(03-04-2020 08:58 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:47 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 11:59 PM)Nameless Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 05:52 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .
Minnesota (13-15) has a current NET ranking of #46.


Q: Mathematically, how can a team with a losing record be ranked among the top 50 teams in the nation?

A: All but one of Minnesota's 15 losses have been to teams that currently have winning records.

Q: How about their wins?

A: Seven (54%) of their wins were vs. teams that currently have losing records. Two were vs. teams with current records of 15-14. Only four (31%) of their wins were vs. teams with more than 17 wins, and only three (23%) of their wins were on the road/away.

Q: What was their Q1/Q2 record?

A: Q1: 5-12 Q2: 2-2 Q3 1-1 Q4: 5-0 (Q1/Q2: 7-14) (Q3/Q4: 6-1)

NOTE: 21 (75%) of their 28 games have been Q1 or Q2 contests.

============================================

Q: What does this tell us about how the NET formula works?

A: A team can get a top 48 NET ranking with a losing record by:

#1 Being in a conference with a schedule of ≥ 80% Q1 or Q2 games

#2 Scheduling 5 or 6 probable Q1 and Q2 OOC games.

#3 Winning ~ 50% of Q1 home games, and ≥ 33% of all Q1/Q2 games.

#4 Winning ≥ 85% of all Q3 and Q4 games.

============================================

As others have pointed out, your points would be a lot more valid if NET overrated these teams relative to other analytical systems. Minnesota is 46 in NET, 32 in Kenpom, and 48 in Sagarin at the time of me writing this. So why bring up the Gophers as if they prove your point about fairness? Seems like their NET is in line with other respected formulae.

Also, in regards to your post below the one I'm quoting, you realize how disingenuous it is to compare 6 conferences to 26 and act as if the percentages you're coming up with hold any weight... Right? Of course there is a lower percentage chance that a team from a pool of 272, when selected at random, will be in the top 50 than a team from a pool of 75, that's simple math. Throw in the talent disparity between conferences like the B1G, ACC and Big East versus conferences like the America East, SWAC, MEAC, etc and of course that gap is going to be astronomical.

If you really wanted to be fair, look at teams that have historically been competitive against the 6 conferences you listed (Gonzaga, St Mary's, Houston, Memphis, Cincy, Dayton, VCU, etc) and then examine their chance of being in the top 50 relative to teams from the other 6 conferences. Don't dilute your results by putting Hartford in the same pool as Gonzaga lol.

Well geez aren't all those systems predictive in nature? Wouldn't that be the reason they are all similar?

Again we play games for a reason and it's not to build stats so we can argue about who is better. Hell if that's what we are doing let's quit going to games, have players shoot in empty gyms, and then just let the computers decide the whole thing.

I mean predictive measures, even in games as they happen, are often wrong whether it is computer nerds or Vegas. Let's just play the games.

You must love the RPI then.

I'm fine with the RPI and see that the accusation that smaller schools were rigging the system are BS.

I'm even more in love with actual wins and losses.

(03-04-2020 05:06 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 10:23 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 09:15 AM)Nameless Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 12:47 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 11:59 PM)Nameless Wrote:  As others have pointed out, your points would be a lot more valid if NET overrated these teams relative to other analytical systems. Minnesota is 46 in NET, 32 in Kenpom, and 48 in Sagarin at the time of me writing this. So why bring up the Gophers as if they prove your point about fairness? Seems like their NET is in line with other respected formulae.

Also, in regards to your post below the one I'm quoting, you realize how disingenuous it is to compare 6 conferences to 26 and act as if the percentages you're coming up with hold any weight... Right? Of course there is a lower percentage chance that a team from a pool of 272, when selected at random, will be in the top 50 than a team from a pool of 75, that's simple math. Throw in the talent disparity between conferences like the B1G, ACC and Big East versus conferences like the America East, SWAC, MEAC, etc and of course that gap is going to be astronomical.

If you really wanted to be fair, look at teams that have historically been competitive against the 6 conferences you listed (Gonzaga, St Mary's, Houston, Memphis, Cincy, Dayton, VCU, etc) and then examine their chance of being in the top 50 relative to teams from the other 6 conferences. Don't dilute your results by putting Hartford in the same pool as Gonzaga lol.

Well geez aren't all those systems predictive in nature? Wouldn't that be the reason they are all similar?

Again we play games for a reason and it's not to build stats so we can argue about who is better. Hell if that's what we are doing let's quit going to games, have players shoot in empty gyms, and then just let the computers decide the whole thing.

I mean predictive measures, even in games as they happen, are often wrong whether it is computer nerds or Vegas. Let's just play the games.

I never said anything about computers deciding the whole thing, or not playing the games. He's talking about the NET being biased in favor of 6 conferences, I cited other analytics that show it's not biased. If he made the argument that all predictive analytics were biased, what you're saying would be a relevant topic to debate. But he's making the case that NET specifically is, and that it was created by the "cartel" to favor teams from those conferences. Which is asinine when you consider other formulae that have been shown to be useful for predicting the outcome of games all pretty much line up with the NET, or actually rate some of these teams higher than the NET does.

Obviously, playing in a conference with a lot of highly ranked teams is going to boost your ranking in any predictive system, which will in turn inflate the ranking of bad teams. A good team playing in a conference with a lot of bad teams will obviously lower the ranking of said team. No system is going to be perfect in a league with over 300 teams, the talent disparity is too wide. But these predictive systems do a solid job overall of predicting outcomes, and are thus useful tools when seeding teams for a tournament.

Ok so here is how T-Rank, a near clone of KenPom, is calculated.
Game Adj. OE = PPPo / (Opponent's Adj. DE / Average PPP)
Game Adj. DE = PPPd / (Opponent's Adj. OE / Average PPP)
This is adjusted for location.

He adds recency bias and devalues blowouts in mismatches. He also locks the game when the game is analytically final (when the losing team has no chance to win).

How is this in any way biased towards* the P5?

If you want to read for yourself: http://adamcwisports.blogspot.com/p/ever...ounts.html

Some of you are clowns.

Hmmmm, does everyone play the same number of home games? Or are certain conferences running up their offensive and defensive efficiency numbers at home against bad teams who are on the road for a month straight? Then hold on versus other conference teams who played similar schedules and boosted their ratings.

That's how its biased. The system is reinforcing a series of inequalities to say that the team who started off with the benefits are better than ones who did not. Yet when these games are actually played it doesn't hold to the model. Of course recently the committee has gone out of it's way to force non p5 teams into playing each other early and often in the bracket to knock down some of those frequent little school upsets.

Now can you make a strong arguement for why a sub .500 team in a conference deserves an at large?

NET may not adjust for home versus away efficiency, but it rewards a team over twice as much for a road win versus a home win (1.4 vs 0.6) via adjusted win percentage. If a team stacks up on cupcake opponents at home, the penalty for doing so will harm their NET more than padding their stats and boosting their efficiency will help it. There's a reason multiple teams in this conference have had their NET drop after home wins over ECU and Tulane.

Define a "strong argument." There is an obvious talent disparity in college basketball, and I don't believe in penalizing a team because they play in a stacked conference, or rewarding a team because they play in a softer one. DePaul went 12-1 OOC this season, with wins @Iowa, BC and Minnesota, and a home win against Texas Tech. They're 3-14 in the Big East. I think that demonstrates how competitive that conference is top to bottom. There's no chance in hell I would take teams like Duquesne or SMU, who stacked up on cupcakes OOC over Marquette just because Marquette is 1 game below .500 in a conference that competitive. I wouldn't take a Tulsa team that went 7-5 OOC and lost to UTA, Arky St and a 9-20 K State team over them just because they're 12-4 in conference either. And I love the AAC.

Kansas State knocked off the number 1 seed in their bracket and made the elite 8 two seasons ago after going 10-8 in conference. They had a win against Texas by only 3 points, and OK State by 4 that season. Had they lost those 2 games, which were clearly close, would you have wanted them out of the tourney, knowing they were talented enough to make a deep run and finish in the AP Top 25 that season?

