(03-27-2018 07:41 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 07:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bilas has some good points in there:

-- If a mid-major conference wants its best team in the NCAA tournament, give your autobid to the regular season champ. If you want to make your regular season champ play Russian roulette in your conference tournament, that's on you.

-- Quoting Bilas here: "If your league does not give you what you need, YOU need to go on the road." That's seeing the world as it is, instead of how you wish it was. The committee is never going to look at a mid-major and say, "I know Midmajor State had a way-too-easy schedule, but we'll overlook that and put them in the field, just because mean ol' John Calipari won't play on Midmajor State's home court."

Neither of those are good points by Bilas.

(1) Why should only the Power 5 conferences be "allowed" to have tournaments where a team could steal a bid? Why is it alright for someone like, say, Boston College to go on a run in the ACC tournament while the ACC gets their other 8 teams in as at-larges? Meanwhile, if a Southern Illinois makes a run in the MVC tournament, it's "tough luck Loyola, it's your conference's fault for having a tournament"?

(2) Loyola DID go on the road. At Florida. Won that game. It's a bit of a known fact that power teams will shy away THEMSELVES from playing their "buy games" against feisty mid-majors. They'd prefer those teams w/ RPIs in the 150-250 range vs. the 50-100 range.

I think you are right and wrong on this.... While the P5 is "allowed" to have a team steal a bid, it is not often (at all) that the team that does steal it wasn't making the tourney anyways. Every one of the P6 or P7 who won conference tourney champ was already in the tourney this year without winning that game.

Look at a team like LIU - they come in 4th in the conference - overall record was sub .500 before their tournament - they weren't even going to the NIT - they win the tournament and the best (most deserving team - Howard i believe?) stays home for an NIT game.

In this case you can and probably should have it both ways (one for the P7 and one for the others). Either that, or you expand the field and be done with it to allow the conf champ and conf tourney champ a spot regardless.

(03-28-2018 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 10:15 AM)MU88 Wrote:  Clearly, the conference champs of the mids are very competitive in the high major conferences.

Not really. In the last 10 years, 34/40 Final Four spots have been occupied by Power schools (including the Big East). Just 6 have come from "mid-majors", and two of those happened in one year, 2011.

Truth is, the vast majority of the time, the ACC or B1G champ is clearly better than the MVC champ or the MWC champ or the C-USA champ, etc. They have better players, more 5* star guys, better coaches, etc.

That is a consequence of seeding. Let's face it, being the 8th, 9th, 12, or 13th seed is the worst spot in the tourney since you have a much more difficult road. No surprise, they almost always stick the best mids at that seed level.

Being on the Committee and advocating for a Loyola Chicago is a sure way to get removed from the Committee.

Because being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school every year and having them "surprise" the field is safer than being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school even once and having that school spectacularly flame out.

It's risk management, with the risk of being even wrong once means exile. Who'd take that risk and give up the sweet, sweet money and perks of being on the Selection Committee?

(03-27-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 07:41 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 07:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bilas has some good points in there:

-- If a mid-major conference wants its best team in the NCAA tournament, give your autobid to the regular season champ. If you want to make your regular season champ play Russian roulette in your conference tournament, that's on you.

-- Quoting Bilas here: "If your league does not give you what you need, YOU need to go on the road." That's seeing the world as it is, instead of how you wish it was. The committee is never going to look at a mid-major and say, "I know Midmajor State had a way-too-easy schedule, but we'll overlook that and put them in the field, just because mean ol' John Calipari won't play on Midmajor State's home court."

Neither of those are good points by Bilas.

(1) Why should only the Power 5 conferences be "allowed" to have tournaments where a team could steal a bid? Why is it alright for someone like, say, Boston College to go on a run in the ACC tournament while the ACC gets their other 8 teams in as at-larges? Meanwhile, if a Southern Illinois makes a run in the MVC tournament, it's "tough luck Loyola, it's your conference's fault for having a tournament"?

(2) Loyola DID go on the road. At Florida. Won that game. It's a bit of a known fact that power teams will shy away THEMSELVES from playing their "buy games" against feisty mid-majors. They'd prefer those teams w/ RPIs in the 150-250 range vs. the 50-100 range.

Everyone is allowed to have conference tournaments. And everyone who does is taking a risk by doing so. It's just being realistic to know that you're taking less of a risk when your regular season champ is, say, top-10 in both RPI and KenPom.

Bilas' points are not about some ideal of fairness; they're about realism. When we're talking about what a good mid-major team SHOULD do, we should look at the situation that actually exists and not act based on how we wish things were. Saying that mid-majors with NCAA at-large aspirations should schedule like Gonzaga is not about fairness, it's about realism.

As to the other issue: USC played two of the top mid-majors, NMSU and MTSU, this year, won both games, and then USC went 12-6 in conference and made it to the conference tournament final... and got left out of the NCAA tournament. If you're Andy Enfield, what lesson do you take from that? His job is to do what's best for his team, not to do what fans of other teams want him to do.

And got whooped by a mid major in the NIT..........your argument is weak

(03-28-2018 01:11 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Being on the Committee and advocating for a Loyola Chicago is a sure way to get removed from the Committee.

Because being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school every year and having them "surprise" the field is safer than being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school even once and having that school spectacularly flame out.

It's risk management, with the risk of being even wrong once means exile. Who'd take that risk and give up the sweet, sweet money and perks of being on the Selection Committee?

Winning or losing in the NCAA Tournament doesn't validate or invalidate anything the committee does. The committee messed up by allowing Syracuse in the tournament and probably did two years ago as well, despite 7 combined wins.

(03-28-2018 01:13 PM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 07:41 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 07:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Bilas has some good points in there:

-- If a mid-major conference wants its best team in the NCAA tournament, give your autobid to the regular season champ. If you want to make your regular season champ play Russian roulette in your conference tournament, that's on you.

-- Quoting Bilas here: "If your league does not give you what you need, YOU need to go on the road." That's seeing the world as it is, instead of how you wish it was. The committee is never going to look at a mid-major and say, "I know Midmajor State had a way-too-easy schedule, but we'll overlook that and put them in the field, just because mean ol' John Calipari won't play on Midmajor State's home court."

Neither of those are good points by Bilas.

(1) Why should only the Power 5 conferences be "allowed" to have tournaments where a team could steal a bid? Why is it alright for someone like, say, Boston College to go on a run in the ACC tournament while the ACC gets their other 8 teams in as at-larges? Meanwhile, if a Southern Illinois makes a run in the MVC tournament, it's "tough luck Loyola, it's your conference's fault for having a tournament"?

(2) Loyola DID go on the road. At Florida. Won that game. It's a bit of a known fact that power teams will shy away THEMSELVES from playing their "buy games" against feisty mid-majors. They'd prefer those teams w/ RPIs in the 150-250 range vs. the 50-100 range.

Everyone is allowed to have conference tournaments. And everyone who does is taking a risk by doing so. It's just being realistic to know that you're taking less of a risk when your regular season champ is, say, top-10 in both RPI and KenPom.

Bilas' points are not about some ideal of fairness; they're about realism. When we're talking about what a good mid-major team SHOULD do, we should look at the situation that actually exists and not act based on how we wish things were. Saying that mid-majors with NCAA at-large aspirations should schedule like Gonzaga is not about fairness, it's about realism.

As to the other issue: USC played two of the top mid-majors, NMSU and MTSU, this year, won both games, and then USC went 12-6 in conference and made it to the conference tournament final... and got left out of the NCAA tournament. If you're Andy Enfield, what lesson do you take from that? His job is to do what's best for his team, not to do what fans of other teams want him to do.

And got whooped by a mid major in the NIT..........your argument is weak

So what? USC obviously sucked but probably should have made the tournament.

(03-28-2018 01:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 01:11 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Being on the Committee and advocating for a Loyola Chicago is a sure way to get removed from the Committee.

Because being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school every year and having them "surprise" the field is safer than being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school even once and having that school spectacularly flame out.

It's risk management, with the risk of being even wrong once means exile. Who'd take that risk and give up the sweet, sweet money and perks of being on the Selection Committee?

Winning or losing in the NCAA Tournament doesn't validate or invalidate anything the committee does. The committee messed up by allowing Syracuse in the tournament and probably did two years ago as well, despite 7 combined wins.

No one gets called to carpet for being wrong about Syracuse or any P5.

(03-28-2018 01:11 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Being on the Committee and advocating for a Loyola Chicago is a sure way to get removed from the Committee.

Because being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school every year and having them "surprise" the field is safer than being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school even once and having that school spectacularly flame out.

It's risk management, with the risk of being even wrong once means exile. Who'd take that risk and give up the sweet, sweet money and perks of being on the Selection Committee?

This is a great post. When P6 AD’s automatically hold 5/10 spots every year, other committee members have high risk and low reward to advocate for teams outside the committee’s power structure.

The indisputably fair solution is an equitable makeup of the committee:
- 2 reps from leagues 1-6
- 2 reps from leagues 7-12
- 2 reps from leagues 13-18
- 2 reps from leagues 19-24
- 2 reps from leagues 25-32

The only reason why 18% (1-6) of conferences comprise 50% of the committee year after year is because there is something to hide. The same would hold true if 5/10 committee members were from the 7th-12th ranked leagues and P6 teams were getting snubbed.

That’s something everyone rational can agree on. The only way someone could disagree with an equitable committee conference makeup is if they have an ulterior motive.

Yet it keeps happening every year with the same leagues privileged into 50% of the committee and the same leagues getting snubbed.

To no one’s surprise, espn will never mention a word of this.

This entire premise is bogus LUC was an 11 seed, which means they were seeded the same as the bottom at-large.

"The churn" this year was pretty large, basically not much difference between the 6 to 11 seeds. Hard to call any game in that category and upset. Some would argue it was even wider.

LUC was in the churn, beat a 6, 3, 7, 9 seed to get to final four. What does that say? They won a buzzer beater against Tennessee and otherwise were in games that are "churn" could go either way. Other teams knocked out the 1, 2, 4, 5 seeds giving them a path. That is it, sheer dumb luck. It proves nothing.

For me the real problem with the tournament -- to the extent there is one (which is minor) -- is that the 14 bottom automatic qualifiers from tiny conferences, seeds 14-16, are just plain incapable of competing. Sure UMBC pulled off an upset of biblical proportions, but the record of this pile the last three years is 1-36 (proving the NCAA has the seeding correct), and two thirds of those games are easy double digit margins. Statistically that is pretty much spot on, we do see a couple such upsets in Basketball during the regular season. What it basically tells us is the NCAA has about 120 too many schools playing in D-I (not enough talent spill over to fill these leagues), and the Tourney committee pretty much has the seeding right.

But frankly it's not broken. Adding a dozen more at-large, and making the bottom 18 conference winners play-in would only kill off the NIT, as you'd lose 10 major schools, and the other 4-5 would just choose not to play in a tournament of minor conferences. But as it now stands the NIT is getting a solid group to play. More important those bottom 14 seeds have been close to automatic first round pass for the top 12 (seeds 1-3) effectively doubling their credit value, which is mostly for the 6 majors.

The op-ed is off target because Forde lumps mid-Majors seeded within the churn as the same as the bottom 120 schools. Three churn wins and a buzzer beater upset hardly constitute anything more than the odd stars aligning situation. And good for LUC.It's a nice story.

Seeds 14-16 are often teams that pulled upsets in lower conference tournaments, especially 15's and 16's. The reason they have bad records against higher seeds is because not only are they facing the ten or so best teams in college basketball but they are usually among the 150 worst teams in college basketball. This year broke the mold in that there weren't that many conference tournament bracket busters and two of them were lopped off in the First Four, providing an exceptionally strong lower half of the bracket and combined with the type of team Virginia is, who doesn't win in blowouts too often, we finally got a 1/16 upset. Sure their record the last few years isn't great but 15's and 16's almost never win games anyways, the bottom 8 teams of the 64-team field on average wins only a little more than once every four years, basically meaning a 15 only wins once every four years and we went a fullittle decade without a 15-seed winning.

So it's not exactly big news that 14-16's don't win much and it's better to focus on the 14's.

(03-28-2018 01:11 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Being on the Committee and advocating for a Loyola Chicago is a sure way to get removed from the Committee.

Because being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school every year and having them "surprise" the field is safer than being wrong about a Loyola or any G5 school even once and having that school spectacularly flame out.

It's risk management, with the risk of being even wrong once means exile. Who'd take that risk and give up the sweet, sweet money and perks of being on the Selection Committee?

I read the bolded statement. I just didn't believe anybody could make it and expect to be believed. It's utter nonsense, and insulting to the intelligence and integrity of every committee member.

Then I read your last sentence and see that you really didn't mean any of what you said.

(03-28-2018 10:15 AM)MU88 Wrote:  Why do the mid-major have to go on the road to prove themselves, but the top 6 conferences don't? Is Duke playing at the Knapp Center in Des Moines or at Winthrop? Of course not. There are groups of teams that get a pass. I don't care how good the power schools are, there is a pretty good chance that none of them would go undefeated if they had to play in one of the mid major conferences. This year, Clemson would have a tough time winning at St. Bonnies and Arizona would have a tough time winning at Loyola.

