Husky Men's Basketball Blog

I got a hold of C.M. Newton, the chair of the NIT Selection Committee, for a phone interview today.

Much of what he said is probably what you would expect in terms of defending what happened, but he also went into detail about the selection process, and some of that I'll save for a story in tomorrow's paper.

But here's a bit of what he said.

Asked about Washington, he said: "We got down to those last few teams and they (Washington) were one of them, but with the committee members voting, they missed (getting in). We had eight automatic qualifiers which really hurt (teams like Washington). If we hadn't had that many, Washington would have been in the field, but we just had the 24 (at-large) spots.''

There were eight committee members, including Dean Smith and Gene Keady, and Newton said they simply voted for the teams they felt should be in, and the 24 with the most votes got in (eight teams received automatic bids for winning regular season conference titles).

Newton said the Huskies "are much like the other teams that were in the mix (and were left out). Iowa was fourth in the Big Ten, or Akron which had (25) wins. UConn was one of those that had a very similar record to Washington's. That's just the way the votes came out.''

"There was no one reason (UW was left out),'' Newton said. "No conspiracy. None of that stuff.''

As I detailed here earlier, the NIT has taken at least one Pac-10 team every year since 1981 except for two seasons when there was no conference team left with a winning record after those that received NCAA invites.

But Newton said the committee didn't consider conference affiliation. Nor, he said, did TV play a role.

"We are serious about trying to make it as fair and as good a basketball tournament as possible,'' he said. "TV doesn't have a say, the size of the home court doesn't enter into it. Just look at the fact that North Carolina State is going to Drexel. That never would have happened before. We would have gone where the gate was.''

Newton said TV only gets involved once the matchups are set in terms of setting game times, dates, etc.

Newton said the committee considered "who they played, how they played and where they played them. ... ultimately, it was what your gut feeling was about them as a basketball team.''

Newton was asked if UW's 1-10 road record might have been a factor. "That's one of the things you look at,'' Newton said. "Road record and who they choose to play outside their league, all those factors come into it.''

Newton mentioned Drexel as a team that got impressed the committee "because one of the thigns they did was they are a bunch of road warriors. They went out and played people out of their league. Who you choose to play, we look at all of those things. Ultimately, you just sit down and rank the teams and the teams with (the most votes) get in.''

Newton said that he had talked with UW athletic director Todd Turner a few days before the selection process

"Todd is one of my favorite people and I talked to Todd before our meeting,'' Newton said. "I know he feels very good about their future and I do think they are going to be really good next year.''

I asked him about teams like Fresno State, which some have mentioned on here as not having a resume as good as UW's. "You can find warts on every team and you can find beauty marks on every team,'' Newton said.

The Huskies are scheduled to play in the pre-season NIT next year, but Newton said that had no impact on anything. "That's a whole different animal,'' he said. "We are just tickled to death they are going to be in the pre-season NIT next year.''

Talked to a few people at the UW today and there is still a state of shock over not being invited to the NIT.

Among their frustrations is comparing themselves to some of the other teams in the tournament:

Here's one passed along to me by someone at UW comparing Washington and Oklahoma State:

Oklahoma State vs. Washington

Record: OSU 22-12 / UW 19-13
(OSU incorrectly listed as 22-11 in NIT bracket)

Road Record: OSU 0-8 / UW 1-10

Conference Record: OSU 6-10 / UW 8-10

Last 10 Games: OSU 3-7 / UW 5-5

Wins vs. NCAA Tournament teams: OSU 5 / UW 5

Losses to non-NCAA Tournament teams: OSU 5 / UW 2

OSU is a No. 2 seed in the NIT, UW is not selected.

Here's our story today on Washington being left out of the NIT, which includes some material presented on the blog earlier and some that was not.

For those wondering why the Huskies were so sure they would get in, they were looking at history.

Did some checking this morning, and Washington now becomes the Pac-10 team with the most wins to not to go any post-season tournament since Stanford in 1983-84. That Stanford team went 19-12 and 8-10 and fifth in Pac-10 play. That was a time when the Pac-10 wasn't as highly thought of as it is today, however. Only two Pac-10 teams received NCAA bids that year, No. 3 Oregon went to the NIT and No. 4 UCLA declined to go to the NIT, so there was little expectation Stanford would get an invite.

To find a Pac-10 team with more than 19 wins that didn't get invited to any tournament, you have to go back to USC in 1974 (24-5) which was a completely different era.

Granted, there is some win inflation at work in college basketball these days, everybody's playing a few more games, and UW's soft early schedule led to its overall record looking better than its conference record.

Still, 8-10 in Pac-10 play with any kind of winning overall record --- coupled with a few big victories late, as UW had beating UCLA and USC last week --- has usually been good enough.

ASU went two years ago at 7-11 in Pac-10 play and 18-13 overall; Oregon State went the same year at 8-10 and 17-14; ASU also went in 2002 at 7-11 14-14; Cal went in 2000 at 7-11 and 16-14, winning two games in the NIT to finish 18-15.

But obviously, the NIT has changed, which might be the biggest reason UW was left out. Having to take eight regular-season champs that didn't make the NCAA compressed the field, as did reducing the field from 40 to 32.

One warning sign might have come last season when USC was not invited despite a 17-13 overall record and 8-10 and sixth in the Pac-10. One difference is that the Trojans stumbled late last year, losing seven of their last nine. Another difference is that the NIT had already taken one Pac-10 team (Stanford) before deciding not to select USC.

Simply assuming the NIT would take at least one Pac-10 team is the biggest reason the Huskies figured they were in, especially once Stanford got into the NCAA Tournament.

Only twice since 1981 has the NIT not taken at least one Pac-10 team. Those years were 2003 and 2001. Each year, there was no Pac-10 team remaining after those picked for the NCAA Tournament that had won more than six conference games or had a winning overall record.

But obviously, this is one time that history didn't repeat.