One thing that may help us a bit is that our non-conference SOS is actually very good. It will be especially good after the BB game. We can't control who we play in conference, we can only control whether we beat them or not. So far, we have taken care of business.

StanfordAggie wrote:The more important point is that in theory the committee isn't even supposed to consider a team's ranking in the polls when they select at-large teams or seed teams. You can find numerous instances where a team was seeded much higher or much lower than their ranking in the polls would suggest. I say "in theory" because I think the selection committee members are only human and they do consider the polls to a certain degree. (The seeds of the top-ranked teams usually follow their rankings in the polls pretty closely... But that may also indicate that the pollsters simply do a better job of ranking the best teams in the country but don't pay as much attention when they fill out the bottom of their ballots.)

And honestly, I am very glad that polls aren't supposed to be considered by the selection committee. As it is right now, it is rare for top-ranked teams to play non-cupcakes in OOC play. If selection/seeding were determined by polls, then every BCS school would just fatten themselves on cupcakes to inflate their ranking until conference play started. The RPI-based system has issues of its own, but I'll take that system over polls any day.

For some reason this argument seems to come up every year, but it is not true. The Polls are one of the things that the committee is supposed to use, and they are actually provided for analysis.

This is directly from the official Bracket Principles and Procedures:

Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores,
game summaries and notes, pertinent information submitted on a team’s
behalf by its conference, various computer rankings, head-to-head results,
chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home, away
and neutral results, rankings, polls and the NABC regional advisory
committee rankings.

Linky: http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files ... 0-5-10.pdf

CaptainChaos wrote:And yet St. Mary's who looks very comparable to USU this year is projected as an 8 seed... Go figure?

Yet St. Mary's has two wins over teams in the top 100 rpi, which is two more than we have. Ergo, they have a better resume than us, which is why they are currently projected a couple seeds higher than us. Go figure, right?

Also, it's obvious that you haven't been an Aggie for very long, Chaos, and perhaps aren't familiar with our recent history. Otherwise, you would've known better than to ask why "unranked teams get higher seeds"... so, to get you up to speed-- In 2004, Utah State became the only school ever to be nationally ranked and not selected to participate in the NCAA Tournament. That should let you know how much emphasis being ranked has on, not only seeding, but even selection for the NCAA's.[/quote]

That was actually my first year at USU and unfortunately it doesn't explain anything except USU has been screwed before and if anything- beings Pacific won in the first round as a 12 seed shows the coaches and AP poll were probably more acurate than the NCAA seeding... To think USU was not one of the top 50 teams that year is absurd![/quote]


Chaos, you're obviously looking for someone to tell you what you want to hear then. If that doesn't 'explain' why the committee doesn't use the rankings as criteria, then I don't know what will. That same Pacific team was ranked #15 the following year on selection sunday weekend, but they ended up an 8-seed. If the committee went by rankings... then by your rationale, shouldn't the Tigers have ended up a 3-4 seed, instead?? USU has had other ranked teams, like two years ago, for instance... but we could only get as high as an 11. The year we beat a top 10 Nevada squad twice in 10 days, they ended up a 7 seed... but they were still ranked. Shoudn't they have been seeded higher??? Last year, BYU was a top 15 team in the polls, but ended up a 7-seed. Shouldn't they have been higher, as well?? Like tree said, the committee can(and probably should) use rankings as criteria, but they don't. Simple as that.

AGGZILLA wrote: Like tree said, the committee can(and probably should) use rankings as criteria, but they don't. Simple as that.

I wouldn't say that they "don't" use them... since none of us can know that, and also considering the fact that they are provided to the committee in the analysis process. But you could probably say that it appears that they don't put a lot of emphasis on the polls. Or at least that the polls are not a hugely important factor compared to other things...