How is Loyola evidence of anything? Short of them getting a 13-seed or below, they earned their way into the field with an auto-bid. Anything higher than an 8-seed would have discredited the committee in the opposite direction.

(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.

Baloney. Leave it to a Cal fan to make such a statement. The P-5’s have no risk and only reward. If a low end team makes a run it’s not costing them a bid.

As for USC, they clearly should have been in over AZ State. It only further makes the point the majors are over rated and mid majors under rated.

(03-27-2018 11:22 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How is Loyola evidence of anything? Short of them getting a 13-seed or below, they earned their way into the field with an auto-bid. Anything higher than an 8-seed would have discredited the committee in the opposite direction.

The point was had they lost in their tournament they would not been invited at all.

USC over Syracuse. They made the Sweet 16 but so what? Anyone can win if they get in.

(03-27-2018 11:03 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Pat Forde exposes himself. He didn't have anything to say about Loyola until they became a Cinderella story. Then he and a bunch of other hacks jumped on the bandwagon, not to promote Loyola, but generate more clicks.

I don't believe for a minute that the selection process is perfect but Loyola is evidence they do get it right some of time.

Bilas and Forde seem like a bunch of sour grapes. I'm confused what's the big deal here.

(03-28-2018 12:05 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 11:22 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  How is Loyola evidence of anything? Short of them getting a 13-seed or below, they earned their way into the field with an auto-bid. Anything higher than an 8-seed would have discredited the committee in the opposite direction.

The point was had they lost in their tournament they would not been invited at all.

That doesn't validate the selection committee one way or another. We just don't know.

(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."

Yes, but the problem is that is nearly impossible. Essentially the only way to really overcome the RPI bias is to adopt a SWAC style scheduling. Play all your OOC games on the road, traveling across the country twice a week, and win all those games.

You're asking mid major programs to give up the potential to make money on home games, but there's no requirement for John Calipari to do the same thing at Kentucky.

The way to fix this mess would be to tweak the formula similar to what baseball did a few years back. Grant an automatic RPI boost to teams that win on the road, and take points away for teams that lose at home.

No one is telling P5 teams they have to play a bunch of road games. They just need to know that if they don't go on the road, the committee will not look kindly at that.

(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."

Yes, but the problem is that is nearly impossible. Essentially the only way to really overcome the RPI bias is to adopt a SWAC style scheduling. Play all your OOC games on the road, traveling across the country twice a week, and win all those games.

You're asking mid major programs to give up the potential to make money on home games, but there's no requirement for John Calipari to do the same thing at Kentucky.

The way to fix this mess would be to tweak the formula similar to what baseball did a few years back. Grant an automatic RPI boost to teams that win on the road, and take points away for teams that lose at home.

No one is telling P5 teams they have to play a bunch of road games. They just need to know that if they don't go on the road, the committee will not look kindly at that.

(03-28-2018 12:03 AM)Sactowndog 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.

Baloney. Leave it to a Cal fan to make such a statement. The P-5’s have no risk and only reward. If a low end team makes a run it’s not costing them a bid.

As for USC, they clearly should have been in over AZ State. It only further makes the point the majors are over rated and mid majors under rated.

The Tournament argument is really interesting to begin with. There's been a lot of talk by people within the Sun Belt Conference over the last few months to cancel the conference tournament and just certify the regular season champ. League's had a bunch of years recently where they had a regular season champ that was in a 12-13 seed range and capable of an upset, only to lose in the tourney and the champ gets a 15 or 16 instead.

The league office has essentially said no because "everyone has a tournament" and "it's fun for the kids"

Most College Basketball conference tournaments are gigantic money losers, but Mid Major leagues often feel they have to hold them because everyone else does, and that everyone should get a shot.

i don't know if thier money losers
CG is only reason some have TV contract
tourn is put out for bid & has sponsers
conf bussines is addressed, killing 2 birds with 1 stone
NIT bid doesn't hurt

There aren't many schools making much money on basketball games played the last part of December. Students are gone, adults are dealing with Christmas shopping, travel, and parties.

