(03-20-2017 12:43 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The committee obviously stressed heavy weight toward playing in a major conference, which helps explains Wichita's seed as well as Middle Tennessee's and the AAC duo's seeds. I'm surprised St. Mary's had such a good seed.

More precisely, the committee put a lot of weight on a team's wins against other good teams - not just playing those games, but winning some of them. Vandy didn't get a 9-seed because they played 4-seed Florida three times; Vandy got a 9-seed because they beat Florida three times. K-State got in the field because they also had three wins over top-4 seeds (two over Baylor and one over West Virginia).

SMC had only one win over a power conference team (Stanford), but also had wins over some 20-win non-power teams (Nevada, Dayton, UC Irvine, TAMU-CC) and played very few terrible non-con opponents. Add in 3 wins over BYU, and SMC probably had more top-100 wins than the other mid-majors you mentioned.

(03-20-2017 12:43 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'm surprised St. Mary's had such a good seed.

I think the committee lost control of things, or just didn't know anything about the teams past the top four lines. The Big Ten looks like a mess in terms of its seedings, and while the best ones have made it through...what, did we really think Minnesota and Maryland BOTH deserved to be seeded higher than Wisconsin? Michigan too?

The seven line doesn't make sense. Michigan has a head-to-head win over South Carolina. South Carolina's RPI wasn't very good. SMC has a head-to-head over Dayton. Dayton...has some iffy losses in there. Of the four, though...SMC's got nothing really else good in there, other than a win against Nevada.

...but, Michigan doesn't belong that low, and South Carolina and Dayton are iffy, too?

One can say the same about the 11-line and how it's the borderline for the at-large's, and that Rhode Island shouldn't be there over at least MTSU or UNCW.

They look like gifts when you put the small guy up against the big one. And that that happens at virtually every line from 5 upwards...yikes. Just bad.

^^^Rhode Island was the Auto-bid from the A-10, so they don't enter the at-large debate.

(03-20-2017 11:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  They really blew the NIT seeding. So far 11 of 20 lower seeds have won.

IMO, that could be because of motivation. A higher seed is likely a team that had aspirations for the NCAA tournament and saw those hopes dashed very recently, burst bubble, so the NIT is a depressing event for them. But a lower seed's mindset would be different, as their NCAA hopes likely were dashed long ago, so are happy to be in the NIT.

(03-20-2017 02:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  ^^^Rhode Island was the Auto-bid from the A-10, so they don't enter the at-large debate.

I was just saying, if you had to fill in that last 11-line, why Rhodie?

(03-20-2017 03:06 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 02:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  ^^^Rhode Island was the Auto-bid from the A-10, so they don't enter the at-large debate.

I was just saying, if you had to fill in that last 11-line, why Rhodie?

So Rhode Island should have been higher in your mind?

(03-20-2017 03:33 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:06 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 02:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  ^^^Rhode Island was the Auto-bid from the A-10, so they don't enter the at-large debate.

I was just saying, if you had to fill in that last 11-line, why Rhodie?

So Rhode Island should have been higher in your mind?

Higher as in a 12? Yeah. I mean, if all other things stayed the same, that last 11-line spot, I'd give to MTSU or UNCW.

Overall? Hard to say. I think they could still fit into the 11-line if you nuked every line after 4 and reassembled it with more respect to RPI and other factors. It's tough because the 30-40 RPI range has everyone from snubs (Illinois State) to a six-seed (UMD). They kind of average out there in that range. I think they go better because of SOS and because of who's below them that were seeded higher.

(03-20-2017 03:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:33 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:06 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 02:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  ^^^Rhode Island was the Auto-bid from the A-10, so they don't enter the at-large debate.

I was just saying, if you had to fill in that last 11-line, why Rhodie?

So Rhode Island should have been higher in your mind?

Higher as in a 12? Yeah. I mean, if all other things stayed the same, that last 11-line spot, I'd give to MTSU or UNCW.

Overall? Hard to say. I think they could still fit into the 11-line if you nuked every line after 4 and reassembled it with more respect to RPI and other factors. It's tough because the 30-40 RPI range has everyone from snubs (Illinois State) to a six-seed (UMD). They kind of average out there in that range. I think they go better because of SOS and because of who's below them that were seeded higher.

So who would you dump? URI won the auto-bid

So did Middle and UNCW.

(03-20-2017 04:45 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:49 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:33 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 03:06 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 02:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  ^^^Rhode Island was the Auto-bid from the A-10, so they don't enter the at-large debate.

I was just saying, if you had to fill in that last 11-line, why Rhodie?

So Rhode Island should have been higher in your mind?

Higher as in a 12? Yeah. I mean, if all other things stayed the same, that last 11-line spot, I'd give to MTSU or UNCW.

Overall? Hard to say. I think they could still fit into the 11-line if you nuked every line after 4 and reassembled it with more respect to RPI and other factors. It's tough because the 30-40 RPI range has everyone from snubs (Illinois State) to a six-seed (UMD). They kind of average out there in that range. I think they go better because of SOS and because of who's below them that were seeded higher.

