Repying to OP
All this talk of the arbitrariness of team selection criteria in basketball leads me to ask:
Is there anyone here that argues that the arbitrary last-moment metrics used to select teams for bball is really better than the established system in place for selecting Football teams to participate in the BCS?
Last edited by MEHOKIE; Mon Mar 18 2013 at 09:22 AM.
This has been my stance on keeping the BCS in place. Usually, there is no debate over who the #1 FB team is each year. The debate is that there are 2, maybe 3, teams with a claim at #2 to play in the Championship Game. Now we have a 4-team playoff. It is my contention that the 2 or 3 teams with a claim at #2 has now expanded to 5 or 6 teams with a claim at #4. Chaos will ensue and the 4-team playoff will expand sooner than most think.
The perfect system, in my mind, is that ALL conference champions get in (11) and we have 5 at-large teams (good luck, ND). Those 16 play for the title. Everyone is included and the better conferences can get more teams in trought the at-large process.
"Never deny a man the consequences of his actions." - Unknown
The problem with arbitrary criteria will only be worse in the football scenario. The NCAA is one of the most corrupt and hypocritical organizations to ever exist and the only difference between them and the mafia is the NCAA has legal, tax exempt status. The NCAA basketball selection committee is and has been a joke for a very long time and it will remain such until you replace idiots like Ron Wellman with people that actually know basketball. Football is headed in the same direction.