It's the perfect time for neutral site tournaments and the selection process ought to reward neutral site games.

(03-28-2018 02:47 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 12:03 AM)Sactowndog 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.

Baloney. Leave it to a Cal fan to make such a statement. The P-5’s have no risk and only reward. If a low end team makes a run it’s not costing them a bid.

As for USC, they clearly should have been in over AZ State. It only further makes the point the majors are over rated and mid majors under rated.

The Tournament argument is really interesting to begin with. There's been a lot of talk by people within the Sun Belt Conference over the last few months to cancel the conference tournament and just certify the regular season champ. League's had a bunch of years recently where they had a regular season champ that was in a 12-13 seed range and capable of an upset, only to lose in the tourney and the champ gets a 15 or 16 instead.

The league office has essentially said no because "everyone has a tournament" and "it's fun for the kids"

Most College Basketball conference tournaments are gigantic money losers, but Mid Major leagues often feel they have to hold them because everyone else does, and that everyone should get a shot.

I posted a thread questioning the rationale behind conference tournaments. The Sun Belt was one example of "why in the heck are they playing this?". In 2017 the Belt tourney averaged 1,151 fans per session. With 12 teams in the league, that works out to an average of 96 fans per team per session. That's not much more than family and friends of the players.

This year, the Belt knocked their best team, Louisiana, with an RPI of 63, out of the tournament and replaced them with Georgia State (RPI #131). Many fans knock the FBS for not including every conference champion in the playoff. Maybe its the FBS that has it right and basketball that has it wrong. Maybe the NCAA should do away with autobids entirely and just take the best 64 teams based on a composite of several ranking services, including the RPI and KenPom among others.

If you want a tournament for champions who aren't very good, why not make the NIT that tournament?

And by the way, if the tournament this year just included the highest ranked teams, Loyola would have been about a #11 seed.

(03-27-2018 06:45 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/loyola-chicagos...07234.html

Loyola, 25-2 with Custer, was nowhere near the committee’s bubble despite a 22 rpi and 40 kenpom on SS. Those 2 numbers would’ve also been markedly higher if the team wasn’t missing their best players in a 2-3 5-game stretch. This is a team who won at Florida and likely would’ve beat NC State had the Wolfpack not bought them out. Ran away with title in #8 league.

However, injuries were given zero consideration to Loyola in their seeding. They were even ranked behind SDSU on the S-curve. Meanwhile, Bonzie Colson’s injury propelled Notre Dame (losses to Ball St and IU with him) to an at-large selection until Davidson stole a bid on Sunday.

The human bias becomes clear when one sees that the P6 continues to represent 50% of the committee despite comprising just 18% of conferences.

Jay Bilas didn’t take kindly to the article and is melting down on twitter while getting clowned by Mark Adams and mid-major coaches.

Perhaps Forde didn't consider that they weren't on anybody's bubble watch only because they were the presumed champion of their league by the bracketologists. Nevada wasn't on bubble watch for the same reason. 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?

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.

(03-28-2018 07:30 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 02:47 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 12:03 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-27-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

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

Baloney. Leave it to a Cal fan to make such a statement. The P-5’s have no risk and only reward. If a low end team makes a run it’s not costing them a bid.

As for USC, they clearly should have been in over AZ State. It only further makes the point the majors are over rated and mid majors under rated.

The Tournament argument is really interesting to begin with. There's been a lot of talk by people within the Sun Belt Conference over the last few months to cancel the conference tournament and just certify the regular season champ. League's had a bunch of years recently where they had a regular season champ that was in a 12-13 seed range and capable of an upset, only to lose in the tourney and the champ gets a 15 or 16 instead.

