Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Did the new selection system help mid majors?
Author Message
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,162
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 98
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #1
MyBB Did the new selection system help mid majors?
The new quadrant system where more strength is given to games played on the road was supposed to help mid majors if they scheduled the games and won the games they needed to win.

#8 Missouri Valley

Loyola finished with an RPI of 22 but only had 1 Q1 win on the season. They received an 11 seed. Loyola was 6-1 record against the sub 200. There was only 5 Q1 wins in this entire conference yet they finished with a solid RPI of .5259.

#9 Mountain West

Nevada finished with an RPI of 19 and was 3-2 Q1. They end up with a #7 seed which shows some respect for its Q1 record. SDSU was 63 in the RPI and snagged an 11 seed with a 4-2 Q1 record and a 9-1 record against sub 200 teams.

#10 Mid American

Buffalo had an RPI of 26 but was 0-5 Q1. Their sub 200 record was 7-1. They received a 13th seed as a punishment for not getting it done in the OOC.

#11 Atlantic 10

The conference overall was not in the Top 10 this year but they still put 3 teams into the NCAA tournament. Rhode Island was 3-3 Q1 with an RPI of 14 and 9-0 against sub 200 teams picked up a 7th seed. St. Bonaventure was 3-2 Q1 and 9-0 against sub 200 hundred yet picks up an 11 seed play-in. Davidson was RPI #59, 3-6 Q1 and earned a 12 seed.

#12 Colonial Athletic Association

College of Charleston (RPI 59, 0-2 Q1, 16-3 sub 200) picks up a 13 seed the same as what Buffalo picked up with an RPI of 26.

#13 West Coast Conference

Gonzaga (RPI 21, 4-3 Q1, 22-0 sub 100) had a very similar overall resume as St. Bonaventure this season but did far better with 4 seed. St. Mary's (RPI 40, 2-1 Q1, 24-2 sub 100) and didn't get in.

#14 Western Athletic Conference.

NMSU (RPI 35, 1-2 Q1, 21-2 sub 100) picked up the autobid for the conference and a #12 seed. Better seed line then Buffalo.

#15 Conference USA

MTSU (RPI 33, 3-3 Q1, 19-1 sub 100) and WKU (RPI 39, 1-2 Q1, 16-5 sub 100) were both left out of the NCAAs. WKU didn't have the resume but MTSU I believe had enough of resume.
03-11-2018 11:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,162
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 98
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
-Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.
03-11-2018 11:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Aztec Since 88 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 117
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2
I Root For: San Diego State
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

The hard part for quality mid major programs now is that power conferences are going to 20 game seasons for the league. Mid majors are finding it harder to schedule games against the power schools particularly if they are playing in a preseason tournament somewhere.

The power conferences basically have figured out by playing more league games they will get the vast majority of at large bids.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2018 11:51 PM by Aztec Since 88.)
03-11-2018 11:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,190
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 69
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #4
Did the new selection system help mid majors?
Anyway they do it is stacked for the big schools. What they need to do is factor in OOC non-home games. The better minds also need to schedule each other more.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 12:24 AM by Jjoey52.)
03-12-2018 12:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,931
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 65
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #5
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

And if the Aztecs and Davidson hadn’t stolen bids, the committee planned for just 1 mid major bid this year.
03-12-2018 12:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,713
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 92
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #6
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston
03-12-2018 12:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,284
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 80
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
The new system is like a scarlet letter with the way it affixes itself to the RPI ranking. You can rock the RPI with a good number...it won't save you by itself. And who cares if you're in the top 15, 25, or even 35? This year, two of the top 35 were overlooked, a mid-major and a major; could easily have been more if Buffalo or Loyola didn't win their respective conference tournies.

The FBI probe and NCAA portion may be why Louisville and USC were snubbed...the spotlight will turn to them (again) soon enough. It didn't really help the little guys out any...Syracuse, ASU, NCSU, UCLA, and FSU...those guys benefited from that more than anything.

Still pivotal that two majors in RPI 30-40 were snubbed, though...but, again, it dipped into the 60's three times. SMC had better RPI and KP numbers than more than a few of the teams in the 9-11 lines...who cares, it seems?

