Was the NCAA Selection Committee right?

All that aside, the NIT run was fun.

**** no. Who besides Lunardi and the committee still don't realize how bad we got screwed?

We should have been in even if we had lost to Alcorn

Doesn't matter

A season of 3 parts: 15-2 with losses to Wisconsin and TCU and wins over ND and Arkansas; 0-8 NM, 12-3 with wins over Bama, UF, Arkansas, Auburn, Oregon, WF, WSU and losses to VU, UT and Xavier. This team was treated shabbily by the "committee" and was worthy of being in.

I know we would destroy Xavier 8 out of 10 times.

Name me one time a bad call that affects one of our players foul situations has ever been looked into, much less reversed.

Can we have Donald Sloans last shot against UCLA reviewed?

I'd rather have a real shot at winning the NIT than getting bounced early from the NCAA.

sbag said:

---

I'd rather have a real shot at winning the NIT than getting bounced early from the NCAA.

---

No. Just no.

Quote:

---

I'd rather have a real shot at winning the NIT than getting bounced early from the NCAA.

---

Generally, you're in a slim crowd with that. No one will be able to tell you tmrw Xavier won the NIT.

This team, this year, however, racking up that run was the right path forward for these guys for next year.

sbag said:

---

I'd rather have a real shot at winning the NIT than getting bounced early from the NCAA.

---

And in a year where we likely would get bounced early from the NIT, we prefer going to the CBI (UNC-Wilmington is the champion) or even The Basketball Classic (Fresno St. vs Coastal Carolina in the finals tomorrow).

making a deep run in the NIT was very good for this team and for Buzz
The committee through its mouthpiece ( Lunardi ) made it very clear the Ags were going to Dayton for play in game after the loss to UTn
Probably just my BAS showing but ,given the better competition ( every team in Dayton was better than Alcorn State) & lack of home court advantage not sure the Ags win in Dayton. The next 2 would have been likely had St Mary's then UCLA ( in Oregon ) to get to the round of sixteen.
Yes making the tourney is preferable but The results of the NIT run really helped the Ags Situation and I am less confident that the tourney results would have helped the Ags as much

We will know very soon how much this run helped the Ags Buzz says he wants some pieces from the portal, if the Ags land two of the better portal guys that means at least the guys in the portal were watching the NIT

& The CBI is garbage and needs to go away

Now it is Time for Aggie Baseball, Olsen magic, bubbles etc
3-1 against the swamp kitties & tu makes me very optimistic for the Schloss era

sbag said:

---

I'd rather have a real shot at winning the NIT than getting bounced early from the NCAA.

---

Your sister was was your first kiss huh?

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd rather have a real shot at winning the NIT than getting bounced early from the NCAA.

---

Generally, you're in a slim crowd with that. No one will be able to tell you tmrw Xavier won the NIT.

This team, this year, however, racking up that run was the right path forward for these guys for next year.

---

Been telling myself the same thing.

Quote:

---

Who besides Lunardi and the committee still don't realize how bad we got screwed?

---

Username does NOT check out.

Lunardi had us in his bracket.

aggiebrad94 said:

---

Quote:

---

Who besides Lunardi and the committee still don't realize how bad we got screwed?

---

Username does NOT check out.

Lunardi had us in his bracket.

---

And he's said he get pressured to do so and he only reluctantly put us in right at the very end. Then once we didn't make it he was supporting that decision.

It was good for next year's team for this year's team to get a lot of postseason games and practice. Better than a 1or 2 game NCAA Tourney run.

We really shouldn't have lost so many games.

wbt5845 said:

---

We really shouldn't have lost so many games.

---

Here's this dumb take again. We won enough games to get in and we didn't. Michigan basically went .500 and got in easy.

I tried to explain this in last nights official game thread, on how wrong a poster was about A&M basketball, but the MODS took my post down for some reason. The answer to your question resides on whether or not your truly objective in reasoning… but after the fact here are the FACTS below.

