3

The numbers in the title represent the victories achieved by MAC teams heading into the MACC. The last value represents the total number of post-season berths the league is likely to get this year. Especially given the new NIT guidelines allowing in BCS teams with losing records and offering automatic berths to any regular-season conference champ not headed to the NCAAs.

I think the regular season champs thing is fine...the losing records part is total crap.

DrTorch Wrote:I think the regular season champs thing is fine...the losing records part is total crap.

=>I am the exact opposite. Let the best 40 play regardless of whether they are regular season champs or have a losing record.

If 65 teams make the NCAA tourney plus 40 NIT teams, the top 105 should be in the postseason. Now, that does not always work out because there are always 8 or so of the 65 that are Conf. tourney champs and not in the top 105. In reality, the NIT should be filled with teams ranked in the top 95.

Allowing regular season champs in potentially could allow (or could have allowed for those already qualified for the NCAA tourney) the following into the NIT:

Albany: RPI 128 (America East)
Lipscomb: RPI 142 (Atlantic Sun)
Northern Arizona: RPI 118 (Big Sky)
IUPUI: 143 (mid-continent)
Delaware State: 122 (MEAC)
Farleigh Dickinson: 133 (NEC)
Ga. Southern: 159 (Southern)
Southern U.: 145 (SWAC)

None of these teams should get an NIT invite over Miami (RPI 74) just because they were the regular season champs of their pathetic league. Their leagues already get a free pass into the NCAA tourney, they do not really deserve any more freebies. If it wasn't for these piss ant leagues getting automatic NCAA berths to begin with, Miami, Kent (RPI 60), and Akron (RPI 64) would be an NCAA bubble teams fighting for 1 of the last spots in the field of 65. Truth is, it is the piss ant leagues, not the BCS conferences, that have stolen so many NCAA bids that would have otherwise gone to MAC schools.

The following are three teams that are "statistically" much more deserving than many of the above despite having potential losing records:

Depaul (RPI 89): 12-15 (7-4 OOC record)
N'Western (RPI 87): 14-14 - could drop below .500 with a 1st round B10 tourney loss (8-4 OOC record)
S. Carolina (RPI 79): 14-14 - same as N'western by in SEC (9-2 OOC record)

Certainly an argument can be made that Depaul, N'western, and S. Carolina are not good enough to be considered in the best 40 left out of the NCAA tourney. However, it is not an open and shut discussion on these three teams. I can tell you it is VERY open and shut that Southern U. (1-9 OOC record) is not among the top 40 left out of the Big Dance.

(NOTE: I have no problem with the piss ant leagues getting the automatic invite. I just have a problem automatically giving them anything else not earned on merit compared to the rest of the basketball world).

This same argument could be used to strip the MAC of bowl tie-ins, since some years the 2nd best team in the MAC is arguably not as good at the 9th place team in the SEC, for example.

I agree with Torch. I realize that DePaul is miles better than Southern U, but regardless of how "pissant" your conference is, winning it is an accomplishment worthy of testing yourselves in further postseason. Losing more games than you win is not something that should be rewarded with post-season play.

"Most talented" does not necessarily equate with "most deserving." It can, but I'm not interested in that kind of system. We might as well split D1 hoops into A and AA if were are going to punish the "pissant" conference winners the way you suggest.

Dorado Wrote:This same argument could be used to strip the MAC of bowl tie-ins, since some years the 2nd best team in the MAC is arguably not as good at the 9th place team in the SEC, for example.

I agree with Torch. I realize that DePaul is miles better than Southern U, but regardless of how "pissant" your conference is, winning it is an accomplishment worthy of testing yourselves in further postseason. Losing more games than you win is not something that should be rewarded with post-season play.

"Most talented" does not necessarily equate with "most deserving." It can, but I'm not interested in that kind of system. We might as well split D1 hoops into A and AA if were are going to punish the "pissant" conference winners the way you suggest.

