Can We Please Put An End To This "Harvard Was A Bad Loss" Nonsense?
A Twitter conversation last night between the BC blogger CBNB and the Raleigh News & Observer caused me to jump into the telephone booth, throw on a cape, and come to BC's rescue. The conversation went down like this:
accnow: Virginia Tech coach Seth Greenberg must be sick after watching UAB prove it did not belong in the NCAA tournament in pummeling by Clemson.
CBNB: @accnow Couldn't the same be said for BC? BC beat VT twice this year
accnow: @CBNB Losing at home to Harvard and Yale doomed BC. The Eagles lost to Rhode Island, too. That's too many bad losses.
CBNB: @accnow Yeah Harvard with an RPI of 35...what a terrible loss. VT lost to UVA twice and GT and somehow they were totally robbed
accnow: @CBNB The difference is, Virginia Tech beat a No. 1 seed two weeks ago. That to me is where the Hokies beat out BC.
First off, let me state that I'm not going to justify BC's loss to Yale. Simply, that was a bad loss. It's not Maine bad or Robert Morris bad, but still bad. But let's stop pretending that BC's loss to Harvard kept the Eagles out of this year's NCAA Tournament Field of 68.
Harvard was a bubble team this year with an RPI of 35. Don't like RPI as a statistical? Fine. The Crimson also had a kenpom rating of 77 (pre Oklahoma State loss). That kenpom rating just so happens to be better than the bottom four teams in the ACC -- Virginia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State and (way better than) Wake Forest.
Harvard forced a one-game, winner-take-all playoff with Princeton this season, and came within a last-second buzzer beater of making the NCAA Tournament for the first time since the 1940s. The Crimson notched wins over both BC and Colorado, who saw their bubbles burst on Sunday, and pushed NCAA Tournament-bound Michigan to the limit, losing by 3 in Ann Arbor. I'm not exactly sure a loss on January 5 to a fellow bubble team qualifies as a bad loss.
Want to know who else lost to a bubble team in the last week of the season but still managed to find its way into the Field of 68? Georgia, who lost to Alabama twice in a week but managed a 10 seed in this year's tournament. Alabama's partying gift was a 1 seed in the NIT.
Even Harvard stat geeks think the Crimson got a lot of consideration from the Selection Committee and could have gotten in over a team like 19-14 USC. I tend to agree with them.
Now if you want to point to a lack of quality wins that kept BC out of the NCAA Tournament, you could certainly make that argument (though Clemson and UAB went a combined 0-8 against the RPI Top 50 with not a quality win to be found on either's resume). But don't go saying that BC didn't get in because of too many bad losses. The "too many bad losses" is relative, and that argument really starts to break down when you consider that the last few teams into the NCAA Tournament lost to these fine basketball-playing institutions (kenpom rating in parenthesis):
VCU: Georgia State (233), South Florida (132), Northeastern (194), James Madison (117), Drexel (101)
UAB: East Carolina (146), Arizona State (119), Tulsa (93), Memphis (91), Memphis (91)
USC: Bradley (189), TCU (168), Oregon State (158), Rider (137), Oregon (87), Oregon (87)
Villanova: South Florida (132), Providence (97), Rutgers (74)
Clemson: South Carolina (125), Virginia (96)
[cut line]
Virginia Tech: Virginia (96), Virginia (96), Georgia Tech (86)
Alabama: St. Peter's (116), Arkansas (100), Providence (97), Iowa (81)
Colorado: San Francisco (147), Oklahoma (128), Harvard (77)
Boston College, in comparison, had "bad losses" to Yale (195), Rhode Island (123) and Harvard (77). That loss to Harvard starts to shine in comparison to some of these other losses suffered by NCAA Tournament teams.
Like I said, you can point to a lack of quality wins as a reason BC got left out of the Dance. That's perfectly valid. Jackson's three pointer at the buzzer against UNC rattled out, and the Texas A&M win feels like decades ago. I'll rightly admit that Virginia Tech's win over Duke does look great in comparison.
