(10-29-2013 08:12 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Very few teams sub .500 make the tourney. Slightly more at .500 make the tourney. But you can't take the numbers you were spouting out as the absolute truth.

To say the football schools have the exact same clout today as they did 22 years ago- that's a joke. They've been getting more and more and more.

1990-next year
ACC 8-15 +7
B10 10-14 +4
B8/12 8-10 +2
P10/12 10-12 +2
SEC 10-14 +4
BE 9-10 +1
SWC 9-0 -9
Metro 8-0 -8
AAC 0-10 +10
WAC/MWC 9-11 +2
81 teams in the conferences back then
96 now. Add the 13 from the A10 and it's 109.

so it's about 35% more teams in the top conferences than we had back in the day.

Huh?

You're counting the AAC and the MWC as top conferences?

The Power 5 football conferences had 63 schools back when they were the Power 6 + ND, the same number they have now. They will "grow" to 65 when they add Louisville and Rutgers next year. There's been hardly any change at all.

The AAC and MWC are very comparable to what the Metro and WAC were back 20 years ago. They are top 9 conferences, whether you like it or not. Hell, it was said to respect Ken Pom. Well, guess what- he's got AAC #4. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In 1990, the conferences I had listed had a total of 38 bids. 9 were auto bids. So 29 at large bids- out of 34.

Also- 20 years ago, the top 6 plus ND had only 56 teams. Now, top 5 plus BE has 75. That's +19.

There's a lot more teams now in the top tier. A lot more.

Why is the MWC even mentioned?

The MWC is in that top 9 group that ESPN had- and with them likely to have 2-3 tourney teams again, it's realistic. It's very comparable to what the WAC was back 20 years ago.

(10-29-2013 11:04 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The MWC is in that top 9 group that ESPN had- and with them likely to have 2-3 tourney teams again, it's realistic. It's very comparable to what the WAC was back 20 years ago.

Steve, your comment to which you attached all the numbers was that it's a joke to say that the football schools have the same clout they did 22 years ago. You went on to say that they've been getting more and more and more.

Fact is that in the 1990's, the football schools dominated the Final Four. The only non-1A football schools to get there in that decade were UConn (1999) and UMass (1996).

Since 2003, there has been a resurgence of non-1A football schools getting to the Final Four:

2003 - Marquette
2004 - UConn
2006 - George Mason
2007 - Georgetown
2009 - Villanova
2010 - Butler
2011 - Butler, VCU
2013 - Wichita State

Regardless of how you want to count membership in the football conferences, I don't see how you can justify a statement that the football schools have more and more clout than they did 22 years ago. The '90's and the early years of the 2000's were their golden era. With one-and-done, their dominance has eroded.

making the final 4 and overall sucess 2 different things. Also- Uconn, Georgetown, Nova made their runs in a hybrid, as did Marquette. So they're kind of not quite the same. Really only GMU, Butler, VCU, and Wichita St can you put in as non fooball conferences.

All I'm saying is that you can not say because the old Big East got every team .500 or better in- that you can automatically say the same now. The stats with the 9 team conference are utterly meaningless today. The committee is different. There are a lot more teams in the other power conferences. Where before, there were only 46 teams we were going up against in the ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Pac 12, Big 8- that number is now 65. 41% difference.

89/90 and 90/91- both years, those 5 conferences got 23 teams in. 18 at large spots(out of 34).
last year- those 5 conferences got 22 teams in. 17 at large spots(out of 37) (with 60 teams)
now, a big reason why was the Big East last year. Of the 8 NCAA spots, 5 are gone to other conferences. 4 are to those other 5 conferences. So that would be 26 teams in and 21/37 at large spots.

(10-29-2013 02:11 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Fact is that in the 1990's, the football schools dominated the Final Four. The only non-1A football schools to get there in that decade were UConn (1999) and UMass (1996).

According to the record books, UMass did not go to the Final Four in 1996. Thank you Marcus Camby and John Calipari!!!

(10-29-2013 02:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  making the final 4 and overall sucess 2 different things. Also- Uconn, Georgetown, Nova made their runs in a hybrid, as did Marquette. So they're kind of not quite the same. Really only GMU, Butler, VCU, and Wichita St can you put in as non fooball conferences.

All I'm saying is that you can not say because the old Big East got every team .500 or better in- that you can automatically say the same now. The stats with the 9 team conference are utterly meaningless today. The committee is different. There are a lot more teams in the other power conferences. Where before, there were only 46 teams we were going up against in the ACC, Big Ten, SEC, Pac 12, Big 8- that number is now 65. 41% difference.

