I also wonder if the teams in the FBI probe were singled out. Louisville and USC both didn't get in (they were both seen in from multiple sites) Arizona ends up in a brutal 4 seed and the south region.
As for USC - they lost to Oklahoma, ASU and UCLA twice - all of those were the last teams in. Best win was against Middle Tennessee State.. who didn't make the field.
ASU .. I think a joke but if Syracuse and Oklahoma got in on resume then ASU should be in with the non conference. 8-10 in conference - has to be the first ever PAC-10/-12 to ever get in with that record. And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

maybe ncaa just doesn't like the coach

Let's hope this years tourney provides many laughs and schadenfreude. I'm fine with Zona, Mich State, Mizzou, North Carolina, and others losing in humiliating fashion.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Let's hope this years tourney provides many laughs and schadenfreude. I'm fine with Zona, Mich State, Mizzou, North Carolina, and others losing in humiliating fashion.

---

Ha-ha! Yeah, that's pretty much all I am rooting for!

MB Cal Golf said:

---

And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

---

In 2012, Washington was 14-4 in conference, won the regular season outright, and didn't get an NCAA tournament bid. Tournament champ was Colorado. Cal finished 2nd in the regular season and got the Pac's only at-large tournament bid, and it was in the First Four.

socaliganbear said:

---

It's simple, just schedule well.

---

Thanks for this.

Look, I like St. Mary's. I think it would be fun to have them in the tournament. Today I read on ESPN that Randy Bennett was complaining about having the "deck stacked against" mid-majors like his team.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22727059/mid-major-coaches-say-new-quadrant-system-hurts-teams-ncaa-tournament-chances

But here's the thing: every time St. Mary's is on the bubble and gets left off, I feel bad for them at first. Then I look up their strength of schedule and it stinks (210th this year by RPI). Okay, so they play in a mid-major so their conference schedule isn't great. Then I look up their non-conference schedule and it ALSO stinks (197th). So then I think that maybe no one wants to schedule them, but per the above it seems like that's not the case. It's not like this is some up-and-comer. St. Mary's is assumed to be good in most years. Other schools looking for their own schedule boost would be willing to play them.

Then Bennett complains that the "big schools" want them to go on the road or play at neutral sites. YES, THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. When Gonzaga has a decent record they don't have to sweat out the bubble. Why? Because they do exactly that, they go on the road and to neutral-site tournaments where they can play other top teams. They know they need to play a tough non-conference slate to offset the WCC penalty. We see above that Nevada was able to do it, even on short notice.

This is the deal, St. Mary's. You know you play in the WCC. That isn't changing anytime soon, and the WCC isn't as bad as many other mid-majors anyway. Schedule up in non-conference play, not down. Take on all comers from a major conference. You'll be in better shape. And heck, if you lose those games . . . at least you know you weren't good enough.

Now USC, they probably should have gotten in. Last year they probably do, but the committee went to a new "quadrant" system that further emphasized top-end wins, and USC didn't have them. Best wins were Middle Tennessee and New Mexico State, that's a 12 seed and a team that didn't get picked.

I don't feel bad for SC, well, because they are SC.

all college teams should play at least 1 non-conference team at the turn (after the first run of the conference). The teams may be vastly different that deep into the conference. The OOC schedule makes or breaks a conference and it seems like beating up on each other doesn't do anyone any good

this shouldn't be hard ... do it on the week you play your rival (where there is only 1 game that week)

Not a usc fan but this is absolutely ridiculous not includimg them. The best teams should be included, not those that did well in December. Very troubling because this could happen to us. We would think we had a great year if we were usc. Cal almost never beats top teams in the pre season. Most of the time we don't even schedule them, unless in a tournament. I got to think the fbi investigation played a role. They probably don't want a team in that may have to vacate wins later or during the tournament.

Asu should not be in. They have totally collapsed and will probably lose in the first round. Fucla, I don't care.

ducky23 said:

---

Nevada with a 7 seed.

Can someone remind me, I remember we were looking hard at musselman.

Did he say no to us? Was it a money issue? Or did we end up just passing on him?

---

Whatever it was, it wasn't about money. We could have doubled his NEW (post extension) salary and he'd still make less than what Cuonzo made in his last year here.

Bear8995 said:

---

I don't feel bad for SC, well, because they are SC.

---

Yeah, I don't exactly feel bad for them. They were also implicated in the FBI report (which some think may have been a factor for the teams that got left out, Louisville and Notre Dame included).

But they were probably better than the last teams that got in, especially ASU and Syracuse (I don't know what kind of dirt 'Cuse always has on the committee, but it must be something big).

sycasey said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

I don't feel bad for SC, well, because they are SC.