=>REBUTTAL

A. NOT PUNISH THE PISSANTS

I do not believe my suggestion "punishes" the "pissant" leagues. If they are not good enough, they should not be invited to compete for a postseason championship. Rather, keeping Depaul out due to them playing a schedule that keeps them from attaining a .500 record is unfairly punishes them when Southern U. would have done worse playing the same teams.

As for the bowl argument, I would be in favor of the 9th place SEC team getting a bowl over the #2 MAC team in the 9th place SEC team is better. The bowl tie-in system is a joke and does reward undeserving teams bowls. The bowl tie-in system is very analogous to the NIT-regular season champ tie-in systems. The best 40 should go to the NIT and the best 56 should go bowling. If the MAC has 5 teams in the top 56, then the MAC gets 5 bowl teams. If the MAC has just 1, then the MAC can send just 1.

B. REGULAR SEASON CHAMP DOES NOT MEAN MORE DESERVING

I disagree that a regular season champ is necessarily "more deserving" than a sub-.500 team. The NIT should be about the best 40 available competing for a championship. The whole body of work should be taken into consideration, not just the 14 to 18 league games. Otherwise, OOC games in November and December are rendered meaningless.

C. PISSANT CONFERENCE MADE THEIR BED BY HAVING A LEAGUE TOURNEY, LET THEM SLEEP IN IT

The regular season champs of the pissant conferences do not need anymore "reward" for their accomplishment besides the conference trophy and hanging a banner in their gym. If they truly wanted to reward their regular season champ with a postseason, they can follow the Ivy League and give the regular season champ the league's only NCAA bid. By having a tourney, these leagues have decided on their own that their conference tourney is the "be all to end all" for them.

D. PISSANTS NOW CAN GET TWO UNDERSERVING TEAMS INTO THE POSTSEASON

In addition, when the regular season champ fails to win the league tourney in the pissant leagues, another spot is taken up in the postseason tourneys. If you allow pissant regular season champs (that are not in the top 40 that did not make the big dance) into the NIT, you are allowing these pissant leagues to take up TWO of the 105 total postseason bids even though NEITHER of the two are top 105 teams.

Ohio U.'s RPI is 97. Ohio U. would be securely in the NIT if everything was equal. Ohio U. will not make the NIT (and is not even on the NIT bubble in reality) because of pissant leagues with regular season champs who lost the league tourney will end up sending TWO teams (that are weaker than Ohio U.) to the postseason based on automatic NCAA and NIT berths. This effect slides the Bobkittens out of the picture. I do not believe Ohio U. should be punished because the MAC is a stronger league which kept Ohio U. from being the regular season champ.

E. .500 OR ABOVE RULE IS ARBITRARY AND ACTUALLY PUNISHES A SCHOOL FOR PLAYING A TOUGHER SCHEDULE

That to me is fundamentally unfair already as this system will kick out 2 deserving teams out of the postseason already because one pissant conference failed to have their regular season champ win the league tourney. By instituting an arbitrary .500 or above requirement for postseason play, it is only compounding the problem of the already weakened field.

F. AUTOMATIC INVITE TO NIT IS VERY BAD FOR THE MAC

This rule giving automatic NIT bids to regular season champs is VERY, VERY bad for the MAC. Why? Because the regular season champion of the MAC will be NIT bound anyway 19 out of every 20 years. All this rule does is keep out the more deserving 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place MAC teams who get bumped by a less deserving regular season champ from a pissant league who failed to win the league tourney. It will make me sick if Ohio U. has it's season end the weekend because Southern U. gets an automatic invite into the NIT despite a 1-9 non-league record.

Okay. Obviously you do feel that the most talented teams are the most deserving, that's the point that you continually reinforce in all your arguments. That's what the RPI basically measures, talent.

I don't, however, prefer to see a 12-16 DePaul team get in the NIT over a 25-6 Southern team. I don't care how much better DePaul is in reality. Southern (in our hypothetical example) took care of what was asked of them (winning their small conference). DePaul did not (finishing 8th in their outstanding conference). Is that unfair to DePaul? That they are BETTER than Southern and yet Southern gets in the NIT but they don't (in my NIT world?) Perhaps, but the difference maker is the Big Ten, Big East, etc are going to get 5, 6, 7 or 8 bids to the NCAA. DePaul doesn't have to win their conference tourney to get into the Big Dance, they just have to do fairly well. At that level, it's not asking too much of them to have a winning record to get into the postseason.

