(12-29-2015 02:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hofstra and those five teams wouldn't have made Final Four runs. GMU and VCU deserved them.

That's the only sentiment proven by the wins. You're allowed to have your opinion. I just don't agree it is valid.

How do you know? They didn't have the chance. It's not as if VCU and GMU were among serious bracket pickers Final Four teams.

Like I said though, credit where credit is due and I enjoyed each run.

I know that they made it to the Final Four. So they proved they deserved it.

If different teams had been picked, it would've been the wrong choice.

Back to the subject, kudos to all of the 5-7 teams. I wish the NCAA would allow anyone who wanted to go to a bowl to go to one regardless of records, especially if they're gonna sanction so many bowls to begin with.

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back to the subject, kudos to all of the 5-7 teams. I wish the NCAA would allow anyone who wanted to go to a bowl to go to one regardless of records, especially if they're gonna sanction so many bowls to begin with.

Not worth its own thread, but this makes me wonder: If a bowl was allowed to match Kansas and Central Florida, how would the ratings look compared to other bowls? Would there be more interest in watching the last two winless teams have a sissy slap fight than there would be for two 6-6 G5 teams playing? Two 7-win P5s? A great G5 vs. a good P5? Any of the non-New Year's Day/playoff bowls? Or would everyone yawn and change the channel?

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hofstra and those five teams wouldn't have made Final Four runs. GMU and VCU deserved them.

That's the only sentiment proven by the wins. You're allowed to have your opinion. I just don't agree it is valid.

How do you know? They didn't have the chance. It's not as if VCU and GMU were among serious bracket pickers Final Four teams.

Like I said though, credit where credit is due and I enjoyed each run.

I know that they made it to the Final Four. So they proved they deserved it.

If different teams had been picked, it would've been the wrong choice.

If you're talking about getting a bid in the first place, then disagree. Their worthiness is determined by what they did in the regular season and who they did it against. You can't retroactively say they deserved their bid based on what they did with it after the fact. You can't say "well, Virginia Tech might have better metrics than VCU, but I'm pretty sure VCU will do a lot better in the tournament so let's give them the last spot." Unless someone in the selection committee has some Minority Report tech going on, in which case they shouldn't be wasting it on picking the perfect bracket.

(12-29-2015 02:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back to the subject, kudos to all of the 5-7 teams. I wish the NCAA would allow anyone who wanted to go to a bowl to go to one regardless of records, especially if they're gonna sanction so many bowls to begin with.

Not worth its own thread, but this makes me wonder: If a bowl was allowed to match Kansas and Central Florida, how would the ratings look compared to other bowls? Would there be more interest in watching the last two winless teams have a sissy slap fight than there would be for two 6-6 G5 teams playing? Two 7-win P5s? A great G5 vs. a good P5? Any of the non-New Year's Day/playoff bowls? Or would everyone yawn and change the channel?

I'd watch that game for certain. It'd be fun. I floated the idea of the NCAA letting teams schedule games and this would be one that could be done and surprisingly bring in a solid crowd and ratings.

(12-29-2015 02:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back to the subject, kudos to all of the 5-7 teams. I wish the NCAA would allow anyone who wanted to go to a bowl to go to one regardless of records, especially if they're gonna sanction so many bowls to begin with.

Not worth its own thread, but this makes me wonder: If a bowl was allowed to match Kansas and Central Florida, how would the ratings look compared to other bowls? Would there be more interest in watching the last two winless teams have a sissy slap fight than there would be for two 6-6 G5 teams playing? Two 7-win P5s? A great G5 vs. a good P5? Any of the non-New Year's Day/playoff bowls? Or would everyone yawn and change the channel?

The ratings would be the same as all the other minor bowls: only the fanbases are watching in the first place.

(12-29-2015 02:17 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hofstra and those five teams wouldn't have made Final Four runs. GMU and VCU deserved them.

That's the only sentiment proven by the wins. You're allowed to have your opinion. I just don't agree it is valid.

How do you know? They didn't have the chance. It's not as if VCU and GMU were among serious bracket pickers Final Four teams.

Like I said though, credit where credit is due and I enjoyed each run.

I know that they made it to the Final Four. So they proved they deserved it.

If different teams had been picked, it would've been the wrong choice.

If you're talking about getting a bid in the first place, then disagree. Their worthiness is determined by what they did in the regular season and who they did it against. You can't retroactively say they deserved their bid based on what they did with it after the fact. You can't say "well, Virginia Tech might have better metrics than VCU, but I'm pretty sure VCU will do a lot better in the tournament so let's give them the last spot." Unless someone in the selection committee has some Minority Report tech going on, in which case they shouldn't be wasting it on picking the perfect bracket.

I'm talking that the committee stuck its neck out on the line for them, and they were proven right.

(12-29-2015 04:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:17 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Hofstra and those five teams wouldn't have made Final Four runs. GMU and VCU deserved them.

That's the only sentiment proven by the wins. You're allowed to have your opinion. I just don't agree it is valid.

How do you know? They didn't have the chance. It's not as if VCU and GMU were among serious bracket pickers Final Four teams.

Like I said though, credit where credit is due and I enjoyed each run.

I know that they made it to the Final Four. So they proved they deserved it.

If different teams had been picked, it would've been the wrong choice.

If you're talking about getting a bid in the first place, then disagree. Their worthiness is determined by what they did in the regular season and who they did it against. You can't retroactively say they deserved their bid based on what they did with it after the fact. You can't say "well, Virginia Tech might have better metrics than VCU, but I'm pretty sure VCU will do a lot better in the tournament so let's give them the last spot." Unless someone in the selection committee has some Minority Report tech going on, in which case they shouldn't be wasting it on picking the perfect bracket.

I'm talking that the committee stuck its neck out on the line for them, and they were proven right.

They also stuck their neck out for UAB the same year that VCU went to the FF, and they got hammered in their First Four game. They stuck their neck out for Iona and got nothing for it. Does it mean that they were proven wrong? You can certainly make the case for VCU and George Mason getting bids, but not because they ended up having a great tournament. When 2 and 3 seeds lose in the first round, does that mean they didn't deserve their bids?

(12-29-2015 01:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So much for the idea that a team should be at least 6-6 (really, at least 7-5) in order to "earn" a bowl bid.

That's pretty dumb thinking. What if the New England Patriots go 14-2, win two playoff games to win the AFC and then for their Super Bowl opponent, the league puts the 5-11 Rams, who didn't qualify for the playoffs, into the Super Bowl.

Is it possible the Rams might beat the Patriots? Of course, any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday. But would that mean the Rams deserved to be in the Super Bowl? Nope, as they didn't earn it on the field.

None of those 5-7 teams earned a bowl bid. The fact that they won doesn't change that fact.

(12-29-2015 04:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back to the subject, kudos to all of the 5-7 teams. I wish the NCAA would allow anyone who wanted to go to a bowl to go to one regardless of records, especially if they're gonna sanction so many bowls to begin with.

Not worth its own thread, but this makes me wonder: If a bowl was allowed to match Kansas and Central Florida, how would the ratings look compared to other bowls? Would there be more interest in watching the last two winless teams have a sissy slap fight than there would be for two 6-6 G5 teams playing? Two 7-win P5s? A great G5 vs. a good P5? Any of the non-New Year's Day/playoff bowls? Or would everyone yawn and change the channel?

The ratings would be the same as all the other minor bowls: only the fanbases are watching in the first place.

I think there'd be a fascination with two 0-12 teams playing that isn't going to be there for, quite frankly, any of the G5 vs. G5 games this season. I think "winner isn't worst!" is easier to sell than, say, the Sun Bowl or the Independence Bowl.

Back when I was a small-town sports editor, I covered a game between two county schools, both of them 0-8. I was in a weird place in that there were three core teams and three fringe teams in my coverage area, and that season, the three fringe teams were a combined 24-0 at that point, while the core teams were 1-23 (the one win coming against one of those 0'fer teams). But when two core teams play, I have to be there for that.

It was not a pretty game, but it was an evenly-matched, hard-fought game between rivals that ended up being one of the most entertaining games I've covered, even though I wouldn't have taken either of them against 99 percent of the state's high schools (and a few of the middle schools). Home team won on a 20-yard touchdown pass on the last play of the game in which the receiver got the ball across the goal line a split-second before he was pushed out of bounds.

Now maybe a Kansas-UCF game goes 31-3 at halftime and everyone quits on it, but I think the desire not to be the lone winless team in FBS is a hell of a motivator and gives them more reason to fight than teams within arm's length of .500 slugging through a game against a similar team in a 1/3-filled stadium.

(12-29-2015 04:27 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:17 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How do you know? They didn't have the chance. It's not as if VCU and GMU were among serious bracket pickers Final Four teams.

Like I said though, credit where credit is due and I enjoyed each run.

I know that they made it to the Final Four. So they proved they deserved it.

If different teams had been picked, it would've been the wrong choice.

If you're talking about getting a bid in the first place, then disagree. Their worthiness is determined by what they did in the regular season and who they did it against. You can't retroactively say they deserved their bid based on what they did with it after the fact. You can't say "well, Virginia Tech might have better metrics than VCU, but I'm pretty sure VCU will do a lot better in the tournament so let's give them the last spot." Unless someone in the selection committee has some Minority Report tech going on, in which case they shouldn't be wasting it on picking the perfect bracket.

I'm talking that the committee stuck its neck out on the line for them, and they were proven right.

They also stuck their neck out for UAB the same year that VCU went to the FF, and they got hammered in their First Four game. They stuck their neck out for Iona and got nothing for it. Does it mean that they were proven wrong? You can certainly make the case for VCU and George Mason getting bids, but not because they ended up having a great tournament. When 2 and 3 seeds lose in the first round, does that mean they didn't deserve their bids?

Why is it difficult to understand that wins and loses prove that seeds/bids given were justified or unjustified?

(12-29-2015 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 01:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So much for the idea that a team should be at least 6-6 (really, at least 7-5) in order to "earn" a bowl bid.

That's pretty dumb thinking. What if the New England Patriots go 14-2, win two playoff games to win the AFC and then for their Super Bowl opponent, the league puts the 5-11 Rams, who didn't qualify for the playoffs, into the Super Bowl.

Is it possible the Rams might beat the Patriots? Of course, any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday. But would that mean the Rams deserved to be in the Super Bowl? Nope, as they didn't earn it on the field.

None of those 5-7 teams earned a bowl bid. The fact that they won doesn't change that fact.

What a silly scenario ... it doesn't even qualify as a valid hypothetical. The NFL would never arbitrary inject a team into the Super Bowl, regardless what its record was.

That's the opposite of bowl games. You know this too.


If you have an actual argument for why the 5-7 teams did not do enough to earn their bowl bids, while 6-6 teams did, beyond some arbitrary preference, then I'm all ears.

But everyone here knows you don't.

(12-29-2015 04:36 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Back to the subject, kudos to all of the 5-7 teams. I wish the NCAA would allow anyone who wanted to go to a bowl to go to one regardless of records, especially if they're gonna sanction so many bowls to begin with.

Not worth its own thread, but this makes me wonder: If a bowl was allowed to match Kansas and Central Florida, how would the ratings look compared to other bowls? Would there be more interest in watching the last two winless teams have a sissy slap fight than there would be for two 6-6 G5 teams playing? Two 7-win P5s? A great G5 vs. a good P5? Any of the non-New Year's Day/playoff bowls? Or would everyone yawn and change the channel?

The ratings would be the same as all the other minor bowls: only the fanbases are watching in the first place.

I think there'd be a fascination with two 0-12 teams playing that isn't going to be there for, quite frankly, any of the G5 vs. G5 games this season. I think "winner isn't worst!" is easier to sell than, say, the Sun Bowl or the Independence Bowl.

Back when I was a small-town sports editor, I covered a game between two county schools, both of them 0-8. I was in a weird place in that there were three core teams and three fringe teams in my coverage area, and that season, the three fringe teams were a combined 24-0 at that point, while the core teams were 1-23 (the one win coming against one of those 0'fer teams). But when two core teams play, I have to be there for that.

It was not a pretty game, but it was an evenly-matched, hard-fought game between rivals that ended up being one of the most entertaining games I've covered, even though I wouldn't have taken either of them against 99 percent of the state's high schools (and a few of the middle schools). Home team won on a 20-yard touchdown pass on the last play of the game in which the receiver got the ball across the goal line a split-second before he was pushed out of bounds.

Now maybe a Kansas-UCF game goes 31-3 at halftime and everyone quits on it, but I think the desire not to be the lone winless team in FBS is a hell of a motivator and gives them more reason to fight than teams within arm's length of .500 slugging through a game against a similar team in a 1/3-filled stadium.

Fair enough, it might be higher.

But my point was more to that it wouldn't be any lower than any of the other "minor" bowl games, where only the fanbases are watching anyway. (normalized to the size of the fanbases)

(12-29-2015 04:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:27 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:17 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I know that they made it to the Final Four. So they proved they deserved it.

If different teams had been picked, it would've been the wrong choice.

If you're talking about getting a bid in the first place, then disagree. Their worthiness is determined by what they did in the regular season and who they did it against. You can't retroactively say they deserved their bid based on what they did with it after the fact. You can't say "well, Virginia Tech might have better metrics than VCU, but I'm pretty sure VCU will do a lot better in the tournament so let's give them the last spot." Unless someone in the selection committee has some Minority Report tech going on, in which case they shouldn't be wasting it on picking the perfect bracket.

I'm talking that the committee stuck its neck out on the line for them, and they were proven right.

