Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 122
  1. #11

    Join Date
    October 29, 2001
    Posts
    7,455
    IMO some late season losses (in various years) to mediocre BC and Clemson teams kept us out of the tournament 2 or 3 times in Seth's tenure.

    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    How many of those times did VT have a legitimate chance with the committee to earn an at-large bid? I pose that question because we have all heard stories (whether true or not) how things can sometimes get political behind the closed doors. For example a committee made of mostly non-BCS schools deciding that fewer at-large bids should go to BCS schools that year. Also, I heard a report that Greenberg and the committee chair (at the time) had a bit of "history" between them going back to the days when he was at Long Beach St. I am not saying that it definitely kept VT out of the NCAA Tournament, but it could have been a factor especially since the committee chair was a former head coach at a rival Big West school. People can hold grudges over something petty and will even go so far to seek revenge against that person (i.e. cost them a job, election, etc). If it can happen in other arenas, then why should we assume it doesn't happen in college athletics? As the saying goes, 'revenge is the best dish when served cold.' I can't think of a better way to get revenge on a head basketball coach than to keep his team out of the most prized tournament.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Late 80s Hokie View Post
    IMO some late season losses (in various years) to mediocre BC and Clemson teams kept us out of the tournament 2 or 3 times in Seth's tenure.
    Does it have more to do with when the loss occurred or who the loss was to that kept VT out? I say that because I think a couple of times teams with worse records and worse losses got in over VT. I believe those losses might have occurred earlier in the season or prior to VT's loss.

  3. #13
    Pylons's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25, 2005
    Posts
    7,003
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Does it have more to do with when the loss occurred or who the loss was to that kept VT out? I say that because I think a couple of times teams with worse records and worse losses got in over VT. I believe those losses might have occurred earlier in the season or prior to VT's loss.
    there's really no way of knowing

    choosing teams at the bubble is an exercise in hair splitting

  4. #14

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    14,874
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    How many of those times did VT have a legitimate chance with the committee to earn an at-large bid? I pose that question because we have all heard stories (whether true or not) how things can sometimes get political behind the closed doors. For example a committee made of mostly non-BCS schools deciding that fewer at-large bids should go to BCS schools that year. Also, I heard a report that Greenberg and the committee chair (at the time) had a bit of "history" between them going back to the days when he was at Long Beach St. I am not saying that it definitely kept VT out of the NCAA Tournament, but it could have been a factor especially since the committee chair was a former head coach at a rival Big West school. People can hold grudges over something petty and will even go so far to seek revenge against that person (i.e. cost them a job, election, etc). If it can happen in other arenas, then why should we assume it doesn't happen in college athletics? As the saying goes, 'revenge is the best dish when served cold.' I can't think of a better way to get revenge on a head basketball coach than to keep his team out of the most prized tournament.
    All the years are running together. And I don't have time to research...But there was a pretty egregious one...like happens once every 5 years, snub. I remember reading that out of the top publications and sporting news rags, VT was in like 95% of those. But the committee didn't see it the same way.

    I think we were the only team in the history of the ACC to go 10-6 in conference and not get in. Then there was a snub. But an arguable one. Then there was one where we had beef, but no one was really crying about it. I do remember going 10-6 and 9-7 in the ACC and not getting in either. That STILL baffles me.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by beedubyah View Post
    All the years are running together. And I don't have time to research...But there was a pretty egregious one...like happens once every 5 years, snub. I remember reading that out of the top publications and sporting news rags, VT was in like 95% of those. But the committee didn't see it the same way.

    I think we were the only team in the history of the ACC to go 10-6 in conference and not get in. Then there was a snub. But an arguable one. Then there was one where we had beef, but no one was really crying about it. I do remember going 10-6 and 9-7 in the ACC and not getting in either. That STILL baffles me.
    My question was not based on the premise that VT had a legitimate chance to participate in the tournament because there were quite a few snubs that were head scratchers. It was based more on the premise that when the committee members walked through the doors with the mindset that VT was not going to make the field unless Hell froze over. I know it is impossible to prove or disprove unless a committee member decides to talk. However, towards the end it started getting comical watching VT get snubbed to the point where I thought it might be something personal against Greenberg or that VT was not perceived to be a "basketball school."

  6. #16

    Join Date
    September 23, 2002
    Posts
    17,570
    Quote Originally Posted by beedubyah View Post
    All the years are running together. And I don't have time to research...But there was a pretty egregious one...like happens once every 5 years, snub. I remember reading that out of the top publications and sporting news rags, VT was in like 95% of those. But the committee didn't see it the same way.

    I think we were the only team in the history of the ACC to go 10-6 in conference and not get in. Then there was a snub. But an arguable one. Then there was one where we had beef, but no one was really crying about it. I do remember going 10-6 and 9-7 in the ACC and not getting in either. That STILL baffles me.
    Those last two years (2010 and 2011) when we went 10-6 and 9-7 and didn't get in, we were the highest ranked team in Ken Massey's ratings (and I believe Sagarin's also) to not get in. Both years. The odds that the committee got it right in leaving us out both years are about as likely as getting struck by lightning.

