(03-14-2017 02:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:12 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Some of the so-called Power 5 teams that got in and/or their seeding is ridiculous.

NWestern, 23-11, RPI=51 (8 seed)
Vandy, 19-15, RPI=38 (9 seed)
Wake Forest, 19-13, RPI=39 (11 seed)
Kansas State, 23-11, RPI=57 (11 seed)

Non-P5 teams left out.
Illinois St, 26-6, RPI=33 (how the hell does this team get left out in favor of one of the above?)
Monmouth, 21-7, RPI=49 (they got screwed last year too IIRC)

Non-P5 teams with absurdly bad seeds.
MTSU, 29-4, RPI=34 (12 seed) --- Beat the brakes off Vandy, btw.
Cincy, 29-5, RPI=12 (6 seed)
SMU, 30-4, RPI=13 (6 seed)

Play a better schedule they'll say... What do you do when they won't play you? Conference schedule is what it is.

Totally agree. At best, Northwestern should have been in the play-in (I don't think they should have been invited over Illinois St.) with Vandy. MTSU should have been a 9/10 (probably better since they're ranked). Wichita should have had a better seed too.

I'm sick of the committee setting up the possibilities for cutesy tournament rematches in the second round like Louisville-Michigan, UK-Wichita, UNC-Arkansas. Stupid.

Even in the world of RPI the non-P5's look better. What I mean is that in the ACC and Big 10 for example RPI is artificially inflated because of your competition. Vandy had the benefit of playing UK twice and SC once. That doesn't make them a good team necessarily. Just those 3 games make that conference schedule is already better than 90% of mid-majors can muster up out-of-conference.

RPI is good to an extent but damn, 3/4 of the formula is outside of your control. I hate to throw my school, ECU, under the bus but Cincy and SMU are hurt by playing us win or lose.

(03-14-2017 02:43 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Vandy had the benefit of playing UK twice. That doesn't make them a good team necessarily.

Vandy's further inflated by MTSU. Except, Vandy gets that 8/9 line. That's just one way things are messed up.

I'd put this to any critic saying this system is good enough: what's the highest major snub's RPI since we've moved to 64? Because, if you're a mid-major, the 30's aren't a good place for you. Heck, Missouri State and Colorado State were 20's. But, with this "Syracuse snub," and Marquette grab...you can be in with RPI's in the 60-80's?

(03-14-2017 02:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Here's another theory as to why the mid-major is down:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/201...tournament

what a ****** up rule that allows guys that graduate to transfer without sitting out. They aren't going for their education. They're going for 1 and only 1 reason. Basketball. Pathetic.

They need a rule ASAP that if you transfer even as a graduate you must sit out a year. PERIOD. It'll nip this problem right away.

You and Bison had that conversation a couple of years back, and your position was thoroughly destroyed, both with the facts and stats of those who transferred, and the logic. Don't start this back up again.

34% of graduate transfers get their masters degree. Don't ******* tell me it's about education. It's all about basketball- and that's wrong. Dead wrong. I have no problem with someone transferring- but to allow immediate eligibility is a joke. It's free agency and it has NO business in college sports.

And the rule is: you can only transfer if your undergraduate institution doesn't offer the MA/MS you're obstensibly studying for.

(03-14-2017 02:50 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  what's the highest major snub's RPI since we've moved to 64?

That question isn't relevant to the tournament committee. Maybe it was 10-15 years ago when they worshipped at the altar of RPI. This year, it's very clear that they valued other things a lot more, especially top 25/top 50/top 100 wins.

It's easy to find an obscure major, then once the paperwork is good, switch to another major - if you need (you can switch from a Sociology degree at school X to some bull crap name like Urban Social Interaction, that is pretty much the same degree, maybe three different classes). It's an easy scam.

But what's wrong with it? Who are we protecting, the players or the coaches? In any other field a school or business can snap up a rising star from a competitor offering them a bigger stage and challenge, and thus greater potential opportunity. It is the market place in action. The different major scam is simply a NCAA cover sheet to give a veneer of "academic" opportunity in there. But arguably it is anyway. A player moving "down" or "sideways" for playing time is making a legitimate career move, just as a player "moving up" is. If it's really about the young athletes improving themselves and their opportunity, then why do we pretend its a bad thing?

The answer is we are liars, more loyal to the schools athletic departments we root for, claiming the BS "integrity," and coaches and ADs carrying out their CYA dance, crying "why always me." But these are the people making money off these young men. It's screw the kids protect the coaches and ADs, because "they are the experts, who should make life and career decisions for these young adults. " The COI is beyond obvious.

(03-14-2017 01:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  They should require .500 in conference play for at-large teams

Only 1 school got an at-large with a losing conference record.