My question is...who helped who more at the end there...was Syracuse in ahead of others and that allowing Bonaventure in, or the other way around? Are the two independent of each other in that a Bona snub would be an optical nightmare, as it would be the second time in like 5 years you had the high RPI non-major out of the tournament?
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 03:43 AM by The Cutter of Bish.)
03-12-2018 03:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCbball21 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,981
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 44
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.
03-12-2018 05:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,115
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 118
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #9
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

But, they are. There are 6 major conferences, P5 + Big East.
03-12-2018 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cotton1991 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,896
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 263
I Root For: Memphis
Location: MasonCity North Iowa
Post: #10
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 07:33 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

But, they are. There are 6 major conferences, P5 + Big East.

Yet Wichita lost 4 games last year in the MVC and got a 10 seed. They lost 7 this year in the AAC and got a 4 seed.
03-12-2018 07:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,115
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 118
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #11
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 07:39 AM)cotton1991 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 07:33 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

But, they are. There are 6 major conferences, P5 + Big East.

Yet Wichita lost 4 games last year in the MVC and got a 10 seed. They lost 7 this year in the AAC and got a 4 seed.

Doesn't make them major.
03-12-2018 08:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,284
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 80
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
If one is to believe the NIT's top seeds are the First 4 Out, I'd say the system definitely isn't for the non-majors. The top 4 lines and their RPI's are:

1
Notre Dame (70)
USC (34)
St. Mary's (40)
Baylor (68)

2
Marquette (58)
Oklahoma State (88)
Louisville (ouch) (38)
Utah (59)

3
Oregon (72)
Stanford (86)
MTSU (33)
LSU (94)

4
Penn State (77)
Boise St. (50)
Western Kentucky (39)
Mississippi State (73)

So, for Vermont, Louisiana, BYU, and Rider...your RPI means nothing in even getting the gift of hosting a NIT game. Northeastern, Toledo, UCF and Old Dominion didn't get ****. Compare that to UGA and Colorado getting overlooked, but, there even, too, you're overlooking Belmont.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 09:23 AM by The Cutter of Bish.)
03-12-2018 09:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,225
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 595
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 12:36 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

And if the Aztecs and Davidson hadn’t stolen bids, the committee planned for just 1 mid major bid this year.

Its a stretch to call the MWC and A10 "mid-majors." There are the P5, the former Big Easts (BE and AAC) and then MWC and A10.

So for "true" mid-majors, there were no at large bids.
03-12-2018 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,225
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 595
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 09:18 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  If one is to believe the NIT's top seeds are the First 4 Out, I'd say the system definitely isn't for the non-majors. The top 4 lines and their RPI's are:

1
Notre Dame (70)
USC (34)
St. Mary's (40)
Baylor (68)

2
Marquette (58)
Oklahoma State (88)
Louisville (ouch) (38)
Utah (59)

3
Oregon (72)
Stanford (86)
MTSU (33)
LSU (94)

4
Penn State (77)
Boise St. (50)
Western Kentucky (39)
Mississippi State (73)

So, for Vermont, Louisiana, BYU, and Rider...your RPI means nothing in even getting the gift of hosting a NIT game. Northeastern, Toledo, UCF and Old Dominion didn't get ****. Compare that to UGA and Colorado getting overlooked, but, there even, too, you're overlooking Belmont.

Georgia's players voted not to play after their coach was fired, so they weren't considered.
03-12-2018 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 26,225
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 595
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 07:33 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 05:32 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 12:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(03-11-2018 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  -Only 3 at-large bids went to the mid major conferences (Nevada, URI, St. Bonaventure) under the new system.

-Its clear that the overall conference RPI rating isn't a factor anymore. Gonzaga pulled a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference.

-The path for the mid-major seems to be lining up enough Q1 teams in the OOC to offset lack of them in conference play.

As titled to the power schools this new selection system is at least it seems to be fairly applied in most cases IMO.

5, you forgot Wichita State and Houston

The AAC is not considered a mid-major league by the national pundits. There are 7 high-major conferences in college basketball, mostly because the PAC-12 is so bad.

But, they are. There are 6 major conferences, P5 + Big East.

Some people interpret it that way. Its been a shifting metric. Mid-major was basically conferences 11-20 at one time.

Now the AAC has some remnants of the BE and a lot of schools with history-Memphis, Houston, Cincinnati, UConn, Temple. MWC has generally been pretty strong and has generally been considered a "major." A10 may be slipping, but it has frequently rated better than some of the P5. MVC, while often strong, has always been considered in that "mid-major" category, along with MAC, Colonial, WCC, Sun Belt, etc. WAC and CUSA were "major" once, but none of the old WAC schools are left and only a couple of the CUSA schools-its now the old Sun Belt.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 10:22 AM by bullet.)
03-12-2018 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,162
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 98
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
There is obviously more of an emphasis on who you can beat over who you lost to.

