Butler and Notre Dame are filing a joint appeal to the NCAA based on the inconsistencies of the application of the \"blocker\" rules. It seems like the selection committee doesn\'t have the right to subjectively apply rules, only to follow a procedure.
The problem with this situation is in the vagueness of the rulebook, and not the committee itself. The definition of the word \"blocker\" seems to be the problem. The term \"blocker\" used to be a good title. Teams like Cal Poly and St. Francis in 2000, by not having any wins, literally blocked Oregon and Penn State from entering Nationals. So, hell was raised and the rules changed so that these \"blockers\" mystically absorbed the team directly behind\'s points if it was deemed that the \"blockers\" could not enter the meet on their own accord.
It was also determined that these blockers, onced pushed in, were essentially invisible in terms of other teams\' wins. This now changes the sequencing order of who gets picked. Last year, it ultimately affected who made the meet, Texas and Texas A&M v. Nebraska and Illinois.
It was also determined that if a "blocker" could get in under their own accord later in the sequencing, then they would just delay other teams from entering Nationals.
So all was happy in NCAA Land (except in Lincoln and Champaign of couse), until this year when fate put Wasington in front of Oregon and Portland; and Butler in front of Notre Dame, all fighting for the final 4 spots. Firstly, Butler is a blocker because they don\'t have enough wins to ever get in. To put it mildly, we sucked during the regular season. On the other hand, Washington has enough wins to get in, but only at the 31st spot, ultimately blocking Oregon and Portland.
The problem with the scenario goes back to the word "blocker". The wording should have changed. Washington and Butler are no longer blockers, per se, but should be viewed as "delayers" or "absorbers". A low win team in front of a high win team can either absorb points and be pushed (William and Mary and Virgina 2003) or just delay the process (Ohio State and Michigan 2002).
Now the heart of the matter is, which one in Washington? Washington has such as low win total that can only get in last, so that they essentially become a true blocker a la Cal Poly 2000.
The rulebook is so vague, it does not specify what to do. In a sense, if Butler and ND get the spots then, it punishes Oregon and Portland for Washington running kind of shitty and becoming a "delayer" instead of running extremely shitty during the regular season and becoming an "absorber".
The reason for the appeal is that precedant states that Washington should be treated like Ohio State from 2002, where Ohio State just delayed the region. Ohio State 2002 could have gotten in on their own and they did, so they are "delayers". Washington 2003 could have gotten in on their own, so they must also be treated like delayers, not "absorbers".
The last thing is that we are not appealing for the removal of Oregon and Portland, only that Butler and Notre Dame be added so that there are 33 teams going.
But in the end, I doubt any of these teams will be contending for a trophy, so really what's the point? The best teams made it and everyone controls their own destiny. Sorry if their are any misstatements, I don't feel like proofreading anymore. I hope this clears things up. Feel Free to critique my reasoning...