|
Quote:
Pumpy, I don't know, I think I'm detecting sarcasm here, seeing as how there are only three UNO fans in existence. Since you know it wasn't your game tape, the odds were 50/50 that it was mine. Anyway, seeing as how UNO is losing its top three scorers off an 11-19 team that couldn't score any points, next year is looking a bit grim. I think there are some Big 10 teams that might be able to shut us out if given the chance. |
Yeah I really have no idea about conference designations, and generally don't care, but I think its disingenuous to point to Memphis as an example of a thriving mid-major in the context of this discussion. I think its a lot more fair to point to Memphis as "that team that was really unlucky to be a little too far south and/or west to get sucked into the Big East".
|
Yeah, that argument doesn't exactly work. Why do we even bother playing- let's just give the trophy to the team with the best recruiting ranking?
SI |
Quote:
I also have a problem with allowing a team in the tournament who didn't beat a top 25 team all season (unless they lose an insane low number of games - ie, 0-4). So, I can't see how Creighton or St. Mary's can claim a spot without showing the ability to beat a top 8-seed quality of opponent all season. |
Quote:
I think we refer to mid-majors as conferences that aren't in the BCS, but not in the levels of the SWAC. I think the Mountain West, WAC, and C-USA probably are considered mid-majors, although at the higher end. In any event, UNLV came out of a horrible conference when they were making Final Fours. All I'm saying is that the NCAA has a history of smaller conference schools being very succesful in the tournament. |
Damn I wanted to watch Stephen Curry. :(
|
Quote:
He couldn't handle C of C's awesomeness. |
Quote:
But it's tough to blame them for not having top 25 teams on their schedule when it's not easy to schedule them. St. Mary's can't call up UCLA and ask for a home and home series. It took Gonzaga almost a decade of making the tournament before they were able to schedule as difficult as they currently do. I just think it's an impossible catch-22 for teams like St. Marys who need to beat tough teams to get in, but aren't able to schedule them. Like I said, I'd rather see a Creighton or St. Mary's in the tournament than a 13-loss team in a bad power conference. Creighton doesn't have any top 25 wins, but they don't really have the opportunity to play any. They did go 9-5 against top 100, so they were succesful against better competition. I just figure with the disadvantage these schools are at scheduling wise, they should be rewarded for exceptional seasons. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The argument was about teams in mid-major conferences having no shot at a national championship. I'm just pointing out that it's completely wrong as teams like Memphis, Utah, and UNLV have all come out of those conferences to be succesful. |
Quote:
Oh ok. As long as that's part of an argument that mid major bubble teams need some sort of affirmative action program to get in over major conference teams of similar caliber then I'm cool with that! |
Quote:
Guess what? Those teams were highly seeded and were respected throughout the year. UNLV was a 1, Memphis was a 1 last year, Utah was a 3 in 1998. George Mason is the better argument with an at-large bid with the #11 seed. |
Quote:
I don't know how you can consider C-USA above a mid-major. It's the 3rd straight year that they've only sent 1 team to the tournament. The Sun Belt, Colonial, West Coast, and Horizon have had multiple bid years in the last 3. I'll give you the A-10, but the Mountain West isn't putting teams in the tournament at a high clip than other mid-majors like the Valley and West Coast. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
There are some rumors today that Nolan Richardson has been hired as a consultant for the Arkansas basketball team. Only rumors at this point, but it's a strong one. There are a couple of signs that this could have legs.
|
Quote:
My response had nothing to do with Creighton or St. Mary's. Someone said that mid-majors don't succeed in the tournament and I said that was wrong. You are reading too much into it. |
You guys realize that you can argue about this for weeks at a time and no one will be right or wrong because nothing can actually be proved.
I heard a suggestion from Jay Bilas on the Jim Rome show earlier today. His idea is to eliminate all automatic bids. Rome replied well you'd be taking the cinderella out of the tournament in which Bilas replied no we wouldn't because teams like Davidson, Creighton and St Marys would still make the tournament and they would be cinderella stories. At first I disliked the idea but the more I thought about it the more I did like it. I mean how many games have these auto bids from small conferences won anyway.(10???) If Davidson played NC in the first round instead of Radford it would be tough to not be interested in that game. Where as now the only thing people care about is if North Carolina will cover the 30 point spread against radford or vice versa. |
Quote:
Lotto? Did you watch the games? George Mason was every bit as good as the teams they were on the court with and beat some of the best teams in the country in 2006. |
Quote:
Bilas is a BCS homer. If the auto-bids were eliminated there would be way more high-majors in the tourney than there currently are. |
Quote:
That's more like the BCS then. Teams from small conferences have no shot at making the tournament. You also end up with major conferences gettin 10+ teams in. I think it kills some of the value of the regular season and ruins Championship Week which is a great thing. |
I don't like removing the auto bids. I like telling every kid in the 350 schools that they will be in the tourney if they win their conference. I do, however, support giving the auto bid to the regular season champion. In the main conferences, most of the top teams mail it in for the tourney so there's always 2-3 USC, Miss St, Baylor types who find a way to steal a bid because the top guys want the rest. In the lower conferences, you have these 24-26 win teams who have a bad day and their entire season is deemed meaningless.
|
Quote:
DISCLAIMER: I'm a HUGE CAA fan and a mid-major fan in general. I think eliminating the conference tourney tie-in for the mid-majors is a bad idea. The reason being that I think the tourney is a big part of the culture within a mid-major. The CAA tourney, for it's fans, is a HUGE event that provides revenue and interest in the conference. If you take that away I think they lose something. Would it put the better team into the dance? Maybe. But I think you lose more than you gain. You give up what is a huge event for the conference to win a ncaa tourney game every 5 years or so? |
The tournament is perfectly fine the way it is IMO. The first weekend is unbelievably exciting as mid-level quality teams(note that I am not saying mid-major, I mean teams that are not considered championship contenders no matter where they come from) threaten the top seeds. Maybe a few times a decade there's a truly serious upset, a 15 over a 2 and the occasional 14 over 3 to go along with the standard 12/5 upsets that we all enjoy every year.
