http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...basketball
The MWC should be the top league outside the new power five: SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC and Pac-12.
The new Big East has the potential -- with Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, Butler, Xavier and Creighton -- to rival or exceed the MWC's number of bids on a regular basis. The new Big East could topple it if St. John's and Providence can escape the bottom.
Because the MWC puffing up their RPIs with non-Division I schools instead of D-I bottom feeders is going to keep working, instead of being a trick the committee catches on to next year.
(03-21-2013 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...basketball
The MWC should be the top league outside the new power five: SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC and Pac-12.
The new Big East has the potential -- with Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, Butler, Xavier and Creighton -- to rival or exceed the MWC's number of bids on a regular basis. The new Big East could topple it if St. John's and Providence can escape the bottom.
Because the MWC puffing up their RPIs with non-Division I schools instead of D-I bottom feeders is going to keep working, instead of being a trick the committee catches on to next year.
He's a putz.
Quote:Although it's never been this strong, the MWC has had its share of good teams since its inception in 1999. It was only two years ago when San Diego State received a No. 2 seed, while BYU (which is now in the WCC) was seeded third.
For the most part, though, the MWC has had disappointing results in the NCAA tournament. No conference team has advanced past the Sweet 16. The previous time a current MWC school reached the Elite Eight was in 1991, when UNLV was a member of the Big West.
Last season, the four Mountain West schools that received bids went a combined 1-4 in the tournament. "We've accomplished some great things this year as a league," UNLV coach Dave Rice said. "But there's no question that we need to have some postseason success to validate what we've done."
MWC commissioner Craig Thompson agrees. "That's definitely the next step," he said.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...ing-moment
The Big East has programs that have already proven their worth. It seems a little premature for Katz to assume the MWC is actually worthy of their bids even though they haven't proven they are. But the great thing about college basketball is that a conference gets the chance to prove they deserve the bids on the court .
This article is an embarrassment to everybody involved.
well both had 5 bids this year. Boise got in with 3 wins vs tourney teams in the MWC, and then their win vs Creighton. Utah St was 21-10 in the WAC- it'll be interesting to see how they are in the MWC next season.
I don't know if I would have used the word should in the story, but rather could. New Mexico, Colorado St, UNLV, and San Diego St aren't flukes, and Boise is ahead of schedule.
(03-21-2013 11:54 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]well both had 5 bids this year. Boise got in with 3 wins vs tourney teams in the MWC, and then their win vs Creighton. Utah St was 21-10 in the WAC- it'll be interesting to see how they are in the MWC next season.
I don't know if I would have used the word should in the story, but rather could. New Mexico, Colorado St, UNLV, and San Diego St aren't flukes, and Boise is ahead of schedule.
Well Boise could have definitely been a NIT team being switched out with UVA.
They are 3, 5, 7, 8, 13. We are 2, 3, 6, 7, 9.
Looks like we are seeded higher than them.
The members of the new Big East have 46 NCAA bids over the last 10 years. The MWC has 29 bids over the same period.
The members of the new Big East have 5 Final Four appearances over the most recent 10 Final Fours. The MWC has zero. Syracuse and Louisville didn't carry those schools into the Final Four - they did it themselves.
Katz needs to STFU.
I think the primary arguement for the MWC is that they have played together- there is no question about them playing together- no question about how Butler, Xavier, and Creighton will get integrated.
And- Boise was the top rated team in the Play in games. They didn't have the crap losses that UVA did. UVA had 4 losses to losing teams this year. That just NIT.
(03-21-2013 12:34 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the primary arguement for the MWC is that they have played together- there is no question about them playing together- no question about how Butler, Xavier, and Creighton will get integrated.
And- Boise was the top rated team in the Play in games. They didn't have the crap losses that UVA did. UVA had 4 losses to losing teams this year. That just NIT.
The MWC has only 6 of its founding members. They've lost 3 members over the last couple of years, including 2 very strong programs in Utah and BYU. Boise joined last year. Fresno and Nevada this year. USU and SJSU coming in next year. SDSU and BSU were out the door. How is their situation all that different than the C7, which has 5 members that have been together for over 30 years? I think the MWC will be a consistent multibid conference, but they have hardly the beacon of conference stability.
(03-21-2013 12:47 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2013 12:34 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the primary arguement for the MWC is that they have played together- there is no question about them playing together- no question about how Butler, Xavier, and Creighton will get integrated.
And- Boise was the top rated team in the Play in games. They didn't have the crap losses that UVA did. UVA had 4 losses to losing teams this year. That just NIT.
The MWC has only 6 of its founding members. They've lost 3 members over the last couple of years, including 2 very strong programs in Utah and BYU. Boise joined last year. Fresno and Nevada this year. USU and SJSU coming in next year. SDSU and BSU were out the door. How is their situation all that different than the C7, which has 5 members that have been together for over 30 years? I think the MWC will be a consistent multibid conference, but they have hardly the beacon of conference stability.
But their top schools- UNLV, New Mexico, San Diego St, and Colorado St have played together from the get go. They aren't going anywhere. Boise got in playing a MWC schedule this year. Boise and SDSU were going to leave but they didn't.
How it's different than the C7 is using the numbers- of the 46 bids the BE has- 18 are from teams that have never played in the Big East. We don't know how they will get integrated.
Like I said Katz should have said the MWC could be the strongest non top 5 conference. That's a pretty defensible statement- and you can make arguements to that effect. What he did say that they should be- is a joke. There is nothing out there that defends that at all..
(03-21-2013 12:34 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the primary arguement for the MWC is that they have played together- there is no question about them playing together- no question about how Butler, Xavier, and Creighton will get integrated.
And- Boise was the top rated team in the Play in games. They didn't have the crap losses that UVA did. UVA had 4 losses to losing teams this year. That just NIT.
