Will OSU make the NCAA Tournament?

Syracuse is a larger catalyst $ wise for attendance and TV viewers than Marcus Smart...not even close.
 
campbest said:
Eight wins in the Big XII with a solid non-conference is going to get you in.
Click to expand...

I don't know Campbest. I will agree that they had a great OOC resume. But if they end up at 8-10, then I think they may have some work to do in Kansas City to feel safe. I look at their reamining schedule like this:
Wins: Tech, @TCU
Likely Wins: @Tech
Tossups: @Baylor, KSU, OU
Losses:@UT, KU, @ISU

It's likely that they win 4 or 5 of the above games. But if they only get to 8 wins in conference, then they will probably be the 7 seed in Kansas City. In that case, they would beat TCU (10 seed) and then have to beat either OU, ISU, or Texas (the 2 seed) on a neutral floor. That's a tough task for a team that is really struggling right now.
 
campbest said:
The Selection committee left out a 21 win Syracuse team who went 10-6 in the Big East for smaller schools back in 2006-07.
Click to expand...

that big east was terrible .. and that syracuse team didn't have a top 50 win

they also played like the 300th ranked non con schedule ..

this big 12 is the best conf in america (rpi)
 
campbest said:
Syracuse is a larger catalyst $ wise for attendance and TV viewers than Marcus Smart...not even close.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, every television fan in the country would jump at the chance to watch the Cuse. Now, why didn't I think of that. :facepalm

Seriously, campbest, speaking for myself, and I suspect a few more diehard basketball fans, the only time I watch Syracuse play is when I have nothing else to do, or when they're playing a team I'm actually interested in. I would definitely rather watch a high-profile player like Smart who commands attention anytime he is on the floor, albeit some of it negative at times.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree. You can't prove your point anymore than I can prove mine. Besides, I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. :)
 
Price is Right said:
That team didn't have a Marcus Smart though. And that's he point he's making.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry... I see this notion pop up every year and it's patently ridiculous.

How does having Marcus Smart (or any single player) do anything for the NCAA (or CBS)?

The media rights for the NCAA tournament have been locked up for quite some time. They sign multi-year deals with CBS, who pays for the media rights. CBS then sells ads to pay for the media rights. Those are also typically done far in advance, well before Selection Sunday, and often through multi-year deals.

Neither the NCAA nor CBS gets any kind of extra "bump" if a random player from a random team makes 1 or 2 games out of 63 moderately "more interesting" to the general public.

There would be no way to quantify it, anyway. There is always noise in the ratings from year-to-year, depending on what else is going on, what teams are in, how CBS distributes the games across their network of broadcast and cable channels, etc.

So the idea that the Selection Committee actually is sitting there saying something like...

"...well... you know team A doesn't really deserve to get in, but damn it, they've got [Player A] who might raise the rating of two games from a 2.1 to a 2.2 among white males, ages 24-25... we've just GOTTA put them in!"

... is some tin-foil-hat level thinking there.

On topic, I think OSU has about a 50-55% chance of making the Tournament right now. I think that falls to like 25% if we lose in Lubbock on Saturday.
 
They are going to have a lot of close games and it will just depend on a play here or there in many of their games. The same is true for every team other than KU and they are not immune either when they match up against teams with some size.

We could see records completely flip from the first half of the conference season to the second half.
 
oSuJeff97 said:
I'm sorry... I see this notion pop up every year and it's patently ridiculous.

How does having Marcus Smart (or any single player) do anything for the NCAA (or CBS)?

The media rights for the NCAA tournament have been locked up for quite some time. They sign multi-year deals with CBS, who pays for the media rights. CBS then sells ads to pay for the media rights. Those are also typically done far in advance, well before Selection Sunday, and often through multi-year deals.

Neither the NCAA nor CBS gets any kind of extra "bump" if a random player from a random team makes 1 or 2 games out of 63 moderately "more interesting" to the general public.

There would be no way to quantify it, anyway. There is always noise in the ratings from year-to-year, depending on what else is going on, what teams are in, how CBS distributes the games across their network of broadcast and cable channels, etc.

So the idea that the Selection Committee actually is sitting there saying something like...

"...well... you know team A doesn't really deserve to get in, but damn it, they've got [Player A] who might raise the rating of two games from a 2.1 to a 2.2 among white males, ages 24-25... we've just GOTTA put them in!"

... is some tin-foil-hat level thinking there.

On topic, I think OSU has about a 50-55% chance of making the Tournament right now. I think that falls to like 25% if we lose in Lubbock on Saturday.
Click to expand...

Although, I agree with you for the most part, I do believe that there is some validity to the idea, if two teams are tied. Just like they are widely believed to create interesting matchups like coach vs former school, etc.
 
Yes. Even if they are a bubble team their star power will get them in.
 
oSuJeff97 said:
I'd love to hear about some actual examples of when this happened.
Click to expand...

Why? I didn't see any proof in your mumbo jumbo about multi-year deals, media rights and ratings that didn't mean a thing when it comes to what happens with the selection committee behind closed doors.

If you can prove that a star player is not part of the conversation on occasion, produce the evidence. Until then, you're entitled to your opinion, while SoonerinNC and myself will continue to see it differently.
 
AdaSooner said:
Why? I didn't see any proof in your mumbo jumbo about multi-year deals, media rights and ratings that didn't mean a thing when it comes to what happens with the selection committee behind closed doors.

