Invisible Touch

I can’t help myself today…

Billy Packer, in a San Jose Mercury News article:

One of the things you can not overlook is the strength of what leagues do year in and year out,” CBS lead analyst Billy Packer said, pointing out that 58 of the 80 teams that made it to the Sweet 16 in the past five years were from six power conferences. “.

Okay, that’s 72.5% of the Sweet 16 teams being from major conferences.

Let’s consider thant 26 of the 34 at large teams this season are from major conferences. That’s 76%.

Seems pretty spot on to me. And if you flip out Cincinnati for Air Force, of which I am in agreement, you get 72.5% and 73.5%.

And another thing…

Do you see any of those four teams taking Duke to overtime, at Duke (as Florida State did this year) and beating them on their home court?”

mgl: Why no, Billy, I don’t. But I didn’t see FSU beat Miami this season (accomplished by some team called Air Force). I also remember the CAAs eighth place team leading Duke late on a neutral court, and I also don’t remember seeing Duke or Florida State at the Siegel Center or Ted Constant Center or Hofstra University Arena.

***

I’m ready to debate Billy whenever he’s available.

Advertisements

~ by mglitos on March 13, 2006.

4 Responses to “Invisible Touch”

  1. Packer was going on and on about the five year trend of a program as a criteria for selection. That makes ZERO sense. Good programs have often had a complete reversal of fortune in four years. He wants to judge the 2006 squad based on the 2002 squad’s performance when the two might have nothing more in common than the uniform and maybe the coach? Just stupid.

  2. I fully agree with your general premise, but just for the record, Florida State won at Miami on March 5th, 67-64.

  3. i thought that reputation and previous years’ performance were supposed to be omitted as criteria in the NCAA selection process…and that selection was based solely on what a team did in 2005-06. (which we know is most definitely not the case) am i wrong on that one?

  4. And that’s why Littlepaige mentioned that Packer’s argument was crap.

    You are correct anonymous, Packer wanted to make an argument about previous years, while Littlepaige explained that the process isn’t about the past, but the present.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: