology for the state of B1G basketball (after all, how good can it be with MSU down due to injuries?).
-- the ACC gets to thump its chest with 5 of the top 16 (I've been hearing about nothing else from my ACC buds since yesterday) but this favor will cost the middle-tier ACC teams in the end.
-- similarly, the Big 12 and Pac 12 get 3 each.
-- Nova secures a spot for a 2nd Big East team, Butler, so Nova can claim to have taken care of its conference.
-- And likewise, UK logrolls in a 2nd SEC team, UF.
-- this leaves Wisconsin and Purdue out, but there is a method to Hollis' madness.

I can hear Hollis now at the conference table: "... true, we (the B1G) have no great teams this year, but we have tremendous depth and parity."

This is truly good news for IU and Northwestern -- maybe Hollis will even sneak Minnesota in, so no one can claim he slipped in MSU as the lowest-seeded B1G team.

And you can say all you want that ... "we just need to keep winning and proves ourselves." Baloney!

How does Wisconsin, Purdue, and Maryland prove themselves against each other when the committee obviously has no respect for any of them?!

Hollis should be tarred, feathered, and run out of the B1G on a rail!

 

[TwinDegrees2]

With its worst team in years, MSU is in serious danger of being left out of the NCAA tourney field.

And anyone who has ever served on a committee such as this one, where each member brings their own self-interested, and mutually exclusive, objectives to the table, knows that its doesn't take long for the implicit "logrolling" and "horse trading" to begin among the members with objectives that are in danger, even if such behavior is explicitly prohibited (as it always is).

Every committee member is there to fight for his team, conference, or those who can serve his interests, regardless of what they'll admit. But no one gets to walk away with all that they want. So one has to be selective in terms of what they'll give up, to get what they really want.

Given Purdue rarely gets any national respect, and has relatively little bargaining power in terms of offering side payments such as home-and-away match ups guaranteed for national TV (i.e., UK vs. KU), it's not too hard to understand why Purdue was left out. But the omission of Wisconsin points directly to Hollis and his beginning of a process that will under-seed B1G teams in order to horse trade MSU into the tail of field.

So:
-- Hollis effectively gives a public apology for the state of B1G basketball (after all, how good can it be with MSU down due to injuries?).
-- the ACC gets to thump its chest with 5 of the top 16 (I've been hearing about nothing else from my ACC buds since yesterday) but this favor will cost the middle-tier ACC teams in the end.
-- similarly, the Big 12 and Pac 12 get 3 each.
-- Nova secures a spot for a 2nd Big East team, Butler, so Nova can claim to have taken care of its conference.
-- And likewise, UK logrolls in a 2nd SEC team, UF.
-- this leaves Wisconsin and Purdue out, but there is a method to Hollis' madness.

I can hear Hollis now at the conference table: "... true, we (the B1G) has no great teams but we have tremendous depth and parity."

This is truly good news for IU and Northwestern -- maybe Hollis will even sneak Minnesota in, so no one can claim he slipped in MSU as the lowest-seeded B1G team.

And you can say all you want that ... "we just need to keep winning and proves ourselves." Baloney!

How does Wisconsin, Purdue, and Maryland prove themselves against each other when the committee obviously has no respect for any of them?!

Hollis should be tarred, feathered, and run out of the B1G on a rail!

I disagree. It's as simple as when PU has done what MSU has done, then Purdue can claim the claims of Hollis for the black and gold. And I'm not a MSU/Izzo lover.

 

[BoilerBonz]

I disagree. It's as simple as when PU has done what MSU has done, then Purdue can claim the claims of Hollis for the black and gold. And I'm not a MSU/Izzo lover.

Your response isn't clear -- are you saying Hollis isn't doing what I've suggested he is doing?

I said I can see how Purdue was omitted. But are you saying that you honestly think Wisky should have been omitted?!

Regardless, what's MSU's past glory got to do with it, other than make it a little easier for Hollis to horse trade them into the tourney?

 

[arcb102000]

It would not surprise me if he was saving his ammo for a flight on Selection Weekend.

 

[rgarlitz]

As per NCAA rules, nobody on the committee who is affiliated with a B1G school can participate in discussion or seeding of any B1G team. Same is true of every other conference.

