The amount of hypocrisy from the media in regards to Bracketology has been astounding. The arguments used for one team for a seed or a tourney bid are completely different or not even used when applicable for another team. Here I will outline the biases.
The Ryan Kelly Credit: Losses without a significant rotation player don't count.
As any college basketball fan likely know by now, Ryan Kelley missed 13 games and Duke lost four games in that stretch to an underwhelming and highly disappointing NC State squad, got shelled by Miami, and lost against bubble teams Maryland and Virginia. Duke didn't win the ACC regular season and lost in the quarterfinals of the ACC Tournament. Yet Duke is in consideration for a #1 seed and even a #1 overall because they only have one loss with Ryan Kelly yet couldn't win their own league in the regular season or in the tournament with Kelly back.
Meanwhile, Louisville was without starting center Gorgui Dieng for seven games and lost one game to then Duke, and only by five points at that, yet apparently the Ryan Kelly credit does not apply to Louisville from all the media talk I have seen.
Kentucky was without then 20+ minute backup/occasional starter post player Willie Cauley-Stein for four games in which they narrowly lost at Alabama. Does Kentucky the get Ryan Kelley "credit" and have that Alabama game seemingly wiped from their record? Nope. Kentucky also saw starting point guard Ryan Harrow miss four games early in the season in which they lost to Duke to by seven on a neutral court. Likewise, the Ryan Kelley credit also apparently does not apply here for the media.
The SOS Pass: Strength of Schedule only applies selectively.
The media are always trumpeting SOS as a major factor in selections, but when it comes down to the last four teams in this year, apparently SOS doesn't matter one bit, yet it matters everywhere else when discussing seeding? Take Gonzaga for example. Clearly dserving of a #1 seed, bu they keep getting dismissed for it because of their SOS. So let's look at the SOS of the last four teams in and compare them to the first few out, according to Joe Lunardi. You tell me if the SOS standard apparently applies or not.
First Four In
- Boise State - 19-10 with a RPI SOS of 70
- Middle Tennessee - 28-5 with a RPI SOS of 134
- Ole Miss - 25-8 with a RPI SOS of 143
- La Salle - 21-9 with a RPI SOS of 81
First Few Out
- Virginia - 21-11 with a RPI SOS of 130. All we ever hear about UVA is their SOS. Well it's better than Middle Tennessee's or Ole Miss'
- Maryland - 22-12 with a RPI SOS of 103
- Tennessee - 20-12 with a RPI SOS of 50. Their SOS is better than all of the last four teams in and with a near identical or better overall record than two of them.
- Southern Miss - 23-9 with a RPI SOS of 66. Their SOS is better than all of the last four teams in and with a near identical or better overall record than two of them.
- Kentucky - 21-11 with a RPI SOS of 76. Their SOS is better than three of the last four teams in and with a near identical or better overall record than two of them.
- UMass - 21-11 with a RPI SOS of 71. Their SOS is better than three of the last four teams in and with a near identical or better overall record than two of them.
So the question then is why does the SOS argument apply to these school's on the outside looking in but teams with piss poor SOSes like Middle Tennessee and Ole Miss seemingly get a free pass for it?
The Top-50, Top-100 Wins Pass: Beating Top-50 and Top-100 Teams only applies to "Super Six" Conference Teams
I'll use Kentucky as an example here since I am a Kentucky fan and know them the best of all the teams. Kentucky is 1-3 vs. the RPI Top 25, 3-4 vs. the top 50, and 7-9 vs. the top 100. And one of those top 25 wins is against Florida who is going to get at worse a #3 seed, and Kentucky beat them without their best player in Nerlens Noel. What's one of the biggest arguments against Kentucky the media uses? Lack of top-50 and top-100 wins.
Likewise with UVa, in addition to the SOS argument that is applied selectively to them, the lack of top-50 and top-100 wins is one of the biggest arguments against them. UVa is 2-2 vs. the top-25, 4-3 vs. the top-50, and 8-4 vs. the top 100.
Now let's take a look at Middle Tennessee, who I have already established got a pass for their pitiful SOS. MTSU played just four games all season against top-1oo teams. They went 0-2 vs. the top 25 and 1-4 vs. the top 50. Their lone win in the top-100? At home vs. Ole Miss. You know who beat Ole Miss at home along with six other top-100 teams? Kentucky, and Kentucky handily beat Ole Miss by 13 points. But Kentucky is on the outside looking in because they didn't get 21 wins against teams ranked 154 or lower in the RPI.
La Salle is 2-3 vs. the top 25, 2-4 vs. the top 50, 5-8 vs. the top 100. Both UVa and Kentucky have a much better resume against the top 25, top 50, and top 100, but lack of these quality wins is used against them while La Salle has even less.
St. Mary's, who I didn't outline in the SOS pass but get's it with an SOS of 101, also has a less than impressive resume. They are 1-3 vs. the top 25, 1-3 vs. the top 50, and 6-4 vs. the top 100. If it had not been for being in the same conference as Gonzaga and playing them three times, they would have just one game against the top 50 all season. Their only top 50 win was against Creighton. Oh but they did beat Harvard, the Ivy League winner, and Pacific, who got their league's autobid! St. Mary's is yet another team that is getting a ton of credit for winning 17 games against teams ranked 160th or lower in the RPI meanwhile having never really beat anyone.
If lack of top 50 and top 100 wins applies to Kentucky and Virginia, why does it not apply to Middle Tennessee, La Salle, or St. Mary's?