Do Mid-Majors belong in NCAA ahead P5

Avid Flyer · #1 02-26-2017, 04:19 PM

Gottlieb:

Wichita State has been great the past four years, but is that this season’s team? How much bias should we have with a young and mostly brand new roster?

For the record, I would put them in the NCAA Tournament over any Atlantic 10 team not named Dayton Flyers , and there isn’t a true mid-major that I would say belongs in above Wichita State in the current likely field.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-bas...ference-teams/

Beatty Town Coach · #2 02-26-2017, 09:43 PM

The biggest problem with this discussion/question, is that a differential exist between being P5, and not being a so called "Mid-Major." See UD, Memphis, VCU, Gonzaga, UCONN, UC, TEMPLE, ET.AL.; and see the entire Big East. I could go on.

Furthermore, by NCAA definition, there is no such thing as a "Mid-Major"; as a school is either Division I, or its not.

Part of the national championship concept, is that every school from every conference has a chance to both play for and win the title. Via the conference tournaments, and extended into the NCAA's, the every school competes philosophy is full blown and works very well. If you take away the Cinderella element, and the enthusiasm of all schools and all conferences, you will greatly damage the mystical tradition and excitement of what is commonly referred to as "March Madness."

Without the "Madness", it won't have the same flare and passion. Without a national feel, millions of folks will never bother to tune in. Is it news if Duke beats Kansas or Kentucky??? No it is not; personally, if it was only P5, I wouldn't watch, because Villanova wouldn't be the Current National Champions; and, I would be at the Dayton V. Xavier NIT Championship Game.

Chris R · #3 02-26-2017, 10:21 PM

Im surprised Wichita is getting the traction they are gettting. Their overall SOS is a butt-ugly 149 and their non-con SOS was 160. Those are among the lowest of any team even in the bullpen.

They have just 2 wins over the RPI Top-100 all season -- two. Worse, they are 2-4 vs the Top-100. Their only Top-100 wins are Ill. State and Colorado State. Wichita is basically gaining NCAA traction because of one game all season -- a 40pt beatdown to Illinois State -- a team mind you that also beat Wichita by 16 earlier in the season.

By contrast to Wichita's two Top-100 wins, Dayton has TEN. To put it in better perspective, the Shockers have beaten exactly one team inside the RPI Top-100 since December 6th -- and they also got beat by that same team in the same timeframe.

Yet Ive seen the Shockers on the #8/9 seed line in many brackets. The math just doesnt support it for a #40 RPI team. They are benefiting from past performance and if folks dont think years of good will and strong NCAA performances dont count, they are kidding themselves. The people in the committee room are impressionable people. They will see what they want to see. They will use what they know about WSU's program to alleviate the mathematical concerns so they "pass the eye test" or "always prove they belonged" when given the benefit of the doubt.

Sure, Wichita is 26-4, but its a soft 26-4. We saw St. Mary's learn this hard lesson last season -- AND YET ST. MARYS BEAT GONZAGA TWICE LAST YEAR AND STILL DIDNT GET A BID. The Shockers havent beaten anyone in the same universe as Gonzaga this year.

If Wichita is a shoo-in, Monmouth cant be far behind, Their RPI stats are almost identical. In some cases, slightly better. They are RPI #41 to WSUs #40.

I dont understand how so many brackets have WSU in with oodles of room to spare. They still might be bracket worthy, but more First Four level. That's the part that slays me. I havent seen this much kid-glove treatment since Indiana and the weekly national polls.

------------

Xavier has little to worry about unless they lose out which won't happen -- DePaul and Marquette are doable. They are shedding seed lines, but they have a Top-10 SOS, and the RPI is still solid to cover their tracks. The committee has historically put a huge precedent on Non-Con SOS and XU's is currently #20. Xavier's issue is they are now without Sumner for good, whereas a team like UD getting Cunningham back (granted different caliber players) may have better upside. Xavier is still a tough matchup for teams, especially with their 1-3-1. For instance, the XU 1-3-1 is a horrible matchup for UD much like Davidson and UMass are horrible matchups for UD. Their NCAA upside will be based on matchups. Its like that for many teams non UNC or Kansas, but maybe for XU a bit more this year than past years.

MTSU should be a total lock. Non-Con SOS was #14 -- thats not easy to do from their league to schedule that tough. They are 2-1 vs Top-50 and 4-1 vs Top-100 -- a statute-mile better resume' than Wichita. MTSU took their few big chances and made the most of them. They beat Vandy, Ole Miss, Belmont, and UNCW, and lost at VCU by 3. MTSU should be a #9 seed.

springborofan · #4 02-26-2017, 10:36 PM

Gottlieb is a tool. He conveniently leaves out that most of these P5 schools:

1) rarely beat a top 50 game on the road
2) have very poor top 50 W-L records--and have multiple opportunities to win a few at home
3) play extremely weak non conference schedules and rarely, if ever, play a tough team on the road...a true road game.

ud2 · #5 02-26-2017, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Chris R

Im surprised Wichita is getting the traction they are gettting. Their overall SOS is a butt-ugly 149 and their non-con SOS was 160. Those are among the lowest of any team even in the bullpen.

They have just 2 wins over the RPI Top-100 all season -- two. Worse, they are 2-4 vs the Top-100. Their only Top-100 wins are Ill. State and Colorado State. Wichita is basically gaining NCAA traction because of one game all season -- a 40pt beatdown to Illinois State -- a team mind you that also beat Wichita by 16 earlier in the season.

By contrast to Wichita's two Top-100 wins, Dayton has TEN. To put it in better perspective, the Shockers have beaten exactly one team inside the RPI Top-100 since December 6th -- and they also got beat by that same team in the same timeframe.

Yet Ive seen the Shockers on the #8/9 seed line in many brackets. The math just doesnt support it for a #40 RPI team. They are benefiting from past performance and if folks dont think years of good will and strong NCAA performances dont count, they are kidding themselves. The people in the committee room are impressionable people. They will see what they want to see. They will use what they know about WSU's program to alleviate the mathematical concerns so they "pass the eye test" or "always prove they belonged" when given the benefit of the doubt.

Sure, Wichita is 26-4, but its a soft 26-4. We saw St. Mary's learn this hard lesson last season -- AND YET ST. MARYS BEAT GONZAGA TWICE LAST YEAR AND STILL DIDNT GET A BID. The Shockers havent beaten anyone in the same universe as Gonzaga this year.

If Wichita is a shoo-in, Monmouth cant be far behind, Their RPI stats are almost identical. In some cases, slightly better. They are RPI #41 to WSUs #40.

I dont understand how so many brackets have WSU in with oodles of room to spare. They still might be bracket worthy, but more First Four level. That's the part that slays me. I havent seen this much kid-glove treatment since Indiana and the weekly national polls.

------------

Xavier has little to worry about unless they lose out which won't happen -- DePaul and Marquette are doable. They are shedding seed lines, but they have a Top-10 SOS, and the RPI is still solid to cover their tracks. The committee has historically put a huge precedent on Non-Con SOS and XU's is currently #20. Xavier's issue is they are now without Sumner for good, whereas a team like UD getting Cunningham back (granted different caliber players) may have better upside. Xavier is still a tough matchup for teams, especially with their 1-3-1. For instance, the XU 1-3-1 is a horrible matchup for UD much like Davidson and UMass are horrible matchups for UD. Their NCAA upside will be based on matchups. Its like that for many teams non UNC or Kansas, but maybe for XU a bit more this year than past years.

MTSU should be a total lock. Non-Con SOS was #14 -- thats not easy to do from their league to schedule that tough. They are 2-1 vs Top-50 and 4-1 vs Top-100 -- a statute-mile better resume' than Wichita. MTSU took their few big chances and made the most of them. They beat Vandy, Ole Miss, Belmont, and UNCW, and lost at VCU by 3. MTSU should be a #9 seed.

Not to hijack this thread, but the part of xubrew's advocation of the predictive-based ranking system, like Kenpom, that I do not understand, is that Wichita State is the only example, within the Kenpom top 75, that I see as proof of what he is arguing for. Outside of WSU, I am not seeing many non-p5 teams ranked differently when comparing Kenpom and the rpi.

I think Xavier could very well lose out. Marquette and a first round BET loss are certainly a possibility. Losing at DePaul I will agree is less likely, but even that is at least slightly possible. Lose to MU, DU, and go 0-1 in the BET, and you are looking at 14 losses combined with an 8 game losing streak. It will be hard to give them a bid at that point IMO.

MTSU...148 SOS is really bad...3 bad losses: 2 losses to rpi 100+, 1 loss to rpi 200+...good top 50 record though: 2-1.

I think MTSU is out, very weak sos and 3 bad losses...rpi is only #38 too...at the very least, I think they are on the bubble.

Chris R · #6 02-27-2017, 12:09 AM

MTSU can only control the non-conference portion of their schedule. They did that better than almost any other team in the country. They have to play the league teams whether they like it or not. I am much less apt to penalize a program for the lousy games they are required to play, then rewarding the same team for pursuing a high-level schedule beyond the league.

And I get tired of hearing about non Power-5 teams having "bad losses". Every bubble team has bad losses. Somehow when Syracuse has them however, they count for less because "Syracuse was still finding themselves" and "it was so-and-so's Super Bowl." If Monmouth loses a similar game however, "they hurt their resume' big-time".

Louisville or Kansas or UCLA has no control over their league schedule either. Why should they get a free pass at the buffet line and be allowed to feast on no-name cupcakes that eventually get buried within the Dukes and UNCs and Baylors and Oregons and Arizonas offsetting them.

If the formula is "belong to the right league to begin with", then that is in complete opposition to the NCAA's specific talking points about making no assertion or distinction among leagues and schedules when deciding how many teams from a particular conference may or may not get in. The NCAA is telling us they are blind to just that sort of stuff. Whether they are lying or telling the truth is an entirely different argument. But if they are lying, then why continue the charade at all. Just make the NCAA tournament for the Top-8 leagues because anyone outside those leagues stands little to no chance of ever earning a bid anyway because of the ball-and-chain of their conference schedule they cannot run and hide from -- even if they win almost all of them.

Force Ga Tech, Michigan State, Texas Tech, USC, Seton Hall, or Pittsburgh to play Monmouth's or MTSU's conference road schedule in those small cigar box gyms in podunk towns where there are few direct flights and many bus rides, and they would drop games too.

T-Bone 84 · #7 02-27-2017, 08:13 AM

I feel compelled to post a question that should be a "No-Brainer", but for P5 and other biases:
- If the NCAA Tournament is about deciding which team is best; and
- If teams need to play other teams from outside their conference(s) on the way to winning the Championship in order to decide which team is best; and
- If teams must play in an environment other than their home court in order to decide that; then

Why doesn't the Out-Of-Conference record in Away/Neutral Site games play a larger role in deciding who gets in, and where they're seeded?

Yeah, I know the excuses:
- Those games are usually played so early in the year that, by March, they have very little relevance;
- They represent so little of a team's overall body-of-work that they don't serve as a good measuring stick;
- Blah, blah, blah.

But I remember the year we made it to the Elite 8, and had to hear Coach K's whining about how the ACC is such a meat-grinder, yada, yada, yada. When we checked their resume, we saw that they played no true road game (i.e. on another team's home court) until ACC Conference games started in January. Yeah, some "meat-grinder", Coach!

All I'm saying is: prove it. Play Kansas at Kansas in November. Play Wisconsin in Madison in December. Then, tell me how "good" you are.

Piqua Flyer '66 · #8 02-27-2017, 08:55 AM

I repeat.......
BCS/P5 $$$$$ controls all.
Day is coming when the
NCAA tourney will consist of
BCS/P5 only and rest of us in "NIT". So we better
win Natl Champ soon.
GO FLYERS!

CE80 · #9 02-27-2017, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by T-Bone 84

I feel compelled to post a question that should be a "No-Brainer", but for P5 and other biases:
- If the NCAA Tournament is about deciding which team is best; and
- If teams need to play other teams from outside their conference(s) on the way to winning the Championship in order to decide which team is best; and
- If teams must play in an environment other than their home court in order to decide that; then

Why doesn't the Out-Of-Conference record in Away/Neutral Site games play a larger role in deciding who gets in, and where they're seeded?

Yeah, I know the excuses:
- Those games are usually played so early in the year that, by March, they have very little relevance;
- They represent so little of a team's overall body-of-work that they don't serve as a good measuring stick;
- Blah, blah, blah.

But I remember the year we made it to the Elite 8, and had to hear Coach K's whining about how the ACC is such a meat-grinder, yada, yada, yada. When we checked their resume, we saw that they played no true road game (i.e. on another team's home court) until ACC Conference games started in January. Yeah, some "meat-grinder", Coach!

All I'm saying is: prove it. Play Kansas at Kansas in November. Play Wisconsin in Madison in December. Then, tell me how "good" you are.

Do this by tinkering with the RPI formula. Higher multiplier for road wins. Even hire multiplier for road wins OOC.

In the past, committees hammered the P5 teams that did not leave home and loaded up on cupcakes. That philosophy got Seth Greenburg his current job. Syracuse was left out one year. I think it is what motivated the teams like Ole Miss to start scheduling us. If the committee isn't going to do that, then change the formula to force teams to do it.

As far as the early season argument, some have said take a week or 2 in the middle of the season and schedule OOC games or even some mod season tourneys.

Figgie123 · #10 02-27-2017, 08:59 AM

With leagues going to 20 game conference seasons, I think the NCAA needs to do something about it. That's going to cause less and less good games for teams outside of the Big5 to schedule.

I think the NCAA needs to limit the number of conference games to no more than half your schedule. If not less.

Then, the NCAA needs to find a way to schedule half of the non-conference schedule in some sort of 'across-the-board' half-home/half-away schedule. So, take 351 teams, divide into 6 brackets, and each team has to play a game in each of the brackets automatically. Now, allow the big-boys to offer to change the location as a buy-game. I'd think most will automatically do that.

For instance, when the NCAA says that this year Duke has to travel to Austin Peay, Duke can offer Austin Peay buy-game money to play at Cameron. At the same time, UNC has to travel to Dayton, and will tell them to pound sand with their buy-game money, and we're willing to pay the buy fee.

That way, half of the schedule can be managed by NCAA, who is deciding who gets into the tournament, some teams will be willing to host bigger schools (us), and the teams still have half their OOC to schedule buy-games, legacy rivalry games, or whatever.

Now, I highly doubt any of that will ever happen, but I think it could be a good start. At least the limit conference games part.

BeckysTXA · #11 02-27-2017, 09:13 AM

I just read this article online in the last 2-3 weeks, but I can't find it now to post the link, so maybe someone else can find it, or saw it too.

The article was about this topic and supported the non-P5 conference teams. It talked about what is most often talked about in this conversation, but it pointed out one thing I had never looked at before. It talked about how these "mid-major" schools had such a tough time scheduling big games OOC. Not only the fact that no big-time school wants to play you if there is a reasonable chance you could knock them off. I've heard that before. But the games you can lock in are often crappy TIMING on your schedule. They used Monmouth schedule this year as an example. I don't remember the details exactly, but it was like they had to play 3 games in 7 days. All on the road. And every one of them with one day less rest than their opponents, just to get those teams on their schedule. I think they went 1-2 in those games and the two losses were by just a couple points, all against good teams that will be dancing in March. And I believe the distance to travel between the 3 games included a long bus trip and brutal miles just to get all 3 games in. The article concluded Monmouth probably wouldn't make the tournament, and the author thought they deserved it more than P-5 teams that finished 5-6-7th in their conferences.

The new element that I had never considered before was the brutal travel and timing demands that very good teams from non-P5 conferences have to endure just to get an OOC schedule that puts them into a position to be committee-worthy come selection time. The big-boys never have to put their student-athletes through those travel demands.

Canonball · #12 02-27-2017, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Piqua Flyer '66

I repeat.......
BCS/P5 $$$$$ controls all.
Day is coming when the
NCAA tourney will consist of
BCS/P5 only and rest of us in "NIT". So we better
win Natl Champ soon.
GO FLYERS!

.... and if/when that day comes I'm finished watching anything but the Flyers. The magic formula in March is that anything can happen in the Big Dance, it's why I've watched since I was a youngster. That goes I no longer care.

UDGutter2 · #13 02-27-2017, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Figgie123

With leagues going to 20 game conference seasons, I think the NCAA needs to do something about it. That's going to cause less and less good games for teams outside of the Big5 to schedule.

I think the NCAA needs to limit the number of conference games to no more than half your schedule. If not less.

Then, the NCAA needs to find a way to schedule half of the non-conference schedule in some sort of 'across-the-board' half-home/half-away schedule. So, take 351 teams, divide into 6 brackets, and each team has to play a game in each of the brackets automatically. Now, allow the big-boys to offer to change the location as a buy-game. I'd think most will automatically do that.

For instance, when the NCAA says that this year Duke has to travel to Austin Peay, Duke can offer Austin Peay buy-game money to play at Cameron. At the same time, UNC has to travel to Dayton, and will tell them to pound sand with their buy-game money, and we're willing to pay the buy fee.

That way, half of the schedule can be managed by NCAA, who is deciding who gets into the tournament, some teams will be willing to host bigger schools (us), and the teams still have half their OOC to schedule buy-games, legacy rivalry games, or whatever.

Now, I highly doubt any of that will ever happen, but I think it could be a good start. At least the limit conference games part.

I agree, the NCAA needs to control some of the non conference scheduling. Maybe they should do like all other sports organizations and get their own network. Put many of these games on the network.

Either that or get rid of the NIT, and go to 128 NCAA teams. First round games played on higher seed home court.

xubrew · #14 02-27-2017, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by ud2

Not to hijack this thread, but the part of xubrew's advocation of the predictive-based ranking system, like Kenpom, that I do not understand, is that Wichita State is the only example, within the Kenpom top 75, that I see as proof of what he is arguing for. Outside of WSU, I am not seeing many non-p5 teams ranked differently when comparing Kenpom and the rpi.

I think Xavier could very well lose out. Marquette and a first round BET loss are certainly a possibility. Losing at DePaul I will agree is less likely, but even that is at least slightly possible. Lose to MU, DU, and go 0-1 in the BET, and you are looking at 14 losses combined with an 8 game losing streak. It will be hard to give them a bid at that point IMO.

MTSU...148 SOS is really bad...3 bad losses: 2 losses to rpi 100+, 1 loss to rpi 200+...good top 50 record though: 2-1.

I think MTSU is out, very weak sos and 3 bad losses...rpi is only #38 too...at the very least, I think they are on the bubble.

I never advocated for the predictive rankings. I don't use any of the computer metrics, be it merit, predictive, or something put together with supposed psychic abilities, as anything other than general indicators. What I don't understand is why it is that you're so all over the place. You say you think it's unfair to the non power conferences and that merit rankings need to be used to help them out, yet here you are using a merit based rating (which you're incorrectly calling a ranking) to argue against teams from outside the power conferences. I hope hope that you're not an attorney.

Secondly, I don't know what Doug Gottlieb's fixation on Wichita State is. I don't dislike Gottlieb as much as some people, but when it comes to Wichita State, he is off the rails. Did they not recruit him?? Did he do one of their games and get abused by the fans?? It makes no sense. He's either talking how they shouldn't be a #1 seed, or how they were overseeded as a #5 seed, or how knocking off a #1 seed wasn't really that impressive, or that the only reason they beat Kansas was because it was their Super Bowl, and that Kansas shouldn't play them regularly, or whatever. Now, here he is again singling out Wichita State.

f Wichita State gets in to the tournament as a #9 seed and they knock off a #1 seed and make the Elite Eight, he'll be talking about how you can't overvalue the NCAA Tournament because it's a one and done format and teams like Wichita State (who he'll mention specifically) will go deeper than other teams that are better than them.

But, to the original question, which is a good one, I would argue that in many cases, yes they do. Chris mentioned some teams earlier. I wasn't on board with Saint Mary's last year because their OOC SOS was so weak, and Gonzaga probably wouldn't have even made the NCAA Tournament last year so you can't give them a huge amount of credit, but I do think Monmouth should have been in last year, and I do think Hofstra should have been in last year. And it comes back to how hard was it to win the games that you won?? Hofstra won at Saint Bonaventure and at UNC Wilmington. None of the power teams that were in or around the bubble won two games that were as hard to win as that. They may have had more top 50 and top 100 wins, but they came at home against teams with losing records on the road.

Let's look at Middle Tennessee
-11 true road wins,
-their OOC SOS (the part they can control) is 14th.
-They're one of just two teams to beat UNC Wilmington in a netural/road game.
+They blew out Ole Miss at Ole Miss and had an easier time with them than just about anyone else from the SEC who has gone in there.
-They completely blew Vanderbilt off the court.
-They're the only team that's won at Belmont
-They came even closer to winning at VCU than Dayton did
-They've won at Western Kentucky, Marshall (who has just one other home loss), UAB, and Rice, who are a combined 39-10 at home when not playing Middle Tennessee.

Let's compare that to TCU, who Doug Gottleib seems to like

-OOC SOS - 123
-3-7 on the road. Their wins were against UNLV, Texas, and Kansas State, who are a combined 29-20 at home, and many of those wins were in bye games.
-They're 2-10 against the RPI top 50. The two wins both came at home against Illinois State and Iowa State. Iowa State is 5-5 in road games.
-Other notable top 100 wins include Kansas State who has a losing road record, Texas Tech who has just one road win

To me, there is no comparison. Middle Tennessee is clearly better. So is Texas Arlington, and UNC Wilmington, and probably even Monmouth. The games those teams have won are harder to win than the games TCU, Texas Tech, and I would maybe even say Syracuse, have won. Syracuse's next win away from home against a team that's above .500 will be their first. Syracuse's next road win of any kind will be their third. Their road losses include Boston College. BOSTON COLLEGE!! Now, they did beat Duke. But, do you know what Duke's road record is?? 3-5. So, is that singular win, and other wins that aren't even as impressive as that, really all that special?? I would say no.

I think that if Middle Tennessee, UNCW, and UTA all played Syracuse on equal terms, they'd all beat Syracuse.

The thread title poses an interesting question. In my opinion, in many cases the answer is yes. The reason I advocate AGAINST the power rankings, in all forms, is that there isn't one out there that I know of, be it merit based, predictive based, or whatever based, that looks at things like that.

UDBrian · #15 02-27-2017, 11:24 AM

It sounds like he doesn't consider ud a true mid major

bigudfan · #16 02-27-2017, 11:48 AM

Wonder what the brackets would look like if they took the name of the team off the top of the stat sheets when determining who's in and who's not.

CE80 · #17 02-27-2017, 11:52 AM

xubrew - don't you think the more distant past committees did more of the analysis that you used. The more recent committees have not.

The Worker · #18 02-27-2017, 11:58 AM

I loved this post after last season's bracket reveal. No small conference team is safe, that is the bottom line:

http://basketballpredictions.blogspo...ict-field.html

I wouldn't be comfortable at all if I was MTSU. That road loss to UTEP (RPI 200+) could cost them dearly, as it gives the committee a reason to keep them out. The system is set up for the power conferences. Unless the committee totally changes their criteria, you better win your conference tournament. They will be happy to place you as a #1 Seed in the NIT though!

charlestonflyer15 · #19 02-27-2017, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by UDGutter2

.....get rid of the NIT, and go to 128 NCAA teams. First round games played on higher seed home court.

This is along the lines of what I'd like to see. 128 teams might be much, maybe 96, I don't know, but I'd like to see the regular season conference champ as well as the tournament champ get into the tournament. For some of the smaller conference teams, like Monmouth last year, who get some good OOC wins, basically run the table in conference but lose in the conference tournament, and get left out from the ncaas. Allowing both into the tourney would give more meaning to entire regular season and still allow for the magic of what is March hoops.

xubrew · #20 02-27-2017, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by CE80

xubrew - don't you think the more distant past committees did more of the analysis that you used. The more recent committees have not.

Absolutely. I think when Greg Shaheen was overseeing/advising the committee, they absolutely looked at things that way. He didn't have a vote, but he was able to point out things that they should be looking at when evaluating a team, both during the actual selection process and during the weekly meetings. For instance, one of UNCW's losses is at William & Mary. William & Mary is unbeaten at home. They're a sub 100 team, but they're unbeaten at home, and he would point things like that out from week to week, but more importantly I think he made it so they knew to look for things like that.

I have never agreed with all of the picks, but it's unrealistic to think that everyone will agree with what it is that they do. What I can say is that while he was overseeing it, I never thought they did anything that was completely bat**** crazy, or that they didn't factor everything in. I now feel that way. I wonder if any of them even realized how good Saint Bonaventure and UNCW were at home last year, and just how impressive it was that Hofstra beat both of them on the road. In fact during the selection show we realized that Hofstra wasn't even being considered, and that's just ridiculous.

UDEE79 · #21 02-27-2017, 12:31 PM

The power 5 teams will not play road games against non-power 5 teams. The committee refuses to properly evaluate the home court advantage. This is the how they maintain the P5 bias.

The committee is currently deemphasizing the RPI. Does this trend coincide with the change in the RPI formula to add greater weight to road wins?

Beatty Town Coach · #22 02-27-2017, 01:16 PM

Right UDEE79, but wouldn't the committee be going against their own corrective measure? What's the purpose of changing the formula and weighting it toward road games, only to turn around and ignore your own new, somewhat, corrected formula?

Gazoo · #23 02-27-2017, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Figgie123

With leagues going to 20 game conference seasons, I think the NCAA needs to do something about it. That's going to cause less and less good games for teams outside of the Big5 to schedule.

I think the NCAA needs to limit the number of conference games to no more than half your schedule. If not less.

Then, the NCAA needs to find a way to schedule half of the non-conference schedule in some sort of 'across-the-board' half-home/half-away schedule. So, take 351 teams, divide into 6 brackets, and each team has to play a game in each of the brackets automatically. Now, allow the big-boys to offer to change the location as a buy-game. I'd think most will automatically do that.

For instance, when the NCAA says that this year Duke has to travel to Austin Peay, Duke can offer Austin Peay buy-game money to play at Cameron. At the same time, UNC has to travel to Dayton, and will tell them to pound sand with their buy-game money, and we're willing to pay the buy fee.

That way, half of the schedule can be managed by NCAA, who is deciding who gets into the tournament, some teams will be willing to host bigger schools (us), and the teams still have half their OOC to schedule buy-games, legacy rivalry games, or whatever.

Now, I highly doubt any of that will ever happen, but I think it could be a good start. At least the limit conference games part.

I like the idea, can I add?

Start the conference schedule in October. First game out of the chute is a conference game.

From mid December until late January is your winter break. Non-con tournaments like Maui, Bahamas, etc. when teams REALLY want some sun in the winter months, plus, now you know who your team is so you can schedule some cupcakes to work on the rough edges. Teams are playing closer to their peaks so there are no "well that game was in November" excuses. Smaller conferences who play 16 game schedules have the ability to barnstorm the 20 game schedulers, build their resume (though risk being more tired with smaller gaps between games), and everyone can take time off as necessary for exams as they see fit.

Then, back to conference games until March. Smaller conferences could back-load the schedule to give their teams time to rest after the packed January schedules.

Smitty10 · #24 02-27-2017, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

I like the idea, can I add?

Start the conference schedule in October. First game out of the chute is a conference game.

From mid December until late January is your winter break. Non-con tournaments like Maui, Bahamas, etc. when teams REALLY want some sun in the winter months, plus, now you know who your team is so you can schedule some cupcakes to work on the rough edges. Teams are playing closer to their peaks so there are no "well that game was in November" excuses. Smaller conferences who play 16 game schedules have the ability to barnstorm the 20 game schedulers, build their resume (though risk being more tired with smaller gaps between games), and everyone can take time off as necessary for exams as they see fit.

Then, back to conference games until March. Smaller conferences could back-load the schedule to give their teams time to rest after the packed January schedules.

Strictly from a Flyer perspective not liking the idea of playing half our conference games without Pierre last year and a good amount without Pollard this season.

Medford · #25 02-27-2017, 04:17 PM

I guess this would be the counter point to Doug's article...

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...t-bubble-teams

Buster Goode · #26 02-27-2017, 06:02 PM

I'd certainly take CBS's bracket right now:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology

How do they not have Wichita State not in??

TA111 · #27 02-27-2017, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Buster Goode

I'd certainly take CBS's bracket right now:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology

How do they not have Wichita State not in??

It's called only two top 100 wins and a very poor non con sos. They've won a lot of games against very poor teams.

Mr_Sweets · #28 02-27-2017, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Buster Goode

I'd certainly take CBS's bracket right now:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology

How do they not have Wichita State not in??

Hoping UD gets put in a closer site than Salt Lake!

Chris R · #29 02-27-2017, 07:12 PM

Jay Bilas said something over the weekend that almost pushed me out of my chair. He said teams should get credit for beating opponents based on the resume' and stature of that team at the time they beat them.

In other words, beating Indiana early as a Top-10 team should still count as a big-time Top-10 win in March -- even though Indiana was exposed as a fraud and probably won't even make the NCAA tournament. Sure Indiana beat UNC and Kansas. They also lost 13 games and have fewer Top-100 wins than Dayton.

I dont hear anyone claiming UMass' win over Dayton was "Top-10-like" however when UD's resume' is infinitely better.

What Jay is basically advocating is all early preseason rankings that float Power-5 teams to the top of the polls based on historical context should pay off all season long even when those teams are exposed for being grossly overrated over the full course of the season.

Sorry, but if you beat Top-10 Indiana early in the year and Indiana ends up 16-13, you do not get to walk around beating your chest in March that you have a Top-10 win under your belt. You have a #89 RPI win under your belt.

Certainly some extenuating circumstances can come up -- injuries, dismissals, etc. But at season-end your RPI is based on what your opponent did all season -- not who they were when you played them. And that's how it should be -- to spread the risk and remove the hi/lo of low sample size and digest the entire body of work.

T-Bone 84 · #30 02-27-2017, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Mr_Sweets

Hoping UD gets put in a closer site than Salt Lake!

Dunno. Worked pretty well the last time we went there.

Posted via Mobile Device

T-Bone 84 · #31 02-27-2017, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Medford

I guess this would be the counter point to Doug's article...

http://www.si.com/college-basketball...t-bubble-teams

I might have to "Like" that article and share it on Facebook. Spot-on commentary!

Posted via Mobile Device

Jeff · #32 02-27-2017, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by UDEE79

The power 5 teams will not play road games against non-power 5 teams. The committee refuses to properly evaluate the home court advantage. This is the how they maintain the P5 bias.

Until there is a compelling financial reason to change, it's very unlikely to happen. That's just the way it is.

Piqua Flyer '66 · #33 02-27-2017, 10:44 PM

Chris R
Jay Bilas is lobbying for the BCS/P5 only NCAA tourney.

FlyingArrow · #34 02-27-2017, 10:46 PM

I like the suggestion of mandated away games. Conference "challenges" could be a thing. Not just among the Power conferences but between any two conferences. Take two conferences at random and pair them. Mandate that each school must play an away game against the other conference (so that's 2 mandated games). But then allow a team to "buy" its away game, if the other team wants a payday instead of a home game.

FlyingArrow · #35 02-27-2017, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Piqua Flyer '66

Chris R
Jay Bilas is lobbying for the BCS/P5 only NCAA tourney.