So who would you dump? URI won the auto-bid

Kansas State. And it's to the core with them, really. If you have to go and find the remaining 30-something at-large's, theirs is the most troubling selection by the committee. RPI in the 50's, sub .500 conference record, terrible OOC SOS, no good wins outside of the conference (only top 100 win OOC was Colorado State), and even the overall SOS still isn't a top 40 one. There's nothing of quality outside of the conference schedule. Nothing.

If you have to overlook Illinois State, then it's onto UT-Arlington, and that's still difficult to overlook. The non-conference work is strong, and peppered into that body count are your SWAC and NEC champions. This was a purposeful effort, and it was undone by a bad conference, but a more ignorant selection committee.

I think the only thing KSU has to stand on was getting the better of a cooling Baylor squad twice and a decent KenPom number. You also see this ignorance to contextualizing wins, as you count good wins the same regardless, whether in or out of conference, at or away from home. KSU played four games on the road in the non-conference and went 1-3. UTA played NINE games on the road, went 6-3. UTA had a far easier time in Austin than KSU did, too.

It's not a good cocktail, this committee. You can win a conference outright, you can do what you're told to do, schedule what you can, play good teams, spend most of your non-conference off your own floor...everything that's supposed to matter to committees...to have it betrayed because your conference sucks, and you don't play more/enough good teams. One thing can be overlooked but the other can't, but that same formula isn't followed across the group. In a good conference, you can have a bad night...many bad nights. In a bad one, a bad loss can literally do you in. That's KSU to UTA in a nutshell.

And that's just Kansas State. Wake and Vanderbilt are kind of the same in that they punished themselves in and out of the conference, usually with nothing more than conference wins to prop them up; there's nothing great, but, I think they avoid the ax more than KSU and some others like them, like Virginia Tech, Marquette, and Seton Hall. P*ss poor non-conference SOS numbers AND dubious RPIs.

I see where you're coming from but Arlington had one too many bad losses in conference. Of the NCAA Tournament caliber teams they played, they only beat St. Mary's. TSU and Mount Saint also made the Dance but would not have sniffed anything without an auto-bid. For that matter, neither would Florida Gulf Coast but they are a team that could have gotten an at-large with a few more wins. They picked a bad year to play and beat Texas FWIW.

So no, Arlington didn't deserve an invite and being blown out in their conference tournament semifinals was the nail in the coffin. At the very least they are making up for it by being a step away from the NIT semifinals.

(03-21-2017 01:01 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I see where you're coming from but Arlington had one too many bad losses in conference. Of the NCAA Tournament caliber teams they played, they only beat St. Mary's. TSU and Mount Saint also made the Dance but would not have sniffed anything without an auto-bid. For that matter, neither would Florida Gulf Coast but they are a team that could have gotten an at-large with a few more wins. They picked a bad year to play and beat Texas FWIW.

So no, Arlington didn't deserve an invite and being blown out in their conference tournament semifinals was the nail in the coffin. At the very least they are making up for it by being a step away from the NIT semifinals.

I'm in the camp of thinking no at-large deserves a bid. They're at-larges. So, we're not totally in disagreement over some of this. And, at the end, they're all kind of a big blob of mediocrity. The issue becomes, what value trumps what? I don't disagree that UTA has its flaws. But, you win your conference outright, you play nine games in the non-conference on the road (and let's be honest about that one...who is really doing that in the majors?), you beat a top 20 RPI team, you lose to two in the top 25...all three of them on the road. The RPI, the non-conference SOS and RPI all respectable...they do have more going for them than others. It's just that you can't look past the bad teams in the Sun Belt.

When it comes to the metrics, there's just no consistency to a method or formula. I know what one can have against Illinois State...it's just Wichita State and nobody else as a good win (and for a bit there, they weren't even a top 50). And Murray State and Tulsa are red flags. Not unlike UTA's slips against Texas State and Coastal. Monmouth with St. Peter's, Rider, and Siena. The quality isn't stacked, and there are bad losses. In a bad conference. From those three perspectives, you can pretty much **** anyone over from a non-major...the good teams aren't on the weekly schedule.

The non-conference schedule was...is...supposed to be the equalizer. It's a place where major conference teams are supposed to prove who they are against the rest of D1 because of the parity and other variables that kind of stain conference play and their wins. And this year, it looks like the committee just looked at every good win at face value. And it's not supposed to be like that!

Plus, bad losses or no, where good wins are hard to find, the trump card seems to always be "well, who did you beat?" You could flip those bad losses on ISU and UTA's record...does that push them in, really?

ok they had 9 OOC road games. Of those 9, 5 were vs teams in the RPI sub 150. They are 1-3 vs top 150 teams OOC road. They were overall top 150 away from home 3-5.

Like I said, they were blown out in the conference tournament semifinals by a mediocre team, even by Sun Belt standards. If they had just 1-2 losses throughout their conference season, maybe you give them a break but looking at their entire profile, they just weren't an NCAA Tournament caliber team. They were literally the only good team in the Sun Belt, the only one with less than 12 losses and yet they didn't dominate their crap league.

I'm more peeved about Illinois State, who reached their conference tournament final and otherwise had a fine season, even if the numbers don't wholly speak to it.

(03-21-2017 02:04 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  there are bad losses. In a bad conference. From those three perspectives, you can pretty much **** anyone over from a non-major...

No. There have been many seasons in which mid-major teams hoping for an at-large bid had high-quality non-conference wins. This is not one of those seasons.

(03-21-2017 02:04 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  And this year, it looks like the committee just looked at every good win at face value.

Apparently, they did. As they should. It would be ridiculous to say that Indiana's win over Kansas is amazing but Iowa State's win over Kansas isn't just because they are conference mates. Another way of looking at it is that perhaps the committee was trying to get around one of the many bogus aspects of RPI - giving teams credit for merely playing good opponents - by giving "extra credit" for actually beating good opponents. If that's what they did, I don't see a legitimate argument against it.

Ultimately, I don't disagree. UTA isn't that strong, and we can't come to a lot of conclusions because so many of the mid-major bubble teams won their conference's AQ. This might be a totally different conversation if Rhode Island, MTSU, UNCW, Nevada, Vermont, and maybe even Princeton are not winning their respective conferences and are out there with Illinois State, UTA, and Monmouth. Or, heck, Illinois State does win the Valley's tournament and puts Wichita out there with the others.

What concerns me is the precedence you make with Vanderbilt and Kansas State while, once again, looking far past a high RPI team and leaving them behind. And it's also the combination of wins at face value when, and not to quibble, there are valid arguments/reasons to devalue the conference season (parity, familiarity, repetition, and even frequency of play). If you want to go down that road and take wins at full face value, then let's go, and along the way, scrap or shorten the non-conference, remove the protections of having conference-mates seeing each other early in the tournament, and completely disregard other accomplishments. On that last bit, and this is the only reason I press with UTA or ISU, it's that you can actually be a top 50 RPI club, other good metrics, and win your conference outright...just to be snubbed. Meanwhile, in KSU's case, basically drown in your conference, play nothing in your non-conference (and maybe the reason you're even a .500 team outright), but a few good punches, and now you're in for a national title. It's just not good.

But again, that's just the nature of at-large's. Win and you're in. For the champions of CUSA, CAA, AmEast, and the Ivy...good job. For bubble teams like Rhode Island and Wichita State, good job.

Looking at what's going on, consider the following at-large information:
2017 Tournament
highest RPI major not invited: Georgia (52)
lowest RPI major invited: Marquette (61)
highest RPI mid-major not invited: Illinois State (T-32)
lowest RPI mid-major invited: Dayton (28)
# of top 50 RPI mid-majors not invited: 3 (ISU, UTA - 44, Monmouth - 48)

2016 Tournament
highest RPI major not invited: Florida (51)
lowest RPI major invited: Syracuse (68)
highest RPI mid-major not invited: St. Bonaventure (30)
lowest RPI mid-major invited: Temple (63)
# of top 50 RPI mid-majors not invited: 5 (Bonnie, Akron - 36, St. Mary's - 40, SDSU - 42, Valpo - 49)

2015 Tournament
highest RPI major not invited: Stanford (60)
lowest RPI major invited: Indiana (58)
highest RPI mid-major not invited: Colorado State (28)
lowest RPI mid-major invited: Boise State (44)
# of top 50 RPI mid-majors not invited: 4 (CSU, Temple - 34, Old Dominion - 45, Tulsa - 47)

2014 Tournament
highest RPI major not invited: Minnesota (50)
lowest RPI major invited: Iowa (55)
highest RPI mid-major not invited: Southern Miss (T-32)
lowest RPI mid-major invited: Dayton (42)
# of top 50 RPI mid-majors not invited: 2 (USM, Toledo - 38)

2013 Tournament
highest RPI major not invited: Kentucky (56) (UConn - 49, ineligible)
lowest RPI major invited: Cal (53)
highest RPI mid-major not invited: Southern Miss (34)
lowest RPI mid-major invited: Boise State (44)
# of top 50 RPI mid-majors not invited: 1 (USM)

2012 Tournament
highest RPI major not invited: Ole Miss (58)
lowest RPI major invited: West Virginia (53)
highest RPI mid-major not invited: Marshall (43)
lowest RPI mid-major invited: BYU (49)
# of top 50 RPI mid-majors not invited: 1 (Marshall)

Before all of this consolidation within the new Big East and A10, mid-majors got their bids. It really hasn't been until 2015 when things have kind of dovetailed against them. Minnesota's the highest major snub there in 2014, but, consider they were 8-10 in conference play. Iowa, with a lower RPI, had a better conference record.

So, any Sweet Sixteen upset predictions?

I could see both Gonzaga and Kansas going down tonight. Anybody else want to stick their necks out?

KU"s homecourt advantage will be tough to overcome. I like Xavier tonight.

I doubt MSG expected to be hosting Florida, Wisconsin, Baylor and South Carolina this week.

(03-23-2017 08:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  So, any Sweet Sixteen upset predictions?

I could see both Gonzaga and Kansas going down tonight. Anybody else want to stick their necks out?

Kansas, WVU, Arizona, Michigan tonight

UNC, UCLA, Florida, Baylor Friday

WVU and X win tonight.