And that team has a 228 NC SOS in conjunction with their 8-10 conference record. Flip them with Illinois St and they nail the at-large's this year.

But that's a pretty big, unacceptable miss. Sub-.500 is ok if you did something extraordinary out of conference. 228 NC SOS is ok if you went .500 in conference. But sub-.500 and 228 NCSOS together should never earn an at-large. Ever.

(03-14-2017 02:37 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  They should require .500 in conference play for at-large teams

Only 1 school got an at-large with a losing conference record.

And that's one too many for a tournament to determine a champion.

I don't think RPI is flawed. It's a composite metric that takes different components into consideration and generates an a resulting metric. The real issue is the human error. If you trust RPI for one school, but then not another, you subjectively and inconsistently value one component over another.

This committee cycle is pretty biased toward the majors. I just wish there was a UNCW, Nevada, Vermont, Rhode Island, and a Wichita in that at-large pool to really expose it. This isn't just about Illinois State missing the dance, this is about all of these other schools getting in ahead of them:

....

The fact that you have to say what you did in bold pretty much sinks your argument right there. It's an admission no non-power conference schools qualified for consideration. Illinois State is the only argument, and their resume is pretty weak.

The upper mid-majors are not as deep as they used to be, and the resource gap has grown. How many mid-majors are consistently strong? Wichita State, Gonzaga, Cincy, St. Mary's (excepting a couple years serving penalty). But each of these are Power coaches in non-power leagues.

The NIT will serve as a good opportunity for Illinois State as a 1 seed to show they belong with those borderline NCAA/NIT bid teams like Iowa, Cal, Georgia, and Syracuse. Do well and they and their conference will get more notice next year. (Same for BYU, Colorado State, Houston, UCF, Fresno, and Boise)

"SMU with Larry Brown might be the new Steve Fisher SDSU" - the guy who yesterday said the WCC was even or ahead of the AAC.

(03-14-2017 01:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  They should require .500 in conference play for at-large teams

Only 1 school got an at-large with a losing conference record.

Counting also the conference tournament?

If you go 9-9 and lose in the first round that should count as a losing record.

That and looking at last 10 would open up 3-4 bids for deserving non-P5's. It's not a complete overhaul its just avoiding some of the biggest snubs.

(03-14-2017 02:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Here's another theory as to why the mid-major is down:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/201...tournament

what a ****** up rule that allows guys that graduate to transfer without sitting out. They aren't going for their education. They're going for 1 and only 1 reason. Basketball. Pathetic.

They need a rule ASAP that if you transfer even as a graduate you must sit out a year. PERIOD. It'll nip this problem right away.

that would help. Both football and basketball

(03-14-2017 04:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:37 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  They should require .500 in conference play for at-large teams

Only 1 school got an at-large with a losing conference record.

And that's one too many for a tournament to determine a champion.

I don't think RPI is flawed. It's a composite metric that takes different components into consideration and generates an a resulting metric. The real issue is the human error. If you trust RPI for one school, but then not another, you subjectively and inconsistently value one component over another.

This committee cycle is pretty biased toward the majors. I just wish there was a UNCW, Nevada, Vermont, Rhode Island, and a Wichita in that at-large pool to really expose it. This isn't just about Illinois State missing the dance, this is about all of these other schools getting in ahead of them:

....

The fact that you have to say what you did in bold pretty much sinks your argument right there. It's an admission no non-power conference schools qualified for consideration. Illinois State is the only argument, and their resume is pretty weak.

The upper mid-majors are not as deep as they used to be, and the resource gap has grown. How many mid-majors are consistently strong? Wichita State, Gonzaga, Cincy, St. Mary's (excepting a couple years serving penalty). SMU with Larry Brown might be the new Steve Fisher (getting very old) SDSU. But each of these are Power coaches in non-power leagues.

The NIT will serve as a good opportunity for Illinois State as a 1 seed to show they belong with those borderline NCAA/NIT bid teams like Iowa, Cal, Georgia, and Syracuse. Do well and they and their conference will get more notice next year. (Same for BYU, Colorado State, Houston, UCF, Fresno, and Boise)

Wrong - it is saying that those schools are underseeded. Vermont should be an 11 seed, etc.

(03-14-2017 04:26 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  "SMU with Larry Brown might be the new Steve Fisher SDSU" - the guy who yesterday said the WCC was even or ahead of the AAC.

Oops. Deserved ridicule. I guess the AAC is too invisible these days for somebody in the west to notice that.

