Comments on: Marquess Contacted By Pac-10 About Committee Seat

By: PhxTitan

PhxTitan — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:45:57 +0000

A positive step.
A day to sort thru 64 teams and the pairings? Would be interesting to know if Marquess is making the whole meeting… or simply coming in on the tailend of a two or three day event, having pretty much capitualated away any influence during the regional/SR pairings and at-large bid battles. Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall and see how the comittee presents their work-to-date acomplishments to Marquess if he is the lone late arrival… as the coach rep: "What do you think Marquess? We've worked awfully long and hard on these brackets! Say you approve so we can all go home." ;-)
ESPN's announcement day interview with the Chairman always includes "how long, hard, and tirelessly the committee worked"… to screw one, two, or three teams out of deserving bids, and stack a regional or two into death brackets, i.e, #1 Irvine 09, LB 08, etc.
But good work, Aaron, tracking that development down! Yea!… the west will have a seat after all during the selection convention… at least the last day of the meeting during dessert. They care, they really do care about their single seat!
How touching! My eyes are moistening… I need to leave now…

By: Aaron Fitt

Aaron Fitt — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:01:40 +0000

For what it’s worth, it sounds like ASU and Stanford are moving their series up a day. It will now run from Thursday through Saturday so Marquess can make it for Sunday’s deliberations.

By: PhxTitan

PhxTitan — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:04:31 +0000

Absolutely crazy, insane, idiotic, asinine, schizo how any western conference allows itself to get snookered into filling out the "coach rep" role on the selection committee, where they are already down to bare bone minimum representation to start with, typically get hammered via the RPI's eastern tilt, and then the coach rep role they take up for the committee can not make the selection meeting! Please tell me of a more idiotic representation strategy! It simply does not exist.
I truly don't know how the western conferences, schools, coaches, officials could act any more retarded than they do on this front. It's PROACTIVE stupidity to name Marquess, Murphy, et al, to a selection committee they can't make, and who schedule games during that very same selection process (maybe thru no choice).
This should not be the end of this insane story. How? Why? What for? Who thought Marquess would be a good fill in? Why would Marquess accept? Tombstone material?
Aaron, sneaking in an intelligence test on these guys should be slam dunk easy. Tell em you're trying to find the savviest programs, conferences, etc. They buy any line of ****, obviously. Please report back your findings on their double digit IQ's. Should be very confirming. Stanford was involved in this???!!! Institutionally embarrassing. Good grief.

By: PhxTitan

PhxTitan — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:20:30 +0000

BOTH! Two for two! Good point, NMS.

I guess the Pac-10 doesn’t take its seat or representation to the committee very seriously if they allow for that kind of scheduling, or make appointments where the rep can’t make the most important meetings. The flip side is the NCAA.

In their defense, via condensed scheduling, a coach rep may find it impossible to be there? That’s an NCAA problem then.

Representation is made a farce via these practices. Officials need to be questioned and held accountable for this slip shod way of conducting business. And the west is encouraged to hold their ‘coaching rep’ slot?

It’s still bothersome to connect the dots on the matter the committee’s heavy reliance on the eastern bias RPI metric, coupled with sooooo few western seats on the selection committee. It’s a two, maybe three barrel shotgun of overt bias pointed at the west. And the west’s seats always seem to be few.

Interesting how Murphy’s matter highlights a different matter altogether. Good job, BA!

By: NMS

NMS — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:25:17 +0000

PHXTitan,
It sounds like your (valid) concerns would have been an issue even if Murphy hadn’t ever gotten in trouble. He would have been coaching in that same series.

By: PhxTitan

PhxTitan — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:12:58 +0000

It would be criminal for the NCAA to hold its 64 field selection process during a scheduled NCAA baseball game where rep, Marquess, couldn’t make the meeting. The NCAA would have to reschedule, in the name of fairness. The West is already without representation now. That aside, the Pac-10 is acting grossly incompetent if it names a coach who simply can not make the most important meeting of the year, without assurances from the NCAA that Marquess will be accommodated/the meeting moved to allow Marquess’ attendance. Does the Pac-10 even think before they act? How was the West allowed to peter down to just one rep in the first place? The NCAA already stipulates a heavily leaning eastern metric, the RPI, to rule the day. Then they whittle the committee down to little or no western representation as well? Why is that so par for the course for the NCAA baseball selection committee? Some intelligence needs to kick-in at the NCAA and Pac-10 at some point soon on this issue. The “logic” of this situation escapes me. Logical to keep a “coach” on the committee (who can’t make the field selection meeting), and also logical to replace a western rep with an eastern rep, dropping the west to one seat? When are we going to see the east dropped to one or no seats? The attribute of “logical” was grossly misplaced here.