The MEAC will never get the at-large bid. They don't have the resources of DePaul, and the only teams ever getting into any postseason play are the tourney winners and now, the regular season winner, if different. That's the equalizer.

Dorado Wrote:Okay. Obviously you do feel that the most talented teams are the most deserving, that's the point that you continually reinforce in all your arguments. That's what the RPI basically measures, talent.

I don't, however, prefer to see a 12-16 DePaul team get in the NIT over a 25-6 Southern team. I don't care how much better DePaul is in reality. Southern (in our hypothetical example) took care of what was asked of them (winning their small conference). DePaul did not (finishing 8th in their outstanding conference). Is that unfair to DePaul? That they are BETTER than Southern and yet Southern gets in the NIT but they don't (in my NIT world?) Perhaps, but the difference maker is the Big Ten, Big East, etc are going to get 5, 6, 7 or 8 bids to the NCAA. DePaul doesn't have to win their conference tourney to get into the Big Dance, they just have to do fairly well. At that level, it's not asking too much of them to have a winning record to get into the postseason.

The MEAC will never get the at-large bid. They don't have the resources of DePaul, and the only teams ever getting into any postseason play are the tourney winners and now, the regular season winner, if different. That's the equalizer.

=>Couple thoughts:

1) I could care less about resources. I care only about team quality. The resources of a team are irrelevant. The NCAA should not be in the business of "affirmative action" of giving handouts to lesser teams because their alumni is not as supportive. If that is the case, then Depaul does deserve a handout because Depaul's resources pale in comparison to Indiana, tOSU, Illinois, or other Big Ten schools in the same geographical area. You call TWO bids for weaker teams an "equalizer." I see it as an unfair advantage.

2) You state Depaul does not have to win the conference tourney to get in the big dance, they just have to do fairly well. The same applies to Southern U. Southern U. played an OOC schedule of BCS and 2nd tier majors (Texas, Texas A&M, LSU, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Xavier, Sacramento St., & La. Tech). The problem is, Southern U. lost everyone of those games except for a home win over La. Tech. If Southern had beaten 3 of those teams, then it would not only be a legit NIT team, but also an NCAA bubble team. Depaul on the other hand, theoretically has a tougher time getting into the NCAA tourney because winning the league tourney is a mere impossibility this year due to the strength of the teams in the Big East.

3) Southern U. is in the SWAC, not the MEAC. Although both are similiarly situated "black" conferences.

4) Southern U. is not even close to a 25-6. Southern is 16-12 despite playing in a league where the other 9 teams have an RPI of 243 or higher (5 of those other 9 in the bottom 41 of the 334 Division I teams).

5) You wrote, "Southern (in our hypothetical example) took care of what was asked of them (winning their small conference)." Who (other than the NIT) told Southern U. that all that is asked of them is win their tourney? I didn't. I think they need to do more.

LAST NOTE: I believe we both see each other's point of view, but just differ on philosophies on why you play the postseason. You do not feel that the best 40 teams necessarily have to be in the NIT (as I do). Rather, you are ok with weaker teams getting in as 1) a reward for a regular season title and 2) as an additional chance for the little guy to get a piece of the pie. I, OTOH, think the best 40 should go and that this automatic qualifier rule will hurt the MAC (as an upper mid-level conference).

I was about to say the same thing as your "last note" (thus ending the debate, since nothing one of us will say will convert the other one to the other philosophy, but we both understand, I think, exactly what the other one is saying). I will only point out that my example was PURELY hypothetical (I know Southern is not 25-6), although I did not mean, even hypothetically, to reassign them to the MEAC. Oops.

Since I started this post, I'll chime in.