If you can prove that a star player is not part of the conversation on occasion, produce the evidence. Until then, you're entitled to your opinion, while SoonerinNC and myself will continue to see it differently.
Click to expand...

Your description of that aggie's post echoed my thoughts, Ada, though I had a slightly more colorful (brown, I believe) metaphor in mind. LOL!
 
AdaSooner said:
Why? I didn't see any proof in your mumbo jumbo about multi-year deals, media rights and ratings that didn't mean a thing when it comes to what happens with the selection committee behind closed doors.

If you can prove that a star player is not part of the conversation on occasion, produce the evidence. Until then, you're entitled to your opinion, while SoonerinNC and myself will continue to see it differently.
Click to expand...

Do you even logic, bro?

I'm at least backing up my opinion with logic and a reasonable explanation.

You're just basically saying, "They give preferential treatment to bubble teams with a star player.... I have no examples of this happening and I can't tell you how the NCAA or CBS benefits, but I know that they do it!"

I'm sorry if you can't follow my "mumbo jumbo" that clearly supports my argument.

Let me make it very simple:

Argument: The selection committee has no reason to let a bubble team into the tournament just because they have a "star player."

Premise: Neither the NCAA nor its broadcast partners see any incremental benefit by allowing a given team with a "star player" into the tournament over a more deserving team without a "star player."

Support: Media rights and advertising deals are completed well in advance of the Selection Committee meetings in any given year.
 
oSuJeff97 said:
Do you even logic, bro?

I'm at least backing up my opinion with logic and a reasonable explanation.

You're just basically saying, "They give preferential treatment to bubble teams with a star player.... I have no examples of this happening and I can't tell you how the NCAA or CBS benefits, but I know that they do it!"

I'm sorry if you can't follow my "mumbo jumbo" that clearly supports my argument.

Let me make it very simple:

Argument: The selection committee has no reason to let a bubble team into the tournament just because they have a "star player."

Premise: Neither the NCAA nor its broadcast partners see any incremental benefit by allowing a given team with a "star player" into the tournament over a more deserving team without a "star player."

Support: Media rights and advertising deals are completed well in advance of the Selection Committee meetings in any given year.
Click to expand...

Repeating your post by breaking it down point by point proves nothing. I understood what you said the first time, I simply didn't buy what you were trying to sell. The fact remains that you don't have a clue what the selection committee thinks or does when two equal teams in every way are being considered, except one has a star player on their roster.

Your "premise" means nothing, unless you can support your claim by proving that the NCAA and its broadcast partners are immune to the benefits of awarding a tourney birth to a team with a star player.

I never said the team with a star player should be allowed into the tourney "over a more deserving team" without a star player. You made that up to support your argument. I have said from the beginning that the committee's decision to select a team with a star player would only apply when all of the elements being considered are equal.

You keep throwing out media rights and advertising deals as if that is part of the guidelines the selection committee uses in making their picks. I freely admit that "star player appeal" is not on that list either. My assumption is that when everything being considered between two teams is the same, that's when human nature can creep in that could give the edge to the team with a star player.
 
It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if Duke and Tulsa have the same records and beat similar competition that Duke would get the benifit of the comparrison because it is Duke and has a history. Can I pull out examples to show this no, but I can say its human nature to pick the school you are more familiar with, and most people would say would make a better story/matchup then Tulsa for the first round game. Tulsa would only become a story if they made it to the sweet sixteen in this sceniro.
 
Last edited:
snydrosooner said:
It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if Duke and Tulsa have the same records and beat similar competition that Duke would get the benifit of the comparrison because it is Duke and has a history. Can I pull out examples to show this know, but I can say its human nature to pick the school you are more familiar with, and most people would say would make a better story/matchup then Tulsa for the first round game. Tulsa would only become a story if they made it to the sweet sixteen in this sceniro.
Click to expand...

We're obviously on the same page, snydrosooner. I agree that a school like Tulsa doesn't stand much of a chance in getting the nod over a school like Duke, or any other high-profile school. Do schools like Tulsa get in? Sure. Lesser-known schools get in every year because their body of work is so superior they can't be ignored. That's one of the things I love about the NCCAA tourney. But most make it in by winning their conference or their post-season tournament.

To set the record straight, though, the star player picture I painted does not consider the size of the school. I said on the first page that there is an assumption all of the elements being considered are the same. The only difference is that one school has a star player on its roster and the other does not.

I have no way of knowing, of course, what the selection committee would do when faced with a decision like that. It just seems logical to me that a well-known player like Smart, or any other highly-publicized player, would give his team an advantage. A psychological one, perhaps, but an advantage nevertheless.
 
snydrosooner said:
It does not take a rocket scientist to know that if Duke and Tulsa have the same records and beat similar competition that Duke would get the benifit of the comparrison because it is Duke and has a history. Can I pull out examples to show this know, but I can say its human nature to pick the school you are more familiar with, and most people would say would make a better story/matchup then Tulsa for the first round game. Tulsa would only become a story if they made it to the sweet sixteen in this sceniro.
Click to expand...

...but Duke and Tulsa don't play the same competition, so that wouldn't happen to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Keeping the faith
Replies
4
Views
166
opsooner
O
Sooner Season
Beep.......Beep......Beep........
2
Replies
23
Views
827
sooner333
S
C
Cool stat
Replies
0
Views
127
CanadaSooner23
C
NickZepp
Tournament expansion
Replies
10
Views
542
TINY
T
C
Dayton Forsythe's ceiling?
2
Replies
22
Views
709
lexusooner
lexusooner
Back
Top