2011 NCAA Tournament: Butler - Pitt Coaching Breakdown

Upsetting Reality: Exposing the NCAA Tournament Committee's 'Major Upset' Scheme

On the first day of the 2011 NCAA Tournament, there were 'two major upsets.' At least that is what the media would have you to believe. The 'two major upsets' were 12 seeded Richmond beating 5 seeded Villanova and 13 seeded Morehead State beating 4 seeded Louisville.

Richmond (25-7) had the 41st best RPI of .5881. Villanova (21-11) had the 39th best RPI of .5889. When we consider that, an elementary estimation would tell us that Richmond had a 49.9 percent chance of winning. Not so upsetting is it?

Louisville (25-10) had an RPI of 17 and Morehead State had an RPI of 77. So there is a case to be made that this was an upset. But maybe not so fast! Louisville was only 9-7 versus teams in the Top 50 RPI. And against teams in the 51-100 RPI, Louisville finished 3-3. So overall, Louisville was a mediocre (but respectable) 12-10 versus Top 100 teams. To add perspective the other four seeds, Wisconsin (14-8), Texas (13-7), and Kentucky (13-7) all had better records versus the top 100 RPI teams. 

Also, being that Morehead State and Louisville are both Kentucky teams, it is quite likely, Morehead State had likely scouted Louisville on television throughout the season. It's a subtle advantage (but an advantage that likely paid huge dividends).

When one really looks at the reality of the match-ups, this part of the bracket was the most tailor made bracket for a 'Cinderella' to emerge into the Sweet Sixteen. And now that 'cinderellas' Morehead State and Richmond are matched up in The Round Of 32, the NCAA Tournament Committee have their coveted underdog element.

'Here's your biscuit America. Enjoy it. Of course we're going to manipulate the rest of the brackets to serve our interests and put teams like SDSU (RPI 3, Seed 2), BYU (RPI 5, Seed 3) and Utah State (RPI 15, Seed 12 and opponent's RPI 24, seed 5) down by giving them lower (worse) seeds (and tougher match-ups) than they earned.

How it would have worked in fair system

Shots Heard will use it's fair seed analysis: What seed a school should have received by the RPI (See the following chart).

Morehead State would have still been a 13 seed (tweaking Shots Heard's 'Fair System' to still allow for automatic bids). They would have faced off against A University In Connecticut. They would not have had the television advantage. A University In Connecticut is 4-1 against teams 51-100 RPI and that is the half of it. There is an 80 percent chance that A University In Connecticut would have won. Had Morehead State won, then it would have been at best, 'a mild upset.'

Villanova would not have been a five seed that they had no business holding. They would have been a nine seed. Meanwhile, Belmont would have been a 10 seed that faced off against George Mason. That game would have been an interesting match-up, but there would be no artificial upset bid on the line. It would just be two teams playing in the match-up that they earned.

A true 'major upset' that did not happen - Princeton beating Kentucky

The closest thing to a 'major upset' was Princeton beating Kentucky. Although had the upset occurred, Shots Heard would classify it as simply an upset. Although Kentucky undoubtedly has future NBA players and Princeton likely has none. The Princeton team was older and more disciplined. 

The overall reality is reflected by Kentucky's 7 RPI and Princeton's 40 RPI. How often do teams with a Top 10 RPI lose to teams in the Top 50 RPI? Top 10 RPI teams were 85-33 (72 percent). 

A rough estimate then gives, Princeton a 28 percent chance of winning that game. But then account for the fact that Princeton is at the lower end of the Top 50 RPI and the chances go to 20 to 25 percent.

But here is the kicker. With the game being played in Tampa, Florida (a fourteen hour drive or cheap Southwest flight) away from the hardcore Lexington, Kentucky fans; thousands of Kentucky fans traveled to see the game. The entire lower bowl was essentially filled with raucous Kentucky fans in blue, creating a home court type of atmosphere. So the most realistic estimate would be that Princeton had about a ten percent chance of winning that game.

Remembering the real upset

We witnessed an RPI 40 Princeton team play a solid game to almost pull off the virtual road victory against RPI 7 Kentucky. But let us not forget that teams like RPI 35 Harvard, who Princeton beat on a buzzer beater, were worthy of being in the tournament and making their mark. Unfortunately, the 'Power Six' corporate styled Tournament Committee were not having any of that. 

Instead it was important to cater to conferences like what Charles Barkley calls 'The over-rated Big East.' Aren't you glad that that (tied) 9th place, RPI 64 Marquette could get into the tournament instead?

And what did UCONN get for finishing 9-9 and tied for ninth in the Big East? They got a four seed after 'increasing their stock' by winning all five of their conference tournament games.

So 'power conference team' can use their conference tournaments to 'improve their stock' but its death by buzzer beater for teams like Harvard? 

Is that shady? Is the mafia shady? No. It is corrupt.

Picture: Morehead State's Demonte Harper

2011 NCAA Tournament: Whorish Propaganda

Watch as the CBS whores ask softball questions to a university in Connecticut's Athletic Director, Jeff Hathaway (next year's head tournament selection whore).

Media whore, John Rothstein's question: Why give one of the last four at-large bids to a small conference team (VCU) and not give all of the bids to 'big conference' teams.

Shots Heard: What kind of f'd up question is that? Stop acting like the 'smaller schools' are 'given' anything.

Jeff Hathaway: He references 'the eye ball test' and data.

Shots Heard: Seriously, the eye ball test? You have the RPI. You know EXACTLY what teams have accomplished. Who died and made these guys gods.

Media whore, John Rothstein: He alleges to question Jeff if the Big East is worthy of their high seeds but then he never really asks the question! He does ask why Pitt got the third one seed, ahead of Duke (the last one seed) and others.

Jeff Hathaway: They spent a lot of time evaluating who should be the number one seeds. They made the one seeds based on 'the criteria.

Shots Heard: Jeff, it does not matter how much time you put into the process if you f'd it up. Like my father always said, don't confuse efforts with results. And in this case Shots Heard is not going to confuse honesty with dishonesty.

And then what kind of f'ing answer is that? Well it's based on 'the criteria.' Yea well what is the criteria? Pitt had only the 10th best RPI. And by the way, teams like BYU and SDSU had better records and RPIs than Pitt.

And where is the follow-up question when Jeff gives a phony answer? Don't slap us in the face with your pretend sports journalism CBS.

This is why the sports media has earned your media whore status. It's just pimping their interests to their markets.

Random Ass Clown Whore: Hey you work really hard, how about that?

Shots Heard: Come on! How about asking about the inherent conflict of interest of the tournament selection whores? Of course you aren't going to ask that because you have a mutual conflict of interest. In the mean time, the majority of schools are being screwed and the integrity of college sports has been hijacked.

2011 NCAA Tournament Selection: A Matter Of 'The Haves' and 'The Have Nots'

Those of you that follow Shots Heard, know that in recent weeks that we have ranted and even raved about the systematic unfairness of the NCAA Tournament Selection committee and the BCS (football). We've done it to an unhealthy degree even (but we are not wrong). Worse, we have basically been trying to stop a flood with a block of wood. 

And it occurs to us that Collin Cowherd basically is right when he says that the typical sports fan is a dumbass. He may not have used that term, but that's basically what he has called the average sports fan that routinely sees reality through his/her own team's filter.

This is why if you go on a sports forum right now you'll see stupid posts like this (regarding selection/seeding):

Colorado is the best team to not make the tournament.

How did Alabama not make the tournament? Georgia is in as a ten seed and Alabama beat them twice in the last week. (Maybe because Alabama lost to a bunch of losers and has an RPI of 81 while Georgia handled their business to a better degree and has a 48 RPI. Dumbass.)

San Diego State is the weakest two seed ever.

  

If average sports fan cared about fairness you would see more posts like this:

USC got into the tournament as an at-large with a 67 RPI and Harvard was snubbed. For that matter.

Why does the media always pimp the 'how they finished' if a team like Pittsburgh can lose two of their last three and still get a one seed even though they have an RPI of only 10.

If finishing strong is so important, how can Florida lose the SEC Championship game by 16 and be a two seed?

UTEP (25-9, 2nd Conference USA), Cleveland State (26-8, 1st Horizon League), St. Mary's (25-8, 1st West Coast Conference), Missouri State (25-8, 1st Place Missouri Valley Conference), Wichita State (24-8, 2nd place Missouri Valley Conference) all had fine records and better RPIs than USC. What gives? I guess the Pac-10 was really strong this year. Oh wait it wasn't and since the RPI already accounts for conference strength then that doesn't matter. How does a 19-14 team in a weak conference get so much love?

Michigan State was a bubble team and now they are a solid 10 seed?

Shots Heard has put forth the plan that the NCAA Tournament entrants and seeds should be decided via the RPI and without human interference. Below, are listings of the teams that are either in the Top 68 RPI and would have made the tournament via the Shots Heard plan and the teams not in the Top 68 RPI that still made the tournament under the currenty system.

The first chart shows the fair seed (Shots Heard Plan) versus what seed a team was awarded by 'the committee.' My _____. It's like we're in a bad Star Wars movie.

The second chart shows how the Haves (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, Pac-10, SEC - You know, the BCS conferences) did versus the Have Nots (everybody else). 

A reminder: That the MWC had the fourth best RPI among the conferences but clearly being a have not, that did not translate to a damn ounce of love.

