2008-2009 College Basketball Thread......

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Drexel did this in 06-07, and won. Yet, they still didn't get in.

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.

Outside of that I'd like a more clear definition of what mid-majors have to do to get at-large bids.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wade moore

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[Groundhog]

I don't see why they wouldn't factor in RPI. Did they give a reasoning for it?

[Groundhog]

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I don't see why they wouldn't factor in RPI. Did they give a reasoning for it?

Becuase when they did factor it in, too many mid-majors made the tournament and the BCS schools cried.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Becuase when they did factor it in, too many mid-majors made the tournament and the BCS schools cried.

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.

[Atocep]

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.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[Arles]

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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".

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.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by digamma

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.

The number one thing they mention is number of quality wins for teams they let in. The number one knock on teams they leave out is usually non conference strength of schedule. The other four seem to be in that order (ie, bad losses more important than neutral performance and RPI). But, there is some consistency with teams that make it in the last spots and the top 3 items.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

So St. Mary's and Creighton is better off losing games. Seems an odd way to select teams by. But then again, with a 13 loss Arizona in the tourney, maybe losing is the way to go.

[Arles]

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So St. Mary's and Creighton is better off losing games. Seems an odd way to select teams by. But then again, with a 13 loss Arizona in the tourney, maybe losing is the way to go.

No, you just have to play someone with a pulse outside your conference. When the NIT's San Diego State is the top opponent you face in nonconference, it's hard to play the "poor is me" card for not making the tournament - especially when only 1 opponent in your conference is ranked in the top 120 - and you go 0-3 against them.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

[Arles]

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Just take the teams out of it and look at the main data points:

team A - #55 SOS, 79% win, 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, 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, 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, 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.

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

Road record isn't the be all end all. Last I checked, you don't play tournament games in your opponent's home court. Arizona looked bad on road record, but they looked good on quality wins, strength of schedule and bad losses. St. Mary's looked fine on road record, but stunk on quality wins, SOS and bad losses. Seems to me it's obvious what the committee prioritizes. If you want to keep up this myth that the top priority is road record, followed in the far distance by quality wins and SOS - have at it. Just understand that's not the reality of the NCAA selection process.

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.

If you take into the account the Mills injury, St. Mary's would have been very fortunate to be 8-10 in the conference (probably 7-11). At that point, they would be a Washington State, Miami or Nebraska in the eyes of the committee and not even on the board. If Mills is healthy, maybe they're closer to .500, but it's real tough to tell.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Road record isn't the be all end all. Last I checked, you don't play tournament games in your opponent's home court. Arizona looked bad on road record, but they looked good on quality wins, strength of schedule and bad losses. St. Mary's looked fine on road record, but stunk on quality wins, SOS and bad losses. Seems to me it's obvious what the committee prioritizes. If you want to keep up this myth that the top priority is road record, followed in the far distance by quality wins and SOS - have at it. Just understand that's not the reality of the NCAA selection process.

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.

[Arles]

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).

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Atocep

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not the end all, but it's important. It's why the RPI weighs road wins so heavily.

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.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[CU Tiger]

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

[Dr. Sak]

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.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

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.

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).

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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).

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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.

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.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

And really is the Pac 10 that much better than the Big Ten?

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.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

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.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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?

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.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

The number one thing they mention is number of quality wins for teams they let in. The number one knock on teams they leave out is usually non conference strength of schedule. The other four seem to be in that order (ie, bad losses more important than neutral performance and RPI). But, there is some consistency with teams that make it in the last spots and the top 3 items.

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

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.

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.

[Arles]

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.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Samdari

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.

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.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

My argument is that view by the selection committee has less to do with their view on road wins and more to do with the NCAA wanting more power conference schools in the tournament.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by wade moore

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.

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.