If anything, it appears the RPI is what is pushing league teams down the bracket.

It's not a conspiracy, and it isn't the end of the world.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Your response isn't clear -- are you saying Hollis isn't doing what I've suggested he is doing?

I said I can see how Purdue was omitted. But are you saying that you honestly think Wisky should have been omitted?!

Regardless, what's MSU's past glory got to do with it, other than make it a little easier for Hollis to horse trade them into the tourney?

I'm simply saying that under the current scenario and rules established by this group, PU and Wisky do not qualify.

Now that being said, I do believe both Wisky and PU will be at least four seeds or better when the final draft is done. Unless both or one go on a huge losing streak.

 

[BoilerBonz]

As per NCAA rules, nobody on the committee who is affiliated with a B1G school can participate in discussion or seeding of any B1G team. Same is true of every other conference.

If anything, it appears the RPI is what is pushing league teams down the bracket.

It's not a conspiracy, and it isn't the end of the world.

Nobody said it's the end of the world.

But if you honestly think the "NCAA rule" against this actually prevents it from happening, then you have either never served on a committee like this, or you're very naive. A good negotiator can accomplish all this in such a setting without ever saying a word about it, explicitly.

 

[BoilerBonz]

I'm simply saying that under the current scenario and rules established by this group, PU and Wisky do not qualify.

Insightful stuff.

 

[BoilerBonz]

It would not surprise me if he was saving his ammo for a flight on Selection Weekend.

I agree, but the fight he's saving his ammo for is not over higher seeds for Wisconsin and Purdue.

 

[SIBoiler2]

Looks like we can help him out by running Sparty and Whizzo out of Mackey in front of a big TV crowd.

 

[BoilerGal74]

I disagree. It's as simple as when PU has done what MSU has done, then Purdue can claim the claims of Hollis for the black and gold. And I'm not a MSU/Izzo lover.

Absolutely agree that Purdue certainly does not have the history in the tourney that MSU does. That being said, I thought the Selection Committee was suppose to be about what happens THIS year. Does Purdue have the RPI that many of the teams who made the top 16? No again, but Hollis's standard answer to anyone questioning the Committe's work so far has been"RPI, RPI, RPI" --- Several of the top 16 have lower RPI's than Wisconsin and Purdue. If the list is determined the way Hollis suggests, and not politically, there is no need for a Committee other than in case of ties. For Hollis to argue against the B1G based on his "stated" reasons is simply illogical...And very easy to question.

(Admittedly my distain for all things MSU and their ever questionable ethics definitely seeping in here)

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

This is some grade A tin foil hat conspiracy horse crap. The simple fact is nobody from the B1G (with the exception of the dumpster fire that is now IU) has really beaten anybody that matters. What's the best win among Purdue, Wisconsin and Maryland? Us vs. ND (mid pack ACC team) at a neutral site? If we swap that out with say a win vs. Villanova or Louisville (so the same overall record), i bet we would be in the top 16.

You really think the MSU AD is doing that crap you mention above? I dont and i doubt the way the committee works allows it. Right or wrong, the process still relies too much on RPI .. it is what it is.

 

[77 grad]

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

 

[*4purdue*]

With its worst team in years, MSU is in serious danger of being left out of the NCAA tourney field.

And anyone who has ever served on a committee such as this one, where each member brings their own self-interested objectives to the table, which can't all be satisfied, knows that it doesn't take long for the implicit "logrolling" and "horse trading" to begin among the members with objectives that are in danger, even if such behavior is explicitly prohibited (as it always is).

Every committee member is there to fight for his team, conference, or those who can serve his interests, regardless of what they'll admit. But no one gets to walk away with all that they want. So one has to be selective in terms of what they'll give up, to get what they truly want the most.

Given Purdue rarely gets any national respect, and has relatively little bargaining power in terms of offering side payments such as home-and-away match ups guaranteed for national TV (i.e., UK vs. KU), it's not too hard to understand why Purdue was left out. But the omission of Wisconsin points directly to Hollis and his beginning of a process that will under-seed the best B1G teams in order to horse trade MSU into the tail of field.