Clearly, the conference champs of the mids are very competitive in the high major conferences. The only difference is that the mid major conferences aren't as deep as the high major conferences, so the mids are less battle tested. A team like Drake finished 4th in the Valley, but it beat Wake Forest. Yet, Wake was good enough to beat NCAA teams Syracuse and Florida State. Could Drake have beaten a few other ACC teams? I suspect the answer is yes.

I would like to see all high major teams go on the road at least once to a low or mid major. Let's see if the big boys would win at some of these pits. Here is my plan, give all high major teams the option of playing one extra game, but it has to be on the road at a school in one of the bottom 26 conferences. You can select each of the 26 preseason favorites for the conference championships, along with a selection process for the other teams who get a game. Thereafter, you can rank the selected teams from the bottom 26 conferences and let them have a draft of the high major teams that opt in. Gonzaga can pick Duke, Murray State can pick Kentucky, etc. The leftover mids and lows can play each other. The high majors who opt out sit. Plus, they get penalized in some fashion with respect to the NCAAs. Lower seed, no at large bid, etc. I suspect many of the low and mids would be competitive and would win a fair number of games. It would give everyone, including the committee, a better idea how the teams are relatively to each other.

Who says the top conferences don't have to prove themselves on the road? They do it in half of their conference games.

(03-28-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  I read the bolded statement. I just didn't believe anybody could make it and expect to be believed. It's utter nonsense, and insulting to the intelligence and integrity of every committee member.

Then I read your last sentence and see that you really didn't mean any of what you said.

You think calling the Selection Committee a shill is nonsense? Hell, I didn't even know it was possible to use "the intelligence and integrity" of the NCAA Selection Committee in a non-ironic way before your comment.

(03-28-2018 06:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  I read the bolded statement. I just didn't believe anybody could make it and expect to be believed. It's utter nonsense, and insulting to the intelligence and integrity of every committee member.

Then I read your last sentence and see that you really didn't mean any of what you said.

You think calling the Selection Committee a shill is nonsense? Hell, I didn't even know it was possible to use "the intelligence and integrity" of the NCAA Selection Committee in a non-ironic way before your comment.

Amazing how the script flips when we are discussing football or basketball post-season.

When the issue is football, the NCAA is a Paragon of Virtue and its Tournament is the Holy Grail that football's CFP falls so woefully short of.

But when the issue is hoops, the same knives that come out for the CFP are wielded against the tournament selection committee.

Sheesh!

(03-28-2018 07:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  What makes him think they would not have been an at-large selection if they had lost in their conference tourney, knocking Syracuse off the bubble?

Well, they were an 11 seed after winning their tournament--not good enough for an at-large. But they would have moved up with a loss?

(03-28-2018 07:53 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  What makes him think they would not have been an at-large selection if they had lost in their conference tourney, knocking Syracuse off the bubble?

Well, they were an 11 seed after winning their tournament--not good enough for an at-large. But they would have moved up with a loss?

Who said they would have moved up? I believe they would have knocked another 11 seed, Syracuse, to the NIT.

(03-28-2018 06:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 03:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  I read the bolded statement. I just didn't believe anybody could make it and expect to be believed. It's utter nonsense, and insulting to the intelligence and integrity of every committee member.

Then I read your last sentence and see that you really didn't mean any of what you said.

You think calling the Selection Committee a shill is nonsense? Hell, I didn't even know it was possible to use "the intelligence and integrity" of the NCAA Selection Committee in a non-ironic way before your comment.

Yes. Your statement was a giant load of crap. By suggesting you made it tongue in cheek was, I guess, giving you way too much credit. But I guess by now I should have learned not to expect civility and common decency on the internet.

(03-28-2018 08:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:53 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 07:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  What makes him think they would not have been an at-large selection if they had lost in their conference tourney, knocking Syracuse off the bubble?

Well, they were an 11 seed after winning their tournament--not good enough for an at-large. But they would have moved up with a loss?

Who said they would have moved up? I believe they would have knocked another 11 seed, Syracuse, to the NIT.

In the 1-68 rankings, they were ranked BELOW Syracuse after winning Arch MAdness. How in the blue hell are they supposed to bump Syracuse by LOSING in the MVC tournament?

If the Ramblers don't win the MVC, they're making their run in the NIT. Fact.