1) SEC got 1 Team into Sweet 16. We tied the Metro Atlantic Conference.
Big 12 (3): No. 1 Kansas, No. 3 Texas Tech and No. 11 Iowa State
ACC (3): No. 2 Duke, No. 8 North Carolina and No. 10 Miami
Big Ten (2): No. 3 Purdue and No. 11 Michigan
Pac-12 (2): No. 1 Arizona and No. 4 UCLA
Big East (2): No. 2 Villanova and No. 4 Providence
American Athletic (1): No. 5 Houston
West Coast Conference (1): No. 1 Gonzaga
SEC (1): No. 4 Arkansas
Metro Atlantic (1): No. 15 St. Peter's

2) Michigan who EVERYONE complained should not have been in the Tourney and robbed a spot from us…, who did they beat in the Tourney to Advance to Sweet 16? They beat Tennessee who clobbered us not once, but twice this year.

3) Weak ACC has been commented on so much as well by posters, and that the SEC was 2nd or best Conference this year…., so how in the world could the selection committee only allow 6 SEC teams in…, leaving A&M out at 9-9… I ask you why did 3 teams from ACC advance to Sweet 16, and they have 2 teams in the Final 4….

4) we couldn't beat the 7th place team from the Big East last night. Xavier had a losing conf record of 8-11, and finished 7th out of 11. We were the #1 seed and a 4.5 pt favorite in last nights game. Either put up or shut up. We didn't close the deal.

And get off the maroon koolaid of this NIT helped us so much and next year is our year… QJ was the MJ of our team. And it took Coach Buzz to endure an 8 game losing streak to realize that our 6th man was our best man, and to start him. QJ started in 14 games, and we went 12-2 during them. Unless we find our MJ next year (and no one on this current team is that guy), bottom line is we will be middle of the pack SEC and on the bubble.

So YES, the selection committee got it right!

Justifying the selection committees evaluation of what happened before the selection by what happened after the selection is just an objectively wrong way of looking at it.

St. Peters beat Kentucky, does that mean St. Peters had a better season than Kentucky? Or even that St. Peters is a better team than Kentucky? No, it means they were better that night. The selection committee didn't get anything wrong by having Kentucky as a 2 seed or St. Peter's as a 15, that's what the resumes warranted.

The simple truth is that every committee has some kind of "thing" and this year's was that they didn't value games in the conference tournaments nearly as much as they did games in the regular season, and in the regular season we just didn't beat enough good teams. It's really that simple.

Now, I think that's the absolute wrong way for the committee to approach it, and every game should count the same, but when you leave it up to the committee you run the risk of them doing something stupid.

Yes, we got screwed. If we would have lost in the 1st round, it wouldn't change this fact. In fact, a lot of deserving teams lose their 1st or 2nd round game due the disappointment they just can't shake. This team would have been a damn tough out in the ncaa tourney.

Know Your Enemy said:

---

**** no. Who besides Lunardi and the committee still don't realize how bad we got screwed?

---

Didn't Lunardi have us in at last?

Your 4 paragraphs in reply, just tried to objectively (cough cough) justify how wrong the committee was in their decision making, rofl! I did not try to justify or breakdown the Committee's thoughts, matrix, evaluation, meetings and discussions, body of work considerations for in-season or conf tourneys's, or any other subject of matter for their selection process.

What happened is what happened, before and after both count. When something truly happens it's considered FACT. I provided you facts. We did not get invited to Big Dance, FACT. We lost the NIT Championship to the 7th place team of the Big East, FACT.

Good try on Saint Peters vs Kentucky argument. Kentucky and Saint Peters met one time this year, St Pete WON that matchup in the first round, and won another game in the second round, advanced to Sweet 16 and will finish higher in final rankings than Kentucky. FACT or not? FACT! Your answer was No, St Pete was not a better team nor did they have a better season… it was just one night.

It's all good man, but I guess objective is subjective when FACTS are provided.

The committees job is to pick the best teams based on their resumes to that point, FACT.

So whatever happens after that decision has no bearing on whether or not that decision was right, FACT.

This committee did a bad job, OPINION.

Is that easy enough for you to follow?

Aggies#1 said:

---

Your 4 paragraphs in reply, just tried to objectively (cough cough) justify how wrong the committee was in their decision making, rofl! I did not try to justify or breakdown the Committee's thoughts, matrix, evaluation, meetings and discussions, body of work considerations for in-season or conf tourneys's, or any other subject of matter for their selection process.