They also stuck their neck out for UAB the same year that VCU went to the FF, and they got hammered in their First Four game. They stuck their neck out for Iona and got nothing for it. Does it mean that they were proven wrong? You can certainly make the case for VCU and George Mason getting bids, but not because they ended up having a great tournament. When 2 and 3 seeds lose in the first round, does that mean they didn't deserve their bids?

Why is it difficult to understand that wins and loses prove that seeds/bids given were justified or unjustified?

Because the metric for getting an NCAA at-large bid is "what has this team done to deserve to get in the tournament as of today?" You can't say "well, they did good in the tournament so that means they deserved their bid" because tournament performance can't be a reasonable basis for determining tournament participation, because said tournament hasn't happened yet.

Hypothetical: Let's say the final spot in the field comes down to Medium Public University and Private Northeastern College. Here's the breakdown:

MPU: 18-14, RPI 35, 5-8 vs. Top 50, 4-3 vs. 51-100, 9-3 vs. 101-worse
PNC: 20-11, RPI 44, 2-5 vs. Top 50, 4-4 vs. 51-100, 14-2 vs. 101-worse

The committee mulls it over, gives the final spot to PNC. PNC then wins its First Four game and upsets a 5 seed in the first round before losing by three points to the 4 seed.

How does that justify giving PNC the bid, even though by most measuring sticks, MPU was the more worthy team when the decision was made? We don't know what MPU would have done in that spot, and we never will.

And again, if an at-large team loses in the first round, is that proof that they didn't deserve the bid?

How about something more relevant to the conversation? Oregon struggled mightily early on but turned it on late and looked very dangerous. Let's take a liberty and say they advance to and win the conference title game. Let's take a further extreme liberty and say that all of the dominoes fall the right way and the committee is also extremely generous and puts them as the last team in the playoffs.

Oregon, having played for the previous title, would be a dangerous threat to win it all and possibly would. Even with all of that, let's say Ole Miss doesn't lose to Arkansas and wins the SEC title and the committee punishes Alabama in favor of Oregon. Even though Oregon won it all, would you say they deserved a playoff spot more than Oregon? What about the other deserving teams they may have leapfrogged?

(12-29-2015 05:21 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:27 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:17 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  If you're talking about getting a bid in the first place, then disagree. Their worthiness is determined by what they did in the regular season and who they did it against. You can't retroactively say they deserved their bid based on what they did with it after the fact. You can't say "well, Virginia Tech might have better metrics than VCU, but I'm pretty sure VCU will do a lot better in the tournament so let's give them the last spot." Unless someone in the selection committee has some Minority Report tech going on, in which case they shouldn't be wasting it on picking the perfect bracket.

I'm talking that the committee stuck its neck out on the line for them, and they were proven right.

They also stuck their neck out for UAB the same year that VCU went to the FF, and they got hammered in their First Four game. They stuck their neck out for Iona and got nothing for it. Does it mean that they were proven wrong? You can certainly make the case for VCU and George Mason getting bids, but not because they ended up having a great tournament. When 2 and 3 seeds lose in the first round, does that mean they didn't deserve their bids?

Why is it difficult to understand that wins and loses prove that seeds/bids given were justified or unjustified?

Because the metric for getting an NCAA at-large bid is "what has this team done to deserve to get in the tournament as of today?" You can't say "well, they did good in the tournament so that means they deserved their bid" because tournament performance can't be a reasonable basis for determining tournament participation, because said tournament hasn't happened yet.

Hypothetical: Let's say the final spot in the field comes down to Medium Public University and Private Northeastern College. Here's the breakdown:

MPU: 18-14, RPI 35, 5-8 vs. Top 50, 4-3 vs. 51-100, 9-3 vs. 101-worse
PNC: 20-11, RPI 44, 2-5 vs. Top 50, 4-4 vs. 51-100, 14-2 vs. 101-worse

The committee mulls it over, gives the final spot to PNC. PNC then wins its First Four game and upsets a 5 seed in the first round before losing by three points to the 4 seed.

How does that justify giving PNC the bid, even though by most measuring sticks, MPU was the more worthy team when the decision was made? We don't know what MPU would have done in that spot, and we never will.

And again, if an at-large team loses in the first round, is that proof that they didn't deserve the bid?

If they won enough games to be in the conversation for the at-large, then it doesn't matter whatever arbitrary ranking method you come up with ... at some level it comes down to a non-objective selection.

Then the team you pick wins a first round game upset.

I don't see how that doesn't justify the subjective selection of that team over another team that had "similar" or slightly "better" ranking in the arbitrary ranking method.


If that team loses the first round game, then not much can be concluded. Maybe the other team would've won instead.