Talk about killing the golden goose. Do people not realize that people pay attention to see Cinderella? Without any Cinderella stories, the NCAA tournament would lose its magic for a good half of the fans. They'd still make plenty of money with half the viewership, but they'd miss out on a lot, too.

Figgie123 · #36 02-28-2017, 08:20 AM

And then there was this wonderful hit-piece by Yahoo! Sports.

Originally Posted by Yahoo Sports!

One solution some have proposed is to prohibit teams with sub-.500 league records from receiving consideration for an at-large bid much the same way that college football teams with five or fewer wins can’t play in a bowl game. This idea sounds good in theory until you consider the point that Mike DeCourcy of The Sporting News recently made — it would benefit even worse power-conference programs as much as deserving mid-majors.

To achieve a .500 record in the Pac-12 or SEC this year, a team could theoretically beat up on the soft underbelly of both leagues. How does it make sense to reward a Utah team with a dreadful non-league schedule and zero top 50 wins instead of a Georgia Tech team with a lesser league record but far more quality victories?

So, both of these douchebags don't get it. If you can't win at least half the games in your league, and even if you are a good league, that shows that you can't beat the teams that should be in the NCAA tournament. I don't care what your "eye-test" of the bad half of the ACC is.

Oh, and Yahoo! Sports dimwit. No, neither Utah OR Georgia Tech deserve to be in the Tournament this year.

Buster Goode · #37 02-28-2017, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by TA111

It's called only two top 100 wins and a very poor non con sos. They've won a lot of games against very poor teams.

I understand that. However, they are 27-4, ranked and have a reputation of performing at a high level recently (respect and benefit of the doubt we are receiving now). They should at least be in even if it's First Four.

Bracket Matrix (really the only resource for projections that I look at) has them coming in at an average of a 9-seed. 123 out of 125 sites project them as "in". CBS is one of the two that doesn't have them in.

You can cite lack of top 100 wins all day long, but you aren't going to convince me they don't belong in the field. The bubble is weak.

Gazoo · #38 02-28-2017, 10:33 AM

Can someone help me understand how _avier isn't at least at risk, or even a bubble team at this point? Commentators keep saying they are "solidly in".

Sure they play in a pretty tough conference. But they're 8-8 and they've beaten Depaul, Seton Hall, St. John twice, Georgetown twice, and Providence. Also Creighton. Not exactly awesome. And they've lost 5 games in a row.

Smitty10 · #39 02-28-2017, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Figgie123

And then there was this wonderful hit-piece by Yahoo! Sports.

So, both of these douchebags don't get it. If you can't win at least half the games in your league, and even if you are a good league, that shows that you can't beat the teams that should be in the NCAA tournament. I don't care what your "eye-test" of the bad half of the ACC is.

Oh, and Yahoo! Sports dimwit. No, neither Utah OR Georgia Tech deserve to be in the Tournament this year.

What I don't get is by eliminating teams under .500 you are not saying teams at .500 or better are automatic.

ud2 · #40 02-28-2017, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Gazoo

Can someone help me understand how _avier isn't at least at risk, or even a bubble team at this point? Commentators keep saying they are "solidly in".

Sure they play in a pretty tough conference. But they're 8-8 and they've beaten Depaul, Seton Hall, St. John twice, Georgetown twice, and Providence. Also Creighton. Not exactly awesome. And they've lost 5 games in a row.

They are at risk...Dance Card has them as a 10 seed currently, if they lose tomorrow at home to Marquette, their seed will only get worse...and there is not much more room to fall, before you fall out of the NCAAT field completely, if you are already a 10 seed.

ud2 · #41 02-28-2017, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by xubrew

What I don't understand is why it is that you're so all over the place. You say you think it's unfair to the non power conferences and that merit rankings need to be used to help them out, yet here you are using a merit based rating (which you're incorrectly calling a ranking) to argue against teams from outside the power conferences. I hope hope that you're not an attorney.

Again, I am trying not to hijack this thread.

Another dodge...dude, you have only one example, Wichita State, to support your argument concerning predictive systems...I see little difference between the current Kenpom and rpi rankings.

Let's save this discussion for the off-season and not muck up this thread.

UDDoug · #42 02-28-2017, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by xubrew

-They're the only team that's won at Belmont.

A team that never gets a mention for consideration as an at large, but which should. Not saying they end up deserving an at large bid.

I also know if they win the OVC, I wouldn't want to be the team that plays them. Especially someone who doesn't have a shot blocker and is mediocre on the boards. Rick Byrd is a really good coach, and Evan Bradds has some of the best footwork in the post. Surrounded by a bunch of guys firing threes.