Holy freakin’ crap. I wish Craig Littlepage had smacked those a–holes around a bit more. Past tournament performance has NOTHING to do with this year’s brackets. NOTHING. Nor should it! The fact that the major conferences have historically done well has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how good the MVC and CAA are this year. AAAAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!!!
And cutting him off at the end to continue arguing with him was unbelievably rude.
I really, really hate those guys. They exemplify the smug arrogance and sense of entitlement that’s so typical of people who think nobody outside the major conferences is capable of playing basketball. The MVC gets four bids in a year when it arguably deserved five or six, and gets much lower seeds than expected, and they’re upset because they think it got too many teams in!! Why? Because the MVC got as many bids as the Pac-10, Big 12 and ACC — and in Packer and Nantz’s world, the big conferences are entitled to those bids! All three of those major conferences undeniably had “down years,” while the MVC undeniably had its best year ever. But Nantz and Packer don’t care about that; they prefer to hide behind statistics about what happened 20 years ago. Their “argument” is utter and complete b.s.
P.S. I also loved how they weren’t content with merely disagreeing with the committee, they felt the need to explicitly impugn its integrity, suggesting that there was a pro-mid-major bias because seven of the ten members aren’t from major conferences. Again, the sense of entitlement is unbelievable!! As if the major conferences don’t already have enough built-in advantages, now the process isn’t fair unless they have a majority of the committee?!? Such, such crap.
P.P.S. Ed makes an excellent point in comments:
The conference past performance stat is a huge joke. If you forced the big boys’ lowest seeds to play the Top 2 seeds right out of the box, the way the minor conferences are forced to do, the results would be exactly the same.
Indeed. The committee ritually underseeds the mid-majors, “rewarding” their excellent seasons with ridiculously tough first-round matchups, and then when most of them lose (as the odds say is inevitable), people like Nantz and Packer use it as evidence that there is an unfair pro-mid-major bias.
If there was some sort of certification process for being a basketball “analyst,” those two should have their licenses taken away.
March 12th, 2006 at 7:10:16 pm
There dumb and billy packard hates unconn.
March 12th, 2006 at 7:10:19 pm
Bradley schedule was a joke dude.. Cincy played the 4th Toughest schedule in the country.
March 12th, 2006 at 7:10:45 pm
wow 3 seconds apart nate?
March 12th, 2006 at 7:11:38 pm
I’m filling out my bracket now :)
March 12th, 2006 at 7:16:26 pm
One of the rudest things I’ve ever seen on television … and I watch a fair amount of reality t.v.
March 12th, 2006 at 7:17:50 pm
The conference past performance stat is a huge joke. If you forced the big boys’ lowest seeds to play the Top 2 seeds right out of the box, the way the minor conferences are forced to do, the results would be exactly the same.
But I am actually pleased that Nantz treated this putz with disdain. He was lying his ass off. He did not deserve the customary deferance and consideration.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:28:26 pm
While Packer and Nantz were offbase with their argument, Littlepage was full of sh*t, he went on and on about rewarding teams that play tough schedules and also looking at the rpi and he left cincinnati out with the 4 best sos schedule in the country and an out of conference schedule that included memphis, lsu, vanderbilt, if littlepage wants teams to play a tougher out of conference schedule than he shouldve put cincinnati in over air force, if im a big east (or other major conference) school i play easier non-conference schedule from now on becasue it is clearly about best record and not best schedule (which is bad news for mid-majors who want to schedule them)
March 18th, 2006 at 6:28:28 am
While the RPI is susspect at best, one must wonder if TV ratings arent’t the drriving forcebehind the push to make the tourney a major conferences only party. The teams they represent simply have more fans to watch more TV, which drives up advertising rates. Talk about hidden agendas! The network has no room to suggest the tournament selection committee is biased!