ESPN bracketology

[Kyle321n]

so we can see who we really need to root for coming down the stretch.

Feels like an interesting contrast to what bubble teams are cheering for.

If there are a few "2 bids, if the at-large team loses the tourney" conferences bubble teams root for chalk in those conference tourneys.

In our case, if there are a few "teams _almost_ good enough for an at-large, but in one-bid conferences" we're rooting for the good team to _lose_ the tourney.

Bubble teams want to keep the bottom of the bracket thin, we want to fill up them bottom!

What would really help is if the Power 6 conferences were won by the bottom feeders with 100+ RPIs. Teams like Northwestern, Texas Tech, USC and the like would only move us up lines as there's no way you can seed a 100+ RPI team ahead of us at this point.

While that would make the tournament more fun for us as getting a 10 or 11 seed would increase our chances of making a run I think it would water down the tourney from a quality of play standpoint and might make the first round games turn into slaughters.

If Northwestern wins the Big 10, they would potentially have wins over Wisconsin, Maryland, Ohio State, Illinois and Penn State. So 4 at larges and 4 Top 50 RPI wins. That's never going to happen, but even if it did, they wouldn't make them a 13 seed. Rooting for lower tiered power conference teams to win their conference is wasted effort.

Actually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble. Last year Nebraska (53/11 seed), North Carolina State (55/12 seed), Xavier (56/12 seed), and Kansas St. (58/9 seed) were all at large bids. The one you're missing is Louisiana Tech at 54 who was considered one of the biggest snubs last season. We could be the fix for LATech.

[78crusader]

I would phrase it a bit differently, a3uge -- a win over a BCS team means more than a win over a non-BCS team.

Paul

[78crusader]

Checking the Louisiana Tech website, they beat Oklahoma last year.  Oklahoma finished second in the Big 12.  We do not have anything remotely resembling such a win on our schedule this year.

Paul

[a3uge]

I would phrase it a bit differently, a3uge -- a win over a BCS team means more than a win over a non-BCS team.

Paul

No it doesn't.

[78crusader]

You are right, a3uge -- a win over Butler means more than a win over Northwestern.

Having said that, we are not an at-large team this year.  Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances. 

Paul

[justducky]

Actually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble.

True and I think they would go out of their way to keep us on the edge of our seats while they delivered the bad news. Awful OOC schedule, no signature wins, even with only 5 total losses I believe they could make a more compelling case for several other entrants.

Having said that, we are not an at-large team this year.  Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances. 

Yes and no. Add one top 40 OOC road win and we might easily be back in. But wait, we never even had any of them on our schedule!

This speculation about a 12 seed is nice (premature but nice) however we should prepare for the 15-16 season with the expectation that an 11 or 12 seed would be a big disappointment. No question that we have to schedule for better.

[a3uge]

You are right, a3uge -- a win over Butler means more than a win over Northwestern.

Having said that, we are not an at-large team this year.  Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances. 

Paul

A win over Incarnate Word means more than a win over Missouri. A loss to Quinnipiac would be worse than a loss to Missouri. It's just another team to the selection committee. Losing to Oakland meant more than losing to New Mexico. They do not break down teams by their records against "BCS" schools.

Saying the loss to New Mexico and Missouri would be the difference between an at-large and NIT is wrong. The loss to UWGB on the road had the highest impact - that would have meant 2 top 50 RPI wins, one of them being on the road. 4-0 vs the top 100 would look good. The selection committee will look at RPI, SOS, quality wins, and bad losses. New Mexico or Missouri wouldn't have been quality wins. Mizzou is still a "bad loss", but at least it happened on the road. It still has a chance of avoiding 200+ if they ever win a game. We have 4 losses, so I guess it's easy to cherry pick the power conference schools out and blame the whole season on these games, but the selection committee values good teams as good teams and bad teams as bad teams.

[a3uge]

Actually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble.

True and I think they would go out of their way to keep us on the edge of our seats while they delivered the bad news. Awful OOC schedule, no signature wins, even with only 5 total losses I believe they could make a more compelling case for several other entrants.

Having said that, we are not an at-large team this year.  Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances. 

Yes and no. Add one top 40 OOC road win and we might easily be back in. But wait, we never even had any of them on our schedule!