Then we get to the second weekend of the tournament, where the focus begins to turn to the top seeds though there is still some remaining drama (how far can davidson go?) and again maybe once a decade an 11 seed makes a final four. For some it may be more exciting when that 11 seed is George Mason instead of Villanova or NC State, but either way a low seed like that continuing to advance is great for the tournament, but its very rare. Then we get to the final four which is almost always about the best teams in the country, where 1 seeds have made up about 45% of all final four births over the last 30 years, and 1 seeds have won half the tournaments. Again maybe once a decade something truly amazing happens that keeps us on our toes but by now its almost always about 4 of the best 10 teams in the nation. And again one of those 10 teams might be Memphis, they're just teams at this point, not cinderellas or any other shit because they don't play in the big east. There are WAY too many insane irrational suggestions that would all completely ruin the perfect dynamic of the tournament that are based on the fact that Saint fucking Mary's didn't get an at large bid. Seriously, "this team should have been in, this team got snubbed, omg there is a grand conspiracy in selection" is all fine. Take that over into fucking with the structure of the tournament and you're going over into crazyland. White jacket lock me in a padded room and throw away the key crazyland. Do not fuck with the tournament structure. |
I'm with you fwiw Radii. I think the tournament has leaned too heavily in favor of the major conferences since Mason went on their run, but I mean like... there should have been 3-5 more mid-majors each of the last couple of years than there were, not that the tourney needs to be turned on its head.
The mid-major supporters (like myself) are not helped by the fact that there really wasn't a good crop of mid-majors this year. It was a great year for some mid-majors to really make a case for at-larges because I feel like the BCS teams that did get in were extra-weak this year, but no one stepped up to the plate. They made the argument too muddied. There are mid-majors that were "snubbed" in the past couple of years that I think could have easily made it into this field. |
Id agree Radi.
Nothing really does need to be changed however this same argument happens every year. It probably wouldnt matter the setup in any case someone will be unhappy. I think the bottom 9 teams 15/16 seeds are overmatched in this tourny but you are right it would take away the whole point of conference tournys to get rid of the auto bid. |
Quote:
1. Find your way into the Maui, preseason NIT, Coaches vs cancer, or many of the 10-15 preseason tournaments. LMU was in one, certainly St. Mary's can manage an invite if you really want one. 2. Play 2-3 BCS conference teams on the road. Oregon was good. But they should have a Pac 10 team (USC/Cal/Arizona/Wash), a Big 12 like Kansas/Oklahoma/Texas and a Big 10 team. 3. Try to get home-and-homes with a Utah, Washington St or Texas A&M. I think one of these style teams would bite. Right now, St. Mary's will put all their eggs in one BCS opponent (in this case Oregon) and some 50-50 mid majors like Kent State, San Diego St or Southern IL. If you know your conference is going to have just 1 (maybe 2) top 100 opponent (as the WCC has the past couple seasons), you need 2-3 guaranteed top 50 opponents. If you add a preseason tournament plus swap the road game at Pacific or Southern IL for road games at Cal and Texas - St. Mary's probably gets a bid. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Off topic
I wish Arles would make another college hoops game using the Kenpom stats as a basis for a game engine:) |
Quote:
Easier said than done. Gonzaga gets into those tournaments and games because they had some long runs in the tourney and became a household name. I doubt there are any mid-majors that can get those kind of games. I still think you underestimate how tough it can be to schedule as a small school. First off, they'll never get a quality school to play in their arena. Many of these power conference schools will also avoid potential slip-ups against top flight mid-majors. St. Mary's is in the middle ground where they are just good enough that teams want to avoid them, but not good enough where they aren't such a risk to a big school. If St. Mary's could pick up the phone and schedule Kansas, UCLA, and Duke next year, I'd agree with you. I think they did what they could and even went an entire month of their season playing on the road. They played in a tournament although didn't get matched up against any major schools. It's a lot different than a Pac-10 school which rarely steps out of their arena the first 2 months of the season. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yup. Again, I follow the CAA very closely. The top CAA Teams (VCU, Mason, ODU, Drexel) try their damndest to schedule BCS schools and people just don't answer the phone. A home and home with any BCS school is almost a joke. A few examples: ODU had I think a 4 season home and home with VT. ODU won 2 or 3 of those games, Seth Greenberg won't answer the phone anymore. VCU got a home and home with Oklahoma (in Oklahoma this year - Richmond next). How did they do that you ask? Oklahoma hired away their coach (Jeff Capel) and VCU made it a stipulation of letting him go. ODU has tried for YEARS to schedule Virginia - they won't do it. ODU Beat Georgetown in.. 2007? In Washington. No more Georgetown games. It's just an endless list. The best teams in the nation will schedule a top CAA school on very rare occassions. The mid-level BCS schools generally won't do it, let alone a home and home, because they know there's a good chance they lose. The reason BCS schools do not play top mid-majors is not because of a lack of desire on the mid-major's part - it's because the BCS schools won't schedule them. This isn't like football where the mid-majors will shy away from the bcs schools - the top mid-major basketball programs are desparate to play bcs schools. |