Gonzaga defeated Ohio St, Florida, Texas and Creighton. That is what they are basing their seeding on being "better than" those guys. They only had one conference loss to St. Mary's a bubble team.

Houston beat both UC and WSU once so they are given credit as being decent for those wins yet it's understood they aren't as good by only getting a 6 seed.

Perception of course is boosted by having a name coach, top national ranking or a special player. Typical mid major doesn't have any of that.

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app
03-12-2018 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

OdinFrigg Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 164
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Dogs, Roosters
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 09:18 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  If one is to believe the NIT's top seeds are the First 4 Out, I'd say the system definitely isn't for the non-majors. The top 4 lines and their RPI's are:

1
Notre Dame (70)
USC (34)
St. Mary's (40)
Baylor (68)

2
Marquette (58)
Oklahoma State (88)
Louisville (ouch) (38)
Utah (59)

3
Oregon (72)
Stanford (86)
MTSU (33)
LSU (94)

4
Penn State (77)
Boise St. (50)
Western Kentucky (39)
Mississippi State (73)

So, for Vermont, Louisiana, BYU, and Rider...your RPI means nothing in even getting the gift of hosting a NIT game. Northeastern, Toledo, UCF and Old Dominion didn't get ****. Compare that to UGA and Colorado getting overlooked, but, there even, too, you're overlooking Belmont.
Texas A&M and Alabama got into the NCAAs with worse records than Mississippi State who finished 22-11. 'Bama was 8-10 in conference play. MS ST & A&M were both 9-9 in conference. Supposedly, the RPI defined the differences. Still, a 4th seed in the NIT looks low for the Bulldogs. MS ST wasn't considered a bubble team for the NCAAs either.

Penn State is another that seems NIT low, given their season wins over OSU who did comfortably squeeze into the NCAAs.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 11:59 AM by OdinFrigg.)
03-12-2018 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,284
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 80
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 11:54 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Texas A&M and Alabama got into the NCAAs with worse records than Mississippi State who finished 22-11. 'Bama was 8-10 in conference play. MS ST & A&M were both 9-9 in conference. Supposedly, the RPI defined the differences. Still, a 4th seed in the NIT looks low for the Bulldogs. MS ST wasn't considered a bubble team for the NCAAs either.

Penn State is another that seems NIT low, given their season wins over OSU who did comfortably squeeze into the NCAAs.

NC-SOS was, supposedly, the moral of this year's story. TAMU was 11, Bama 28, and MSU 284.

That Louisville wasn't in the first-out group, and that Nebraska doesn't even get a home game was most intriguing. Maryland was the highest major snub...no clue what happened there.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 02:36 PM by The Cutter of Bish.)
03-12-2018 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,707
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 343
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #19
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
(03-12-2018 10:15 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 09:18 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  If one is to believe the NIT's top seeds are the First 4 Out, I'd say the system definitely isn't for the non-majors. The top 4 lines and their RPI's are:

1
Notre Dame (70)
USC (34)
St. Mary's (40)
Baylor (68)

2
Marquette (58)
Oklahoma State (88)
Louisville (ouch) (38)
Utah (59)

3
Oregon (72)
Stanford (86)
MTSU (33)
LSU (94)

4
Penn State (77)
Boise St. (50)
Western Kentucky (39)
Mississippi State (73)

So, for Vermont, Louisiana, BYU, and Rider...your RPI means nothing in even getting the gift of hosting a NIT game. Northeastern, Toledo, UCF and Old Dominion didn't get ****. Compare that to UGA and Colorado getting overlooked, but, there even, too, you're overlooking Belmont.

Georgia's players voted not to play after their coach was fired, so they weren't considered.

They wouldn't have made the field even if they had been considered.
03-12-2018 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 12,341
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 349
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Did the new selection system help mid majors?
I've posted it before and I'll post it again- UC, UConn, Memphis Temple and a few others such as Gonzaga and Wichita are major basketball programs; more so than many schools in the P5. There aren't too many schools with the hardware, the wins, the ranking history, the brand recognition, the fan support and the facilities that some of those schools have. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve or is purposely being obtuse.
(This post was last modified: 03-12-2018 03:03 PM by CliftonAve.)
03-12-2018 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.