(03-10-2014 09:03 AM)MichealBond Wrote:  Sorry, maybe I'm in the minority...but I hate when some 7th or 8th place team of a lower level league somehow beats the top 1 or 2 seed and makes the Regular season champion of the league miss the NCAA tourney. If I was a commish of some of the lower level leagues, I would restrict my conference tournament to the top 4 in the league standings. More than likely, the top 4 teams in each would at least have winning records.

There would be no reason for the small conferences to have tournaments if you restricted who gets the conference's auto-bid. They'd also be losing any tv revenue from the tournament.

(03-09-2014 11:57 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:33 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:02 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  UW Green Bay lost in the Horizon semis and takes another NIT slot

Green Bay might still be in the running for an at large.

They have wins over 4 top 100 teams including 1 top 10 RPI team and a 3 point loss to a top 5 RPI team.

Although their RPI is higher, if I were on the selection committee and saw blind resumes for USM and UW-GB, I'd hands down choose UW-GB.

Why? Our RPI is 35; theirs is 63. We are 1-1 vs Top 50; they are 1-2. We are 2-2 vs 51-100; they are 3-1. We are 10-2 vs 101-200; they are 7-3. I would probably pick them over Missouri or Dayton but not Southern Miss.

They have a signature win. USM has an embarrassingly bad OOC resume.

I think UW-GB is a long shot for an at large, but they beat a top 10 RPI Virginia and lost to a top 5 RPI Wisconsin by 2.

USM had one chance against a legit OOC opponent and got bent over. If I remove my CUSA bias, I see nothing about USM that makes me think they deserve a bid. I'd give one to La Tech over USM despite the fact they have a worse RPI because they have a signature win and a similar record.

(03-10-2014 09:25 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 11:57 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:33 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:02 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  UW Green Bay lost in the Horizon semis and takes another NIT slot

Green Bay might still be in the running for an at large.

They have wins over 4 top 100 teams including 1 top 10 RPI team and a 3 point loss to a top 5 RPI team.

Although their RPI is higher, if I were on the selection committee and saw blind resumes for USM and UW-GB, I'd hands down choose UW-GB.

Why? Our RPI is 35; theirs is 63. We are 1-1 vs Top 50; they are 1-2. We are 2-2 vs 51-100; they are 3-1. We are 10-2 vs 101-200; they are 7-3. I would probably pick them over Missouri or Dayton but not Southern Miss.

They have a signature win. USM has an embarrassingly bad OOC resume.

I think UW-GB is a long shot for an at large, but they beat a top 10 RPI Virginia and lost to a top 5 RPI Wisconsin by 2.

USM had one chance against a legit OOC opponent and got bent over. If I remove my CUSA bias, I see nothing about USM that makes me think they deserve a bid. I'd give one to La Tech over USM despite the fact they have a worse RPI because they have a signature win and a similar record.

We beat La Tech, just FYI.

(03-10-2014 09:17 AM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 09:03 AM)MichealBond Wrote:  Sorry, maybe I'm in the minority...but I hate when some 7th or 8th place team of a lower level league somehow beats the top 1 or 2 seed and makes the Regular season champion of the league miss the NCAA tourney. If I was a commish of some of the lower level leagues, I would restrict my conference tournament to the top 4 in the league standings. More than likely, the top 4 teams in each would at least have winning records.

There would be no reason for the small conferences to have tournaments if you restricted who gets the conference's auto-bid. They'd also be losing any tv revenue from the tournament.

I completely disagree with limiting access to conference tournaments. They provide hope to the lowliest team and keep the regular season meaningful. They reward teams that start slow and improve throughout the season. They add intrigue and excitement. They are the purest form of Sports Darwinism.

To me, arbitrarily red-lining weaker teams is cowardly and kind of un-American. This is supposed to be a meritocracy. If you're truly a better team, then prove it on the court. The alternative (restricting access) is what we're always complaining about from the P5 schools. Let's not be hypocrites.

(03-10-2014 09:17 AM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 09:03 AM)MichealBond Wrote:  Sorry, maybe I'm in the minority...but I hate when some 7th or 8th place team of a lower level league somehow beats the top 1 or 2 seed and makes the Regular season champion of the league miss the NCAA tourney. If I was a commish of some of the lower level leagues, I would restrict my conference tournament to the top 4 in the league standings. More than likely, the top 4 teams in each would at least have winning records.

There would be no reason for the small conferences to have tournaments if you restricted who gets the conference's auto-bid. They'd also be losing any tv revenue from the tournament.

Works well for the Ivy League. They have no conference tournament.

TV revenue? I'm sure the smaller conferences get a minimal amount from ESPN to televise their championship game. Most of the smaller conferences don't have any earlier final rounds televised. lowering the number of eligible teams wouldn't hurt. More than likely, it would help the conference champ get a higher seed.

Harvard has won 26 games this year and I would guess would have a good chance of getting a 12 or maybe even an 11 seed. If they had a tournament and got upset and a 5th or 6th seed won and got the autobid...the best they'd be looking at is a 15 seed. It's well documented that a 11/12 seed has a better chance to beat their 1st round than a 15 or 16 seed.

Better seeds equal a better chance to advance which equals more money being paid to the conference for their success.

(03-10-2014 09:25 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 11:57 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:33 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:02 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  UW Green Bay lost in the Horizon semis and takes another NIT slot

Green Bay might still be in the running for an at large.

They have wins over 4 top 100 teams including 1 top 10 RPI team and a 3 point loss to a top 5 RPI team.

Although their RPI is higher, if I were on the selection committee and saw blind resumes for USM and UW-GB, I'd hands down choose UW-GB.

Why? Our RPI is 35; theirs is 63. We are 1-1 vs Top 50; they are 1-2. We are 2-2 vs 51-100; they are 3-1. We are 10-2 vs 101-200; they are 7-3. I would probably pick them over Missouri or Dayton but not Southern Miss.

They have a signature win. USM has an embarrassingly bad OOC resume.

I think UW-GB is a long shot for an at large, but they beat a top 10 RPI Virginia and lost to a top 5 RPI Wisconsin by 2.

USM had one chance against a legit OOC opponent and got bent over. If I remove my CUSA bias, I see nothing about USM that makes me think they deserve a bid. I'd give one to La Tech over USM despite the fact they have a worse RPI because they have a signature win and a similar record.

I'm with you 100% here. Green Bay also did both of those things on the road. It's unfortunate that the RPI dropped so low for them though, because that seals their fate.

Southern Miss has basically the same resume as they did last year. No good wins and no bad losses is a good way to build an RPI up, but if we're being honest here, Southern Miss hasn't done much more than manipulate it. Nothing in their resume screams top 30 team this year.

Well the restriction already happens in a couple of the smaller conferences...

Ohio Valley has 12 teams, but only 8 make the conf. tournament.

America East has 9 teams, only 8 make it.

Atlantic Sun has 10 teams, only 8 make it.

Big Sky has 11 teams, only 7 make it in.

The SunBelt even gives the top 2 seeds in the standings 2 Byes in the conference tournament!

The list goes on...

I don't think it's fair at all for the team that fought and beat almost every team in their conference twice to be sitting at home while a team that won less than 10 games gets to represent their league in the NCAA tournament. You want to talk about merit...Isn't the whole reason behind being the regular season conference champ is that you proved that you were the best team in your conference through 14-18 games?

This isn't about being a hypocrite...This is about letting COMPLETELY undeserving teams into a national tournament to determine a national champion.

This is the exact opposite of letting a 8-4 Big 10 or Big East team into a BCS game while an 11-1 Boise team is left out...

These Charlotte and UAB boys listen to the talking heads too much...lol

(03-10-2014 10:21 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  These Charlotte and UAB boys listen to the talking heads too much...lol

No, we actually pay attention to basketball and aren't complete conference homers. I would like nothing more than to see us get 2-3 teams in the tournament and make some noise. Seriously, if you weren't a Southern Miss fan, would you really look at that resume and say that there is a surefire tournament team?

(03-10-2014 10:21 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  These Charlotte and UAB boys listen to the talking heads too much...lol

Yet you'll be in the NIT again (unless you win the conference tournament of course) for the precise reason we cited when OOC play ended. You beat nobody and it is extremely unlikely you will be rewarded for it.

We will see, won't we.. The committee doesn't like to screw teams two years in a row. If we make it to the finals, we're in. We got a terrible draw in the tournament, and will have to play the home team probably in our first game.

(03-10-2014 10:00 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 09:25 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 11:57 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:33 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:02 PM)USMSTUD Wrote:  UW Green Bay lost in the Horizon semis and takes another NIT slot

Green Bay might still be in the running for an at large.

They have wins over 4 top 100 teams including 1 top 10 RPI team and a 3 point loss to a top 5 RPI team.

Although their RPI is higher, if I were on the selection committee and saw blind resumes for USM and UW-GB, I'd hands down choose UW-GB.

Why? Our RPI is 35; theirs is 63. We are 1-1 vs Top 50; they are 1-2. We are 2-2 vs 51-100; they are 3-1. We are 10-2 vs 101-200; they are 7-3. I would probably pick them over Missouri or Dayton but not Southern Miss.

They have a signature win. USM has an embarrassingly bad OOC resume.

I think UW-GB is a long shot for an at large, but they beat a top 10 RPI Virginia and lost to a top 5 RPI Wisconsin by 2.

USM had one chance against a legit OOC opponent and got bent over. If I remove my CUSA bias, I see nothing about USM that makes me think they deserve a bid. I'd give one to La Tech over USM despite the fact they have a worse RPI because they have a signature win and a similar record.

I'm with you 100% here. Green Bay also did both of those things on the road. It's unfortunate that the RPI dropped so low for them though, because that seals their fate.

Southern Miss has basically the same resume as they did last year. No good wins and no bad losses is a good way to build an RPI up, but if we're being honest here, Southern Miss hasn't done much more than manipulate it. Nothing in their resume screams top 30 team this year.

You would be wrong. Green Bay had both of those games at home.
You don't get rewarded for close losses either. If that were the case we would have been in last year when we had late leads at Arizona, Wichita State and Memphis but lost.

(03-10-2014 11:14 AM)USMSTUD Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 10:00 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 09:25 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 11:57 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:33 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Green Bay might still be in the running for an at large.

They have wins over 4 top 100 teams including 1 top 10 RPI team and a 3 point loss to a top 5 RPI team.

Although their RPI is higher, if I were on the selection committee and saw blind resumes for USM and UW-GB, I'd hands down choose UW-GB.

Why? Our RPI is 35; theirs is 63. We are 1-1 vs Top 50; they are 1-2. We are 2-2 vs 51-100; they are 3-1. We are 10-2 vs 101-200; they are 7-3. I would probably pick them over Missouri or Dayton but not Southern Miss.

They have a signature win. USM has an embarrassingly bad OOC resume.

I think UW-GB is a long shot for an at large, but they beat a top 10 RPI Virginia and lost to a top 5 RPI Wisconsin by 2.

USM had one chance against a legit OOC opponent and got bent over. If I remove my CUSA bias, I see nothing about USM that makes me think they deserve a bid. I'd give one to La Tech over USM despite the fact they have a worse RPI because they have a signature win and a similar record.

I'm with you 100% here. Green Bay also did both of those things on the road. It's unfortunate that the RPI dropped so low for them though, because that seals their fate.

Southern Miss has basically the same resume as they did last year. No good wins and no bad losses is a good way to build an RPI up, but if we're being honest here, Southern Miss hasn't done much more than manipulate it. Nothing in their resume screams top 30 team this year.

You would be wrong. Green Bay had both of those games at home.
You don't get rewarded for close losses either. If that were the case we would have been in last year when we had late leads at Arizona, Wichita State and Memphis but lost.

Sorry, I had my teams confused there. You are correct. And it's not necessarily true that close losses aren't rewarded. The eye test is still a factor, but an RPI outside of the top 40 pretty much eliminates any non power conference school.

I hate seeing mediocre teams from the $$$$-conferences get an at-large--schools with .500 records or worse, in-conference, who didn't play any OOC games on the road.

Wonder how many Top 50 wins USM and Tech would have if just a couple of those teams would have come to Hattiesburg or Ruston ?

Our coach said that NO team in the nation would have beaten Tech in Ruston the night they spanked us. Said they were on "another" level.

(03-10-2014 11:01 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  We will see, won't we.. The committee doesn't like to screw teams two years in a row. If we make it to the finals, we're in. We got a terrible draw in the tournament, and will have to play the home team probably in our first game.

The thing is you didn't get screwed last year. Your resume was literally filled with nothing. Your top 100 wins were: 66, 96, 96. Again, I would love to see as many teams as possible in the tournament from our conference, but I would be angry if the selection committee allowed a team with that resume in the tournament.

Losing to UAB will probably keep us out of an at-large.

(03-10-2014 11:53 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Losing to UAB will probably keep us out of an at-large.

It surely won't help your cause. Just like the Marshall game last year. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just pointing at the facts. The year UAB and VCU got destroyed by Bilas we had something like 10 top 100 wins.

(03-10-2014 12:04 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 11:53 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Losing to UAB will probably keep us out of an at-large.

It surely won't help your cause. Just like the Marshall game last year. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just pointing at the facts. The year UAB and VCU got destroyed by Bilas we had something like 10 top 100 wins.

Well we all know that dude's bias. One of the great things about IF we do somehow get an at-large is how bad that d-bag will flip out.

My point was more that UAB had 10 top 100 wins that year and barely got in. I know Bilas is an idiot, but I don't even care what he has to say. I just pay attention to the numbers and what the Selection Committee does and doesn't do. They are pretty predictable, and they have certain things they do and don't reward.