I stand on the WCC being better positioned now and going forward than the AAC. This has much to do with their regional built in advantage that would take some explaining. It results in them having more visibility on the Pacific coast than the other mid-majors conferences including the MWC. It also gives them an edge in recruiting the bench depth quality (Catholic HS leagues, which are also the provider of the bulk of their student body). Coaches still have to recruit the top talent to be anything - and most can't. Anyway that local advantage (being private and faith based of the higher admission standards) provides a resilience lacking in the public schools, and is why they have not declined. (Perhaps I should say they have passed most leagues by not declining, that is the miracle of attrition, as opposed to improving.)

Brown isn't at SMU anymore.

(03-14-2017 04:37 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:37 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 01:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  They should require .500 in conference play for at-large teams

Only 1 school got an at-large with a losing conference record.

And that's one too many for a tournament to determine a champion.

I don't think RPI is flawed. It's a composite metric that takes different components into consideration and generates an a resulting metric. The real issue is the human error. If you trust RPI for one school, but then not another, you subjectively and inconsistently value one component over another.

This committee cycle is pretty biased toward the majors. I just wish there was a UNCW, Nevada, Vermont, Rhode Island, and a Wichita in that at-large pool to really expose it. This isn't just about Illinois State missing the dance, this is about all of these other schools getting in ahead of them:

....

The fact that you have to say what you did in bold pretty much sinks your argument right there. It's an admission no non-power conference schools qualified for consideration. Illinois State is the only argument, and their resume is pretty weak.

The upper mid-majors are not as deep as they used to be, and the resource gap has grown. How many mid-majors are consistently strong? Wichita State, Gonzaga, Cincy, St. Mary's (excepting a couple years serving penalty). SMU with Larry Brown might be the new Steve Fisher (getting very old) SDSU. But each of these are Power coaches in non-power leagues.

The NIT will serve as a good opportunity for Illinois State as a 1 seed to show they belong with those borderline NCAA/NIT bid teams like Iowa, Cal, Georgia, and Syracuse. Do well and they and their conference will get more notice next year. (Same for BYU, Colorado State, Houston, UCF, Fresno, and Boise)

Wrong - it is saying that those schools are underseeded. Vermont should be an 11 seed, etc.

The slights are both in the seeding of those taken below these mid-majors and the potential with such selections to possibly snub more of them if they didn't win the AQ games.

Like, when you look at the seeding of MTSU, one has to ask whether coming up short in the conference final would have made the NIT a certainty. Illinois State is a snub, but MTSU's seeding is, I think, equally egregious. That's a six or seven seed there, and if you can't look past CUSA, well, now you might understand why some think people who get to make these important decisions can't either, when they must.

I can't help but think what had happened between now and when the committee gave Bucknell the 8/9 line. Wouldn't happen with this committee...

Honestly, keeping Gonzaga as a 1 might have saved this year from many/more calling shenanigans on the whole thing. And I don't doubt some still didn't think they earned it in that room when putting this together.

(03-14-2017 04:34 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Here's another theory as to why the mid-major is down:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/201...tournament

what a ****** up rule that allows guys that graduate to transfer without sitting out. They aren't going for their education. They're going for 1 and only 1 reason. Basketball. Pathetic.

They need a rule ASAP that if you transfer even as a graduate you must sit out a year. PERIOD. It'll nip this problem right away.

that would help. Both football and basketball

That would only help coaches and schools at the expense of athletes. As if college athletics isn't already rigged enough in favor of coaches and schools and against athletes.

Let me know when coaches and athletic directors have to sit out a year when moving from one college to another. I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

(03-14-2017 03:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 02:50 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  what's the highest major snub's RPI since we've moved to 64?

That question isn't relevant to the tournament committee. Maybe it was 10-15 years ago when they worshipped at the altar of RPI. This year, it's very clear that they valued other things a lot more, especially top 25/top 50/top 100 wins.

It's not relevant because no major within the top 35 RPI had ever been snubbed. RPI validates inclusion.

The committee deserves the criticism it gets when it overlooks teams in the 20's and low 30's from the non-majors and then dips into the 60's or worse for a major. I don't disagree that maybe wins against the top 50 or 100 should matter more, but when you start ignoring top 50 teams for those outside it? It's not just the RPI being ignored.

The Bucknell thing is a great point. 8/9 game in 2006. Where would they be today?

(03-14-2017 10:44 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 11:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Mid major conferences don't win national championships in any major sports. (Football and men's basketball). EVER. It's never happened. Except the AAC has won one in men's basketball. A conference that wins a natty is not a "mid major". Now maybe there is some other appropriate term other than power, but it's not mid major.

So UNLV winning out of the Big West in 1990 never happened...because I'm pretty sure the BWC was and is a mid-major.

I forgot about UNLV. Sorry, I was wrong. Rarely should have been a better word. And it certainly doesn't happen now (except for AAC).