 

Final Analysis

San Diego State finished with a 32-2 record. Their only two losses were to a team (BYU) that was arguably the best team when they lost to them. If any team from a 'major conference' had compiled a 32-2 record then that team would be an unquestioned number one seed. It's not like the MWC was not rated better than three of those conferences either. And with a 3 RPI, SDSU was certainly worthy of a number one seed (if not a number one ranking).

So why is San Diego State getting the shaft? 

There is a universal answer to that question and other. The other 'major conferences' control the committee. With that in mind, let's see how they screwed over the rest of the 'Have Nots.' Bare in mind that we will only go over selected examples. It will not be a cumulative analysis.

BYU gets a 3 (or 4 seed) despite being a 2 seed quality team).

This comes as no surprise. We already told you that after one loss to New Mexico, the 'experts' were dropping BYU from a one seed to a four seed in their prognostications (an unprecedented drop)

Utah State: Bend over and grab your ankles.

This is easily the biggest tragedy in the selection process. Utah State had an RPI of 15 and a record of 30-3, but they were given a 12 seed! 

By the way their comfortable 8 point victory against the streaking Boise State Broncos should have 'impressed' the committee. Utah State kept one of those unwanteds out of the tournament and that's how the committee repays them (sarcasm)?

And to add insult to their ridiculous seeding, they play a 5 seed Kansas State (a proven mid major killer that took BYU out last year) that has been one of the hottest teams in the country. Before their last loss of the season, Kansas State was on a six game winning streak that included three wins against Top 20 teams (one of which, was a 16 point win over #2 Kansas).

Old Dominion takes a hit

Old Dominion is legit. They are perhaps college basketball's best kept secret. They are tall and can dominate the boards and the post. They also have decent shooters and that is also important. They are basically a mirror image of Pittsburgh. 

Given the fact that ODU could play Pittsburgh, it is a good thing that they match-up well with Pitt. But they should be a 5 (or at worst a 6 or 7 seed) and have an easier road to The Sweet Sixteen.

Xavier shows they are something of a 'Have; a Legacy' - St. Mary's is not a 'Legacy'

Teams like Xavier are legacies. Even though, they are not in a 'major conference,' the committee does not want to stir the pot and put down a team that has been to The Sweet Sixteen three straight times. 

Being a legacy, does not mean that a team will not get the shaft. But it does mean that the committee will think twice about b-slapping them. Gonzaga is a team that has achieved legacy status. Had they lost to St Mary's in the WCC Championship, they would have likely still earned an at-large bid. 

Instead, St. Mary's lost to Gonzaga. And even though they are just as good as the Zags, they are not a legacy and they did not make the cut.

The subtle 8-9 Combo

Shots Heard sees this every year. The committee relegates 4-7 seed caliber teams to the 8 or 9 seed and thus relegating them to play a 1 seed in the second round and not make The Sweet Sixteen. 

UNLV and George Mason are this year's victims of the 8-9 combo.According to the RPI, they both deserved seven seeds and much easier paths to the Sweet Sixteen. Instead, if they are not upset in their first round match-ups they will collectively face the top two teams Ohio State and Kansas.

Teams like Cincinatti (Big East) who should be a nine seed benefit from UNLV and George Mason's demotion. Cincy should get a nine seed, but instead they will get a six seed and an eaiser route to the Sweet Sixteen. And of course, CBS would much rather be talking about 'how many Big East teams made the Sweet Sixteen' rather than George Mason or UNLV. 

And remember that this all goes back to the average dumbass sports fan. You won't see dumbass on the boards talking about how Cincy got an unfair seeding. You'll see him bragging that 'man, we were a good Big East team. Yea we deserved it man.' Dumbass Big East fan does not care that UNLV or George Mason might actually be better. He just has to be told 'Big East, Big East, Big East. Ah man, Big East, Big Hoops! -- Madison Square Garden.'

A Have Not with a 35 RPI does not make the tournament

At this very moment, there are a bunch of Big Twelve fans on boards, crying that their Colorado (RPI 65) team did not make the tournament. Everyday Dumbass Fan does not bother to care that Harvard (RPI 35) beat them by 16 points.

Everyday Dumbass Fan might counter, 'Yea well they had a 29 blowout loss to UCONN.' Yea letdowns happen all of the time. That's why Shots Heard thinks that all the so and so beat so and so is horse and buggy thinking anyhow. The RPI measures a teams overall performance and when it comes to the who beat who game, it's really not a transitive property. Every game is going to be different and a myriad of unexpected outcomes will occur. The fairest thing is to look at a team's RPI.

And by the way, you will never see a Have with an RPI of 35, not make the tournament. It just will not happen. If Bill Walton were alive, he would say why even have an RPI if you're not going to use it.

Anyhow, Shots Heard digresses. Ya'll can look at the tables and make your own determinations.