Quote:
That's not the difficulty. The difficulty is that when a mid-major does "everything they were asked to do" they still don't get in. I'll take one specific case - the 2006-2007 Drexel Dragons: 23-9. They beat Vermont, St. Joes, Villanova, Syracuse, Temple, and Creighton out of conference. Lost to Rider and Penn out of conference. 7 losses in-conference, only 1 of which I'd call a "bad loss". Their RPI was somewhere around 30. No dice. This team scheduled a VERY strong OOC schedule for a mid-major and delivered. Yet there they were - NIT bound. |
Quote:
Siena played at Tennessee, faced Oklahoma State in the Old Spice Classic, played at Pittsburgh & at Kansas. Davidson played at Oklahoma,Purdue, and Duke and hosted West Virginia. VCU played New Mexico & Vanderbilt in Cancun, and Oklahoma (although that was a Capel vs his former school thing I imagine) Belmont played at Pittsburgh. Southern Illinois played Duke & UCLA in the 2k Classic in New York (although that didn't work out very well for them). Morehead State played at Louisville and Vandy St Mary's could have added Wake Forest & probably Arizona State (assuming they lost to Wake) to their schedule except for laying an egg against UTEP in the 76 Classic in Anaheim, leaving them with UCSB & Providence instead. Point being, there are games out there to be had. |
Quote:
They definitely should be rewarded for exceptional seasons. Neither Creighton nor St. Mary's had an exceptional 2008-2009 season. They both lost to terrible teams. Such terrible losses would doom a bubble power conference team. |
If you are willing to play on the road, the big boys will play you. Kansas played Kent State, Temple, Sienna, New Mexico State and Coppin State at home. Duke played Southern IL, Davidson, Xavier and others at home. Louisville played Western Kentucky, Ohio, UAB, UNLV and Indiana State. UNC played college of Charleston, Nevada, Valpo, Penn and others.
The big boys will play you if you go to their place. It's amazing to me that the western mid-major teams like St. Mary's, Creighton and Utah State rarely have that 1 major road game on their schedule like Niagara (@Nova), Sienna (@Pitt), Temple (@Kansas) and the other east coast teams have. If you know you are getting 10-12 cupcake games in conference, surely you can throw away one nonconference on a SOS-building road game against a traditional power. |
Quote:
UNC played Nevada and UC-Santa Barbara at their places even. Also add Evansville of the MVC to the list. |
Quote:
That team definitely had a way better case than Creighton or St. Mary's. 6 non-conference road games against the top 101 (fudged to include St. Joseph's at #101) and they won 5 of them. 7 in-conference losses for a mid-major FEELS like a lot, until you realize that they played 21 conference games....maybe the CAA should cut that down a little. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
George Mason got hot at the right time and as a result were able to a beat two decent teams in the tourney. |
Quote:
That's what I was trying to say above. This year specifically is a bad case for us mid-major supporters. This is why you don't see me defending St. Mary's and whatever dreg is trying to make an argument this year. I'm more talking big picture. That even when a team does what is "asked of them" as a mid-major, that they still often can't get in. Yes, Drexel lost 7 conference games - but there were teams in other conferences that faired much poorer in-conference, yet got bids. They were the say 8th best team with an under .500 record in-conference. It seems like there is a floating target for the mid-majors which seems to have turned to a lot of teams just doing everything they can to get close to 30 wins. |
Quote:
I agree that pre-season tourneys are a method to get some better games. If you win the games you "shouldn't" then you get a shot at another team. Throwing that out the window you don't have a lot of argument here. You have a couple of mid-majors that were able to snag a few games against high-majors. Most of the examples you gave (like Sienna) are teams that are clearly not great mid-major teams. Tennessee et al knew they weren't a risk. The VCU, Mason, St. Mary's, Butlers, etc of the world have a VERY tough time even if they are willing to not have a return game. You can spout of some individual examples, but it is very difficult for a mid-major to get one school - and one school appears to not be enough - you need several high-major wins often to even be considered. |
Quote:
Exactly how many games did you watch George Mason play before the tournament? My guess is zero. I watched them play at least 6 games before the tourney that year. Mason was 15-3 in the CAA and 22-6 overall. OOC they took Wake Forest to the wire and lost, lost to Creighton, and lost to Mississippi St. They beat UC-Irvine, Manhattan, and Wichita St. (this BB win many think got them their at-large bid). Their 15 wins in conference included two wins over the VCU team that won the conference tourney and beat Duke in the first round. This team wasn't "lucky". They were good. You don't beat Michigan St. (6 seed), UNC (3 seed) , Wichita St. (7 seed - a very good team that year), and UConn(1 seed) in the tourney as luck. |
Quote:
Neither is St. Mary's, but which one is dancing? And as a #9. And as a team that had a legitimate shot at an at-large IMO even if they don't win their conference tournament. |
Quote:
Which makes sense to me. But anybody trying to fall on their sword over St. Mary's makes the entire argument look even more foolish than it usually does. Quote:
How many of those with records worse than 10-8 in conference (and 15-14 overall) were from conferences with lower overall RPI than the CAA's 14th? |
Quote:
I watched them play in the tourney and they got hot at the right time. I give them credit for beating UNC and UConn but those where situations where if it was a series I doubt they would win, not the less they did beat them. You sound a bit bias toward George Mason and I never called them lucky I said they got hot. |
Quote:
Sorry - thought you made the comment about hitting the lotto, but it was Chubby. |
Quote:
Agreed. This year there is not a single Mid-Major that I think has a strong enough case to make an issue of this. Is Arizona a bad tourney team? Yeah, probably - but so are Davidson and St. Mary's. Quote:
First of all, need to correct myself. Not sure where I botched it, but they were 13-5 in conference (not counting the tourney). Is that 14th in that year? I was thinking it was 12 or 13 - but that's from memory. I think you make a decent point there. But, that argument is separate from what I'm arguing. I'm going against those that say, "well, if you schedule the OOC games". Drexel did this in 06-07, and won. Yet, they still didn't get in. If the argument is simply "the conference isn't good enough, no matter what you do you don't deserve an at-large" then I have less clear arguments against that. I disagree with how important that is in some ways, but it's not like I can argue out of the fact that the CAA, top to bottom, is clearly inferior to BCS conferences (with my W&M team being a big fat anchor.. :sigh:). The only major rule change I'd like to see is that a team has to go .500 (or maybe above .500) in their conference. I just think if you can't win more games than you lose in conference that you shouldn't have a shot at the tourney. Outside of that I'd like a more clear definition of what mid-majors have to do to get at-large bids. It just seems like every year the target moves - and it moved further away when Mason made the final 4. If RPI is a key measure, then go with that. If big wins against BCS opponents is the measure, go with that. If dominating your conference is the measure, go with that. But it seems like it is a constantly moving target. |
Quote:
As I said earlier, I think St. Mary's tried to schedule tough games. Oregon was an elite 8 squad a couple years ago, Southern Illinois and Kent State have been powerhouse mid-majors. They also played in a tournament that had some good teams in it. You also keep ignoring the fact St. Mary's had a higher RPI which is essentially rating how you did based on the strength of your schedule. And it's easy to tell these schools to fly halfway across the country and play the toughest teams in the toughest venues. But you have to factor in that most of these major conference schools don't leave their campus for the first 2 months. Doesn't that need to be weighted? |
Quote:
Probably would have helped a lot if I had picked up on the year you were talking about. For the life of me I couldn't figure why you were talking about a basically a .500 team this year but decided to just go with it. Quote:
I'd say it's going to be hard to get a definition of that since, as was emphasized in the post-bracket show, conferences don't matter to the selection committee, it's the body of work. And I'd say there's a good bit more truth to that than a lot of people would like to acknowledge. Truth is, the committee sees (and I wholeheartedly agree) finishing .500 or even a game under that against quality competition as a better body of work than going 15-1 against a bunch of D1-in-name-only teams. The conferences provide the opportunity for those performances but in & of themselves they don't seem to be the direct determining factor. |
Quote:
That was a bad snub. I remember they put in an SEC school that went 7-9. Couple others I remember were: Appalachian State - Won at Virginia and Vanderbilt (who was a 6 seed). Also won at Wichita State, VCU, UCF, and Stephen Curry's Davidson team. Missouri State - Don't remember if it was 2006 or 2007, but they had an RPI of 21 and a win at a top 10 school. |
Quote:
I think they're full of shit about the conferences. They matter to these guys no matter what they say. NCAA doesn't care about anything but money. There is a reason that the mid-majors have been slowly eliminated from the tournament. It came directly after all the BCS schools cried that they weren't getting enough teams and that they kept getting upset. As for body of work, RPI is a great indicator of that. Factors in who you win and how good your opponents are. They stopped using that as a factor which tells me they don't really care about body of work. |
I don't see why they wouldn't factor in RPI. Did they give a reasoning for it?
|
I might add, this is the first year I've given a damn about the NIT, and it's not because St. Mary's is playing in it. I actually like a lot of the matchups there, and think that there will be some good games. Davidson, St. Mary's, San Diego State, Washington State, Creighton, New Mexico, Florida, Penn St, George Mason, VTU, Georgetown. These are all teams I've seen play this season and would happily watch again.
|
Quote:
Becuase when they did factor it in, too many mid-majors made the tournament and the BCS schools cried. |
Quote:
When exactly the BCS schools demand that the RPI no longer be used (or are you just making that up)? If we just care about RPI, the 15 worst teams in the tournament are all from smaller conferences. The automatic bids give them incredible exposure over what they would deserve otherwise. Chattanooga, at 16-16, and an RPI of 174 gets in this is format over teams that would destroy them, like Georgetown, South Carolina, Providence, and Penn St. They get a great deal. If we went by straight RPI, 22 non BCS conference teams would get bids in a 65-team tournament. In this format, they get 29. |
The fascination people have with underdogs in sports is truly amazing. The lengths people go to in order to try and get them treated just the same as teams they are clearly inferior to boggles my mind sometimes. It seems that a lot of people would rather create great sports stories than see great sports.
I listened to John Feinstein on the radio this afternoon and he was complaining about St. Mary's not making the tournament. He then says Arizona would probably beat St Mary's in a head to head match up, but his justification for them deserving to be in more or less came down to what a great story it had the potential to be. He's a writer so his job is to look for the great story. However, it really seems like this attitude is becoming a large part of what the casual and in some cases the hardcore fan looks for in sports. It seems to be "if you don't have a dog in the fight, cheer for the underdog or whatever would make the best story". Great stories happen in sports all the time without trying to force them on people. Its annoying as hell that every time a team like George Mason comes along instead of enjoying it for what it is people want to apply it as a rule for other "underdog" teams deserving a shot regardless of whether they actually deserve it or not in hopes of having another story they can cheer for and get a warm fuzzy about. |
Quote:
Like RM I don't buy this for a second. Is having an ok SOS in-conference really a big deal if you only beat the teams worse than you? Idano. I'm going to slowly back away from this a bit because it becomes hard to argue teams from previous years right now. This year I have no complaints about the specific decisions made. I would like to see more mid-majors, but none of them have a compelling enough argument to carry the torch this year. |
Quote:
In 2004 when 12 mid-majors got bids, a lot of BCS conference schools and commissioners complained about the RPI. They felt that RPI played too big a role and that it wasn't fair to weigh road games much heavier (which is why mid-majors did so well in the RPI). You also saw a lot of people on CBS crying about it. In 2006, CBS saw poor ratings thanks to George Mason. In 2007 we saw just about every legit mid-major get snubbed. The mid-majors have been slowly eliminated by the selection committee over the years. We've seen a drop from double digits in both 2003 and 2004, to 4 this season. So the RPI was fine all these years until mid-majors started getting in. Now all of a sudden the committee doesn't look at it. You do the math. |
I think there was a shift a few years back to more about quality wins and schedule than just beating up patsies. And, the reason for the switch was not mid-majors, but BCS teams like Syracuse who were racking up 20-22 win seasons with a 13-game nonconference of cupcakes.
For those who care to listen, the formula for at-large bids consists of (in order): 1. Number of quality wins (usually RPI top 25 and top 50) 2. Non conference strength of schedule 3. Number of bad losses (usually below RPI 100) 4. performance in neutral site games 5. RPI 6. performance in last 10-12 games RPI has never been a determining factor on its own. The problem comes when you have a set of teams with few quality wins, similar number of bad losses and a cupcake nonconference SOS. At that point, neutral performance, RPI and last 12 games start to matter. But, if you can manage 3-4 quality wins, limit the bad losses and have a strong nonconference SOS - you are usually in. And, mid-majors have the chance to do those 3 things. Here's some examples: Siena (9 seed): #2 non-conference SOS, 1 top 25, 2 top 50 wins, 4 RPI top 25 losses vs. just 2 below RPI 100 Butler (9 seed): #17 non-conference SOS, 1 top 25, 2 top 50 wins and only 2 losses below RPI 100 Here's St. Mary's: #104 non-conf SOS, 0 top 25, 2 top 50 wins and 3 losses below RPI 100 and Creighton: #140 non-conf SOS, 0 top 25, 2 top 50 wins and 3 losses below RPI 100 So, if Creighton and St. Mary's would have played two top tiered teams (Kansas, UCLA, Duke, ..) on the road and lost (somewhat close), they may very well have made the field by increasing their non-conf SOS. |
Quote:
Apparently RPI didn't count that much in 2004, because Air Force got in at #70 - getting in over LSU at #38. If there was a power conference team at #70 getting in over a mid-major at #38 you'd surely be yelling about it now (in fact, you're claiming a total disregard of RPIs/committee conspiracy when a #62 gets in over a #48.) Conference USA also got 6 teams in, but that was before the Big East raided their conference. It's interesting that once the mid-major gets "promoted", they no longer get the mid-major support. I guess that makes sense, but it shows, like Atocep said, a fascination with an underdog. How many at large mid-majors would you have put in this year? 12? Or is this just about St. Mary's? |
Quote:
Do you have a source for this? I've never seen anyone associated with the selection committee state so definitively the order of criteria or "formula" for determining bids. I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I'm genuinely curious--it would be news to me. |
Meet the Men’s NCAA Tournament Selection Committee | Bracketography.com
(the link just gives the bios of the committee members I listed below, the rest of the comments in this post are all mine) Slive - SEC Commissioner O'Connor - George Mason Hill - Utah Guerrero - UCLA Kennedy - Kent State Morrison - UC-Riverside Smith - Ohio State Hathaway - UConn Hickey - UT-San Antonio Bobinski - Xavier 6 of the 10 members of this year's selection committee are from mid-majors (or less) Also notable but not mentioned in the thread that I've noticed is that the RPI formula was changed three seasons ago ... the same time the committee seems to have started regarding it more lightly. There's also this article, one of quite a few this year & the past 2-3 years I've read, which describes the process as mocked up by members of the media. Note the phrase "best subjective judgment". Also note the number of votes it took to put a team straight onto the at-large board - 7 of 9. Presumably that's the same process the committee used, meaning that the power conferences couldn't just steamroll teams into the field, they're outnumbered on the voting panel for crying out loud. |
Quote:
I'm sorry, but you're just being disingenious here, trying to bring in stronger programs to reinforce a weak argument. The C-USA has fallen off from where it was (that's what happens when you lose four of your best five teams to the Big East), but that doesn't mean Memphis is a mid-major. Memphis is a high major program stuck in a once good conference that has fallen off. Memphis has never been a mid-major, and never will be. Same with UNLV, back in the days of the Big West. First off, it's revisionist history to equate the Big West now with back then. The conference then was much stronger, and was also a football playing conference, which brought it a ton more revenue than it currently gets. In addition to UNLV during its hey day, New Mexico State was always very strong, and a group that included Long Beach State, Pacific, Utah State and UCSB always provided solid teams as well, year in and year out. The Big West has fallen off sharply from the UNLV days, but UNLV was not a mid-major in any way shape or form during those times. That program was big time. Same thing with Utah during Majerus' reign there. First off, BYU was also always very good. So it wasn't just Utah. Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, these were all solid programs when Utah was at its height, and this was (and still is) a football playing conference as well. These are big school, state schools, with large student populations and extensive alumni networks. The Mountain West was never a mid major, anymore than the A-10 is or was. Mid majors are more generally non-football playing conferences (or not D-1 Bowl Division) that don't have a traditional history to elevate them above normally also-ran status. There are exceptions--the A-10 is not a football playing conference, but the longterm success of Temple, Xavier, Rhode Island, St. Joe's, UMass, as well as teams that defected to the Big East; the MAC has long played D1 football, but tend more toward mid-major status as a basketball conference, the Sun Belt might not even qualify for mid-major status in basketball despite playing football D1--but the top non-BCS conferences--CUSA, MWC, the WAC, have always enjoyed a heightened status next to other non-BCS conferences. And the WCC, Missouri Valley, Horizon, CAA, etc. are perfect examples of lower (or non) playing football conferences that are not considered on the same level as those three (or the A10), and so they are rightly labeled "mid majors". |
Quote:
I don't remember the Air Force situation. They did win the regular season MWC that year which was an OK conference. LSU finished the year losing 6 of their last 7 and ended up with a losing record in their conference. That is also the last year of the old RPI system. Technically LSU would have been much lower by today's standards because they only scheduled one out of conference road game. Only 4 of their 18 wins were at home. The committeee was looking at that and the reason the RPI was changed to weigh home/loss. In any event, the RPI was a factor back then and the members of the selection committee talked about it. There is a lot of articles about when it changed and how it would effect their selections. This is compared to now when on CBS, the head of the committee stated they do not use RPI in their criteria. I think it was a down year for the mid-majors. I also think the Pac-10, SEC, Horizon and A-10 tournaments cost teams like Creighton, San Diego State, and St. Mary's a shot. I have no problem with those teams not getting in. My issue is more about Arizona who has no fucking business in this tournament. They did every you're not supposed to do. They lost 5 of their last 6 games. They won 2 road games all season. They had 13 losses and finished .500 in a below average power conference. They don't have a single quality road win all season. I'm just someone who hates teams that sit at home and pickup all their wins there. 2/3rds of college games are won by the home team. Teams like Saint Mary's spent one month straight playing road games throughout the country. |
Quote:
I don't know what you're arguing. I agree with most of what you said. I wasn't saying Memphis was a mid-major program, I was saying they played in a mid-major conference. Someone made a comment that insinuated that non-power conferences had no chance at winning a title. I was simply pointing out that there have been a lot of great programs that come out of the non-power conferences. If you're trying to argue what the definition of mid-major, that's a whole other story. I was calling mid-major anyone who wasn't in the power conferences (traditional BCS). You can call them whatever, but my comment was in respect to the person who insinuated that non-power conference schools had no shot at titles. Off Topic: I used to go to Northern Illinois football games as a kid when they were in the Big West. Leshon Johnson is still the best college back I've ever seen in person. |
Quote:
But these below average teams from not particularly strong power conferences would be guaranteed to absolutely crush some of these smaller schools every single time! If you kick out a Maryland team that went 7-9 in conference play to let in a 26 win Creighton team, you're rewarding mediocrity! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't disagree that Arizona is one of the least deserving at-large teams in a while. The problem was their extremely weak resume (bolstered by 6 top 50 wins - 2 in the top 20) was still better than the wins the mid-majors could muster. If any of these guys would have had a non-conf SOS inside of 100 and 3 top 50 wins, Arizona would be sitting at home. Fortunately for the Wildcats, teams like San Diego State, St. Mary's, Creighton and Davidson failed miserably in regards to those qualifications. None had a nonconference SOS under 90 and their total top 25 (2) and top 50 wins (6) were the same as Arizona's by itself.
|
Quote:
I don't understand the fear these 25-26 win mid-major teams have in going on the road to a top-tier program. Even if you lose by 40, it helps your SOS and you still will have 24-25 wins. If you make it close, that game may earn you a bid by itself. All I've heard this week in regards to Siena is how they were just down 5 with 40 seconds left and ball at Kansas. They ended up losing by 7 but that game got them respect - and they didn't even win. Until some of these mid-majors figure this out, teams like Butler, Temple and Siena will continue to snicker as they earn bids independent of conference titles. |
Quote:
I just have problems with teams who dont' win on the road getting in. 2 of their 19 wins being on the road is pathetic. That's pathetic. I guess I put more credence into the resumes of teams that spend most of their out of conference schedule on the road, instead of Arizona who didn't leave campus for 2 months. |
Quote:
Damn, Leshon Johnson! Good pull, RM. Yeah, in that respect, I hear where you're coming from as a response to what a mid major is, although I still believe that to strictly limit the definition of power teams to those teams in the Big Six BCS conferences doesn't give a true definition of what a mid major is supposed to be. I do think that some media types pushing the mid major agenda have tended to widen its usage to try and include teams it shouldn't (on both ends of the scale). Some examples of teams in non-BCS conferences that I do not think should be considered mid majors are a lot of the ones I threw out there, Memphis (of course), UMass, Temple, Xavier, Utah, BYU, UNLV. Doesn't stop there, though, other good examples include San Diego State (wrongly lumped in this year by many, IMO), Fresno State, Houston, UTEP, Rhode Island, St. Joe's, GW, Nevada, etc. These are exactly the type of schools I am talking about, just huge schools with large populations and lots of support. Heh...I still remember going to CSUF (that's Fullerton State) football games when I was in college. Saw them get the stuffing beat outta them by UCLA at the Rose Bowl one year. Also saw Brad May, who transferred to K-State when the Fullerton program was "suspended", play for the Titans. I like to point out that former Giants' All Pro corner and Super Bowl champ Mark Collins was probably Fullerton's most illustrious football export, and is neck and neck with Cedric Ceballos for most notable athlete not in baseball to come from the school. Don't mention Bruce Bowen, please. ;) I also took in UNLV (yes, one of those UNLV teams) playing CSUF in tiny Titan gym (3,000 seats, breaking fire codes when Tark's hated Runnin' Rebs came to town). Strangely enough, was never sure if I disliked UNLV or New Mexico State more back in those days. |
Quote:
While I see there is legit value to the criteria you're putting your faith in here, fact is, that power conference teams are headed toward a difficult schedule when they start conference play. These mid majors for the most part aren't. The mid majors need to schedule those non-conference schedules to have a chance, because their conferences aren't up to snuff. Why those conferences aren't good is down to numerous factors, but in the end, it's more or less out of the hands of any particular mid major. For the power conference team, they are guaranteed to play several key opponents, and on the road, no matter what they do with their nonconf sched. Frankly, it even makes sense for them to go lighter during the early season, other than a high profile showdown here or there, because they won't be able to get easy wins in conference. |
Quote:
Damn, those are some blasts from the past. Wasn't it Chad May at K-State? I didn't know he was a Fullerton transfer. Why was their program "suspended"? I actually remember watching the NFL Draft and begging the Bears to draft him. Was really pissed when the Vikings picked him. I was a youngin during the UNLV runs so I never really realized just how special that team was. You really don't come across teams like that anymore. Always irks me when people talk about how the Big East is the "greatest conference ever" this year. They forgot when player stayed 3-4 years and you'd end up with multiple squads that had 5-6 legit NBA players on them. I really hope the Big West comes back in basketball. It's unique in that I believe all the teams are from California now. Pacific had a few nice teams years ago but never seemed to be able to build on it. |
Quote:
But Arizona didn't win any of those conference games on the road. Just seems tough to bash St. Mary's for not coming up with big wins which they would have to do on the road when Arizona didn't beat anyone on the road. I guarantee that if St. Mary's was able to play the Pac-10 at home, they'd pick up a few key wins themselves. |
Just take the teams out of it and look at the main data points:
team A - #55 SOS, 79% win, Conf rank: 13, 4 top 25 opp (0-4), 3 26-50 (2-1), 5 51-100 (5-0), 12 games in the top 100 (7-5) team B - #36 SOS, 60% win, Conf rank: 5, 3 top 25 (2-1), 13 26-50 (4-9), 7 51-100 (6-1), 23 games in the top 100 (12-11) team C - #84 SOS, 83% win, Conf rank: 12, 2 top 25 (1-1), 3 26-50 (2-1), 11 51-100 (9-2), 16 in the top 100 (12-4) team D - #149 SOS, 80% win, Conf rank: 15, 0 top 25, 5 26-50 (2-3), 2 51-100 (1-1), 7 games in top 100 (3-4) It seems pretty obvious that D never did enough against top teams to warrant a selection. A was Siena, B was Arizona, C was Butler and D was St Mary's. Siena and Butler found a way to have a decent SOS despite a poor conference, I find it hard to believe that task is nearly impossible for St. Mary's if they make it a priority. |
Quote:
You keep leaving out Home/Road W-L. Considering 2/3rds of all college games are won by the home team, I think it's an important factor in deciding. When you throw that into the equation, Arizona looks real bad. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's not the end all, but it's important. It's why the RPI weighs road wins so heavily. Playing at home is a HUGE advantage in college hoops. It's a tough situation since Arizona only has quality wins because they can play them at home. St. Mary's doesn't have the opportunity to play quality teams at home. |
If it helps, both St. Mary's and Arizona had the same number of road wins vs. the top 100 -> 0. So, how much should we value road wins vs. teams in the 100 to 200 range? Arizona was 2-0 and St. Mary's was 4-2. If you want to count 200-350, St. Mary's cleans up at 5-0 (Arizona didn't have road games outside the top 200).
|
Quote:
 |
Quote:
And the increased weight on road wins on RPI coincides with the apparent devaluation of it by the selection committee. Seems as though you and the people, which rotate new members through each year, aren't in agreement on the value of those road wins. |
Quote:
I think part of the problem with the complaints about who gets in and who does not is that the committee people keep changing. This probably makes "what you have to do to get in" a moving target. Some members will emphasize different factors over another, whereas someone else will have them reversed. Change members from year to year and which order the criteria get weighed will change. Clearly the year LSU lost 6 of 7 to close the year, the committee was putting a lot of weight on how you finished. This year, when Arizona did the same, they emphasized the whole year equally. The one factor consistently near the top is quality wins. How did you do against the top 50 in the RPI. Arizona has more of those than any of the teams feeling snubbed (and I think San Diego St deserved it ahead of St Mary's). Arles, great chart. I think looking at that data objectively, it would be hard not to choose C then B, then A, then D. The committee actually put A ahead of B, which looks surprising when done blind. |
Let's settle this with the pro-BCS college football fan argument.
