(04-05-2024 05:49 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:34 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  How exactly does beating NIT teams prove they should have been in the tournament? Lol

Well let's face it - many of those NIT teams are better than teams that made the NCAAs, primarily the schools from some of the one-bid leagues.

Sure. Autobids ensure that.

That still doesn’t mean Seton Hall should have been in because they won the NIT.

The NIT is just non CFP bowl games.

Maybe I'm overlooking, BcatMatt13, but I don't see a Quo post noting Seton Hall should have been in the Big Dance because it won the NIT.

The argument that I believe Quo is making (and I agree with him if so) is that Seton Hall was clearly qualified for and deserving of a NCAA tourney bid before the two tournaments started. And Seton Hall simply bolstered that point by winning the NIT.

Two concepts that though similar are also quite different.

(04-05-2024 08:22 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 11:43 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I agree with GW11 that Virginia and Boise were not particularly worthy (if at all) of their bids.

Seton Hall clearly and strongly was deserving. I feel Indiana State was too.

If UConn wins the title, this would be the first time a conference has had both the NIT and NCAA tourney champs. The last time (if I'm seeing correctly) was 2003, when the Big East's Syracuse (NCAA) and St. John's (NIT) won championships (though, for some reason, St. John's had to vacate its title).

Hopefully the UConn women can also win a championship and the BE will have 3 of 4!

I actually wasn't thinking along those lines. Good point. Of course, now it's moot.

(04-06-2024 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 03:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:38 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 10:05 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Virginia (and to a lesser extent, Boise State) did not deserve an NCAAT bid, IMO.

Virginia (#65) and Boise State (#71) both had awful SOS. Hall was ranked 48. Hall was five games over .500 in conference play, in the 2nd toughest conference in the country. They defeated both UConn (by 15 points no less) and Marquette this year. Virginia got BLOWN OUT by 25 points to Colorado State, which wasn't surprising since three of their last four losses were by 10+ points (and two were by 25 points). Virginia had seven losses this year by 19+ points. Virginia was not great by any stretch this year, and when they did lose, it wasn't competitive.

Having said all of that, even with the bid thieves, I think if Hall beats St. John's at the BET, this isn't even a conversation. Hall gets in at 21-12 (assuming they lost next game) record.

Alas, if UConn can win this weekend, the Big East can lay claim to another NCAAT and an NIT Championship.

In Seton Hall’s nine losses away from home in the regular season/conference tournament they lost by an average(!) of 19 points.

In a comparison between UVa and Seton Hall’s resumes at time of selection

- Records: UVa 23-10, SH 20-12
- Conference records: Both @ 13-7
- Major OOC opponents: UVa 3-2 (W versus Florida, WVU & TAMU; L versus Wisconsin & Memphis), SH 1-4 (W versus Alabama; L versus USC, Iowa, Baylor & Rutgers)
- NET: UVa 54, SH 67

Seton Hall didn’t have a better resume than UVa when the selections were made. No one is looking at SOS until a tie-breaker is needed (FWIW - Xavier’s SOS (20) is much better than UVa or Seton Hall, yet no one is making a case for Xavier).

Q1 wins. SH 5 UVA 2. but you forgot that.

If you want the detail…
Net: #54 (Q1 2-7, Q2 8-3, Q3 7-0, Q4 6-0) is better than #67 (5-8, 4-5, 2-1, 9-0)

(04-06-2024 06:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 03:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:38 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 10:05 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Virginia (and to a lesser extent, Boise State) did not deserve an NCAAT bid, IMO.

Virginia (#65) and Boise State (#71) both had awful SOS. Hall was ranked 48. Hall was five games over .500 in conference play, in the 2nd toughest conference in the country. They defeated both UConn (by 15 points no less) and Marquette this year. Virginia got BLOWN OUT by 25 points to Colorado State, which wasn't surprising since three of their last four losses were by 10+ points (and two were by 25 points). Virginia had seven losses this year by 19+ points. Virginia was not great by any stretch this year, and when they did lose, it wasn't competitive.

Having said all of that, even with the bid thieves, I think if Hall beats St. John's at the BET, this isn't even a conversation. Hall gets in at 21-12 (assuming they lost next game) record.

Alas, if UConn can win this weekend, the Big East can lay claim to another NCAAT and an NIT Championship.

In Seton Hall’s nine losses away from home in the regular season/conference tournament they lost by an average(!) of 19 points.

In a comparison between UVa and Seton Hall’s resumes at time of selection

- Records: UVa 23-10, SH 20-12
- Conference records: Both @ 13-7
- Major OOC opponents: UVa 3-2 (W versus Florida, WVU & TAMU; L versus Wisconsin & Memphis), SH 1-4 (W versus Alabama; L versus USC, Iowa, Baylor & Rutgers)
- NET: UVa 54, SH 67

Seton Hall didn’t have a better resume than UVa when the selections were made. No one is looking at SOS until a tie-breaker is needed (FWIW - Xavier’s SOS (20) is much better than UVa or Seton Hall, yet no one is making a case for Xavier).

Q1 wins. SH 5 UVA 2. but you forgot that.

If you want the detail…
Net: #54 (Q1 2-7, Q2 8-3, Q3 7-0, Q4 6-0) is better than #67 (5-8, 4-5, 2-1, 9-0)

5 is greater than 2.

(04-05-2024 02:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it's worth it to note that the ACC commish has talked about going back down to 18 games. 20 conference games does hurt a conference getting bids.

Sure, that's 2 more losses multiplied by the number of teams in conference. When the Big Xii had 12 teams in two divisions, each team played 16 conference games (10 in division, 6 out-of-division). I remember it b/c one season, Kansas went 16-0. Don't think anyone in the XII before or since went undefeated in conference play.

(04-05-2024 11:58 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 07:41 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 11:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Seton Hall wins the NIT only futher underscoring what a farce the selection committee choosing 3 Big East teams. I don’t think it’s a coincidence these committees are controlled by the P4.

The P4 is making great progress killing college sports.

As I've posted elsewhere, the Big East, ACC, P12 and B1G all received fewer bids than they should have based on their NCAA Tournament performance. Meanwhile, the SEC, B12, and MWC all received more bids than they should have based on their performance:

SEC: 8 bids, 8 wins
B12: 8 bids, 7 wins
B1G: 6 bids, 9 wins
MWC: 6 bids, 4 wins
ACC: 5 bids, 12 wins
P12: 4 bids, 6 wins
BE: 3 bids, 8 wins

The common denominator is that the Big East, ACC, P12 and B1G all play 20 game conference schedules and the SEC, B12, and MWC all play 18 game conference schedules. For reasons unknown to me, the NET rating formula used by the NCAA to evaluate teams clearly favors schools playing more OOC games. This formula needs to be replaced or at least recalibrated.

Best metric would be wins vs expected wins. Mountain West was +2 in relation to seed (only seeded to win 1 game, won three, plus one play-in game)

Big 12 was seeded to win 14 games, only won 7.

Some metrics are more important than others. If you have a double digit seed difference, sure you should win. But if you're in a 5/12 or 6/11 matchup, not to mention 7/10 and 8/9? Those are all tossups. We've even seen quite a bit of 13 vs 4 success lately.

(04-06-2024 06:47 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 02:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it's worth it to note that the ACC commish has talked about going back down to 18 games. 20 conference games does hurt a conference getting bids.

Sure, that's 2 more losses multiplied by the number of teams in conference. When the Big Xii had 12 teams in two divisions, each team played 16 conference games (10 in division, 6 out-of-division). I remember it b/c one season, Kansas went 16-0. Don't think anyone in the XII before or since went undefeated in conference play.

I think it all depends on the strength of the conference overall. If the Big 12 played 20 conference games this year, does anyone think that would have cost them a bid or two? Maybe one of Oklahoma's extra two games is a home game with Baylor which they win and it's the extra Quad 1 win that puts them over the top (they played Houston, Iowa State, and Kansas at home and only beat ISU). The issue with the ACC this year is there weren't that many good teams at the top (NC State was sub .500 in the ACC regular season). If a lot of ACC teams did well non conference, ACC teams would want to play 20 conference games. Big East teams are now screwed playing 20 because everyone has to play DePaul and Georgetown twice (luckily no one literally lost to either of them this season).

If the Big Ten and Big East are playing 20 conference games and the ACC goes to 18 and has to replace their 2 conference games with mid major games or lower conference games, it's not going to help ACC teams much. The conference as a whole has to beef up their non conference schedules (or at least the teams in the middle). Maybe the tough thing right now in the ACC is it's hard to tell who's "in the middle" and who's "at the bottom" (obviously Duke and North Carolina are the top most years). I'm sure if Pittsburgh thought they were in NCAAT contention going into this season they would have never scheduled so pathetically and assuming they know they have a chance next year they will beef it up next year. You know who was Pittsburgh last year? Clemson. Look what happened. Hopefully when it comes to ACC men's basketball NC State and Clemson can keep their momentum from this season and we'll see a few new teams realize they have a chance and invest some into men's basketball knowing that if NC State and Clemson can do it they can too.

(04-06-2024 09:24 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:49 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:34 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  How exactly does beating NIT teams prove they should have been in the tournament? Lol

Well let's face it - many of those NIT teams are better than teams that made the NCAAs, primarily the schools from some of the one-bid leagues.

Sure. Autobids ensure that.

That still doesn’t mean Seton Hall should have been in because they won the NIT.

The NIT is just non CFP bowl games.

I'm not contending Seton Hall should have been invited to the Big Dance because it won the NIT. Rather, it should have been because it's a strong and deserving team.

Their entire resume was two wins at home. They didn’t do anything of note in the non conference, had horrid computer numbers because they got blown out so much, and didn’t beat a tournament caliber team away from home all season.

Seton Hall May have been better than some teams in the tournament but that doesn’t matter…They didn’t have a good enough resume at the end of the day. They weren’t snubbed.

(04-06-2024 03:59 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:49 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:34 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  How exactly does beating NIT teams prove they should have been in the tournament? Lol

Well let's face it - many of those NIT teams are better than teams that made the NCAAs, primarily the schools from some of the one-bid leagues.

Sure. Autobids ensure that.

That still doesn’t mean Seton Hall should have been in because they won the NIT.

The NIT is just non CFP bowl games.

Maybe I'm overlooking, BcatMatt13, but I don't see a Quo post noting Seton Hall should have been in the Big Dance because it won the NIT.

The argument that I believe Quo is making (and I agree with him if so) is that Seton Hall was clearly qualified for and deserving of a NCAA tourney bid before the two tournaments started. And Seton Hall simply bolstered that point by winning the NIT.

Two concepts that though similar are also quite different.

He didn’t, but the original poster was clearly saying they should have because of the NIt result

(04-07-2024 08:24 AM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 03:59 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:49 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:34 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  How exactly does beating NIT teams prove they should have been in the tournament? Lol

Well let's face it - many of those NIT teams are better than teams that made the NCAAs, primarily the schools from some of the one-bid leagues.

Sure. Autobids ensure that.

That still doesn’t mean Seton Hall should have been in because they won the NIT.

The NIT is just non CFP bowl games.

Maybe I'm overlooking, BcatMatt13, but I don't see a Quo post noting Seton Hall should have been in the Big Dance because it won the NIT.

The argument that I believe Quo is making (and I agree with him if so) is that Seton Hall was clearly qualified for and deserving of a NCAA tourney bid before the two tournaments started. And Seton Hall simply bolstered that point by winning the NIT.

Two concepts that though similar are also quite different.

He didn’t, but the original poster was clearly saying they should have because of the NIt result

I just read the OP's post. He suggested but did not clearly argue. But again, I do see the overlap (to be fair to you).

(04-07-2024 08:20 AM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 09:24 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:49 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:34 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  How exactly does beating NIT teams prove they should have been in the tournament? Lol

Well let's face it - many of those NIT teams are better than teams that made the NCAAs, primarily the schools from some of the one-bid leagues.

Sure. Autobids ensure that.

That still doesn’t mean Seton Hall should have been in because they won the NIT.

The NIT is just non CFP bowl games.

I'm not contending Seton Hall should have been invited to the Big Dance because it won the NIT. Rather, it should have been because it's a strong and deserving team.

Their entire resume was two wins at home. They didn’t do anything of note in the non conference, had horrid computer numbers because they got blown out so much, and didn’t beat a tournament caliber team away from home all season.

Seton Hall May have been better than some teams in the tournament but that doesn’t matter…They didn’t have a good enough resume at the end of the day. They weren’t snubbed.

To be clear: Though some posters have argued the Hall was snubbed, I have not used (IIRC) such blunt phrasing. I simply feel the Hall (before the invites were issued) was deserving/worthy (just like a few other teams that were not invited).

I don't think that Seton Hall's exclusion was a blatant oversight. Or hugely unfair/disrespectful. However, the Hall had the look of an NCAA tourney at-large team before the Big Dance began and bolstered that appearance with a quality run in the NIT.

I'm not losing sleep over the fact Seton Hall was not invited. I just feel the Hall is a quality team.

(04-06-2024 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 11:08 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  This once again shows that the top 5 conferences - ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12 & SEC should have 50% of their teams in the NCAA tournament. Hopefully the new FOX tournament in Las Vegas will help the NCAA figure this out by next year. 6 Mountain West teams is a poor business decision. Really you leave out Seton Hall & St Johns - both in the NYC market - for Mountain West teams? Bad business & also bad basketball. I hope they figure it out before the NCAA tournament turns into the NIT & the FOX tournament becomes the one to win.

sorry but nope. Last year Wake Forest or Syracuse sure as hell didn't deserve to go to the tourney. Period the end. Last year 17-16 Villanova, 17-15 Seton Hall, or 18-15 St John's didn't deserve to go to the tourney.

This was just a completely abnormal year. This year maybe 10 teams that normally make the tourney missed it.

We just completely disagree on this - a winning record in a P5 conference is an accomplishment. If its about the best teams in the tourney, then the tourney should be P5 teams with the auto bids and a few other teams with 24-25 wins that somehow failed in the conference tourney. Kudos to the Mountain West on gaming the system but the NCAA will lose even more if they keep rewarding gaming metrics vs. actual better teams.

(04-07-2024 10:48 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 11:08 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  This once again shows that the top 5 conferences - ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12 & SEC should have 50% of their teams in the NCAA tournament. Hopefully the new FOX tournament in Las Vegas will help the NCAA figure this out by next year. 6 Mountain West teams is a poor business decision. Really you leave out Seton Hall & St Johns - both in the NYC market - for Mountain West teams? Bad business & also bad basketball. I hope they figure it out before the NCAA tournament turns into the NIT & the FOX tournament becomes the one to win.

sorry but nope. Last year Wake Forest or Syracuse sure as hell didn't deserve to go to the tourney. Period the end. Last year 17-16 Villanova, 17-15 Seton Hall, or 18-15 St John's didn't deserve to go to the tourney.

This was just a completely abnormal year. This year maybe 10 teams that normally make the tourney missed it.

We just completely disagree on this - a winning record in a P5 conference is an accomplishment. If its about the best teams in the tourney, then the tourney should be P5 teams with the auto bids and a few other teams with 24-25 wins that somehow failed in the conference tourney. Kudos to the Mountain West on gaming the system but the NCAA will lose even more if they keep rewarding gaming metrics vs. actual better teams.

We do. Sorry not sorry but a team like last year 17-16 Villanova belongs no where near the NCAA Tourney. And I don't think even Nova thought they belonged.

And I don't think CBS/Turner wants those **** teams in either.

(04-07-2024 11:18 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-07-2024 10:48 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 01:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 11:08 AM)Section 200 Wrote:  This once again shows that the top 5 conferences - ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12 & SEC should have 50% of their teams in the NCAA tournament. Hopefully the new FOX tournament in Las Vegas will help the NCAA figure this out by next year. 6 Mountain West teams is a poor business decision. Really you leave out Seton Hall & St Johns - both in the NYC market - for Mountain West teams? Bad business & also bad basketball. I hope they figure it out before the NCAA tournament turns into the NIT & the FOX tournament becomes the one to win.

sorry but nope. Last year Wake Forest or Syracuse sure as hell didn't deserve to go to the tourney. Period the end. Last year 17-16 Villanova, 17-15 Seton Hall, or 18-15 St John's didn't deserve to go to the tourney.

This was just a completely abnormal year. This year maybe 10 teams that normally make the tourney missed it.

We just completely disagree on this - a winning record in a P5 conference is an accomplishment. If its about the best teams in the tourney, then the tourney should be P5 teams with the auto bids and a few other teams with 24-25 wins that somehow failed in the conference tourney. Kudos to the Mountain West on gaming the system but the NCAA will lose even more if they keep rewarding gaming metrics vs. actual better teams.

We do. Sorry not sorry but a team like last year 17-16 Villanova belongs no where near the NCAA Tourney. And I don't think even Nova thought they belonged.

And I don't think CBS/Turner wants those **** teams in either.

TV wants Villanova in the tourney over every single Mountain West team if they are 17-16 every single time. Phila is a huge market & Villanova is next level down from Blue Blood. Times have changed - just like football all of the best teams are now in the P5 conferences. Time for the NCAA tourney to change as well.

(04-06-2024 06:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 06:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 03:03 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 05:38 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  In Seton Hall’s nine losses away from home in the regular season/conference tournament they lost by an average(!) of 19 points.

In a comparison between UVa and Seton Hall’s resumes at time of selection

- Records: UVa 23-10, SH 20-12
- Conference records: Both @ 13-7
- Major OOC opponents: UVa 3-2 (W versus Florida, WVU & TAMU; L versus Wisconsin & Memphis), SH 1-4 (W versus Alabama; L versus USC, Iowa, Baylor & Rutgers)
- NET: UVa 54, SH 67

Seton Hall didn’t have a better resume than UVa when the selections were made. No one is looking at SOS until a tie-breaker is needed (FWIW - Xavier’s SOS (20) is much better than UVa or Seton Hall, yet no one is making a case for Xavier).

Q1 wins. SH 5 UVA 2. but you forgot that.

If you want the detail…
Net: #54 (Q1 2-7, Q2 8-3, Q3 7-0, Q4 6-0) is better than #67 (5-8, 4-5, 2-1, 9-0)

5 is greater than 2.

5-8 is better, but not a whole lot better than 2-7. 8-3 is a whole lot better than 4-5.

(04-06-2024 07:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 11:58 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 07:41 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 11:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Seton Hall wins the NIT only futher underscoring what a farce the selection committee choosing 3 Big East teams. I don’t think it’s a coincidence these committees are controlled by the P4.

The P4 is making great progress killing college sports.

As I've posted elsewhere, the Big East, ACC, P12 and B1G all received fewer bids than they should have based on their NCAA Tournament performance. Meanwhile, the SEC, B12, and MWC all received more bids than they should have based on their performance:

SEC: 8 bids, 8 wins
B12: 8 bids, 7 wins
B1G: 6 bids, 9 wins
MWC: 6 bids, 4 wins
ACC: 5 bids, 12 wins
P12: 4 bids, 6 wins
BE: 3 bids, 8 wins

The common denominator is that the Big East, ACC, P12 and B1G all play 20 game conference schedules and the SEC, B12, and MWC all play 18 game conference schedules. For reasons unknown to me, the NET rating formula used by the NCAA to evaluate teams clearly favors schools playing more OOC games. This formula needs to be replaced or at least recalibrated.

Best metric would be wins vs expected wins. Mountain West was +2 in relation to seed (only seeded to win 1 game, won three, plus one play-in game)

Big 12 was seeded to win 14 games, only won 7.

Some metrics are more important than others. If you have a double digit seed difference, sure you should win. But if you're in a 5/12 or 6/11 matchup, not to mention 7/10 and 8/9? Those are all tossups. We've even seen quite a bit of 13 vs 4 success lately.

12 seeds are often underrated mid major champs. Its pretty consistent. 12 does nearly as well against 5 seeds as 11 vs 6 and 10 vs 7.

(04-05-2024 08:34 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Ahhhh... the annual whining about the NIT winner being robbed of their NCAA bid.

Exactly. No one cares.