The league office has essentially said no because "everyone has a tournament" and "it's fun for the kids"

Most College Basketball conference tournaments are gigantic money losers, but Mid Major leagues often feel they have to hold them because everyone else does, and that everyone should get a shot.

I posted a thread questioning the rationale behind conference tournaments. The Sun Belt was one example of "why in the heck are they playing this?". In 2017 the Belt tourney averaged 1,151 fans per session. With 12 teams in the league, that works out to an average of 96 fans per team per session. That's not much more than family and friends of the players.

This year, the Belt knocked their best team, Louisiana, with an RPI of 63, out of the tournament and replaced them with Georgia State (RPI #131). Many fans knock the FBS for not including every conference champion in the playoff. Maybe its the FBS that has it right and basketball that has it wrong. Maybe the NCAA should do away with autobids entirely and just take the best 64 teams based on a composite of several ranking services, including the RPI and KenPom among others.

If you want a tournament for champions who aren't very good, why not make the NIT that tournament?

And by the way, if the tournament this year just included the highest ranked teams, Loyola would have been about a #11 seed.

Sounds like conferences need to do a better job of protecting their top seeds. I've proposed a limited conference tournament that uses round robin. That way a lower echelon team can't steal the bid, a team with injuries gets a second chance and it solves the issue of unbalanced scheduling.

(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?

Once again: Bilas is talking about what mid-major coaches need to do in the world that they live in. It's a practical comment. Who gets the at-large bids is decided by the tournament committee, not by fans on message boards or Twitter, so the coach's best move is to try to do what the committee wants. If a good mid-major team is in a conference full of teams with 300+ RPIs, and the committee wants to see wins against top-50 or top-100 opponents, then the coach would be smart to schedule non-conference games against some of those top teams, even if you have to go on the road or to a neutral-site tournament to get those games.

It's ok to argue about how you think the world should be, but that's a different topic than what Bilas is addressing.

As for the committee itself: Only 4 of the 10 committee members are from schools in P5 conferences (the Stanford, Kentucky, Northwestern, and Duke ADs). One is from a Big East school (Creighton's AD). The other five -- half the committee -- are the Southland commissioner, the Mountain West commissioner, the UNC-Asheville AD, the BYU AD, and the Ohio AD.

(03-28-2018 10:54 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Sounds like conferences need to do a better job of protecting their top seeds. I've proposed a limited conference tournament that uses round robin. That way a lower echelon team can't steal the bid, a team with injuries gets a second chance and it solves the issue of unbalanced scheduling.

Why should a conference protects its top seeds? They get protected by having a top seed.

Especially in one-bid leagues, everyone knows the purpose of the regular season is to prepare for the conference tournament, not to win regular season games.

(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.

(03-28-2018 11:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 10:54 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Sounds like conferences need to do a better job of protecting their top seeds. I've proposed a limited conference tournament that uses round robin. That way a lower echelon team can't steal the bid, a team with injuries gets a second chance and it solves the issue of unbalanced scheduling.

Why should a conference protects its top seeds? They get protected by having a top seed.

Especially in one-bid leagues, everyone knows the purpose of the regular season is to prepare for the conference tournament, not to win regular season games.

Each conference is entitled to do what it wants, so if they set their conference tournament up best for the 14th rated team to win it, then that's on them.

But if they were intelligent, especially the 1-bid leagues, they'd do all they could to protect the highest seeds for a variety of reasons. The biggest is to ensure that the best team possible reaches the Dance for the sake of league credibility and NCAA Tournament credits/cash flow. The better the team that reaches the NCAA Tournament, the more likely we are to see big upsets.

This manifested itself this year because of a limited number of crap teams that stole the auto-bid (and helped by the First Four looping off two) and thus it's no coincidence that the dam finally busted and we saw our first 1/16 upset. Except for Radford/Villanova, all of the 1-16 matchups were relatively close...except for UMBC's shocking blowout of UVA.

(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.

This is something we can agree on, though mids often don't get the credit they deserve.