Every team has an equal opportunity to make the tournament. If they go undefeated and win their conference tourney they get in, if they lose one game they deserve whatever fate they are dealt |
Im not really going to bitch as much because if they either beat Iowa or Purdue at the end of the year they are most likely in, but Penn State was 10-7 in the 2nd rated RPI conference. Had road wins over Michigan State and Illinois, and was 7-8 against teams ranked in the top 50 in the RPI. I think they had a better resume' than Arizona.
|
Quote:
They played the 300+ nonconference schedule. One thing the committee has definitely swung towards in recent years is playing a tough schedule. They let in the bubble team with the best nonconference schedule. Penn St's was the worst. Arizona and Penn St both had 6 wins vs top 50 opponents, so they really have no claim there. Obviously, the committee did not think too much of the Big 10, based on seeds (perhaps they watched the games). |
Quote:
Arizona beat no one on the road. Penn State beat Michigan State and Illinois. And really is the Pac 10 that much better than the Big Ten? I agree with you on the non-conference schedule...it's their own fault their. That schedule was built for them to get in the NIT and thats where they are. Again they controlled their own destiny and blew it. I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it. |
Quote:
Just to correct, they don't ask that you necessarily play a tough schedule. They just ask that you play someone of note. Even a champ of a lower league will boost your OOC SOS significantly. Also, note that this doesn't apply to mid-major teams. They have to play the tougher OOC schedule to make up for their weak conference schedule. |
Quote:
Not sure they really voted that way, as Arizona was the 6th Pac 10 team, Penn St the 8th Big 10 team. I would ask this - do you think the Big 10 was that much better than the Pac 10 to deserve 3 more teams? I did not watch many Pac 10 games so I don't know. Obviously, the committee thought so, based on how they seeded the Big 10. I do know the few Big 10 games I tried to watch, I ended up going to NASCAR. And I am a college basketball fan, and hate NASCAR. I think other than Michigan St., and probably Purdue in the first round, the're going to be lucky to win a game in the tourney. One consistent thing they have been doing in recent years is punishing teams for playing a soft nonconference schedule. Penn St.'s was horrendous. I am not sure they make it if they win the one more game you are convinced would have been enough. While some things (RPI, road record, last 10-12 games) seem to be change in importance from year to year, the past 5-6 years quality wins and nonconference schedule strength have consistently been highly valued. |
Quote:
Well, that champ of the lower league tends to make it look like you played a tough schedule. They are great RPI games. This is why I hate the tired argument that teams like St Mary's can't get those games. Sure they can, they just get them on the road. Stop bitching about that and go beat them on the road. The big conference teams have the money, prestige and power. If you want some, you have to go take it, don't expect it to be given to you. It can be done - ask Gonzaga, Xavier, Butler. |
Quote:
Penn State in conference was not the 8th best team. They finished 6th and with a win at the end of the year against Iowa, they would have been 11-7 and seeded 2nd in the tournament. I really don't think the committee would've left out the 2nd place team in the 2nd rated RPI conference. |
Quote:
OK, thanks. I can buy that this is your pretty well informed interpretation of what the committee does, but you seemed to be "speaking" with authority, so I didn't know if the committee had published something this year. |
Quote:
I'd be absolutely floored if that really was the case. I'm not sure I've every seen a worse departure from an institution than what happened when Nolan was booted from Arkansas. FWIW, Nolan Richardson attended most of the Mizzou conference games this season and has helped Mike Anderson quite a bit this year. They talk on the phone 3-4 times a week at a minimum. Nolan and Coach Anderson have characterized it as a father/son relationship. |
They're never going to publish anything because there may be a season where some new committee member values wins in December over schools named for people ;) They never want to box themselves into a certain rule they may have to break down the road.
So, I probably shouldn't have sounded that "authoritative" on it. Still, if you are a mid-major or even a middle of the road BCS team, the easiest way to improve your chances is to schedule 1-2 extremely difficult road games (Kansas, Duke, UNC, UCLA, ..) and join a preconference tourney. If you can win 1-2 neutral games against solid teams (even other mid majors) and stay in the gym in your 2 road games, you will probably get a bid if you win the games you should from that point on. That system for success has been fairly consistent the past 3-4 seasons and if mid-majors haven't figured that out yet - I'm not sure what to tell them. Again, if St. Mary's beats the #85 RPI team (UTEP) in their preconference tourney and swaps out the road game at Pacific with one at Duke, they make the field. Their problem was they had no margin for error with 4 games - UTEP and the 3 against Gonzaga. They had to win atleast 1 of those 4 games to set themselves up for a quality win and they lost all 4. Maybe next season they will give themselves 5-6 chances at a quality win instead of the 3-4 they had this season. |
Quote:
Again, this is not as easy as you say it is. Top CAA teams consistently have trouble getting games even when they are willing to travel. |
Quote:
You also have to remember that Arizona's star player this year, Hill, was injured for a period of time and Arizona lost quite a few games during that stretch. Since the committee actively acknowledges that they factor that into the process, it tips the scales in Arizona's favor. Now I think stand along Arizona has a better resume anyways, with the big OOC wins over Kansas and others, but the Hill factor certainly came into play. And realize, as a current student at Arizona State, there was nothing I wanted more then for Arizona to go to the NIT. Do I think they deserved their tourney spot? No...was Penn State the team I thought deserved it instead? No. I much rather would have seem Auburn or St. Marys in that spot Arizona landed. To be fair, if not for upsets like USC and Mississippi State winning their conference tourneys, we could have likely seen all 4 dance. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think its pretty easy for a team expected to be at the top of their conference to get a road game. You think otherwise. Neither of us knows for sure. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.