So:
-- Hollis effectively gives a public apology for the state of B1G basketball (after all, how good can it be with MSU down due to injuries?).
-- the ACC gets to thump its chest with 5 of the top 16 (I've been hearing about nothing else from my ACC buds since yesterday) but this favor will cost the middle-tier ACC teams in the end.
-- similarly, the Big 12 and Pac 12 get 3 each.
-- Nova secures a spot for a 2nd Big East team, Butler, so Nova can claim to have taken care of its conference.
-- And likewise, UK logrolls in a 2nd SEC team, UF.
-- this leaves Wisconsin and Purdue out, but there is a method to Hollis' madness.

I can hear Hollis now at the conference table: "... true, we (the B1G) have no great teams this year, but we have tremendous depth and parity."

This is truly good news for IU and Northwestern -- maybe Hollis will even sneak Minnesota in, so no one can claim he slipped in MSU as the lowest-seeded B1G team.

And you can say all you want that ... "we just need to keep winning and proves ourselves." Baloney!

How does Wisconsin, Purdue, and Maryland prove themselves against each other when the committee obviously has no respect for any of them?!

Hollis should be tarred, feathered, and run out of the B1G on a rail!

I really don't get all the ACC love. I've watched enough games and don't see anyone in that league better than Purdue or Wiscy. The middle and bottom of the leagues are also very comparable.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

How about engaging your brain before typing?

I didn't suggest Hollis is out to get Purdue. I argued that he is self dealing for MSU, at the expense of Wisconsin, Purdue, and probably Maryland, too, in terms of their final seeding.

I guess you're a very trusting person? The car dealers must love you.

 

[mathboy]

I don't put much stock in conspiracies, but that said, I would not trust Hollis any further than I could throw him, and that isn't far.

The issue I have with this theory is that by dismissing the leaders in the BIG, you also denigrate the 2nd and 3rd tier teams like MSU. You would think to push MSU (as put forth here) the AD would have extolled Purdue and Wisconsin. The conspiracy is based on some sort of exchange now for better treatment later. I don't think that would work with this bunch, because they would just screw MSU later for the benefit of their conferences.

Sorry, but I am having trouble seeing how this conspiracy works for either the BIG or MSU.

 

[BoilerBonz]

This is some grade A tin foil hat conspiracy horse crap. The simple fact is nobody from the B1G (with the exception of the dumpster fire that is now IU) has really beaten anybody that matters. What's the best win among Purdue, Wisconsin and Maryland? Us vs. ND (mid pack ACC team) at a neutral site? If we swap that out with say a win vs. Villanova or Louisville (so the same overall record), i bet we would be in the top 16.

You really think the MSU AD is doing that crap you mention above? I dont and i doubt the way the committee works allows it. Right or wrong, the process still relies too much on RPI .. it is what it is.

What are you, an ACC, B12, or Pac 12 fan?!

An argument can be made for and against every team and conference. And you choose to make the most anti-B1G argument that can be conjured up. Including calling ND a "mid-pack" ACC team when they just beat #2 seeded FSU yesterday, easily. And of course no B1G team has beaten anybody any good because the whole B1G sucks!

Oh, wait a minute: IU beat KU and UNC -- but clearly that means nothing since IU must suck, since they lost to Wisconsin (twice) and even Purdue!

You're falling for the same old ESPN spoonfed B.S.: a floundering Duke beats UNC, and it means Duke is back, and UNC is as good as ever! But Wisconsin loses to Purdue, and it means nothing good about Purdue, and that Wisconsin can't be very good, thus, the whole B1G must suck!

And if this is simply an RPI ranking process, why bother having a committee?

I have to assume you get some feeling of superiority, unavailable elsewhere in your life, from lecturing others about supposed conspiracy theories.

My advice is the same I offered 77 grad:

"I didn't suggest Hollis is out to get Purdue. I argued that he is self dealing for MSU, at the expense of Wisconsin, Purdue, and probably Maryland, too, in terms of their final seeding.

I guess you're a very trusting person? The car dealers must love you."

 

[77 grad]

"Hollis throws Wisky and Purdue under the bus ..." Your own words.

I get your point Hollis may be self-dealing. (Not that he doesn't have bigger things to worry about right now.) I would be surprised if he's not, in fact.