All you're doing by preventing teams with sub .500 conference records from being eligible for tourney bids is trading a perceived bias in favor of power conferences for an obvious bias that favors teams from weaker conferences. It's not some simple solution as you make it out to be.

The mere fact that only 5.25 at-large bids have gone out to nonP5/BE teams, on average, over the past four seasons - - while 26.75 bids have gone to P5 or BE teams during that time, speaks for itself, it seems to me.

At the very least, with this arrangement in place, the NCAA has turned the principle of fairness to all conferences - - which for decades restricted the tournament to 1 team per conference - - completely on its head.

The NET (and other ranking systems) is unfair to teams like Colgate (22-8) which have played in less than 5 or 6 Q1 and Q2 games. Colgate is 21-5 in Q3 and Q4, and has won 1 of 3 Q1 games, yet its NET is only #116. Belmont (23-7) has only played 3 Q1/Q2 games (1-2) and its NET is only #105.

These teams will be excluded unless they win their conference championships, yet Minnesota (13-15) has a NET of #46.

Murray St (20-8) has only played 3 Q1/Q2 games and its NET is only 141. They're not expected to win their conference, or to play in the NCAA.

.

PROPOSAL: Maybe the rules should be revised to limit the number of teams per conference that can receive at-large NCAA tournament bids.

Precis:

--The number of at-large bids was increased from 11 to 32 in 1979.

--All 21 of the added at-large invitations have gone to teams in the P5 and Big East conferences, repeatedly, for years.

--This was not intended to occur when the number of at-large bids were increased, and it violates the principle of fairness and fair play that has been fundamental to the NCAA's by-laws since the organization was founded.

--In order to increase the number of opportunities for teams from non- P5/Big East conferences to receive at-large bids, no more than 4 teams per conference should be allowed to receive at-large bids for any future NCAA tournament.

--In total, a maximum of five teams per conference could be invited into the NCAA tournament, including conference tournament champions.

--If any set of 6 conferences - - all receive 4 at-large bids (4 at-large bids per conference X 6 conferences = 24 bids), the remaining 8 at-large bids would be selected from the teams in the other conferences that haven't qualified by winning their conference championship games.

--If 7 conferences should all receive 4 at-large bids, the 4 remaining bids would to to teams from the other conferences, etc.

--In the case of any "tie" or "near tie" votes for at-large bids in the NCAA selection committee preference should go to the team that either has had the longest absence from tournament play or to the team from the conference that has least often sent multiple teams to the NCAA tournament.

--The major purpose of these proposed revisions is to increase the number of conferences that receive at-large NCAA tournament bids, and to do so within the next 2-3 seasons.

--Consideration will be given to increasing the size of the NIT field, or adding a play-in round to the NIT, so as to provide an opportunity for the 3-5 P5 and Big East teams that might otherwise have received at-large bids to play in the other major post-season basketball tournament. This measure will be likely to increase interest in, and the competitiveness of the NIT.

--Consideration will also be given to a further expansion of either the NCAA (from 68 to 96 or 128 teams) or the NIT (from 32 to 64 teams) tournament to provide additional post-season opportunities for teams from conferences that have rarely sent multiple teams into post-season tournaments.

(03-05-2020 03:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  The mere fact that only 5.25 at-large bids have gone out to nonP5/BE teams, on average, over the past four seasons - - while 26.75 bids have gone to P5 or BE teams during that time, speaks for itself, it seems to me.

At the very least, with this arrangement in place, the NCAA has turned the principle of fairness to all conferences - - which for decades restricted the tournament to 1 team per conference - - completely on its head.

The NET (and other ranking systems) is unfair to teams like Colgate (22-8) which have played in less than 5 or 6 Q1 and Q2 games. Colgate is 21-5 in Q3 and Q4, and has won 1 of 3 Q1 games, yet its NET is only #116. Belmont (23-7) has only played 3 Q1/Q2 games (1-2) and its NET is only #105.

These teams will be excluded unless they win their conference championships, yet Minnesota (13-15) has a NET of #46.

Murray St (20-8) has only played 3 Q1/Q2 games and its NET is only 141. They're not expected to win their conference, or to play in the NCAA.

.

PROPOSAL: Maybe the rules should be revised to limit the number of teams per conference that can receive at-large NCAA tournament bids.

Precis:

--The number of at-large bids was increased from 11 to 32 in 1979.

--All 21 of the added at-large invitations have gone to teams in the P5 and Big East conferences, repeatedly, for years.

--This was not intended to occur when the number of at-large bids were increased, and it violates the principle of fairness and fair play that has been fundamental to the NCAA's by-laws since the organization was founded.

--In order to increase the number of opportunities for teams from non- P5/Big East conferences to receive at-large bids, no more than 4 teams per conference should be allowed to receive at-large bids for any future NCAA tournament.

--In total, a maximum of five teams per conference could be invited into the NCAA tournament, including conference tournament champions.

--If any set of 6 conferences - - all receive 4 at-large bids (4 at-large bids per conference X 6 conferences = 24 bids), the remaining 8 at-large bids would be selected from the teams in the other conferences that haven't qualified by winning their conference championship games.

--If 7 conferences should all receive 4 at-large bids, the 4 remaining bids would to to teams from the other conferences, etc.

--In the case of any "tie" or "near tie" votes for at-large bids in the NCAA selection committee preference should go to the team that either has had the longest absence from tournament play or to the team from the conference that has least often sent multiple teams to the NCAA tournament.

--The major purpose of these proposed revisions is to increase the number of conferences that receive at-large NCAA tournament bids, and to do so within the next 2-3 seasons.

--Consideration will be given to increasing the size of the NIT field, or adding a play-in round to the NIT, so as to provide an opportunity for the 3-5 P5 and Big East teams that might otherwise have received at-large bids to play in the other major post-season basketball tournament. This measure will be likely to increase interest in, and the competitiveness of the NIT.

--Consideration will also be given to a further expansion of either the NCAA (from 68 to 96 or 128 teams) or the NIT (from 32 to 64 teams) tournament to provide additional post-season opportunities for teams from conferences that have rarely sent multiple teams into post-season tournaments.

This should be obvious but I can make it more obvious for you.

The reason why the P6+ gets the majority of the at-larges is that the best teams are in those conferences.

Be honest with yourself, pick the best 4 teams to get at-larges.

USC
Arizona St.
Texas
Purdue
Wichita St.
Utah St.
Cincinnati
East Tennessee St.
Richmond
Arkansas
Mississippi St.

(03-05-2020 10:06 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  This should be obvious but I can make it more obvious for you.

The reason why the P6+ gets the majority of the at-larges is that the best teams are in those conferences.

Be honest with yourself, pick the best 4 teams to get at-larges.

USC
Arizona St.
Texas
Purdue
Wichita St.
Utah St.
Cincinnati
East Tennessee St.
Richmond
Arkansas
Mississippi St.

Arizona state
Texas
Cincinnati
Wichita State

But yea I agree with your point. I think sometimes the committee has struggled to evaluate and give proper weight to truly strong mid major teams (because they don't have enough Q1/Q2 stuff to fall back on), but in general the best teams are concentrated in the top 6 conferences (plus the AAC and to a lesser extent A10/MWC/WCC).

(03-05-2020 10:07 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:06 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  This should be obvious but I can make it more obvious for you.

The reason why the P6+ gets the majority of the at-larges is that the best teams are in those conferences.

Be honest with yourself, pick the best 4 teams to get at-larges.

USC
Arizona St.
Texas
Purdue
Wichita St.
Utah St.
Cincinnati
East Tennessee St.
Richmond
Arkansas
Mississippi St.

Arizona state
Texas
Cincinnati
Wichita State

But yea I agree with your point. I think sometimes the committee has struggled to evaluate and give proper weight to truly strong mid major teams (because they don't have enough Q1/Q2 stuff to fall back on), but in general the best teams are concentrated in the top 6 conferences (plus the AAC and to a lesser extent A10/MWC/WCC).

Yet again if you aren't .500 or better in your major 7 conference why do you deserve an at large?

Especially over an East Tennessee, Furman, Yale, Liberty, St. Louis, Rhode Island, and Utah St.

(03-05-2020 10:26 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:07 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:06 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  This should be obvious but I can make it more obvious for you.

The reason why the P6+ gets the majority of the at-larges is that the best teams are in those conferences.

Be honest with yourself, pick the best 4 teams to get at-larges.

USC
Arizona St.
Texas
Purdue
Wichita St.
Utah St.
Cincinnati
East Tennessee St.
Richmond
Arkansas
Mississippi St.

Arizona state
Texas
Cincinnati
Wichita State

But yea I agree with your point. I think sometimes the committee has struggled to evaluate and give proper weight to truly strong mid major teams (because they don't have enough Q1/Q2 stuff to fall back on), but in general the best teams are concentrated in the top 6 conferences (plus the AAC and to a lesser extent A10/MWC/WCC).

Yet again if you aren't .500 or better in your major 7 conference why do you deserve an at large?

Especially over an East Tennessee, Furman, Yale, Liberty, St. Louis, Rhode Island, and Utah St.

Because being .500 or above in a conference doesn't automatically determine if your a good team or not? Especially with unbalanced schedules.

West Virginia is projected to finish 8-10 in conference.

Here is some of their metrics: NET 20, KenPom 12, Sagarin 39, SOR 28

West Virginia is a clear cut Top 30 team at least, yet you want to exclude them from being among the Top 48 to get an at-large?

2017 WSU was top-ten in most metrics and got a #10 seed.

(03-05-2020 11:59 AM)pvtlamb Wrote:  2017 WSU was top-ten in most metrics and got a #10 seed.

I remember at that time a ton of fans of AAC teams complaining because they thought WSU being in a small conference (I loved the old MVC so not my words) inflated their metrics. Now it's the big schools that apparently are benefiting.

What was true then and is still true now...it's not about the actual number next to your name in the metrics, but about what you did against other teams that are tournament caliber or close to tournament caliber.

(03-05-2020 03:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  The mere fact that only 5.25 at-large bids have gone out to nonP5/BE teams, on average, over the past four seasons - - while 26.75 bids have gone to P5 or BE teams during that time, speaks for itself, it seems to me.

No, it doesn't speak for itself. You keep ignoring the obvious talent disparity between conferences and solely focusing on W/L record.

You acknowledged the reason Colgate is #116 in NET, they have 5 losses against Q3/4, AKA the bottom half of the NCAA.

Do you really think Minnesota wouldn't be undefeated in the Patriot League?

(03-05-2020 10:06 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  This should be obvious but I can make it more obvious for you.

The reason why the P6+ gets the majority of the at-larges is that the best teams are in those conferences.

Be honest with yourself, pick the best 4 teams to get at-larges.

USC
Arizona St.
Texas
Purdue
Wichita St.
Utah St.
Cincinnati
East Tennessee St.
Richmond
Arkansas
Mississippi St.

Texas
Arizona State
USC
Mississippi State

(03-05-2020 01:31 PM)Nameless Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 03:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  The mere fact that only 5.25 at-large bids have gone out to nonP5/BE teams, on average, over the past four seasons - - while 26.75 bids have gone to P5 or BE teams during that time, speaks for itself, it seems to me.

No, it doesn't speak for itself. You keep ignoring the obvious talent disparity between conferences and solely focusing on W/L record.

You acknowledged the reason Colgate is #116 in NET, they have 5 losses against Q3/4, AKA the bottom half of the NCAA.

Do you really think Minnesota wouldn't be undefeated in the Patriot League?

The issue is and always will be that teams in weaker leagues don't get Q1/Q2 opportunities and never get them at home.

ETenn State U. destroyed LSU @ LSU. They had two Q1 opportunites and both of those in true road contests.

They lost a couple of head scratchers but so have many others (DUKE, UK come to mind) yet the losses by Duke and UK are excused while ETSU has to be perfect.

The issue with Predictive measures is it counts on teams blowing teams out when they should...That is not going to happen in conference every night. Good teams in bad conferences are going to sleep walk at times and since the Margin of victory is capped I wonder if beating a 200+ ranked team by 30 is treated the same as losing to a top 25 team by 5.

(03-05-2020 02:22 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 01:31 PM)Nameless Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 03:09 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  The mere fact that only 5.25 at-large bids have gone out to nonP5/BE teams, on average, over the past four seasons - - while 26.75 bids have gone to P5 or BE teams during that time, speaks for itself, it seems to me.

No, it doesn't speak for itself. You keep ignoring the obvious talent disparity between conferences and solely focusing on W/L record.

You acknowledged the reason Colgate is #116 in NET, they have 5 losses against Q3/4, AKA the bottom half of the NCAA.

Do you really think Minnesota wouldn't be undefeated in the Patriot League?

The issue is and always will be that teams in weaker leagues don't get Q1/Q2 opportunities and never get them at home.

ETenn State U. destroyed LSU @ LSU. They had two Q1 opportunites and both of those in true road contests.

They lost a couple of head scratchers but so have many others (DUKE, UK come to mind) yet the losses by Duke and UK are excused while ETSU has to be perfect.

The issue with Predictive measures is it counts on teams blowing teams out when they should...That is not going to happen in conference every night. Good teams in bad conferences are going to sleep walk at times and since the Margin of victory is capped I wonder if beating a 200+ ranked team by 30 is treated the same as losing to a top 25 team by 5.

Again, I'm not trying to act like the NET is perfect. Every system has flaws, and someone will always get the short end of the stick. But predictive measures are still a useful tool when comparing teams head to head for at large bids. I would much rather use predictive analytics then impose some arbitrary rule that eliminates teams from contention for a tourney bid simply because they went 8-10 in a stacked conference

(03-05-2020 10:30 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:26 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:07 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:06 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  This should be obvious but I can make it more obvious for you.

The reason why the P6+ gets the majority of the at-larges is that the best teams are in those conferences.

Be honest with yourself, pick the best 4 teams to get at-larges.

USC
Arizona St.
Texas
Purdue
Wichita St.
Utah St.
Cincinnati
East Tennessee St.
Richmond
Arkansas
Mississippi St.

Arizona state
Texas
Cincinnati
Wichita State

But yea I agree with your point. I think sometimes the committee has struggled to evaluate and give proper weight to truly strong mid major teams (because they don't have enough Q1/Q2 stuff to fall back on), but in general the best teams are concentrated in the top 6 conferences (plus the AAC and to a lesser extent A10/MWC/WCC).

Yet again if you aren't .500 or better in your major 7 conference why do you deserve an at large?

Especially over an East Tennessee, Furman, Yale, Liberty, St. Louis, Rhode Island, and Utah St.

Because being .500 or above in a conference doesn't automatically determine if your a good team or not? Especially with unbalanced schedules.

West Virginia is projected to finish 8-10 in conference.

Here is some of their metrics: NET 20, KenPom 12, Sagarin 39, SOR 28

West Virginia is a clear cut Top 30 team at least, yet you want to exclude them from being among the Top 48 to get an at-large?

They aren't a top 30 team. A top 30 team doesn't go 8-10 in a full round robin of conference play.

If you aren't in the top half of your conference, you aren't winning and you don't deserve a bid because you play 12 home games and a neutral tournament out of conference.

This isn't rocket science, the tournament is for winners, being under .500 isn't winning. Because there are so many schools there is no such thing as a balanced or fair schedule. Take the winners and move on. You can't make a reasonable arguement for deserving to play the best teams when you already have and lost.

(03-05-2020 10:30 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:26 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:07 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:06 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  This should be obvious but I can make it more obvious for you.

The reason why the P6+ gets the majority of the at-larges is that the best teams are in those conferences.

Be honest with yourself, pick the best 4 teams to get at-larges.

USC
Arizona St.
Texas
Purdue
Wichita St.
Utah St.
Cincinnati
East Tennessee St.
Richmond
Arkansas
Mississippi St.