This speculation about a 12 seed is nice (premature but nice) however we should prepare for the 15-16 season with the expectation that an 11 or 12 seed would be a big disappointment. No question that we have to schedule for better.

It's kind of funny, going into the season I don't anyone would be complaining about the lack of top-50 RPI win chances for a potential at-large bid. While I went over the stupidity of the selection committee valuing SOS, even if you got slaughtered by 2 top teams, your sos could easily be chopped in half and you'd have a better RPI for simply showing up at a game. While it's stupid, it's necessary.

But it's a double edged sword. Maybe scheduling UCLA and Xavier instead of Ball State and ETSU means a significantly better SOS, but it could also mean 2 more losses, a worse RPI, and certainly no at-large talks either. It would be nice to have the chance, but I think the weak SOS may have actually helped the team this year.

[wh]

Actually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble.

True and I think they would go out of their way to keep us on the edge of our seats while they delivered the bad news. Awful OOC schedule, no signature wins, even with only 5 total losses I believe they could make a more compelling case for several other entrants.

Having said that, we are not an at-large team this year.  Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances. 

Yes and no. Add one top 40 OOC road win and we might easily be back in. But wait, we never even had any of them on our schedule!

This speculation about a 12 seed is nice (premature but nice) however we should prepare for the 15-16 season with the expectation that an 11 or 12 seed would be a big disappointment. No question that we have to schedule for better.

It's kind of funny, going into the season I don't anyone would be complaining about the lack of top-50 RPI win chances for a potential at-large bid. While I went over the stupidity of the selection committee valuing SOS, even if you got slaughtered by 2 top teams, your sos could easily be chopped in half and you'd have a better RPI for simply showing up at a game. While it's stupid, it's necessary.

But it's a double edged sword. Maybe scheduling UCLA and Xavier instead of Ball State and ETSU means a significantly better SOS, but it could also mean 2 more losses, a worse RPI, and certainly no at-large talks either. It would be nice to have the chance, but I think the weak SOS may have actually helped the team this year.

That's exactly what some of us were saying during the OOC part of the season relative to Oakland scheduling 5 or 6 Power-5 conference teams that they did not at all match up with. While they have the best SOS in the conference - 96, they also have 14 losses and an RPI of 144 to show for it.  The goal is to schedule the best OOC opponents that you think you have a realistic chance of beating. There's still no winning formula without winning games.   

[Kyle321n]

Actually if we win out and lose the HL championship game to Green Bay our RPI will be 54 which is squarely on the bubble.

True and I think they would go out of their way to keep us on the edge of our seats while they delivered the bad news. Awful OOC schedule, no signature wins, even with only 5 total losses I believe they could make a more compelling case for several other entrants.

Having said that, we are not an at-large team this year.  Big losses to two big schools -- Missouri and New Mexico -- neither of which are having stellar seasons -- killed our chances. 

Yes and no. Add one top 40 OOC road win and we might easily be back in. But wait, we never even had any of them on our schedule!

This speculation about a 12 seed is nice (premature but nice) however we should prepare for the 15-16 season with the expectation that an 11 or 12 seed would be a big disappointment. No question that we have to schedule for better.

It's kind of funny, going into the season I don't anyone would be complaining about the lack of top-50 RPI win chances for a potential at-large bid. While I went over the stupidity of the selection committee valuing SOS, even if you got slaughtered by 2 top teams, your sos could easily be chopped in half and you'd have a better RPI for simply showing up at a game. While it's stupid, it's necessary.

But it's a double edged sword. Maybe scheduling UCLA and Xavier instead of Ball State and ETSU means a significantly better SOS, but it could also mean 2 more losses, a worse RPI, and certainly no at-large talks either. It would be nice to have the chance, but I think the weak SOS may have actually helped the team this year.

That's exactly what some of us were saying during the OOC part of the season relative to Oakland scheduling 5 or 6 Power-5 conference teams that they did not at all match up with. While they have the best SOS in the conference - 96, they also have 14 losses and an RPI of 144 to show for it.  The goal is to schedule the best OOC opponents that you think you have a realistic chance of beating. There's still no winning formula without winning games.   

Saying we won out, if we had scheduled road games at Dayton and UCLA and lost (replacing ETSU and Ball St.) we would have a SoS of 198 and an RPI of 48. We have a SoS 223 and an RPI of 44.

[vu72]

I've always found the Sagarin's to be pretty reliable way of determining seedings.  Right now we are ranked 63rd, and higher than the best ranked team in 19 other conferences. The Mountain West or Southland are our best shots at moving past another conference leader. So, if we are ranked higher than 19 other conference leaders, we could be a 12. If we get some luck we could make it to 11.  I'm pretty sure the highest we have ever been seeded was a 12.

[justducky]

Reflecting on these recent posts reveals our universal ingrained mindset that we should maximize our inferior position rather than plan our breakout to a higher level. Of this even I am guilty.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

that's what fans do.

leave it to people like Grizz or setshot to talk about 15 seeds.

[wh]

Reflecting on these recent posts reveals our universal ingrained mindset that we should maximize our inferior position rather than plan our breakout to a higher level. Of this even I am guilty.

You have to crawl before you walk (or however that goes  ).  I'm all for raising our profile, but we have to be smart about it.  As much as I hate to use Butler as the model for anything, they did a good job of incrementally "scheduling up" while they were in the Horizon League. They started in the early 2000's by improving their recruiting and positioning themselves to compete for a conference title on an ongoing basis.  They started establishing home-and-homes rivalries against other quality mid majors like Creighton, S. IL (when they were good), Belmont, and others. Then they started getting themselves invited to quality pre/early season tournaments with good but not necessarily best-of-the-best majors.  They also worked their way into to a reconfigured Big 4 thing with IU, PU and ND, that was formerly IU, ND, Louisville and Kentucky.

That's what we need to do, and, like Butler, we need to be smart about how we do it. Right now, we're only at step-1.

 

[a3uge]

Reflecting on these recent posts reveals our universal ingrained mindset that we should maximize our inferior position rather than plan our breakout to a higher level. Of this even I am guilty.

Or maybe, we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Step 1: win a lot of games. Step 2: win a lot of games against good teams. This is the formula for virtually every team that goes from mid-major to perennial at-large contenders. In the 7 seasons since joining the Horizon, we've made it to the tournament once and the NIT once. In 1997, Butler made their first NCAA appearance in the modern era coming in at a #14 seed. 10 tournament appearances, two National Championship games, 16 total games, and 4 total Sweet 16s later they finally moved from the Horizon (all with virtually the same teams in the conference). In 2004 VCU made the tournament as a 13 seed, losing in the opening round, took a couple years to get back in the tournament in 2007, and then won a game and took #3 Pitt to overtime. In 2008, they were the top team in the CAA, but lost in their conference tournament. Then they made it a couple of times, and after they made it all the way to the Final Four, they moved up to the A10 (which many still consider a mid-major conference). Even for George Mason, it took 5 more 20 win seasons after their final four appearance just to jump to the A10, where they're now a bottom dweller.

These things just don't happen over night. There's over 200 other mid major teams that would love to turn into the next Butler, VCU, or Wichita State. There's no secret formula or secret scheduling sauce that elevates a program. If it was that easy, well, there wouldn't really be a big divide. Everyone wants to complain about schedules, conferences, and how we do against certain opponents... Really the answer is simple: winning.

But even if you do have success, there's no guarantee that you sustain it. UWM was very successful, making it to the tournament in 3 of 4 years with a Sweet 16 in-between. Now see them. Also, Winthrop... they made it to the tournament 5 times in 6 years and are still playing in the Big South and are about to go 5 straight years without a NCAA or NIT appearance. Getting upset that we're not in the mix for an at-large is silly. Trashing the conference and saying that we don't belong is also silly. We haven't really done anything here yet, and that's why we aren't big time yet, not because we're not scheduling correctly. Winning the conference will go a long way to telling recruits that they are virtually guaranteed to play in the NCAA tournament one day... and telling other programs that when you schedule us, you'll get a game against a high-RPI potential tournament team. I think after that, we can look to find ways to make sure we're in the mix every year as an at-large.

Edit: Damn, spent too long on this and wh already stole my thunder

[wh]

Reflecting on these recent posts reveals our universal ingrained mindset that we should maximize our inferior position rather than plan our breakout to a higher level. Of this even I am guilty.

Or maybe, we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. Step 1: win a lot of games. Step 2: win a lot of games against good teams. This is the formula for virtually every team that goes from mid-major to perennial at-large contenders. In the 7 seasons since joining the Horizon, we've made it to the tournament once and the NIT once. In 1997, Butler made their first NCAA appearance in the modern era coming in at a #14 seed. 10 tournament appearances, two National Championship games, 16 total games, and 4 total Sweet 16s later they finally moved from the Horizon (all with virtually the same teams in the conference). In 2004 VCU made the tournament as a 13 seed, losing in the opening round, took a couple years to get back in the tournament in 2007, and then won a game and took #3 Pitt to overtime. In 2008, they were the top team in the CAA, but lost in their conference tournament. Then they made it a couple of times, and after they made it all the way to the Final Four, they moved up to the A10 (which many still consider a mid-major conference). Even for George Mason, it took 5 more 20 win seasons after their final four appearance just to jump to the A10, where they're now a bottom dweller.

These things just don't happen over night. There's over 200 other mid major teams that would love to turn into the next Butler, VCU, or Wichita State. There's no secret formula or secret scheduling sauce that elevates a program. If it was that easy, well, there wouldn't really be a big divide. Everyone wants to complain about schedules, conferences, and how we do against certain opponents... Really the answer is simple: winning.

But even if you do have success, there's no guarantee that you sustain it. UWM was very successful, making it to the tournament in 3 of 4 years with a Sweet 16 in-between. Now see them. Also, Winthrop... they made it to the tournament 5 times in 6 years and are still playing in the Big South and are about to go 5 straight years without a NCAA or NIT appearance. Getting upset that we're not in the mix for an at-large is silly. Trashing the conference and saying that we don't belong is also silly. We haven't really done anything here yet, and that's why we aren't big time yet, not because we're not scheduling correctly. Winning the conference will go a long way to telling recruits that they are virtually guaranteed to play in the NCAA tournament one day... and telling other programs that when you schedule us, you'll get a game against a high-RPI potential tournament team. I think after that, we can look to find ways to make sure we're in the mix every year as an at-large.

Edit: Damn, spent too long on this and wh already stole my thunder

You made the complete argument.  I just wrote the executive summary. 

[justducky]

Winning the conference will go a long way to telling recruits that they are virtually guaranteed to play in the NCAA tournament one day... and telling other programs that when you schedule us, you'll get a game against a high-RPI potential tournament team. I think after that, we can look to find ways to make sure we're in the mix every year as an at-large.

That's what we need to do, and, like Butler, we need to be smart about how we do it. Right now, we're only at step-1.

Thank you both for the reasoned logic. Can either of you or anyone on this board give me total assurance that the mechanisms for taking that second step are being implemented? It looks to all of us that this group of kids deserve it.

[a3uge]

Winning the conference will go a long way to telling recruits that they are virtually guaranteed to play in the NCAA tournament one day... and telling other programs that when you schedule us, you'll get a game against a high-RPI potential tournament team. I think after that, we can look to find ways to make sure we're in the mix every year as an at-large.

That's what we need to do, and, like Butler, we need to be smart about how we do it. Right now, we're only at step-1.

Thank you both for the reasoned logic. Can either of you or anyone on this board give me total assurance that the mechanisms for taking that second step are being implemented? It looks to all of us that this group of kids deserve it.

I don't think we really know yet. Considering our RPI projects to be in the high 30's if we win the conference, I'd say the scheduling wasn't a failure. This would translate to at least a 12 seed, possibly an 11. This would be, by far, the best RPI in the history of our program, and considering we're undervalued in many other systems, probably Sagarin, Massey, and KPom as well. I'd say the scheduling hasn't been an actual issue this year.

But yeah, "elevating" the program - I'd say we'd probably have to see what happens. We don't really know our schedule next year. Say we lose on the road to Detroit and CSU, and then flop in the conf tournament to Oakland, then I don't think it'd be reasonable to demand that we schedule a bunch of top 50 teams to bolster our chances at an at-large next year... Or better yet, if we make it to the Sweet 16, then I would imagine that it'd be significantly easier to get invited to decent pre-season tournaments. Again, I don't think scheduling right now is holding us back as we've had decent enough schedules in the past, it's actually finding success.

[classof2014]

I look at the 2010/11 squad as the base for what we have now. That was Valpo's first successful season in the HL, winning 20+ games and in contention for the HL crown with just a few games remaining. Valpo wound up folding down the stretch and losing to Milwaukee in the semis. After that season many thought Valpo was going back to the lower half of the HL after graduating guys like Corey Johnson, Howard Little, and losing Brandon Wood to Michigan State. The young guys on the team were able to build off that season. Rowdy, Matt Kenney, KVW, and Buggs all stepped up next season and shocked the HL by winning the regular season title but lost in the finals. The pieces for Valpo were beginning to come together, with a senior laden team in the 2012/13 season Valpo finally got back to the promise land after a 9 year drought. That gave Valpo the tool it needed, the ability to say "we've been with the best of the HL and every year we can win the league, just look at the last 3 sesaons (10/11-12/13)."

The coaching staff was able to use that team to recruit guys like Alec Peters, Lexus Williams, Jubril, get guys like KC and EVN to join the team. Last season was a rebuilding year, yet Valpo was still decent and went back to the post-season for the fourth consecutive year. The nucleus for a team is there and this last offseason Valpo added more pieces to the puzzle, getting guys like Tevonn, Darien, and David to come to Valpo.

The past 4 to 5 seasons of being a quality mid-major is beginning to pay its dividends. The nucleus is there for a team that can make a run in the tournament. Whether it be this year or not? I don't know. It's definitely there though.

Valpo has started to get kids who were also recruited by high-majors. Alec Peters was offered from BC and Butler, David Skara had an offer from VA Tech, Tevonn Walker was a top-10 player from Canada, Derrik Smits is one of the top centers from Indiana and was recruited by Butler, Xavier, and Indiana was starting to show interest.

A few seasons ago Valpo had to build a team by combing through everyone. Getting little-recruited guys like Ryan Broekhoff, Kevin Van Wijk, Erik Buggs, Matt Kenney, and turning to transfers like LVD, Capobianco, Will Bogan, and Ben Boggs to make a difference. They did their job and put Valpo back on the map.

I would say stage one is complete. Build a contender in the HL year-in-year-out. Valpo has certainly done that. Now there's stage 2 which has begun, get to the tournament every year and make a run in the tournament. Like with the first stage this takes a few years, since much of it is due to consistency. One slip up can be fatal in building a national contender, it takes years to do. Stage 2 has began, become the perennial top-dog in the HL, Valpo is off to a good start and only time will tell if they pass stage 2.

[vu72]

I look at the 2010/11 squad as the base for what we have now. That was Valpo's first successful season in the HL, winning 20+ games and in contention for the HL crown with just a few games remaining. Valpo wound up folding down the stretch and losing to Milwaukee in the semis. After that season many thought Valpo was going back to the lower half of the HL after graduating guys like Corey Johnson, Howard Little, and losing Brandon Wood to Michigan State. The young guys on the team were able to build off that season. Rowdy, Matt Kenney, KVW, and Buggs all stepped up next season and shocked the HL by winning the regular season title but lost in the finals. The pieces for Valpo were beginning to come together, with a senior laden team in the 2012/13 season Valpo finally got back to the promise land after a 9 year drought. That gave Valpo the tool it needed, the ability to say "we've been with the best of the HL and every year we can win the league, just look at the last 3 sesaons (10/11-12/13)."

The coaching staff was able to use that team to recruit guys like Alec Peters, Lexus Williams, Jubril, get guys like KC and EVN to join the team. Last season was a rebuilding year, yet Valpo was still decent and went back to the post-season for the fourth consecutive year. The nucleus for a team is there and this last offseason Valpo added more pieces to the puzzle, getting guys like Tevonn, Darien, and David to come to Valpo.

The past 4 to 5 seasons of being a quality mid-major is beginning to pay its dividends. The nucleus is there for a team that can make a run in the tournament. Whether it be this year or not? I don't know. It's definitely there though.

Valpo has started to get kids who were also recruited by high-majors. Alec Peters was offered from BC and Butler, David Skara had an offer from VA Tech, Tevonn Walker was a top-10 player from Canada, Derrik Smits is one of the top centers from Indiana and was recruited by Butler, Xavier, and Indiana was starting to show interest.

A few seasons ago Valpo had to build a team by combing through everyone. Getting little-recruited guys like Ryan Broekhoff, Kevin Van Wijk, Erik Buggs, Matt Kenney, and turning to transfers like LVD, Capobianco, Will Bogan, and Ben Boggs to make a difference. They did their job and put Valpo back on the map.

I would say stage one is complete. Build a contender in the HL year-in-year-out. Valpo has certainly done that. Now there's stage 2 which has begun, get to the tournament every year and make a run in the tournament. Like with the first stage this takes a few years, since much of it is due to consistency. One slip up can be fatal in building a national contender, it takes years to do. Stage 2 has began, become the perennial top-dog in the HL, Valpo is off to a good start and only time will tell if they pass stage 2.

Well written.  Only one small correction.  Matt Kenney was not "little recruited".  He was an Indiana All Star.  The amazing thing about the Valpo coaches is how they find guys like Ryan or Max and Tevonn.  Tevonn and Ryan and probably David Skara, are Big Ten talent.  Probably not starting their freshman year, like Tevonn, but his speed, athleticism and shooting would fit on many Bigs.  Still, when it was announced that we had commitments from the Canadians there was a collective "Huh"?  Same with Ryan.  No one knew how talented he was.  Little to no interest from other US schools.  That is the remarkable thing.  The first really big commitment from a highly sought after kid was Alec.  The enxt was Derrik.  If Derrik was still on the market he would have loads of schools after him.  7'ers with his skill set just aren't available at this point.

[oklahomamick]

Don't forget our Jamaican senior that hopefully is not playing his last game in the ARC this week.  This is a guy who was not recruited but is in the top 10 in the nation in blocks.  If it wasn't for his rim protection, we are a different type of the team.  I hope next year we have a shot blocker at half of vashils ability. 

Just another example of a non recruited player that our staff has gotten and even improved. 

[covufan]

While I think that trying to predict where we could be seeded in the NCAA tournament is premature (we need to host and win the HL tournament), it is a fun discussion.  I like the http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ site, as it averages the 89 'bracketologists' that are currently trying to predict the bracket.  While hopeful for a 12 or even an 11 seed, I don't want the 11 or 12 seeds play-in game.  The NCAA tournament selection committee uses more than just RPI.  They also have the requirement of placing conference teams so that no two same conference teams meet before the regional quarterfinals (I think), which does influence the seeding of teams in the tournament. 

I think that ml and Bryce have worked very hard to give Valpo the best schedule possible, and I'll leave the future scheduling to them. 

[classof2014]

I don't know if this is true but the high ranking (11/12 seed) play-in games are mostly made up of at-large bids?

And the 16 seed one is usually for two teams that probably shouldn't have won their conference tournament but did?

[a3uge]

While I think that trying to predict where we could be seeded in the NCAA tournament is premature (we need to host and win the HL tournament), it is a fun discussion.  I like the http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ site, as it averages the 89 'bracketologists' that are currently trying to predict the bracket.  While hopeful for a 12 or even an 11 seed, I don't want the 11 or 12 seeds play-in game.  The NCAA tournament selection committee uses more than just RPI.  They also have the requirement of placing conference teams so that no two same conference teams meet before the regional quarterfinals (I think), which does influence the seeding of teams in the tournament. 

I think that ml and Bryce have worked very hard to give Valpo the best schedule possible, and I'll leave the future scheduling to them.

If we end up a 11 seed, that means we would have won our conference. Conference winners can't play in the play-in games. If we miraculously get an at-large, we would certainly be playing in the "First Four", as these playins are the last at-large teams to make the tournament.

[agibson]

I don't know if this is true but the high ranking (11/12 seed) play-in games are mostly made up of at-large bids?

And the 16 seed one is usually for two teams that probably shouldn't have won their conference tournament but did?

Just to try to staple together what others have said.

The 11/12 play-in games are for the four lowest seeded at-large teams.  The seed they're competing for depends on how the bracket shakes out. (In principle it could probably be a 13, maybe even a 14 or 10.)

The 16 seed play-ins (the old Dayton PIG) are for the four lowest seeded conference champions.  I don't think these are always upsets - but they seem to often be the same few conferences, where even the favorite's not great.

If we get into the 11/12 game we'd probably be delighted when it happens.  We'd have lost the conference tournament but somehow snagged an at-large bid.

When I dream that we might somehow qualify for an at-large, mostly my dream involves an at-large quality -seed- (like an 11 or 10) without actually needing the at-large bid.