My problem with the selection committee is that regardless of what they decide to do, they have excuses built in their system to cover the backlash. I would be interested in going back and seeing just how many times Duke has been placed in the obviously easiest region.
Here is an article on bleacher report you may find interesting, or redundant if you've already read it
Here is an article on bleacher report you may find interesting, or redundant if you've already read it
- But Tennessee ahead of Duke should have happened.
There are six metrics on the selection committee's team sheets: NET, KPI, SOR, BPI, KP and SAG. What do they stand for and how are they calculated? Not important and who the heck knows. But Tennessee finished eighth or better in all six of those metrics while Duke finished in 10th or worse in all six metrics.
Don't like computers telling you what to do? Alright, fine. After beating A&M on Sunday, Tennessee finished the season with 11 Quadrant 1 wins—second only to Kansas' 12—and did not suffer a single loss outside of the top half of Quadrant 1. Duke had just six wins against Q1 and ended up with five losses outside the top half of Q1