Read your first eight words again and tell me there's NO SUGGESTION that in the process of trying to boost MSU, he is causing harm to other Big Ten schools' seeding prospects.

 

[BoilerBonz]

"Hollis throws Wisky and Purdue under the bus ..." Your own words.

I get your point Hollis may be self-dealing. (Not that he doesn't have bigger things to worry about right now.) I would be surprised if he's not, in fact.

Read your first eight words again and tell me there's NO SUGGESTION that in the process of trying to boost MSU, he is causing harm to other Big Ten schools' seeding prospects.

I think I made it clear, Hollis has begun the process of "horse trading" the mid-pack B1G teams into the tourney field by negotiating away higher seeds for Wisconsin, Purdue, and possibly Maryland.

To call that a "conspiracy theory" and dismiss it as implausible is naive. All it takes to do this is Hollis -- do you think the members of the committee from the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12 are going to argue in defense of higher seeding for Wisconsin and Purdue, at the expense of their own conferences?!

 

[BoilerBonz]

I don't put much stock in conspiracies, but that said, I would not trust Hollis any further than I could throw him, and that isn't far.

The issue I have with this theory is that by dismissing the leaders in the BIG, you also denigrate the 2nd and 3rd tier teams like MSU. You would think to push MSU (as put forth here) the AD would have extolled Purdue and Wisconsin. The conspiracy is based on some sort of exchange now for better treatment later. I don't think that would work with this bunch, because they would just screw MSU later for the benefit of their conferences.

Sorry, but I am having trouble seeing how this conspiracy works for either the BIG or MSU.

"I don't think that would work with this bunch, because they would just screw MSU later for the benefit of their conferences."

No, because the seeding "game" isn't over until the committee chair (Hollis) signs off ... so he can defend any attempt to double cross him.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

What are you, an ACC, B12, or Pac 12 fan?!

An argument can be made for and against every team and conference. And you choose to make the most anti-B1G argument that can be conjured up. Including calling ND a "mid-pack" ACC team when they just beat #2 seeded FSU yesterday, easily. And of course no B1G team has beaten anybody any good because the whole B1G sucks!

Oh, wait a minute: IU beat KU and UNC -- but clearly that means nothing since IU must suck, since they lost to Wisconsin (twice) and even Purdue!

You're falling for the same old ESPN spoonfed B.S.: a floundering Duke beats UNC, and it means Duke is back, and UNC is as good as ever! But Wisconsin loses to Purdue, and it means nothing good about Purdue, and that Wisconsin can't be very good, thus, the whole B1G must suck!

And if this is simply an RPI ranking process, why bother having a committee?

I have to assume you get some feeling of superiority, unavailable elsewhere in your life, from lecturing others about supposed conspiracy theories.

My advice is the same I offered 77 grad:

"I didn't suggest Hollis is out to get Purdue. I argued that he is self dealing for MSU, at the expense of Wisconsin, Purdue, and probably Maryland, too, in terms of their final seeding.

I guess you're a very trusting person? The car dealers must love you."

Easy there trigger. No, i am a lifelong B1G fan (I'm 47 yrs old ... and unless you are significantly older than me, ive probably watched more B1G games than you ... yes, its an illness). Its hard to thump our chest as a conference when as a whole we have won 1 national championship since Reagan was in office. I love the conference as much as anybody, but NCAA tournament success is not our calling card.

My only point is you are cooking up a vast conspiracy that i dont believe for one minute is going on. First of all, they said the first 16 is just that ... where the first 16 are right now. They did not do a full bracket and look at all those other teams, so to say Hollis is pushing Purdue, Wisky and Maryland down to benefit MSU ultimately is laughable (not to mention the point that he would want to impress on them how good they are to justify why MSU cant beat any of them if we was working an angle to benefit MSU).

Purdue and Wisky are right on the cusp of the top 16 (as i believe the spokesman said after the announcement). I think that is fair. You never answered my original point -- what is the best win by either us or Wisky? IUs big wins were so long ago (and so many injuries since then .. they are nowhere near the same team right now) that trying to say beating IU is similar to beating NC or Kansas right now is not logical.