---

Yeah, I don't exactly feel bad for them. They were also implicated in the FBI report (which some think may have been a factor for the teams that got left out, Louisville and Notre Dame included).

But they were probably better than the last teams that got in, especially ASU and Syracuse (I don't know what kind of dirt 'Cuse always has on the committee, but it must be something big).

---

Cuse is the biggest head scratcher for me. Their resume is a long list of quality losses.

socaliganbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

I don't feel bad for SC, well, because they are SC.

---

Yeah, I don't exactly feel bad for them. They were also implicated in the FBI report (which some think may have been a factor for the teams that got left out, Louisville and Notre Dame included).

But they were probably better than the last teams that got in, especially ASU and Syracuse (I don't know what kind of dirt 'Cuse always has on the committee, but it must be something big).

---

Cuse is the biggest head scratcher for me. Their resume is a long list of quality losses.

---

They did have four wins in the RPI Top 50:

10 Clemson (Home)
26 Buffalo (Home)
28 Miami (Road)
38 Louisville (Road)

Also one more win over a tournament team:

62 Virginia Tech (Home)

So I guess that was enough to lift them over the other bubble teams, despite also having posted a lot of losses.

bross said:

---

I still believe there should be a rule that teams must be at least .500 in conference to be eligible.

---

No doubt!

socaliganbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

I don't feel bad for SC, well, because they are SC.

---

Yeah, I don't exactly feel bad for them. They were also implicated in the FBI report (which some think may have been a factor for the teams that got left out, Louisville and Notre Dame included).

But they were probably better than the last teams that got in, especially ASU and Syracuse (I don't know what kind of dirt 'Cuse always has on the committee, but it must be something big).

---

Cuse is the biggest head scratcher for me. Their resume is a long list of quality losses.

---

But Boeheim...

Bear8995 said:

---

I don't feel bad for SC, well, because they are SC.

---

Yeah, but picking ASU over them seems stupid!

BearSD said:

---

MB Cal Golf said:

---

And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

---

In 2012, Washington was 14-4 in conference, won the regular season outright, and didn't get an NCAA tournament bid. Tournament champ was Colorado. Cal finished 2nd in the regular season and got the Pac's only at-large tournament bid, and it was in the First Four.

---

Yes, that was BS.
PAC needs to consistently advance teams to final four to get the love from the selection committee. People need to root for AZ.

concordtom said:

---

BearSD said:

---

MB Cal Golf said:

---

And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

---

In 2012, Washington was 14-4 in conference, won the regular season outright, and didn't get an NCAA tournament bid. Tournament champ was Colorado. Cal finished 2nd in the regular season and got the Pac's only at-large tournament bid, and it was in the First Four.

---

Yes, that was BS.
PAC needs to consistently advance teams to final four to get the love from the selection committee. People need to root for AZ.

---

No, the Pac-12 needs to start winning more games in non-conference play (and also playing better schedules out of conference). The committee has made it abundantly clear over the years that they value schedule strength.

Washington's non-conference schedule sucked that year (just like St. Mary's this year), and the Pac-12 was very down and may as well have been a mid-major. That's why they got left out.

BearSD said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Nevada with a 7 seed.

Can someone remind me, I remember we were looking hard at musselman.

Did he say no to us? Was it a money issue? Or did we end up just passing on him?

---

Montana is in as well.

Travis DeCuire just did something Monty never did -- get Montana into the NCAA tournament.

---

Is this Decuire's second time in the Big Dance with Montana?

KoreAmBear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Nevada with a 7 seed.

Can someone remind me, I remember we were looking hard at musselman.

Did he say no to us? Was it a money issue? Or did we end up just passing on him?

---

Montana is in as well.

Travis DeCuire just did something Monty never did -- get Montana into the NCAA tournament.

---

Is this Decuire's second time in the Big Dance with Montana?

---

NIT his first year at Montana, CBI his second year. This is his fourth year there, and first in the NCAA tournament.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearSD said:

---

MB Cal Golf said:

---

And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

---

In 2012, Washington was 14-4 in conference, won the regular season outright, and didn't get an NCAA tournament bid. Tournament champ was Colorado. Cal finished 2nd in the regular season and got the Pac's only at-large tournament bid, and it was in the First Four.

---

Yes, that was BS.
PAC needs to consistently advance teams to final four to get the love from the selection committee. People need to root for AZ.

---

No, the Pac-12 needs to start winning more games in non-conference play (and also playing better schedules out of conference). The committee has made it abundantly clear over the years that they value schedule strength.

Washington's non-conference schedule sucked that year (just like St. Mary's this year), and the Pac-12 was very down and may as well have been a mid-major. That's why they got left out.