Arizona state
Texas
Cincinnati
Wichita State

But yea I agree with your point. I think sometimes the committee has struggled to evaluate and give proper weight to truly strong mid major teams (because they don't have enough Q1/Q2 stuff to fall back on), but in general the best teams are concentrated in the top 6 conferences (plus the AAC and to a lesser extent A10/MWC/WCC).

Yet again if you aren't .500 or better in your major 7 conference why do you deserve an at large?

Especially over an East Tennessee, Furman, Yale, Liberty, St. Louis, Rhode Island, and Utah St.

Because being .500 or above in a conference doesn't automatically determine if your a good team or not? Especially with unbalanced schedules.

West Virginia is projected to finish 8-10 in conference.

Here is some of their metrics: NET 20, KenPom 12, Sagarin 39, SOR 28

West Virginia is a clear cut Top 30 team at least, yet you want to exclude them from being among the Top 48 to get an at-large?

If the rules were to permit only 5 teams per conference to play in the NCAA tournament the teams would probably be selected by the NCAA selection committee based on NET and other criteria, to reflect the overall record and schedule, not necessarily which place the team finished in within their conference or their W-L record.

If WVA has a NET of 20 despite an 8-10 conference record, it is somewhat bizarre, but it must be due to having an outstanding OOC record.

The main objection was to having an overall losing record, not so much a sub-.500 conference record.

(03-05-2020 06:30 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:30 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:26 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:07 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:06 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  This should be obvious but I can make it more obvious for you.

The reason why the P6+ gets the majority of the at-larges is that the best teams are in those conferences.

Be honest with yourself, pick the best 4 teams to get at-larges.

USC
Arizona St.
Texas
Purdue
Wichita St.
Utah St.
Cincinnati
East Tennessee St.
Richmond
Arkansas
Mississippi St.

Arizona state
Texas
Cincinnati
Wichita State

But yea I agree with your point. I think sometimes the committee has struggled to evaluate and give proper weight to truly strong mid major teams (because they don't have enough Q1/Q2 stuff to fall back on), but in general the best teams are concentrated in the top 6 conferences (plus the AAC and to a lesser extent A10/MWC/WCC).

Yet again if you aren't .500 or better in your major 7 conference why do you deserve an at large?

Especially over an East Tennessee, Furman, Yale, Liberty, St. Louis, Rhode Island, and Utah St.

Because being .500 or above in a conference doesn't automatically determine if your a good team or not? Especially with unbalanced schedules.

West Virginia is projected to finish 8-10 in conference.

Here is some of their metrics: NET 20, KenPom 12, Sagarin 39, SOR 28

West Virginia is a clear cut Top 30 team at least, yet you want to exclude them from being among the Top 48 to get an at-large?

They aren't a top 30 team. A top 30 team doesn't go 8-10 in a full round robin of conference play.

If you aren't in the top half of your conference, you aren't winning and you don't deserve a bid because you play 12 home games and a neutral tournament out of conference.

This isn't rocket science, the tournament is for winners, being under .500 isn't winning. Because there are so many schools there is no such thing as a balanced or fair schedule. Take the winners and move on. You can't make a reasonable arguement for deserving to play the best teams when you already have and lost.

While it is most objectionable for a team like Minnesota to be top 48 despite a 13-15 overall record, I have to agree that it makes hardly any sense to allow a team with a losing conference record to compete for a national championship.

The point isn't to make the regular season completely irrelevant, but rather to allow the regular season to help sort out the men from the boys, and then let the men duke it out.

(03-06-2020 03:34 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 06:30 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:30 AM)FadedCrown Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:26 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-05-2020 10:07 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Arizona state
Texas
Cincinnati
Wichita State

But yea I agree with your point. I think sometimes the committee has struggled to evaluate and give proper weight to truly strong mid major teams (because they don't have enough Q1/Q2 stuff to fall back on), but in general the best teams are concentrated in the top 6 conferences (plus the AAC and to a lesser extent A10/MWC/WCC).

Yet again if you aren't .500 or better in your major 7 conference why do you deserve an at large?

Especially over an East Tennessee, Furman, Yale, Liberty, St. Louis, Rhode Island, and Utah St.