Also, no RPI is not simply a ranking used. But they do look at how teams do vs. 1-25, top 50 etc, so it does really matter. Based upon today, we are 2-3 against the top 25. You can make an argument thats good enough, but it doesnt mean a consipiracy if not. The good news is that if they did it again today, we would probably be in (given that Butler moves out and I think we were the first team mentioned as on the cusp).

Finish out strong and we are probably a 3-4 seed ... lose more games we shouldn't and we are a 5 or 6. Matchups are way more important than a 3, 4 or 5 seed. Also its hard to say we got screwed on seeding last year when we wet ourselves against a 12 seed.

 

[lbodel]

With its worst team in years, MSU is in serious danger of being left out of the NCAA tourney field.

And anyone who has ever served on a committee such as this one, where each member brings their own self-interested objectives to the table, which can't all be satisfied, knows that it doesn't take long for the implicit "logrolling" and "horse trading" to begin among the members whose objectives are in jeopardy, even if such self dealing is explicitly prohibited (as it always is).

Every committee member is there to fight for his team, conference, or those who can serve his interests, regardless of what they'll admit. But no one gets to walk away with all that they want. So one has to be selective in terms of what they'll give up, to get what they truly want the most.

Given Purdue rarely gets any national respect, and has relatively little bargaining power in terms of offering side payments such as home-and-away match ups guaranteed for national TV (i.e., UK vs. KU), it's not too hard to understand why Purdue was left out. But the omission of Wisconsin points directly to Hollis and his beginning of a process that will under-seed the best B1G teams in order to horse trade MSU into the tail of field.

So:
-- Hollis effectively gives a public apology for the state of B1G basketball (after all, how good can it be with MSU down due to injuries?).
-- the ACC gets to thump its chest with 5 of the top 16 (I've been hearing about nothing else from my ACC buds since yesterday) but this favor will cost the middle-tier ACC teams in the end.
-- similarly, the Big 12 and Pac 12 get 3 each.
-- Nova secures a spot for a 2nd Big East team, Butler, so Nova can claim to have taken care of its conference.
-- And likewise, UK logrolls in a 2nd SEC team, UF.
-- this leaves Wisconsin and Purdue out, but there is a method to Hollis' madness.

I can hear Hollis now at the conference table: "... true, we (the B1G) have no great teams this year, but we have tremendous depth and parity."

This is truly good news for IU and Northwestern -- maybe Hollis will even sneak Minnesota in, so no one can claim he slipped in MSU as the lowest-seeded B1G team.

And you can say all you want that ... "we just need to keep winning and proves ourselves." Baloney!

How does Wisconsin, Purdue, and Maryland prove themselves against each other when the committee obviously has no respect for any of them?!

Hollis should be tarred, feathered, and run out of the B1G on a rail!

To be fair, if you look at Wisconsin - who have they beat?

And I probably wouldn't put Purdue in the top 16.

Now, if Wisconsin finishes the season with 5 or fewer losses, they'll probably get a top 4 seed. And given that they stated Purdue was the "next 4" out of the top 16, the fact that they have us as a top 20 team is a good sign for Purdue (as we remember, we were not seeded as high as we thought we'd be last year).

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Also one more point ... you ripped on me calling ND mid-pack ACC team ... after that big win yesterday, they are tied with Syracuse for 6/7 place in the ACC ... pretty sure that is the definition of mid-pack.

And for the record, no, i dont trust car dealers and have never been taken advantage before (pure luck, my roommate at Purdue and friend of 20+ years owns a dealership ... so he has educated me on how to get a good deal).

 

[77 grad]

You can tell our team has an off weekend when our board gets worked up about topics like this.

 

[Inspector100]

Are you guys (&girls) going to make me pop another bowl of popcorn?

 

[rgarlitz]

Bracket Matrix (www.bracketmatrix.com) maintains a running composit of approximately 100 "bracketologists."

Purdue is currently the 19th team in that composit (third #5 seed) with an average seed of 4.8.

Things can obviously change between now in Selection Sunday, but I just don't see a conspiracy at work here. What the NCAA announced yesterday seems to be exactly in line with the consensus of bracket projections nation wide.