---

True, although some P12 schools played challenging schedules: Furd, ASU, UCLA, Zona.

UrsaMajor said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearSD said:

---

MB Cal Golf said:

---

And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

---

In 2012, Washington was 14-4 in conference, won the regular season outright, and didn't get an NCAA tournament bid. Tournament champ was Colorado. Cal finished 2nd in the regular season and got the Pac's only at-large tournament bid, and it was in the First Four.

---

Yes, that was BS.
PAC needs to consistently advance teams to final four to get the love from the selection committee. People need to root for AZ.

---

No, the Pac-12 needs to start winning more games in non-conference play (and also playing better schedules out of conference). The committee has made it abundantly clear over the years that they value schedule strength.

Washington's non-conference schedule sucked that year (just like St. Mary's this year), and the Pac-12 was very down and may as well have been a mid-major. That's why they got left out.

---

True, although some P12 schools played challenging schedules: Furd, ASU, UCLA, Zona.

---

I looked it up and they did play some decent teams, they just didn't win any of those games. And the OOC games they did win were against real bad teams, which killed their overall schedule strength.

sycasey said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

It's simple, just schedule well.

---

Thanks for this.

Look, I like St. Mary's. I think it would be fun to have them in the tournament. Today I read on ESPN that Randy Bennett was complaining about having the "deck stacked against" mid-majors like his team.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22727059/mid-major-coaches-say-new-quadrant-system-hurts-teams-ncaa-tournament-chances

But here's the thing: every time St. Mary's is on the bubble and gets left off, I feel bad for them at first. Then I look up their strength of schedule and it stinks (210th this year by RPI). Okay, so they play in a mid-major so their conference schedule isn't great. Then I look up their non-conference schedule and it ALSO stinks (197th). So then I think that maybe no one wants to schedule them, but per the above it seems like that's not the case. It's not like this is some up-and-comer. St. Mary's is assumed to be good in most years. Other schools looking for their own schedule boost would be willing to play them.

Then Bennett complains that the "big schools" want them to go on the road or play at neutral sites. YES, THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. When Gonzaga has a decent record they don't have to sweat out the bubble. Why? Because they do exactly that, they go on the road and to neutral-site tournaments where they can play other top teams. They know they need to play a tough non-conference slate to offset the WCC penalty. We see above that Nevada was able to do it, even on short notice.

This is the deal, St. Mary's. You know you play in the WCC. That isn't changing anytime soon, and the WCC isn't as bad as many other mid-majors anyway. Schedule up in non-conference play, not down. Take on all comers from a major conference. You'll be in better shape. And heck, if you lose those games . . . at least you know you weren't good enough.

Now USC, they probably should have gotten in. Last year they probably do, but the committee went to a new "quadrant" system that further emphasized top-end wins, and USC didn't have them. Best wins were Middle Tennessee and New Mexico State, that's a 12 seed and a team that didn't get picked.

---

Wholeheartedly agree. It's becoming obvious to me that Bennett just isn't interested in competing, either by scheduling tougher non-conference opponents, or by taking the job at Cal, where he'll be in a major conference. Whatever he's making at St. Mary's (his salary is not public), he knows he can keep making it by getting them to the bubble every year, and he's not willing to risk that to get a better reward. Screw him.

sycasey said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearSD said:

---

MB Cal Golf said:

---

And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

---

In 2012, Washington was 14-4 in conference, won the regular season outright, and didn't get an NCAA tournament bid. Tournament champ was Colorado. Cal finished 2nd in the regular season and got the Pac's only at-large tournament bid, and it was in the First Four.

---

Yes, that was BS.
PAC needs to consistently advance teams to final four to get the love from the selection committee. People need to root for AZ.

---

No, the Pac-12 needs to start winning more games in non-conference play (and also playing better schedules out of conference). The committee has made it abundantly clear over the years that they value schedule strength.

Washington's non-conference schedule sucked that year (just like St. Mary's this year), and the Pac-12 was very down and may as well have been a mid-major. That's why they got left out.

---

True, although some P12 schools played challenging schedules: Furd, ASU, UCLA, Zona.

---

I looked it up and they did play some decent teams, they just didn't win any of those games. And the OOC games they did win were against real bad teams, which killed their overall schedule strength.

---

Well, ASU did beat 2 #1 seeds (Kansas and Xavier)! Otherwise, you are quite correct.

Jeff82 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

It's simple, just schedule well.

---

Thanks for this.

