(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:
Xavier
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest
Oklahoma State
USC
Miami
South Carolina
Seton Hall
Virginia Tech
Northwestern
Michigan State
Providence
Kansas State
Marquette
Those are ALL of the at-large schools below ISU in the RPI. Fourteen majors. And they only run from seeds 7-11. The committee wouldn't even give the nod to mid-major AQ's with higher RPI's into these favorable seeds! UNCW, MTSU, Nevada, URI...all within or ahead of these others...those are your 12's. 12s!
I don't have any faith the committee would have even taken ISU as the next in. I think they can cover themselves once the final team was selected, and make those mid-major snubs the subject of NIT chatter. But, if you're looking past ISU and select ALL of those teams above them, why stop there and not go further for that Syracuse, Iowa, California, Utah, or Illinois? There is nothing for anyone to give the committee that remark. It's not like Illinois State's the only team overlooked within that pile of at-large's. Give me a break.
Selection is one thing, but seeding is another, and this is just a bad message being sent. Even if you think all of those teams are better than someone like Illinois State, it's for the likes of those 7/10's among the A10, MVC, and WCC, and the 12-line where you can really see either a total disrespect for non-major programs, a disconnect/unfamiliarity between committee attention from programs and conferences outside of their own, or rampant politics and network interference.
It's bad enough good mid-major programs have to fight harder to build strong schedules away from their conference to have to get insulted at the end by a committee of those who stiff the little guys enough at that game. This committee just doesn't give a ****. Some small program is going to have to make them eat crow, but even then, next year, lather, rinse, repeat, you know?