 

[boilerzz]

To call that a "conspiracy theory" and dismiss it as implausible is naive.

No, to call it a conspiracy theory and dismiss it as implausible is appropriate. There are processes in place to keep impropriety from occurring. And while I think Izzo is shady as hell, I've seen nothing whatsoever from Hollis to suggest he is as well.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Easy there trigger. No, i am a lifelong B1G fan (I'm 47 yrs old ... and unless you are significantly older than me, ive probably watched more B1G games than you ... yes, its an illness). Its hard to thump our chest as a conference when as a whole we have won 1 national championship since Reagan was in office. I love the conference as much as anybody, but NCAA tournament success is not our calling card.

My only point is you are cooking up a vast conspiracy that i dont believe for one minute is going on. First of all, they said the first 16 is just that ... where the first 16 are right now. They did not do a full bracket and look at all those other teams, so to say Hollis is pushing Purdue, Wisky and Maryland down to benefit MSU ultimately is laughable (not to mention the point that he would want to impress on them how good they are to justify why MSU cant beat any of them if we was working an angle to benefit MSU).

Purdue and Wisky are right on the cusp of the top 16 (as i believe the spokesman said after the announcement). I think that is fair. You never answered my original point -- what is the best win by either us or Wisky? IUs big wins were so long ago (and so many injuries since then .. they are nowhere near the same team right now) that trying to say beating IU is similar to beating NC or Kansas right now is not logical.

Also, no RPI is not simply a ranking used. But they do look at how teams do vs. 1-25, top 50 etc, so it does really matter. Based upon today, we are 2-3 against the top 25. You can make an argument thats good enough, but it doesnt mean a consipiracy if not. The good news is that if they did it again today, we would probably be in (given that Butler moves out and I think we were the first team mentioned as on the cusp).

Finish out strong and we are probably a 3-4 seed ... lose more games we shouldn't and we are a 5 or 6. Matchups are way more important than a 3, 4 or 5 seed. Also its hard to say we got screwed on seeding last year when we wet ourselves against a 12 seed.

Trust me, I've seen many more B1G basketball games than you. Dave Schellhase played in the first Purdue game I watched on TV. Mount played in the first Purdue game I saw in person.

What I've suggested in no vast conspiracy theory, by any means. It goes on to varying degrees every year in the NCAA selection committee seeding process. Do you really think it's a completely objective process and all check their self interest at the door?!

Do you think BIG co-champ IU getting a #1 seed in Cincy in '88, while co-champ Purdue got packed off to Syracuse as a #3 ... was that an objective process, or do you think some committee members were trying to buy favor, or protection, from a very powerful, self dealing, vengeful, Machiavellian bully of coach?

But if you want to believe this is all a completely objective process, and the #5 (USA Today)/ #7 (AP) ranked team in the country isn't even really in the Top 16, then have it. You probably also believe that a "double foul" on Bryant and Biggie was the right call on Thursday ... because after all, why should we question the objectivity of the refs?

As for me, I find it hard to believe that Hollis is really this bad of a negotiator, which causes me to question his objectivity.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Also one more point ... you ripped on me calling ND mid-pack ACC team ... after that big win yesterday, they are tied with Syracuse for 6/7 place in the ACC ... pretty sure that is the definition of mid-pack.

And for the record, no, i dont trust car dealers and have never been taken advantage before (pure luck, my roommate at Purdue and friend of 20+ years owns a dealership ... so he has educated me on how to get a good deal).

Well, according to the selection committee, the 5 teams ahead of ND in the ACC, right now, are all Top 16 teams -- so beating the #6 ACC team is nothing to sneeze at. But referring to ND as "mid-pack" team sure does diminish any favorable impression that might otherwise be implied by Purdue's win over ND.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Trust me, I've seen many more B1G basketball games than you. Dave Schellhase played in the first Purdue game I watched on TV. Mount played in the first Purdue game I saw in person.

What I've suggested in no vast conspiracy theory, by any means. It goes on to varying degrees every year in the NCAA selection committee seeding process. Do you really think it's a completely objective process and all check their self interest at the door?!

Do you think BIG co-champ IU getting a #1 seed in Cincy in '88, while co-champ Purdue got packed off to Syracuse as a #3 ... was that an objective process, or do you think some committee members were trying to buy favor, or protection, from a very powerful, self dealing, vengeful, Machiavellian bully of coach?

But if you want to believe this is all a completely objective process, and the #5 (USA Today)/ #7 (AP) ranked team in the country isn't even really in the Top 16, then have it. You probably also believe that a "double foul" on Bryant and Biggie was the right call on Thursday ... because after all, why should we question the objectivity of the refs?

As for me, I find it hard to believe that Hollis is really this bad of a negotiator, which causes me to question his objectivity.

As i said, if you saw Schellhase play, then you are older than me and i dont doubt you've seen more B1G ball than me.

I think the proces is a lot more objective now than it was back in the 80s ... who knows what went on then, but i never said it was completely objective. Quoting the coaches and AP polls doesnt help your argument though ... those are even more biased than anything (how many stories do we hear about coaches purposely under-rating hated rivals or their admins filling out the polls for them).

I just dont think what you are proposing in the original post holds any water ... and that's my opinion.

Peace out.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Well, according to the selection committee, the 5 teams ahead of ND in the ACC, right now, are all Top 16 teams -- so beating the #6 ACC team is nothing to sneeze at. But referring to ND as "mid-pack" team sure does diminish any favorable impression that might otherwise be implied by Purdue's win over ND.

I never said it was nothing to sneeze at ... but not enough to really hang your hat on as your signature win either. I called them mid-pack ACC team ... which is exactly what they are.

 

[BoilerBonz]

No, to call it a conspiracy theory and dismiss it as implausible is appropriate. There are processes in place to keep impropriety from occurring. And while I think Izzo is shady as hell, I've seen nothing whatsoever from Hollis to suggest he is as well.

Oh, wow, "There are processes in place to keep impropriety from occurring." Who would have known, and how silly of me to suggest that this committee might not act completely objectively in the interest of all!

What happy planet do you live on? Can I visit? Sounds like a wonderful place. The Wizard there is a good one, I take it.

 

[BoilerBonz]

I never said it was nothing to sneeze at ... but not enough to really hang your hat on as your signature win either. I called them mid-pack ACC team ... which is exactly what they are.

I didn't say beating ND is Purdue's "signature" win, but it is one that should carry some weight in this process, albeit it can be made to sound very unimpressive, as you've illustrated so effectively.

What exactly is Gonzaga's "signature" win?

 

[BoilerBonz]

As i said, if you saw Schellhase play, then you are older than me and i dont doubt you've seen more B1G ball than me.

I think the proces is a lot more objective now than it was back in the 80s ... who knows what went on then, but i never said it was completely objective. Quoting the coaches and AP polls doesnt help your argument though ... those are even more biased than anything (how many stories do we hear about coaches purposely under-rating hated rivals or their admins filling out the polls for them).

I just dont think what you are proposing in the original post holds any water ... and that's my opinion.

Peace out.

Okay, fair enough. But I am curious, why do you think it's so much more objective now, than in the '80s, when there's so much more money at stake now?

Regardless, I agree, this is all just our opinions, although I may look into hiring "the Russians" to hack Hollis' email? ;-)

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

I didn't say beating ND is Purdue's "signature" win, but it is one that should carry some weight in this process, albeit it can be made to sound very unimpressive, as you've illustrated so effectively.

What exactly is Gonzaga's "signature" win?

Gonzaga did beat AZ, FL and Iowa State. All pretty good teams, but i dont disagree they are a really soft 1 seed. But, they haven't lost, so at this point there is something to that.

What is our signature win then? If not ND, maybe at Maryland.

For the record, i still dont get FL being as high as they are ... living off that KY pounding I guess.

Still lots to be played between now and selection Sunday ... as was posted yesterday, last year at this time Iowa probably would have been a 1 seed and Wisky was a bubble team at best. Both ended up as 7s ... so its all still in front of us and yes, if MSU is close to the bubble, im sure they get in ... lets hope at the expense of IU.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Okay, fair enough. But I am curious, why do you think it's so much more objective now, than in the '80s, when there's so much more money at stake now?