    I don't care if people call it a snub or not. And I don't want to even bother with wondering if there was some kind of conspiracy (I mean...did VT basketball rate having a conspiracy against it?). I think the most likely thing that happened is that over the period from 2008 through 2011 a narrative took hold that Virginia Tech was a bubble team, and that narrative just stuck no matter what. There's no doubt in my mind that we should've been in (from an analytical standpoint) in 2010. If you were going to pinpoint our "there's one of these every 5 years" snub then that was probably it. We probably should've been, like, a 9 seed. 10 at worst. 2011 we probably should've been in as an 11 or 12 seed, but that's getting into splitting hairs territory. 2008 was probably a last in/last out situation where Georgia winning the SEC tournament might've been what kept us out.

    The biggest example of the bubble narrative taking hold, though, is probably from the 2009 season. We really shouldn't have even been in the discussion that season, but yet they kept bringing us up as having a chance to get that critical win that was going to put us on the right side of the bubble. It was absurd. We were an also-ran in league play. I don't even know how we got a 2 seed in the NIT that year. But everyone had decided we were America's bubble program by that point so, there you go.

    Anyway...no worries about any of that kind of drama these days. We'd be lucky to get on the CIT bubble. :-)

  7. #17

    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Posts
    14,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobbler-100 View Post
    Those last two years (2010 and 2011) when we went 10-6 and 9-7 and didn't get in, we were the highest ranked team in Ken Massey's ratings (and I believe Sagarin's also) to not get in. Both years. The odds that the committee got it right in leaving us out both years are about as likely as getting struck by lightning.

    I don't care if people call it a snub or not. And I don't want to even bother with wondering if there was some kind of conspiracy (I mean...did VT basketball rate having a conspiracy against it?). I think the most likely thing that happened is that over the period from 2008 through 2011 a narrative took hold that Virginia Tech was a bubble team, and that narrative just stuck no matter what. There's no doubt in my mind that we should've been in (from an analytical standpoint) in 2010. If you were going to pinpoint our "there's one of these every 5 years" snub then that was probably it. We probably should've been, like, a 9 seed. 10 at worst. 2011 we probably should've been in as an 11 or 12 seed, but that's getting into splitting hairs territory. 2008 was probably a last in/last out situation where Georgia winning the SEC tournament might've been what kept us out.

    The biggest example of the bubble narrative taking hold, though, is probably from the 2009 season. We really shouldn't have even been in the discussion that season, but yet they kept bringing us up as having a chance to get that critical win that was going to put us on the right side of the bubble. It was absurd. We were an also-ran in league play. I don't even know how we got a 2 seed in the NIT that year. But everyone had decided we were America's bubble program by that point so, there you go.

    Anyway...no worries about any of that kind of drama these days. We'd be lucky to get on the CIT bubble. :-)
    Beautiful feedback. Thanks.

    IIRC, you were on a TEAR during one of those years. You presented a ton of data showing just what an anomaly VT not getting in was. It was definitely the best argument I read during the time. And it was a welcome argument against the 'welp, you just gotta win the last one' crowd.

    I used to think VT football was the karmic offset to the horrible breaks we would get in bball. Until the Michigan Sugar Bowl. Alas.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobbler-100 View Post
    Anyway...no worries about any of that kind of drama these days. We'd be lucky to get on the CIT bubble. :-)
    I wouldn't be sweating about whether VT will be participating in a postseason tournament or not. If the CIT doesn't extend an invitation, then there is always the CBI which is also happy to extend invitations to teams with sub-.500 records . In 2009-2010, Oregon State participated in the tournament with a record of 13-17 and won the tournament. Oregon State's overall record ended up being 18-18 that year. In 2010-2011, Oregon was another team with a losing record (16-17) that participated in the tournament end up winning it. Oregon's overall record ended up being 21-18.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    October 12, 1999
    Posts
    8,543
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    I wouldn't be sweating about whether VT will be participating in a postseason tournament or not. If the CIT doesn't extend an invitation, then there is always the CBI which is also happy to extend invitations to teams with sub-.500 records . In 2009-2010, Oregon State participated in the tournament with a record of 13-17 and won the tournament. Oregon State's overall record ended up being 18-18 that year. In 2010-2011, Oregon was another team with a losing record (16-17) that participated in the tournament end up winning it. Oregon's overall record ended up being 21-18.
    The CBI is a pay-to-play deal. "We" (meaning Jim Weaver) have never been interested in participating. I wonder if we'll hire an AD who wants our teams to play in the post season enough to drop a few 10s of thousands?

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by King of Hokies View Post
    The CBI is a pay-to-play deal...
    ... run by the same people responsible for the speedy and easy-to-get refunds for the Virginia Tech-Georgia Tech "lightning bowl" game.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •