Mock NCAA selection show...

[BYH]

Screw the selection committee. Lying sacks of ****.

Fenian is 10000% right in this case. This is the committee greasing the skids for a less contentious second Monday of March.

I'm not surprised by the dissenter here, though. I'd expect nothing less.

 

[Twoback]

Here's a great idea.
Let's not watch the games we cover. Let's just criticize the coaches and players based on the final score.

 

[BYH]

Here's a better idea.

Let's not fall victim to those who obviously want to glad-hand us in an attempt to soften our coverage.

(saying "us" and "our" in general terms)

 

[DisembodiedOwlHead]

Taking this in a slightly different direction to critique this faux-committee's pseudo-work ...

1) I find the inclusion of only five Big East teams a little dubious. Like the real committee won't bow to power a bit more.

2) Acc. to Katz, he has Butler-Evansville in the first round. I thought regular-season rematches were disallowed in the first couple rounds?

 

[Bubbler]

Taking this in a slightly different direction to critique this faux-committee's pseudo-work ...

1) I find the inclusion of only five Big East teams a little dubious. Like the real committee won't bow to power a bit more.

2) Acc. to Katz, he has Butler-Evansville in the first round. I thought regular-season rematches were disallowed in the first couple rounds?

Butler-Evansville? Are you sure that's what he had or is Katz on freaking crack?

Evansville won't come within 10 miles whiffing distance of the asscrack of the tournament.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

If at the Herald I had been invited to participate (ha!) in this event, I'd have gladly accepted out of pure curiosity. I'd have written about it, too.
But, of course, it's up to every writer to emphasize this was a mock process with all the power and personal relationships of college basketball drained from the equation. Hell, with all the conference tournaments drained from the equation.
In other words, as long as the reader is sure this is how the process works IN THEORY, I think it's a legit and worthwhile thing to write about.

 

[Twoback]

Taking this in a slightly different direction to critique this faux-committee's pseudo-work ...

1) I find the inclusion of only five Big East teams a little dubious. Like the real committee won't bow to power a bit more.

2) Acc. to Katz, he has Butler-Evansville in the first round. I thought regular-season rematches were disallowed in the first couple rounds?

Butler-Evansville? Are you sure that's what he had or is Katz on freaking crack?

Evansville won't come within 10 miles whiffing distance of the asscrack of the tournament.

From reading the various accounts, I believe Evansville was one of the teams designated as an automatic bid winner -- designed to make the selection process more challenging for those invited.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Here's a great idea.
Let's not watch the games we cover. Let's just criticize the coaches and players based on the final score.

Not even remotely close to comparable.
You simply cannot write a piece claiming to dispel all the "myths" -- which is to say, all the criticisms ever made of the people who asked you in --of the selection process based on a canned event like this. Yet that's what the invitees did. That's very bad journalism.
And watch, when the brackets come out, and power conferences miraculously get what they want, and match-ups occur that miraculously benefit CBS, the response from the committee will be, "Well, we invited media representatives from all over the country in in February and they said the process was totally objective."

 

[DisembodiedOwlHead]

Butler-Evansville? Are you sure that's what he had or is Katz on freaking crack?

Evansville won't come within 10 miles whiffing distance of the asscrack of the tournament.

Check the link ... scroll down a bit and he has the mock field ... http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=2758650

Butler-Evansville as a 4/13 matchup in the Columbus/Midwest bracket.

 

[Twoback]

Here's a great idea.
Let's not watch the games we cover. Let's just criticize the coaches and players based on the final score.

Not even remotely close to comparable.
You simply cannot write a piece claiming to dispel all the "myths" -- which is to say, all the criticisms ever made of the people who asked you in --of the selection process based on a canned event like this. Yet that's what the invitees did. That's very bad journalism.
And watch, when the brackets come out, and power conferences miraculously get what they want, and match-ups occur that miraculously benefit CBS, the response from the committee will be, "Well, we invited media representatives from all over the country in in February and they said the process was totally objective."

So let's say the power conferences get a bunch of teams this year. So you'd be right this time. Last year, with Air Force, George Mason and three Mo Valley teams, you'd have been dead wrong. You can slide the argument around to suit whatever ticks you off at that given moment.
The pieces that I've read haven't said the process was "totally objective." They said it was more difficult than imagined, constructed differently than imagined and yes, devoid of some of the silly mechanisms (such as checking off the number of teams from a given conference and creating attractive matchups) that many presume are involved.

 

[Montezuma's Revenge]

I am not being snarky when I ask this but, is "inchage," which I presume means a number of column inches, a word? It's a new one for me, is all.

Derived from "shrinkage," I believe.

 

[Montezuma's Revenge]

Here's a great idea.
Let's not watch the games we cover. Let's just criticize the coaches and players based on the final score.

Not even remotely close to comparable.
You simply cannot write a piece claiming to dispel all the "myths" -- which is to say, all the criticisms ever made of the people who asked you in --of the selection process based on a canned event like this. Yet that's what the invitees did. That's very bad journalism.
And watch, when the brackets come out, and power conferences miraculously get what they want, and match-ups occur that miraculously benefit CBS, the response from the committee will be, "Well, we invited media representatives from all over the country in in February and they said the process was totally objective."

So let's say the power conferences get a bunch of teams this year. So you'd be right this time. Last year, with Air Force, George Mason and three Mo Valley teams, you'd have been dead wrong. You can slide the argument around to suit whatever ticks you off at that given moment.
The pieces that I've read haven't said the process was "totally objective." They said it was more difficult than imagined, constructed differently than imagined and yes, devoid of some of the silly mechanisms (such as checking off the number of teams from a given conference and creating attractive matchups) that many presume are involved.

Exactly. Does the NCAA have an agenda on this? Sure. But I'd argue there's a greater good in allowing some people to get a much better idea of the intricacies of the process. That doesn't have to preclude people from examining iffy decisions by the real seleciton committee.

 

[Cosmo]

Ah, BYH still moaning in not-so-subtle fashion about Hofstra being jobbed by the committee last year. It wouldn't be SportsJournalists.com without it.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Here's a great idea.
Let's not watch the games we cover. Let's just criticize the coaches and players based on the final score.

Not even remotely close to comparable.
You simply cannot write a piece claiming to dispel all the "myths" -- which is to say, all the criticisms ever made of the people who asked you in --of the selection process based on a canned event like this. Yet that's what the invitees did. That's very bad journalism.
And watch, when the brackets come out, and power conferences miraculously get what they want, and match-ups occur that miraculously benefit CBS, the response from the committee will be, "Well, we invited media representatives from all over the country in in February and they said the process was totally objective."

So let's say the power conferences get a bunch of teams this year. So you'd be right this time. Last year, with Air Force, George Mason and three Mo Valley teams, you'd have been dead wrong. You can slide the argument around to suit whatever ticks you off at that given moment.
The pieces that I've read haven't said the process was "totally objective." They said it was more difficult than imagined, constructed differently than imagined and yes, devoid of some of the silly mechanisms (such as checking off the number of teams from a given conference and creating attractive matchups) that many presume are involved.

Exactly. Does the NCAA have an agenda on this? Sure. But I'd argue there's a greater good in allowing some people to get a much better idea of the intricacies of the process. That doesn't have to preclude people from examining iffy decisions by the real seleciton committee.

Except that's there's no proof that can be derived from this event that this is "the process." Put some writers in the room in March, and then you'll have a point.

 

[JackS]

Wake me up when the NCAA invites reporters to sit in on the *actual* selection committee proceedings.

Until then, *yawn*.

 

[ondeadline]

<a href="http://www.850thebuzz.com/podcasts/D.mp3">
Here's a radio interview with occasional SportsJournalists.com poster Mike DeCourcy about being part of the process.</a>

 

[BYH]

So let's say the power conferences get a bunch of teams this year. So you'd be right this time. Last year, with Air Force, George Mason and three Mo Valley teams, you'd have been dead wrong.

Yeah. And they still completely screwed the pooch on that one, too.

Hi Cosmo!

 

[Twoback]

So let's say the power conferences get a bunch of teams this year. So you'd be right this time. Last year, with Air Force, George Mason and three Mo Valley teams, you'd have been dead wrong.

Yeah. And they still completely screwed the pooch on that one, too.

Hi Cosmo!

I've never said the committee doesn't get 'em wrong. Happens all the time.
As for FB's point that this isn't necessarily "the process," that sounds like Oliver Stone-style theorizing.
The NCAA sure went to a lot of trouble to put on a show for all those writers. It's pretty hard to imagine the NCAA rewrote all their computer programs or invented the voting system just to trick everybody. Ridiculous.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Considering they're picking 65 teams, the committee manages to get through most seasons with less complaning than the BCS gets picking two. Every year there's one or two big conference teams whose credentials are questionable. Every year there's a mid-major school or two that gets screwed. Every year there are three or four seedings that inspire a national "huh?".
I submit that's not such a bad record.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

So let's say the power conferences get a bunch of teams this year. So you'd be right this time. Last year, with Air Force, George Mason and three Mo Valley teams, you'd have been dead wrong.

Yeah. And they still completely screwed the pooch on that one, too.

Hi Cosmo!

I've never said the committee doesn't get 'em wrong. Happens all the time.
As for FB's point that this isn't necessarily "the process," that sounds like Oliver Stone-style theorizing.
The NCAA sure went to a lot of trouble to put on a show for all those writers. It's pretty hard to imagine the NCAA rewrote all their computer programs or invented the voting system just to trick everybody. Ridiculous.

No, but if there is undue influence-peddling in March, this kabuki event is completely irrelevant. Put two pool guys in the room in March and then you'll have something.