You can also point to the losses to Yale and Rhode Island as bad losses that kept BC out. But we need to put an end to the notion that the Eagles' loss to the Crimson somehow kept Boston College out of the NCAA Tournament.
I feel SO terrible that Virginia Tech coach Seth Greenberg had to watch UAB get crushed by Clemson in last night's First Four matchup. We all need to stop humoring this guy and throwing him a pity party for not making the Dance. The Hokies had their opportunity to make this year's NCAA Tournament Field of 68. They just blew it. Want to make the NCAA Tournament? Don't go 0-5 against Virginia, BC and Clemson.
5 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My take
I wasn’t overly disappointed that BC didn’t make the dance, but some of the teams that did make it (and their seeds) left a bad taste in my mouth.
First, the RPI is terrible and is overused by the committee. This was demonstrated by UAB and VCU making it. They beat nobody good, yet made it by a) scheduling, and losing to, good teams and b) beating bad teams in their conference. But those teams are simply not as good as BC or any other bubble teams. Also, if they went by RPI, then why didn’t Harvard get in? Makes no sense. Harvard, I think, was the worst omission. Also, the Big Ten is not better than the ACC. Why did four 9-9 team from the Big 10 make it, and two 9-7 ACC teams not make it? Because of strength of schedule? Come on. Penn State and Michigan simply do not belong. They benefited from an over-reliance on strength of schedule. Basically, they got in not because of who they beat, but because of who they lost to. The RPI is 25% winning percentage and 75% strength of schedule. Case in point: Michigan as an 8 seed? Laughable. In my opinion, Va Tech, Colorado, Harvard and BC or St. Mary’s should have replaced UAB, VCU, PSU and Michigan. I think maybe the committee knew it couldn’t put in Va Tech without including BC, and couldn’t include BC without including Harvard, and couldn’t include Harvard without Colorado, and finally just decided to not include them all. The fact they included UAB shows they maybe were thinking – well, we can’t include VCU without UAB, since UAB beat VCU.
2) I know Greenberg is taking heat for his comments about personal agendas impacting the process. But do you really think the UConn AD voted for Va Tech or BC when it came down to the last couple slots? Do you think he made an argument for their inclusion? I would be shocked if he did. One vote is huge, and the fact is, 1/10 of the voters had a personal reason not to vote for BC or Va Tech. Same thing for Colorado – Do you really think the Big 12 commissioner made any arguments to help them? I doubt it. One vote/voice is huge at that point, and those teams were at a disadvantage. I’m actually shocked nobody is discussing this. Three of the four or five teams on the wrong side of the bubble recently or are in the process of leaving their conference. I’m not saying this was definitely a factor, but surely it’s not out of the realm of possibility. And the fact is, it shouldn’t even be a possibility. This process should not come down to subjective opinions of a handful of people, especially when those opinions are voiced in private and never disclosed. It should come down to computer rankings, or a combination of computer rankings and human rankings that are made public.
by door knee camp on Mar 16, 2011 12:04 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Number 2 is a great point. I briefly thought about that for Colorado, but didn’t think to extend that thought to BC or Virginia Tech.
BC Interruption, SBN's Boston College Eagles blog
by Brian Favat on Mar 16, 2011 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Regarding your original post, I think most of these media types basically just assume Va Tech was a better pick than BC because that’s what they saw someone say on ESPN, and like here they’ll make all sorts of lame arguments to back up their position. Looking at the two teams’ records, it’s impossible to say one was a clearly better choice than the other. That’s a fact. Both were 9-7. Va Tech beat the number 1 team. BC beat Va Tech twice. I think the best argument for VA Tech was not that they beat Duke, but that they made the semis of the ACC tourney when we didn’t. But it’s all moot now anyway.
by door knee camp on Mar 16, 2011 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Virginia Tech should have lost in the ACC Quarterfinals along with BC, but they were saved by the refs.
What ever happened to indisputable video evidence? Or is that just in football? ;)
BC Interruption, SBN's Boston College Eagles blog

by 











