2016-17 Bracketology

[reef]

Another wierd thing is if we win our semi v Dayton or VCU and we play first who do we root for in the next game VCU/Dayton or another team

We have a better shot at beating a worse team but if we play Dayton VCU in the finals and lose we may have a better shot to dance than if we lost to Richmond or another team

[Roz]

We can beat any a10 team if we play like we have recently

[Ram1019]

Another wierd thing is if we win our semi v Dayton or VCU and we play first who do we root for in the next game VCU/Dayton or another team

We have a better shot at beating a worse team but if we play Dayton VCU in the finals and lose we may have a better shot to dance than if we lost to Richmond or another team

Plus Richmond will go all Princeton offense on us and could have us completely disoriented again. I'd be very concerned playing them in the finals.

[ramster]

Virginia is 7th in the ACC, I'd consider that middle of the pack. If you really think that a team like Virginia and URI should be fighting for the same spot in the tournament then you really need to watch some college basketball outside of URI.

I don't care about Virginia or anyone that finishes 7th in any conference. You had plenty of opportunities to finish better than 7th. Better luck next year.

So Virginia should leave the ACC and join the A10, roll to a 17-1 conference record, get the top seed in the A10 tournament, and that's admissible for them to make the tournament under your scenario? Just shows how flawed your argument is, Virginia is better than any A10 team, but you're arguing for a 3rd and 4th A10 team, or a 3rd or 4th American team, or a 5th or 6th SEC team, because of an unbalanced conference ranking?

1-North Carolina 13-4 (25-6)
2-Florida State 11-5 (23-6)
3-Louisville 11-5 (23-6)
4-Notre Dame 11-5 (22-7)
5-Duke 10-6 (22-7)
6-Virginia Tech 10-7 (21-8)
7-Miami 10-7 (20-9)
8-Virginia 10-7 (20-9)
9-Syracuse 9-8 (17-13) - Home vs Georgia Tech
10-Wake Forest 7-9 (16-12) Home vs Louisville, @ Virginia Tech
11-Georgia Tech 7-9 (16-13) Home vs Pitt, @ Syracuse
12-Pittsburgh 4-12 (15-14) @ Georgia Tech, @ Virginia,
13-Clemson 4-12 (14-14) Home vs NC State, Home vs Boston College
14-NC State 4-13 (15-15) @ Clemson
15-Boston College 2-14 (9-20)

RJ,
Discussion about Virginia is moot since they are a lock to be in even if they flop in the Conference Tourney. I think we agree.
Syracuse is probably in provided they don't completely flop at the end. But their game with GT at home could be a problem especially if they lose their 1st game in Conf Tournament
I saw Josh Pastner during the Notre Dame game on Sunday and he was convinced that GT was in. Very confident saying even if they lose the ND game that night
Clemson could still get in the with games vs NC State and BC and then the Conf Tourney. They have been in the discussion all along believe it or not
Pitt? NC State? Who knows with the Conf Tourney but the ACC is in full marketing mode to the "Committee" and anyone else who they think will listen.

PC and URI could both be impacted by the number of ACC teams that get invited. Nothing like the month of March!!!!!

[rhodylaw]

The issue we have is not Virginia - I do not agree with the assessment that they are better than the top of the A10 but they should be in. Syracuse and down is the issue. Syracuse is a solid bubble team, inconsistent with some good wins and I would not be upset if they got in going over .500 in the ACC.

Wake forest is 0-7 against RPI top 25, why are they on the freakin bubble???? Clemson is 4-12 in conference with not really any particularly great win, why are they anywhere near the bubble???

Xavier has sucked ass down the stretch due to some things aren't going to change, are 0-6 against the RPI top 25 but people put them as a lock still. Why???? That is the definition of a bubble team.

Rhody, PC, Illinois State, whichita state, VCU, valpo, middle Tennessee - the non-fake news bubble!

[ramster]

The issue we have is not Virginia - I do not agree with the assessment that they are better than the top of the A10 but they should be in. Syracuse and down is the issue. Syracuse is a solid bubble team, inconsistent with some good wins and I would not be upset if they got in going over .500 in the ACC.

Wake forest is 0-7 against RPI top 25, why are they on the freakin bubble???? Clemson is 4-12 in conference with not really any particularly great win, why are they anywhere near the bubble???

Xavier has sucked ass down the stretch due to some things aren't going to change, are 0-6 against the RPI top 25 but people put them as a lock still. Why???? That is the definition of a bubble team.

Rhody, PC, Illinois State, whichita state, VCU, valpo, middle Tennessee - the non-fake news bubble!

love it. Every year Obama would fill out his Bracket and announce it. Wonder if our new POTUS will do the same?

[section(105)]

.....heard he has Trump U in the finals.....

[ramster]

.....heard he has Trump U in the finals.....

and that they are rigged

[rjsuperfly66]

PC and URI could both be impacted by the number of ACC teams that get invited. Nothing like the month of March!!!!!

Here's the God honest how I feel.
Both PC and URI are blessed to even be in bubble conversation.
But at this point, there is a road for each of them to solidify their ground.
For PC, it's 2 wins. For URI, it's 4 wins.
If either team hits those thresholds, they are a LOCK.
If they don't, and the committee chooses someone else, whose fault is it?

[ramster]

PC and URI could both be impacted by the number of ACC teams that get invited. Nothing like the month of March!!!!!

Here's the God honest how I feel.
Both PC and URI are blessed to even be in bubble conversation.
But at this point, there is a road for each of them to solidify their ground.
For PC, it's 2 wins. For URI, it's 4 wins.
If either team hits those thresholds, they are a LOCK.
If they don't, and the committee chooses someone else, whose fault is it?

I agree with you RJ, but I would also want to see who that "someone else" is that they choose before making my final assessment if "fair or not".
Ball is certainly in each team's court and within reach of both teams.
March 12 is getting closer and closer.

[rjsuperfly66]

PC and URI could both be impacted by the number of ACC teams that get invited. Nothing like the month of March!!!!!

Here's the God honest how I feel.
Both PC and URI are blessed to even be in bubble conversation.
But at this point, there is a road for each of them to solidify their ground.
For PC, it's 2 wins. For URI, it's 4 wins.
If either team hits those thresholds, they are a LOCK.
If they don't, and the committee chooses someone else, whose fault is it?

I agree with you RJ, but I would also want to see who that "someone else" is that they choose before making my final assessment if "fair or not".
Ball is certainly in each team's court and within reach of both teams.
March 12 is getting closer and closer.

I suppose ... But what is becoming more clear is that the committee is really going to focus on strength of victory (IE Top wins, etc). So this year may just come down to who has performed more consistently against top opponents. This has been assumed for a while, so it's going to be tough for a team with a good RPI and maybe even good metrics to cry if they have a 39% winning percentage like Georgia Tech does against the Top 100.

[RIFan]

I like the idea of must finish at least .500 in conference to get in

Also agree that sucks most of the committee members are from P5 conf so they have a bias against mid majors

Yes, something like that, or you must finish in the top half of your conference and or be above .500 in league play. Interesting thoughts that will never happen.

[URIFIJI]

It should be like the NCAA football minimum. To be eligible. You need to have at least a .500 record in conference. I know this isn't apples to apples but we're saying a team with a 4-12 conference record (.333) has a chance to get in??? No way. This is absurd.

I am ok with as many teams from the BE or ACC as long as they have at least a .500 record in conference. If that's 8 or 9 teams so be it.

[RhowdyRam02]

As of this morning, the most accurate bracket picker, Assembly Call, has us as second to last in, playing Seton Hall for the chance to play Oklahoma State

[rjsuperfly66]

It should be like the NCAA football minimum. To be eligible. You need to have at least a .500 record in conference. I know this isn't apples to apples but we're saying a team with a 4-12 conference record (.333) has a chance to get in??? No way. This is absurd.

I am ok with as many teams from the BE or ACC as long as they have at least a .500 record in conference. If that's 8 or 9 teams so be it.

But when you institute a conference record threshold, you are eliminating almost half a season worth of results.
So if a team went 13-0 OOC, had a few good wins, but went 8-10 in conference, you're saying that the OOC doesn't matter.
Now obviously if a team goes 13-0 OOC, it's unlikely that they suck in conference play, but it has happened.
UCONN in 2011 went undefeated OOC with several good wins, but only went .500 in conference.
But if they lost one more game, they'd have to be out?

That's why the .500 conference record will never exist.
The reality is teams fight it because they are in inferior conferences and they lose more games than they should.
And they try to fight their 13-5 against only 4 Top 100 opponents to a teams 8-10 against 16 Top 100 opponents.
And the reality is if that team won 90% of the games they were favored in, they'd be 15-3 minimum and not have to try to compare resumes against the 8-10 conference team.
But instead they go something like 4-7 or 4-8 against Top 100 opponents, and then they blame the broken system, or the stupidity of the system, rather than that long, hard look in the mirror.

There are definitely times when the system is stupid, but that is not one of them.
The committee doesn't not let teams in the tournament who deserve it.
But you may get left out if you don't go out and fully earn and embrace it.

[HASwatTeam]

It should be like the NCAA football minimum. To be eligible. You need to have at least a .500 record in conference. I know this isn't apples to apples but we're saying a team with a 4-12 conference record (.333) has a chance to get in??? No way. This is absurd.

I am ok with as many teams from the BE or ACC as long as they have at least a .500 record in conference. If that's 8 or 9 teams so be it.

But when you institute a conference record threshold, you are eliminating almost half a season worth of results.
So if a team went 13-0 OOC, had a few good wins, but went 8-10 in conference, you're saying that the OOC doesn't matter.
Now obviously if a team goes 13-0 OOC, it's unlikely that they suck in conference play, but it has happened.
UCONN in 2011 went undefeated OOC with several good wins, but only went .500 in conference.
But if they lost one more game, they'd have to be out?

That's why the .500 conference record will never exist.
The reality is teams fight it because they are in inferior conferences and they lose more games than they should.
And they try to fight their 13-5 against only 4 Top 100 opponents to a teams 8-10 against 16 Top 100 opponents.
And the reality is if that team won 90% of the games they were favored in, they'd be 15-3 minimum and not have to try to compare resumes against the 8-10 conference team.
But instead they go something like 4-7 or 4-8 against Top 100 opponents, and then they blame the broken system, or the stupidity of the system, rather than that long, hard look in the mirror.

There are definitely times when the system is stupid, but that is not one of them.
The committee doesn't not let teams in the tournament who deserve it.
But you may get left out if you don't go out and fully earn and embrace it.

Your continuing argument for 2011 UCONN is valid, since it was exciting for all fans to see a team come from that low and win it all. However, that same point argues against the 2006 George Mason AND 2011 VCU final four runs since BOTH were at large bids from a weak Colonial Athletic Association. Those two runs were some of the more exciting events the sports world has seen in the past 15 years. With your argument for letting as many good teams from the best conferences in as possible, BOTH of those runs may very well not have happened.

Not sure if you noticed, but no one gave a shit when Syracuse made the final 4 because they're Syracuse. Rooting for the underdogs is what makes college basketball great, not an ACC vs BIG 10 + Kansas & Kentucky show down every year.

[rjsuperfly66]

Your continuing argument for 2011 UCONN is valid, since it was exciting for all fans to see a team come from that low and win it all. However, that same point argues against the 2006 George Mason AND 2011 VCU final four runs since BOTH were at large bids from a weak Colonial Athletic Association. Those two runs were some of the more exciting events the sports world has seen in the past 15 years. With your argument for letting as many good teams from the best conferences in as possible, BOTH of those runs may very well not have happened.

And I agree with you, and while GM and VCU may have been controversial selections, they still made it. And for the record, the CAA was a borderline Top 10 conference those seasons, at least 5 Top 100 teams and multiple bid potential. Not a waltz.

My problem with the argument is that if you look at the bubble, there really isn't one of these teams in the mix that deserve to make it, so arguing for it is moot. Maybe that changes if Illinois St or Middle Tennessee lose their automatic status.

But say they don't, so should we gift Houston a birth? or even URI? All because they don't play in a power basketball conference? Or we should give extra births to low-major schools, just because they could be a fun story (say Vermont)?

I love the story of the little guy, but that still doesn't mean we should just give them spots because of the underdog storyline.

Because the reality is if everyone else showed up on the bubble, 8-10 conference teams or less wouldn't even be in play for tournament spots. It's the overall weakness of the bubble (and all teams losing games they shouldn't have) which is why those teams are even in play.

[RamDownSouth]

IMHO it might make more sense to award the AQ bids to regular season conference winners rather than the conference tournament winner. This way the NCAAM tourney does not burn a bid on a team that could otherwise get in even with sub .500 record, lack of quality wins, etc.

[section(105)]

.....yeah but.....the conference tourneys that have become money makers?......and would seem to go way if the winner of same did not get auto bid......if held, they would be playing for what?.....seems to me these tourneys are here to stay.....no?

[ATPTourFan]

[twisted3829]

I use bracketmatrix.com as a pretty good gauge, they take all the brackets out there and put them in 1 place snd their projection is just a average of all of them.

As of this posting URI is in 56 of the 117 brackets updared since Sunday and is listed as the first team out

[RhowdyRam02]

My biggest problem with bracketmatrix is they take any bracket, even if the person has been poor at predicting. Hell, we could come up with a bracket, put URI in as a one seed and they'd count it. Assembly Call has been more accurate.

[twisted3829]

Bracetmatrix is ranked 3rd for 5 year averages and is above average every season

[Rhodymob05]

So you're saying we are literally in the most stressful position in the country?

[woodennickel1]

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threa ... 17.120096/FWIW There is a guy on the Rutgers board that does a bubble analysis has been doing it for years and has a pretty good track record. Has URI as the last team in.

[URIFIJI]

It should be like the NCAA football minimum. To be eligible. You need to have at least a .500 record in conference. I know this isn't apples to apples but we're saying a team with a 4-12 conference record (.333) has a chance to get in??? No way. This is absurd.

I am ok with as many teams from the BE or ACC as long as they have at least a .500 record in conference. If that's 8 or 9 teams so be it.

But when you institute a conference record threshold, you are eliminating almost half a season worth of results.
So if a team went 13-0 OOC, had a few good wins, but went 8-10 in conference, you're saying that the OOC doesn't matter.
Now obviously if a team goes 13-0 OOC, it's unlikely that they suck in conference play, but it has happened.
UCONN in 2011 went undefeated OOC with several good wins, but only went .500 in conference.
But if they lost one more game, they'd have to be out?

That's why the .500 conference record will never exist.
The reality is teams fight it because they are in inferior conferences and they lose more games than they should.
And they try to fight their 13-5 against only 4 Top 100 opponents to a teams 8-10 against 16 Top 100 opponents.
And the reality is if that team won 90% of the games they were favored in, they'd be 15-3 minimum and not have to try to compare resumes against the 8-10 conference team.
But instead they go something like 4-7 or 4-8 against Top 100 opponents, and then they blame the broken system, or the stupidity of the system, rather than that long, hard look in the mirror.

There are definitely times when the system is stupid, but that is not one of them.
The committee doesn't not let teams in the tournament who deserve it.
But you may get left out if you don't go out and fully earn and embrace it.

You are making my point for me. If you're in a power conference. Most of your OOC games will be home. If u can't be at least 500 then u should not be considered for an at large bid. Being in a power conference gives you the guaranteed scheduling of top 50 games both home and away and as for uconn. When they play almost all of their OOC games home or at a neutral site give me a break. Putting the 500 rule wouldn't really hurt anyone at all. Earn the bid by going 500 in conference is easier than trying to get a decent schedule as a mid major and win. Believe me it is harder than the former

[Billyboy78]

Question regarding these last 2 A10 games: Obviously we have to win both. But let's say we win both in blowouts by 20 or so. Does that make a difference in the committee's eyes? Or is it just W's and L's that they care about? In other words, if we look tremendous in these two games, does that give us a better chance of getting in?

[RhowdyRam02]

It certainly couldn't hurt and it would help our metrics like kenpom, but the most important thing is winning, even by one.

[PlayMikeMotenMore]

Thanks for the news flash.

Man you must be a lot of fun to hang out with.

People who state the obvious must be fun to hang out with.

[reef]

There has never been a team to dance with 15 losses and Cuse can get 15 losses by losing to GT and in he ACC tourney

14 losses has happened quite a lot including 5 times in 2011 slone

[ramster]

A good breakdown of the A10 Conference Record Options and the A10 Tournament Seeds by Will:

http://www.independentri.com/rhody_over ... 1bb4b.html

[rjsuperfly66]

It should be like the NCAA football minimum. To be eligible. You need to have at least a .500 record in conference. I know this isn't apples to apples but we're saying a team with a 4-12 conference record (.333) has a chance to get in??? No way. This is absurd.

I am ok with as many teams from the BE or ACC as long as they have at least a .500 record in conference. If that's 8 or 9 teams so be it.

But when you institute a conference record threshold, you are eliminating almost half a season worth of results.
So if a team went 13-0 OOC, had a few good wins, but went 8-10 in conference, you're saying that the OOC doesn't matter.
Now obviously if a team goes 13-0 OOC, it's unlikely that they suck in conference play, but it has happened.
UCONN in 2011 went undefeated OOC with several good wins, but only went .500 in conference.
But if they lost one more game, they'd have to be out?

That's why the .500 conference record will never exist.
The reality is teams fight it because they are in inferior conferences and they lose more games than they should.
And they try to fight their 13-5 against only 4 Top 100 opponents to a teams 8-10 against 16 Top 100 opponents.
And the reality is if that team won 90% of the games they were favored in, they'd be 15-3 minimum and not have to try to compare resumes against the 8-10 conference team.
But instead they go something like 4-7 or 4-8 against Top 100 opponents, and then they blame the broken system, or the stupidity of the system, rather than that long, hard look in the mirror.

There are definitely times when the system is stupid, but that is not one of them.
The committee doesn't not let teams in the tournament who deserve it.
But you may get left out if you don't go out and fully earn and embrace it.

You are making my point for me. If you're in a power conference. Most of your OOC games will be home. If u can't be at least 500 then u should not be considered for an at large bid. Being in a power conference gives you the guaranteed scheduling of top 50 games both home and away and as for uconn. When they play almost all of their OOC games home or at a neutral site give me a break. Putting the 500 rule wouldn't really hurt anyone at all. Earn the bid by going 500 in conference is easier than trying to get a decent schedule as a mid major and win. Believe me it is harder than the former

You aren't going to hear me disagree with you there. The only place I will disagree with you is that sub-.500 teams wouldn't be considered if the mid-majors performed, whether in OOC or in-conference play. The committee has rewarded the A10 with 6 bids for having unbelievable seasons. The MVC has received 4 bids, almost as high as 5 or 6 in a previous era. For 3-4 years the MWC was a 3-4 bid conference. If those conferences had performed like they had in a past life, there is 4-8 more bids off the table, meaning that teams aren't really sniffing the bubble with 8-10 conference records. But instead they don't, and complain about how everything is stacked against them afterwards.

They play a harder OOC, but countlessly fail on huge opportunities, whether on a neutral court, etc. Dayton lost to a medicore Nebraska team in the Wooden Legacy, preventing them from a neutral-court matchup with UCLA. While not a P5 school, they did play St. Mary's at home, and lost. They did play Vanderbilt at home and won, and played Northwestern in a semi-away game and lost. VCU played Baylor on a neutral court and lost, preventing other high profile tournament games. They also had Illinois on a neutral court, and lost, and played Georgia Tech at home, and lost. And URI -- they played a very difficult OOC schedule, but they didn't whore themselves out into unfavorable series, instead it was all return games. If you look at those schools, maybe they aren't landing Duke or Michigan St. in a true home game, but they still had cracks at quality games, some of those at home. And in URI's case, maybe you could argue that flipping Houston or Valpo last season would have meant that extra decent home game this year that they probably flip the outcome in.

The reality is, while the little guys might not have as many top win opportunities as the big guys, they still get shots. And if they perform in just some of them, they can often coast through easier conferences, rack up wins, and solidify their tournament standing from there. Gonzaga has done it for years that way. But instead this year, all of these conferences were really bad OOC, then the few good teams in those conferences lose games they really shouldn't, and then they all cry about how the big boys are treated better.

[RhowdyRam02]

But why is it that mid major conferences have to win against power 5 schools, but power 5 schools don't have to win against their closest competition to get a tournament spot? To me it's far more damning of a team if they have a losing record against their closest competition then if Dayton loses a game to Nebraska. Especially considering that conference games take place closer to the tournament and give the most accurate representation of how a team is playing come tournament time.

[ramster]

So Bottom Line RJ,

it sounds like you are pleased, for the most part, with the way things are - would that be correct?

[Rhode_Island_Red]

So Bottom Line RJ,

it sounds like you are pleased, for the most part, with the way things are - would that be correct?

Isn't some guy named Gavitt in charge of the tournament?

[eli#10]

One of the major issues as to how the A-10 teams have done against other top Conference teams that is often overlooked is how many home games the A-10 teams have each year. For the most part the only info offered up is the record without a breakdown of where the games were played. We all realize how important the home court is in these match ups.
In other words just looking at the overall record is deceiving at best.

[URI2006_Andy]

If you look at NCAA tournament results since the new Big East was formed, the ACC is the only power conference. The other "power" conference are lead by their powerful regular season winner (Villanova or Kansas) and everyone else rides their coattails into the tournament. The reason why seven teams get in from these "power" conferences is that there's not much separation between their second or third place teams and their seventh place teams. And we assume the second or third place team from a "power" conference is better than the second or third place team from the A-10 so all 7 "power" teams get in over the second place or third place A-10 team. But the NCAA tournament results show the real story. See below:

Regular season conference winners from the "power" conferences are 50-17. The A-10 regular season winners are 1-3. No doubt the "power" conference regular season winners are better than the "mid major" regular season winners.

But, does that mean teams 2-7 from the "power" conferences are better than teams 2-5 from the A-10? No, except for the ACC.

Taking away the regular season winner from the A-10 and "power" conferences, only the ACC has a strong record (34-15). The B10 and SEC aren't bad (20-17; 11-8). But the rest have pretty much the same record as the A-10. That's surprising because we assume the second and third place teams in these conferences are national championship contenders and the second and third place teams from the A-10 are bubble teams. And the win-loss totals are even more surprising because even if these teams from the "power" conferences were on the same level as the A-10 teams (which no one thinks they are), their records should still be better because they get much better seeds. See below conference, record, wins per bid, and average seed.

B12 15-18 0.83 (5.6)
P12 11-14 0.79 (7.1)
A10 7-9 0.78 (8.9)
BE 8-12 0.67 (7.1)

[Iggy1979]

Question regarding these last 2 A10 games: Obviously we have to win both. But let's say we win both in blowouts by 20 or so. Does that make a difference in the committee's eyes? Or is it just W's and L's that they care about? In other words, if we look tremendous in these two games, does that give us a better chance of getting in?

They used to consider your last 10 games, but they don't anymore. Still, I would say it can't hurt to finish strong. URI, especially, could argue that they weren't healthy for most of the year and played better when they got everyone back.

[Iggy1979]

Huge bubble game tonight: Marquette at Xavier.

[PeterRamTime]

Huge bubble game tonight: Marquette at Xavier.

Xavier needs to get their groove back!
Do it for an old A-10 pal!

[josephski]

If you look at NCAA tournament results since the new Big East was formed, the ACC is the only power conference. The other "power" conference are lead by their powerful regular season winner (Villanova or Kansas) and everyone else rides their coattails into the tournament. The reason why seven teams get in from these "power" conferences is that there's not much separation between their second or third place teams and their seventh place teams. And we assume the second or third place team from a "power" conference is better than the second or third place team from the A-10 so all 7 "power" teams get in over the second place or third place A-10 team. But the NCAA tournament results show the real story. See below:

Regular season conference winners from the "power" conferences are 50-17. The A-10 regular season winners are 1-3. No doubt the "power" conference regular season winners are better than the "mid major" regular season winners.

But, does that mean teams 2-7 from the "power" conferences are better than teams 2-5 from the A-10? No, except for the ACC.

Taking away the regular season winner from the A-10 and "power" conferences, only the ACC has a strong record (34-15). The B10 and SEC aren't bad (20-17; 11-8). But the rest have pretty much the same record as the A-10. That's surprising because we assume the second and third place teams in these conferences are national championship contenders and the second and third place teams from the A-10 are bubble teams. And the win-loss totals are even more surprising because even if these teams from the "power" conferences were on the same level as the A-10 teams (which no one thinks they are), their records should still be better because they get much better seeds. See below conference, record, wins per bid, and average seed.

B12 15-18 0.83 (5.6)
P12 11-14 0.79 (7.1)
A10 7-9 0.78 (8.9)
BE 8-12 0.67 (7.1)

So you took numbers from what, 4 seasons and came to the conclusion that the middle of the a10 is the same as Big East, P12, and B12? 5 of those 7 a10 wins are from Dayton, so I'm not sure saying the A10 has the same percentage tells the whole story.

[rjsuperfly66]

But why is it that mid major conferences have to win against power 5 schools, but power 5 schools don't have to win against their closest competition to get a tournament spot? To me it's far more damning of a team if they have a losing record against their closest competition then if Dayton loses a game to Nebraska. Especially considering that conference games take place closer to the tournament and give the most accurate representation of how a team is playing come tournament time.

My argument to that was that I don't think it's a pure win that matters, but a percentage of wins.
If a team is 4-7 against the Top 100, that is a winning percentage of 36%.
So if a team is 8-11 against the Top 100, they've had more opportunities, but also won a higher percentage of those games.
So if it came down to it, I'd probably choose the 8-11 team over the 4-7 team, since the goal is to pick the best teams.
But of course it's not that simple.

So Bottom Line RJ,

it sounds like you are pleased, for the most part, with the way things are - would that be correct?

It's not that I think the system is perfect, I just think people are whining to hide their own imperfections.

One of the major issues as to how the A-10 teams have done against other top Conference teams that is often overlooked is how many home games the A-10 teams have each year. For the most part the only info offered up is the record without a breakdown of where the games were played. We all realize how important the home court is in these match ups.
In other words just looking at the overall record is deceiving at best.

Of course the last part of your statement is true, but the difference between this year's A10 (or last year's) versus the ones from the two years prior, is that those years the teams showed up in the OOC, and not just on the road, but they showed up in tournaments, they showed up at home, and they showed up on the road.

In two different tournaments this year, the marquee A10 team in that tournament lost in the 1st round, losing chance at other upper-tier games. Now VCU losing to Baylor isn't a travesty, but Dayton losing to Nebraska is. And go down the list. The deck is stacked, sure. But the games where the deck isn't fully stacked, you can't not perform and then keep complaining about it. If it's hard to win on the road, win on the neutral court, win at home. You can't lose at home or lose on the neutral court and complain about how those teams always dominate at home.

[bwerner10]

How do the 4 play-ins get picked for the NCAA Tourney? Is it the last four at-large bids have to play against each other? I know Tulsa was in the play-in last year.

[rhodysurf]

How do the 4 play-ins get picked for the NCAA Tourney? Is it the last four at-large bids have to play against each other? I know Tulsa was in the play-in last year.

Yup exactly. The last four at larges play each other.

[Iggy1979]

How do the 4 play-ins get picked for the NCAA Tourney? Is it the last four at-large bids have to play against each other? I know Tulsa was in the play-in last year.

Yup exactly. The last four at larges play each other.

At Dayton

[URI2006_Andy]

If you look at NCAA tournament results since the new Big East was formed, the ACC is the only power conference. The other "power" conference are lead by their powerful regular season winner (Villanova or Kansas) and everyone else rides their coattails into the tournament. The reason why seven teams get in from these "power" conferences is that there's not much separation between their second or third place teams and their seventh place teams. And we assume the second or third place team from a "power" conference is better than the second or third place team from the A-10 so all 7 "power" teams get in over the second place or third place A-10 team. But the NCAA tournament results show the real story. See below:

Regular season conference winners from the "power" conferences are 50-17. The A-10 regular season winners are 1-3. No doubt the "power" conference regular season winners are better than the "mid major" regular season winners.

But, does that mean teams 2-7 from the "power" conferences are better than teams 2-5 from the A-10? No, except for the ACC.

Taking away the regular season winner from the A-10 and "power" conferences, only the ACC has a strong record (34-15). The B10 and SEC aren't bad (20-17; 11-8). But the rest have pretty much the same record as the A-10. That's surprising because we assume the second and third place teams in these conferences are national championship contenders and the second and third place teams from the A-10 are bubble teams. And the win-loss totals are even more surprising because even if these teams from the "power" conferences were on the same level as the A-10 teams (which no one thinks they are), their records should still be better because they get much better seeds. See below conference, record, wins per bid, and average seed.

B12 15-18 0.83 (5.6)
P12 11-14 0.79 (7.1)
A10 7-9 0.78 (8.9)
BE 8-12 0.67 (7.1)

So you took numbers from what, 4 seasons and came to the conclusion that the middle of the a10 is the same as Big East, P12, and B12? 5 of those 7 a10 wins are from Dayton, so I'm not sure saying the A10 has the same percentage tells the whole story.

I went back 3 years because before that the Big East and A-10 looked completely different than they do now. If I went back a 4th year, the A-10 went 7-5 overall and the B12 3-5 overall so it may have made my point stronger.

I'm not talking about the middle of these conferences. Once you get to the middle of the A-10, I admit the "power" conferences have better teams. I'm talking about the top where the atlarge bids would come from. The data is for teams that didn't win their regular season but got bids so it's 2nd place down to 4th, 5th, 6th depending on how many bids were awarded.

And what does it matter where the wins come from. If Dayton was so good, they would've won the A-10 regular season and their wins not reflected in my data. The point is the second,third, fourth place teams from the A-10 are faring just as well in the tourney as the second through seventh place teams from the BE, B12 and P12.

[ATPTourFan]

[rjsuperfly66]

If you look at NCAA tournament results since the new Big East was formed, the ACC is the only power conference. The other "power" conference are lead by their powerful regular season winner (Villanova or Kansas) and everyone else rides their coattails into the tournament. The reason why seven teams get in from these "power" conferences is that there's not much separation between their second or third place teams and their seventh place teams. And we assume the second or third place team from a "power" conference is better than the second or third place team from the A-10 so all 7 "power" teams get in over the second place or third place A-10 team. But the NCAA tournament results show the real story. See below:

Regular season conference winners from the "power" conferences are 50-17. The A-10 regular season winners are 1-3. No doubt the "power" conference regular season winners are better than the "mid major" regular season winners.

But, does that mean teams 2-7 from the "power" conferences are better than teams 2-5 from the A-10? No, except for the ACC.

Taking away the regular season winner from the A-10 and "power" conferences, only the ACC has a strong record (34-15). The B10 and SEC aren't bad (20-17; 11-8). But the rest have pretty much the same record as the A-10. That's surprising because we assume the second and third place teams in these conferences are national championship contenders and the second and third place teams from the A-10 are bubble teams. And the win-loss totals are even more surprising because even if these teams from the "power" conferences were on the same level as the A-10 teams (which no one thinks they are), their records should still be better because they get much better seeds. See below conference, record, wins per bid, and average seed.

B12 15-18 0.83 (5.6)
P12 11-14 0.79 (7.1)
A10 7-9 0.78 (8.9)
BE 8-12 0.67 (7.1)

So you took numbers from what, 4 seasons and came to the conclusion that the middle of the a10 is the same as Big East, P12, and B12? 5 of those 7 a10 wins are from Dayton, so I'm not sure saying the A10 has the same percentage tells the whole story.

I went back 3 years because before that the Big East and A-10 looked completely different than they do now. If I went back a 4th year, the A-10 went 7-5 overall and the B12 3-5 overall so it may have made my point stronger.

I'm not talking about the middle of these conferences. Once you get to the middle of the A-10, I admit the "power" conferences have better teams. I'm talking about the top where the atlarge bids would come from. The data is for teams that didn't win their regular season but got bids so it's 2nd place down to 4th, 5th, 6th depending on how many bids were awarded.

And what does it matter where the wins come from. If Dayton was so good, they would've won the A-10 regular season and their wins not reflected in my data. The point is the second,third, fourth place teams from the A-10 are faring just as well in the tourney as the second through seventh place teams from the BE, B12 and P12.

Andy, the only problem with your stats is the fact that a big chunk of the data came from one of the best years in A10 history. The 2013-2014 A10 produced 6 tournament bids, had roughly 6 Top 50 teams and another 2 that were Top 100, and that was in a 13 team league. Their OOC produced wins like @ Virginia (Top 5 team), Creighton (neutral with Doug McDermott), Gonzaga (neutral Top 25), and plenty of other note-worthy Top 75 wins at home, neutral, or road. So when it came down for that conference, they were respected and got the bids to come with that respect.

However, I think stats would show that the 12-13 and 13-14 seem more like outliers than the norm ... Maybe 3 Top 50 teams, 3 other Top 100 teams, and 8 teams 100+. This year it's been even more pronounced, because 4-6 in the A10 are all very fringe Top 100 teams. The A10 getting 3 bids in the last two seasons, and possible 3 bids this year, is exactly what the conference has deserved, regardless of the numbers you can pull up from borderline historic seasons.

[PeterRamTime]

If they put some 17-14 Georgia Tech team in with an RPI in the 80's ahead of MTSU there should be protests!

I think they'd have to be safe.
They played a really tough non conference schedule. Won some pretty good games.
I don't want us to be on the cut line with a 29-5 team like that.

[URI2006_Andy]

So you took numbers from what, 4 seasons and came to the conclusion that the middle of the a10 is the same as Big East, P12, and B12? 5 of those 7 a10 wins are from Dayton, so I'm not sure saying the A10 has the same percentage tells the whole story.

I went back 3 years because before that the Big East and A-10 looked completely different than they do now. If I went back a 4th year, the A-10 went 7-5 overall and the B12 3-5 overall so it may have made my point stronger.

I'm not talking about the middle of these conferences. Once you get to the middle of the A-10, I admit the "power" conferences have better teams. I'm talking about the top where the atlarge bids would come from. The data is for teams that didn't win their regular season but got bids so it's 2nd place down to 4th, 5th, 6th depending on how many bids were awarded.

And what does it matter where the wins come from. If Dayton was so good, they would've won the A-10 regular season and their wins not reflected in my data. The point is the second,third, fourth place teams from the A-10 are faring just as well in the tourney as the second through seventh place teams from the BE, B12 and P12.

Andy, the only problem with your stats is the fact that a big chunk of the data came from one of the best years in A10 history. The 2013-2014 A10 produced 6 tournament bids, had roughly 6 Top 50 teams and another 2 that were Top 100, and that was in a 13 team league. Their OOC produced wins like @ Virginia (Top 5 team), Creighton (neutral with Doug McDermott), Gonzaga (neutral Top 25), and plenty of other note-worthy Top 75 wins at home, neutral, or road. So when it came down for that conference, they were respected and got the bids to come with that respect.

However, I think stats would show that the 12-13 and 13-14 seem more like outliers than the norm ... Maybe 3 Top 50 teams, 3 other Top 100 teams, and 8 teams 100+. This year it's been even more pronounced, because 4-6 in the A10 are all very fringe Top 100 teams. The A10 getting 3 bids in the last two seasons, and possible 3 bids this year, is exactly what the conference has deserved, regardless of the numbers you can pull up from borderline historic seasons.

I agree most years the A-10 will only have 3 or 4 top 50 teams and not 5 or 6. But my point is A-10 teams in the top 50 RPI shouldn't be left out in favor of B12 or BE teams hovering around .500 in conference play and who have worse computer rankings. The recent data shows the top A-10 teams are just as good as the top "power" conference teams minus the superpowers of Nova and Kansas yet the "power" conferences get twice or three times as many bids.