First of all, I've always been critical of this "Best 34" at-large teams crap. There is no such thing. How can anyone honestly say the last few teams selected to the NCAA tourney are truly better than the first few teams left out? It's not statistically valid: http://www.mymaps.com/bball/rankings99-00.htm

Secondly, is this not a NATIONAL tournament? It is not suppose to be a Big East, Big Ten, or SEC invitational. Therefore an inordinate number of teams should NOT get a bid simply because they are able to get a "signature" conference win (usually acheived on their home court), especially when they have double-digit chances to do it and they are not better statistically than a team from a lesser regarded conference.

This year the NCAA-run NIT is going to consider losing teams for post-season play. What is this, the NBA? I could care less if Massive U went 13-17 against top flight competition in the Silver Spoon Conference. While such a record may not correctly portray the ability of such a team, it DOES indicate they did NOT have a season worthy of the reward of post-season competition. Especially when there will be plenty of 20 win squads begging for a chance to continue play.

One might argue there are too many college teams in D-1. But until reforms are put into place, sending some schools back to D-2, no team should be treated as third class members. Of course many ARE treated this way. We ought to know; the MAC's been treated that way for decades.

=>Many on this board argued with me that the rule automatically including regular season champs was a good thing. I said it would hurt the MAC. Well, Ohio U. ain't playing. If you, throw out automatic qualifiers N. Arizona (117), Delaware St. (123), Ga. Southern (159), Lipscomb (143), and Farleigh Dickinson (145), the Bobcats would have been right there to slide into the tourney.

******

Charlotte (104) -- #9 seed and Penn St. (106) -- #7 seed were the worst RPI teams to make the tourney.

Next worst group includes the Miami Redhawks (84) -- #7, Stanford (86) -- #7 seed, Nebraska (96) -- #6 seed, and Wake Forest (85) -- #5 seed.

Best RPIs of MAC teams left out were Ohio U. (99), NIU (127), Buffalo (130), Toledo (148), and WMU (195).

TOP 10 RPI Teams Left Out:

81 VCU 19-10
90 Northeastern 18-11
91 Depaul 12-15
92 UNLV 17-13
93 Iowa St. 15-14
97 New Mexico St. 15-14
99 Ohio U. 18-11
100 Hawaii 17-11
101 St. Louis 16-13
102 Northwestern 13-15

Note that of the best "RPI" teams left out, all but two (VCU and Northeastern) come from BCS or second tier majors (i.e. MWC, WAC, CUSA, and A10).

mollautt Wrote:=>Many on this board argued with me that the rule automatically including regular season champs was a good thing. I said it would hurt the MAC.

It's still a good thing, though. It adds a whole lot more meaning to regular season championships throughout the country.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

mollautt Wrote:=>Many on this board argued with me that the rule automatically including regular season champs was a good thing. I said it would hurt the MAC.

It's still a good thing, though. It adds a whole lot more meaning to regular season championships throughout the country.

=>Only to the sh!ttiest of conferences. 65 NCAA + 40 NIT = 105 postseason teams. Leagues like the MEAC and SWAC never have a team in the top 105 every year. Yet now, they have the opportunity to often get 2 teams in the postseason. Meanwhile, the MAC, which will routinely have 4 or 5 teams better than the best SWAC team, will only get 3 teams in the postseason. That is uniquely unfair.

In addition, the conference champ rule does not even help the MAC as the MAC regular season champ will always be an NIT caliber team anyway every year.

mollautt Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

mollautt Wrote:=>Many on this board argued with me that the rule automatically including regular season champs was a good thing. I said it would hurt the MAC.

It's still a good thing, though. It adds a whole lot more meaning to regular season championships throughout the country.

=>Only to the sh!ttiest of conferences. 65 NCAA + 40 NIT = 105 postseason teams. Leagues like the MEAC and SWAC never have a team in the top 105 every year. Yet now, they have the opportunity to often get 2 teams in the postseason. Meanwhile, the MAC, which will routinely have 4 or 5 teams better than the best SWAC team, will only get 3 teams in the postseason. That is uniquely unfair.

In addition, the conference champ rule does not even help the MAC as the MAC regular season champ will always be an NIT caliber team anyway every year.

I agree it probably hurts the MAC, but it's still probably a good rule. Just my opinion.