Creighton is their best win and lost to Air Force. They have 1 win against a power conference team and thats LSU, though I would prob call the MWC a stronger league than the SEC this year.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...te-broncos
Top rated team in the play in game still means you're in the play in game and very close to being in the NIT.
(03-21-2013 12:58 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2013 12:47 PM)orangefan Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2013 12:34 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the primary arguement for the MWC is that they have played together- there is no question about them playing together- no question about how Butler, Xavier, and Creighton will get integrated.
And- Boise was the top rated team in the Play in games. They didn't have the crap losses that UVA did. UVA had 4 losses to losing teams this year. That just NIT.
The MWC has only 6 of its founding members. They've lost 3 members over the last couple of years, including 2 very strong programs in Utah and BYU. Boise joined last year. Fresno and Nevada this year. USU and SJSU coming in next year. SDSU and BSU were out the door. How is their situation all that different than the C7, which has 5 members that have been together for over 30 years? I think the MWC will be a consistent multibid conference, but they have hardly the beacon of conference stability.
But their top schools- UNLV, New Mexico, San Diego St, and Colorado St have played together from the get go. They aren't going anywhere. Boise got in playing a MWC schedule this year. Boise and SDSU were going to leave but they didn't.
How it's different than the C7 is using the numbers- of the 46 bids the BE has- 18 are from teams that have never played in the Big East. We don't know how they will get integrated.
Like I said Katz should have said the MWC could be the strongest non top 5 conference. That's a pretty defensible statement- and you can make arguements to that effect. What he did say that they should be- is a joke. There is nothing out there that defends that at all..
I think tourney bids aren't really a good indicator of a conferences strength. It should be about what they do with those bids. SO to say the MWC may become the 6th best conference is ridiculous since they have not had one of their teams make a Final Four or Elite Eight. Unless they make some runs, the bids will shrink.
Truthfully, I feel the new Big East will be competing with the Big-12, PAC-12 and SEC for positioning in the top 4. I don't feel the MWC will be their measuring stick.
I don't think the committee looks at the conference tourney performances when doing the bids. don't think so at all.
Think you could say they were a top 6 conference this year even.
(03-21-2013 01:21 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think the committee looks at the conference tourney performances when doing the bids. don't think so at all.
Think you could say they were a top 6 conference this year even.
Maybe its not officially part of the committee's metric on deciding tourney bids but I can't see how the performance of the MWC in the tourney will not sway the men making the final decisions. They can't keep on going 1-4 like last season and expect to be given the edge over a team like UVA.
If you use tourament bids as the measuring stick, yes, they are a top 6 conference right now. My measuring stick is tournament performance and next year I would rank them behind the BCS-5, new Big East, old Big East and even the A10. While the SEC and ACC had down years, they still have schools that can easily make it to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 while the MWC have never been to that level.
The committee swears up and down they don't look at conference tournament success. I tend to mostly believe it--a school might get the benefit of the doubt for past tournament success, but not just because schools from your conference have gone deep. Xavier would get the benefit of the doubt if they're on the bubble, but that doesn't give LaSalle a boost.
(03-21-2013 03:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]The committee swears up and down they don't look at conference tournament success. I tend to mostly believe it--a school might get the benefit of the doubt for past tournament success, but not just because schools from your conference have gone deep. Xavier would get the benefit of the doubt if they're on the bubble, but that doesn't give LaSalle a boost.
Point taken....
But my point is the same even if its on a team-by-team basis; I think these MWC teams will not be given the benefit of the doubt over schools from major conferences if they continually go one and done.
(03-21-2013 03:46 PM)SecureDaBall Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2013 03:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote: [ -> ]The committee swears up and down they don't look at conference tournament success. I tend to mostly believe it--a school might get the benefit of the doubt for past tournament success, but not just because schools from your conference have gone deep. Xavier would get the benefit of the doubt if they're on the bubble, but that doesn't give LaSalle a boost.
Point taken....
But my point is the same even if its on a team-by-team basis; I think these MWC teams will not be given the benefit of the doubt over schools from major conferences if they continually go one and done.
This is true. It's not that the MWC or the MWC school will get dinged, it's that the MWC team on the bubble doesn't get the bonus points that a Butler or a Michigan on the bubble gets.
I think that, after this year, teams WILL get dinged for playing non-Division I teams. Possibly a modified RPI where you slot in Division I team #300.
I'm glad you're talking about the MWC angle, because I think the A-10 angle is valid. The A-10 should be fine if the Big East stays at 10. The MWC teams scheduled easier OOC than the A-10 (the returning 12 A-10 teams played TWICE as many games vs the Top 25 OOC, and 15 more Top 100 opponents than they did) and play RPI games. The A-10 really needs to learn to do that. Hopefully, with Temple and Xavier gone (Two teams who really play really tough OOC schedules), the UD/SLU schedule influence will spread among the league.
It's the "old guard" for the most part who still have that "anyone, anywhere" mentality (URI, SJU, UMass, GW), while UD & Xavier have advocated the RPI smart OOC scheduling (Xavier "gets" it, but schedules up because they're so good), Duquesne (AD was an XU Asst AD), SLU, Fordham (figured it out) and Bona (AD was a UD asst AD) all get it.
I really don't think anything about the article was disrespectful to the Big East. I don't think the Big East was even a topic for them. It was "the Valley and A-10 moving on from here"
(03-21-2013 04:29 PM)JPSchmack Wrote: [ -> ]I really don't think anything about the article was disrespectful to the Big East. I don't think the Big East was even a topic for them. It was "the Valley and A-10 moving on from here"
I didn't think so either. I do think it was a fluff piece to talk up the MWC because ESPN just announced the TV contract.
Ranking us below the Mountain West is disrespect, in my book.