Regardless, I agree, this is all just our opinions, although I may look into hiring "the Russians" to hack Hollis' email? ;-)

Way more ability to see teams play than in the 80s ... think about it, if you were the MSU (or Purdue) AD in the 80s you saw all the B1G teams play plus maybe 4 or 5 other games a week. Now they can see literally every game they want to on demand. There are also all of these advanced data sources (Ken Pom, sag, etc) that even if not formally part of the process, you know they look at them.

I also think the increased $$$ and attention across the board increases the scrutiny on the committee ... while there are some seeding issues still for sure, they know everybody is watching them and the firestorm of really screwing somebody will bit them and they know it. Purdue or Wisky getting a 4, 5 or 6 seed isn't enough to really incite a riot, but some of the other crap that used to go on (like didnt we have to play at LSU in the tourney as a higher seed?)

Think about this ... KY got screwed seeding wise last year right? Who is more powerful in NCAA BB than them? Maybe Duke or NC? But while it ticks us off .. its hard to argue when all 3 of them win big in the tourney ... results matter. If anybody in B1G had a run like Bobby did from 75 to 87, our conference would get a lot more respect.

 

[chiboiler7]

I assume you are talking about the recent bracket reveal if selection Sunday was today. I am amazed that Wisconsin, the #7 team in the country wasn't included in the top #4 seeds. Now, I do believe Wisconsin IS closer to Purdue's current ranking than a top 10 team, but it makes the polls look absolutely useless if this is the committee's mindset. Wisconsin is 20-3 and the #7 team in the country poll wise. If the tournament was today they SHOULD be a 3-4 seeded team PERIOD. The committee is unquestionably factoring in future losses for Wisconsin this season. Which contradicts their stance that this bracket is not looking into the future but based on a team's current body of work.

And there is a ridiculous double standard that Gonzaga is rewarded with a #1 seed, in line with their poll rankings, despite their weak schedule when Wisconsin gets shafted for the same faults.

As for Purdue, we are probably a #5 seed currently due to our bad losses, I have no problem with us not being in the top 4 seeds at this moment. But yeah, Wiscy is getting screwed while the Zags get rewarded.

 

[BoilerBonz]

Bracket Matrix (www.bracketmatrix.com) maintains a running composit of approximately 100 "bracketologists."

Purdue is currently the 19th team in that composit (third #5 seed) with an average seed of 4.8.

Things can obviously change between now in Selection Sunday, but I just don't see a conspiracy at work here. What the NCAA announced yesterday seems to be exactly in line with the consensus of bracket projections nation wide.

And Wisconsin is #13 at www.bracketmatrix.com.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

I assume you are talking about the recent bracket reveal if selection Sunday was today. I am amazed that Wisconsin, the #7 team in the country wasn't included in the top #4 seeds. Now, I do believe Wisconsin IS closer to Purdue's current ranking than a top 10 team, but it makes the polls look absolutely useless if this is the committee's mindset. Wisconsin is 20-3 and the #7 team in the country poll wise. If the tournament was today they SHOULD be a 3-4 seeded team PERIOD. The committee is unquestionably factoring in future losses for Wisconsin this season. Which contradicts their stance that this bracket is not looking into the future but based on a team's current body of work.

And there is a ridiculous double standard that Gonzaga is rewarded with a #1 seed, in line with their poll rankings, despite their weak schedule when Wisconsin gets shafted for the same faults.

As for Purdue, we are probably a #5 seed currently due to our bad losses, I have no problem with us not being in the top 4 seeds at this moment. But yeah, Wiscy is getting screwed.

The committee always says, who did you play, who did you beat and where did you beat them (preference for road and neutral wins vs. just beating good teams in your gym). I'm not sure what Wisconsin can really say when asked that question?

 

[chiboiler7]

The committee always says, who did you play, who did you beat and where did you beat them (preference for road and neutral wins vs. just beating good teams in your gym). I'm not sure what Wisconsin can really say when asked that question?

I agree, but same goes for Gonzaga. The only difference is they fell from an overall #1 seed to the 2nd or 3rd overall #1. Wisconsin fell from a poll rated #2 seed at least to a #5. It's a lack of consistency. I agree Wiscy had a weak schedule. They should be a #3-#4 based off of that, not a #5.