89/90 and 90/91- both years, those 5 conferences got 23 teams in. 18 at large spots(out of 34).
last year- those 5 conferences got 22 teams in. 17 at large spots(out of 37) (with 60 teams)
now, a big reason why was the Big East last year. Of the 8 NCAA spots, 5 are gone to other conferences. 4 are to those other 5 conferences. So that would be 26 teams in and 21/37 at large spots.

you seem to think that there is a great deal of relevance in conference membership when everything the committee has been doing has been to move selection in just the opposite direction.

I have no idea what your point is about hybrids. Those schools were not football schools. Wasn't that your what you were pushing? The fact remains that almost nobody that was not IA football lwas able to get to the Final Four in the 1990's and into the early 2000's - even basketball-first schools from the hybrids. Hybrid or otherwise, it's been done numerous times since then - 5 times by schools from basketball conferences and 4 more times by basketball-first schools from hybrids.

The fact is- it does help having 15 teams in a conference. We have gotten some bids thru the last few years that we don't get with 15 teams. A great case in point was Villanova a few years ago. They were 9-9 in conference, had gone 4-8 last 12 games. But because of the conference, they got in.

The hybrids did help as in the Big East for instance- got us in with some damn good teams. You get higher power rankings and higher seedings- which help.

Bottom line- you can't just say what the old big east was statistically with the .500 teams etc. and just automatically assume that'll be the same now.

Large Conference:
2013 SEC: 14 teams, 3 bids.
Smaller Conference:
2011 SEC: 12 teams, 5 bids.

Large Conference:
1999 WAC: 16 teams, 3 bids.
Smaller Conference:
2013 Mountain West: 9 teams, 5 bids.

Large Conference:
2013 Northeast Conference: 12 teams, 1 bid.
Smaller Conference:
1998 NEC: 9 teams, 1 bid.
Obviously, the NEC needs even more teams.
Quick, someone has to tell the NEC to invite Salve Regina, Johnson & Wales and Roger Williams...! Larger conferences equals more bids, right?

for the power conferences- yes larger conferences equals more bids. SEC last year was kind of weird.. They also had 1 of the last teams out. Also, if the ACC or Big Ten had the same conference records the SEC had- they would get at least 6 bids, if not a 7th with the 10-8 team. And- SEC was the weakest of the power conferences last year.

I just think you're going to find the ACC and Big Ten getting 7 and 8 bids a year each. It's going to be similar to what we had- probably not to the level we had- but still they're going to be getting a good number of teams. They'll steal a bid or two.

Marquette came in today at #11, a 3 seed. Overall, College Sports Madness has not been kind to the Big East, so this is a strong endorsement for Marquette. They like Buzz's coaching, believe there is plenty of talent to rebuild the perimeter game, and that the inside game is very strong with returning talent.

(10-30-2013 01:28 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Marquette came in today at #11, a 3 seed. Overall, College Sports Madness has not been kind to the Big East, so this is a strong endorsement for Marquette. They like Buzz's coaching, believe there is plenty of talent to rebuild the perimeter game, and that the inside game is very strong with returning talent.

I don't know that you can say that they haven't been kind to the Big East. They have Marquette 6 slots higher than the coaches poll. They had Villanova a lot higher. Creighton and Georgetown at about the same place.

(10-30-2013 07:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 01:28 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Marquette came in today at #11, a 3 seed. Overall, College Sports Madness has not been kind to the Big East, so this is a strong endorsement for Marquette. They like Buzz's coaching, believe there is plenty of talent to rebuild the perimeter game, and that the inside game is very strong with returning talent.

I don't know that you can say that they haven't been kind to the Big East. They have Marquette 6 slots higher than the coaches poll. They had Villanova a lot higher. Creighton and Georgetown at about the same place.

I said that they gave Marquette a strong endorsement. It's the rest of the league that is ranked lower than I've seen in some other rankings - Coaches' poll aside, which I have little respect for.

It's not so much where they ranked Villanova or Georgetown in particular (although I thought 36 was low for Georgetown), it's the fact that they are only projecting the league for 4 bids and passing over bubble teams like St. John's and Providence in favor of teams like Dayton, cincinnati, and even UMass.

Any of us will disagree on individual teams, but valuing the league at only 4 bids is what got to me.

I always with any projection now take last 8 teams in/out with a grain of salt. A team last 4 in could have an injury and they are out fast. A lot of times it's a fluky win that propels a team.

We'll see how the AP poll treats us- should be out any day now quite frankly.

I think Providence is interesting. I mean- where did the coaches pick them this year in the Big East? #7? It's tough for any 7th place/10 team league to make the tourney. KenPom has them 5th in conference and 41st but only at 17-12. A huge game for them is their tourney vs Vandy. A win there and they get the 2 stronger OOC games that they desprately need. A loss there, and they don't. Probably need to win at least 1 if not both of those games.

I just don't think they will be the only one that puts us at 4 bids.

ESPN's back in May had us with 4 and St Johns as the 1st team out.