Look, I like St. Mary's. I think it would be fun to have them in the tournament. Today I read on ESPN that Randy Bennett was complaining about having the "deck stacked against" mid-majors like his team.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22727059/mid-major-coaches-say-new-quadrant-system-hurts-teams-ncaa-tournament-chances

But here's the thing: every time St. Mary's is on the bubble and gets left off, I feel bad for them at first. Then I look up their strength of schedule and it stinks (210th this year by RPI). Okay, so they play in a mid-major so their conference schedule isn't great. Then I look up their non-conference schedule and it ALSO stinks (197th). So then I think that maybe no one wants to schedule them, but per the above it seems like that's not the case. It's not like this is some up-and-comer. St. Mary's is assumed to be good in most years. Other schools looking for their own schedule boost would be willing to play them.

Then Bennett complains that the "big schools" want them to go on the road or play at neutral sites. YES, THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. When Gonzaga has a decent record they don't have to sweat out the bubble. Why? Because they do exactly that, they go on the road and to neutral-site tournaments where they can play other top teams. They know they need to play a tough non-conference slate to offset the WCC penalty. We see above that Nevada was able to do it, even on short notice.

This is the deal, St. Mary's. You know you play in the WCC. That isn't changing anytime soon, and the WCC isn't as bad as many other mid-majors anyway. Schedule up in non-conference play, not down. Take on all comers from a major conference. You'll be in better shape. And heck, if you lose those games . . . at least you know you weren't good enough.

Now USC, they probably should have gotten in. Last year they probably do, but the committee went to a new "quadrant" system that further emphasized top-end wins, and USC didn't have them. Best wins were Middle Tennessee and New Mexico State, that's a 12 seed and a team that didn't get picked.

---

Wholeheartedly agree. It's becoming obvious to me that Bennett just isn't interested in competing, either by scheduling tougher non-conference opponents, or by taking the job at Cal, where he'll be in a major conference. Whatever he's making at St. Mary's (his salary is not public), he knows he can keep making it by getting them to the bubble every year, and he's not willing to risk that to get a better reward. Screw him.

---

He also enjoys whining every year.

UrsaMajor said:

---

sycasey said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearSD said:

---

MB Cal Golf said:

---

And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

---

In 2012, Washington was 14-4 in conference, won the regular season outright, and didn't get an NCAA tournament bid. Tournament champ was Colorado. Cal finished 2nd in the regular season and got the Pac's only at-large tournament bid, and it was in the First Four.

---

Yes, that was BS.
PAC needs to consistently advance teams to final four to get the love from the selection committee. People need to root for AZ.

---

No, the Pac-12 needs to start winning more games in non-conference play (and also playing better schedules out of conference). The committee has made it abundantly clear over the years that they value schedule strength.

Washington's non-conference schedule sucked that year (just like St. Mary's this year), and the Pac-12 was very down and may as well have been a mid-major. That's why they got left out.

---

True, although some P12 schools played challenging schedules: Furd, ASU, UCLA, Zona.

---

I looked it up and they did play some decent teams, they just didn't win any of those games. And the OOC games they did win were against real bad teams, which killed their overall schedule strength.

---

Well, ASU did beat 2 #1 seeds (Kansas and Xavier)! Otherwise, you are quite correct.

---

Oh, I was talking about Washington in 2012.

ASU this year did great in non-conference play! Which made their bad record in the Pac-12 all the more shocking.

concordtom said:

---

BearSD said:

---

MB Cal Golf said:

---

And usc is the first not to get in with 12 conference wins.

---

In 2012, Washington was 14-4 in conference, won the regular season outright, and didn't get an NCAA tournament bid. Tournament champ was Colorado. Cal finished 2nd in the regular season and got the Pac's only at-large tournament bid, and it was in the First Four.

---

Yes, that was BS.
PAC needs to consistently advance teams to final four to get the love from the selection committee. People need to root for AZ.

---

we're rooting not voting.

EricBear said:

---

---

I couldn't agree more with what Andy said and the only person discredited is Lindsey on the basis of her absurd and false statement.

sycasey said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear8995 said:

---

I don't feel bad for SC, well, because they are SC.

---

Yeah, I don't exactly feel bad for them. They were also implicated in the FBI report (which some think may have been a factor for the teams that got left out, Louisville and Notre Dame included).

But they were probably better than the last teams that got in, especially ASU and Syracuse (I don't know what kind of dirt 'Cuse always has on the committee, but it must be something big).

---

Cuse is the biggest head scratcher for me. Their resume is a long list of quality losses.

---

They did have four wins in the RPI Top 50:

10 Clemson (Home)
26 Buffalo (Home)
28 Miami (Road)
38 Louisville (Road)

Also one more win over a tournament team:

62 Virginia Tech (Home)

So I guess that was enough to lift them over the other bubble teams, despite also having posted a lot of losses.

---

Yep, that's it.