What happened is what happened, before and after both count. When something truly happens it's considered FACT. I provided you facts. We did not get invited to Big Dance, FACT. We lost the NIT Championship to the 7th place team of the Big East, FACT.

Good try on Saint Peters vs Kentucky argument. Kentucky and Saint Peters met one time this year, St Pete WON that matchup in the first round, and won another game in the second round, advanced to Sweet 16 and will finish higher in final rankings than Kentucky. FACT or not? FACT! Your answer was No, St Pete was not a better team nor did they have a better season… it was just one night.

It's all good man, but I guess objective is subjective when FACTS are provided.

---

I think you're missing several points. But at least you're hard-headed about it!

Without a doubt they were wrong about Xavier and A&M. There's no way to dispute that. Sure both had a rough time but they ended up beating a lot of good teams and if those records had been in regular season then both would be in without even being remotely close to the bubble

HossAg said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

We really shouldn't have lost so many games.

---

Here's this dumb take again. We won enough games to get in and we didn't. Michigan basically went .500 and got in easy.

---

It's not. We defeated ourselves out of the tournament. We ran great at the end but nobody can deny that our losing streak didnt kill us.

I'm half and half on Buzz. He can make it work but the loss streak and the lead protect offense that only gave up the lead still haunts me.

I don't think they were wrong on Xavier. I think the two teams that got left out with the best cases were us and OU. And the worst teams in were Notre Dame and Rutgers. Rutgers getting in still pisses me off, just indefensible in my opinion if part of the goal is rewarding teams for good non conference scheduling.

bobinator said:

---

The committees job is to pick the best teams based on their resumes to that point, FACT.

So whatever happens after that decision has no bearing on whether or not that decision was right, FACT.

This committee did a bad job, OPINION.

Is that easy enough for you to follow?

---

To the big ol bobinator, how do you judge the committee? They say they judge things one way then do things that counter what they say... that's hard to defend. There's really zero transparency in what they do or decide.

To me, that's wrong and I dont see how we got left out from this year judging by what they've said and how they've behaved. Is it supposed to just be an unpredictable shuffle each year?

Why would non conference scheduling be rewarded? For all the numbers guys, doesn't the complete quality of schedule matter?

More or less, yeah. There's no apples to apples when you're comparing like 6-7 teams with different resumes. So some committees favor schedule strength, some look more at your big wins than your bad losses, whatever. There's almost always some theme among the teams the committee likes and doesn't.

The problem with this year's, and why I think this committee did an objectively bad job, is all games are supposed to count the same, but this year they clearly didn't factor in conference tournament games at all.

Not just with who got in and didn't, but even in the seed lines.

It's not that a good non con schedule gets you in on its own or anything, my beef is the committee basically said Rutgers' non conference schedule didn't matter at all. ALL that mattered is they beat some good teams.

Their analytics numbers were awful.

Heck of a year that I'll remember for a long time. Thanks to the players, coaches, and staff that helped make it happen.

bobinator said:

---

Justifying the selection committees evaluation of what happened before the selection by what happened after the selection is just an objectively wrong way of looking at it.

St. Peters beat Kentucky, does that mean St. Peters had a better season than Kentucky? Or even that St. Peters is a better team than Kentucky? No, it means they were better that night. The selection committee didn't get anything wrong by having Kentucky as a 2 seed or St. Peter's as a 15, that's what the resumes warranted.

The simple truth is that every committee has some kind of "thing" and this year's was that they didn't value games in the conference tournaments nearly as much as they did games in the regular season, and in the regular season we just didn't beat enough good teams. It's really that simple.

Now, I think that's the absolute wrong way for the committee to approach it, and every game should count the same, but when you leave it up to the committee you run the risk of them doing something stupid.

---

When the NCAA is involved, you can almost guarantee something stupid will be done. It's like when a Democrat gets in charge of something.

Get a good guy or 2 from the portal and the great showing at SEC tourney and deep run in NIT pays off. Then it was all worth it. Otherwise, after going 0-8…it's all white noise.

Need a huge effort to transform A&M basketball to its rightful place…fundraising for the best facilities, best staff, and game day atmosphere. There is no reason we can't be a team that is a beast in college basketball.