Because being .500 or above in a conference doesn't automatically determine if your a good team or not? Especially with unbalanced schedules.

West Virginia is projected to finish 8-10 in conference.

Here is some of their metrics: NET 20, KenPom 12, Sagarin 39, SOR 28

West Virginia is a clear cut Top 30 team at least, yet you want to exclude them from being among the Top 48 to get an at-large?

They aren't a top 30 team. A top 30 team doesn't go 8-10 in a full round robin of conference play.

If you aren't in the top half of your conference, you aren't winning and you don't deserve a bid because you play 12 home games and a neutral tournament out of conference.

This isn't rocket science, the tournament is for winners, being under .500 isn't winning. Because there are so many schools there is no such thing as a balanced or fair schedule. Take the winners and move on. You can't make a reasonable arguement for deserving to play the best teams when you already have and lost.

While it is most objectionable for a team like Minnesota to be top 48 despite a 13-15 overall record, I have to agree that it makes hardly any sense to allow a team with a losing conference record to compete for a national championship.

The point isn't to make the regular season completely irrelevant, but rather to allow the regular season to help sort out the men from the boys, and then let the men duke it out.

Losing Record yeah they should be eliminated.

Losing Conference record exclusion is unfair. Should we also exclude every team that has a losing Non-Con record as well.

You cannot punish teams for playing in better conferences...But you also have to reward teams that win over 80%. It is a tough call.

(03-06-2020 01:18 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Losing Record yeah they should be eliminated.

Losing Conference record exclusion is unfair. Should we also exclude every team that has a losing Non-Con record as well.

You cannot punish teams for playing in better conferences...But you also have to reward teams that win over 80%. It is a tough call.

There is widespread agreement and hardly any dissent that teams with losing records should be - and are - eliminated.

Excluding teams with losing conference records would be the fairest to the entire field of D1 teams and most proper policy, for two reasons:

1) It is extremely unfair to the non-P5/Big East conferences to include any P5/Big East teams with losing conference records, because every at-large bid that goes to such a team with a losing conference record causes a team from a non-P5/Big East conference from getting an at-large bid.

Example: Purdue has a losing conference record and is only 16-14 overall. If Purdue gets an at-large invitation, Cincinnati (19-10), Wichita St (22-8), or Memphis (21-9) may not. Would it be fair to the AAC to give the B1G 9 at-large bids (with Purdue being #9), and only 2 at-large bids to the AAC?

2) When the number of at-large bids was increased from 11 to 32 after 1978, the intention was to expand the field so as to include more teams that had played well enough during the regular season to be considered legitimate contenders for the national NCAA D1 championship.

--In order for the at-large bids to be distributed fairly to teams in all conferences, no at-large bids should be allocated to teams that aren't legitimate contenders for the national championship.

--It would be neither appropriate nor fair (in particular, to excluded teams with much stronger conference records) to permit a team's performance in a 6 game post-season tournament to entirely obviate a sub-.500 performance over the course of an 18-game conference schedule.


.

2) Because the main reason for the existence of the NCAA tournament is to allow teams to compete for the national championship, it is only fitting that the teams that compete for the national championship must meet three minimum criteria :

--A winning record during the regular season.

--A winning conference record.

--A victory in the championship game of the NCAA tournament.

The first and third of these criteria are currently mandated. For the three decades prior to 1975, the second criterion had been more rigorous, requiring a team to have won their regular season conference championship.

The original logic of allowing more than one team per conference, after 1975, was that, in many cases, the most highly ranked team in a highly ranked conference finished in second or third place in the conference standings, due to exigencies such as injuries, health issues, etc.

While a strong case could be - and was - made that the conference champion is not necessarily the best team in the conference, it is extremely implausible to argue - - under any circumstances - - that a team with a losing conference record should be considered the best team in their conference.

To allow a team that doesn't even win half their conference games to be declared that season's National Championship team would strain the credibility and lessen the significance of the NCAA tournament championship.

This, in turn, would strip the NCAA tournament of its most basic function and raison d' etre, (i.e. reason for being) which is to determine which of the nation's D1 teams is the best in the land.