NCAA College Basketball Talk

[VUGrad1314]

Belmont's hopes get a boost with Wofford handling its business in the SOCON

[valpopal]

I do not admire Wardle

Standing alone has never bothered me so I will reaffirm my support for Wardle and his outdated  methods. The last time we went to war on Wardle was March-April 2014 and the heated exchanges ultimately led to Milanmiracle dropping off our board. I was just too stubborn or stupid to leave and I haven't gotten any smarter in the interim. So if it is now me (less Milan) vs this board--I'm liking my odds.

I hope they get past the first round for their sake and the sake of the MVC.

Every Valley fan is now a Bradley fan and every Bradley fan is now a Wardle fan.

I wasn't on the board in 2014 so forgive me for asking for clarification.  Are you saying you support Wardle?  I don't have the brain power (head cold) so just tell me like it is...

It absolutely killed me to sit right behind the Bradley fans as they won the championship game because the UNI player had a brain fart committed a technical foul allowing the Bradley player to make 4 FT in a row. Wardle and the Braves we're handed that game.

I'm going to have to defend McDonnell, the UNI player. He did not have "a brain fart." The video showed McDonnell's contact with the Bradley player was caused by a push from behind on McDonnell by another Bradley player; therefore, it should have been called incidental contact rather than a flagrant foul. If McDonnell were pushed into an official by a Bradley player, would the official give McDonnell a technical foul for the contact or would the official recognize the source of the action?

[justducky]

I do not admire Wardle

Standing alone has never bothered me so I will reaffirm my support for Wardle and his outdated  methods. The last time we went to war on Wardle was March-April 2014 and the heated exchanges ultimately led to Milanmiracle dropping off our board. I was just too stubborn or stupid to leave and I haven't gotten any smarter in the interim. So if it is now me (less Milan) vs this board--I'm liking my odds.

I hope they get past the first round for their sake and the sake of the MVC.

Every Valley fan is now a Bradley fan and every Bradley fan is now a Wardle fan.

I wasn't on the board in 2014 so forgive me for asking for clarification.  Are you saying you support Wardle?  I don't have the brain power (head cold) so just tell me like it is...

You didn't join the board until 2016 so I'll answer yes but with Wardle you always have to qualify your support. During his coaching tenure at Green Bay we spent more time talking about him than we did about us. He was taken from thread to thread, month to month, then year to year. It was always lively and entertaining. It finally came to a head when Wardle won some kind of award and the board exploded. 

For a sampling of our venom I'll refer you back to thread title page 15, Buzz Williams leaving Marquette for VA Tech pages 6 and 7. Have fun! You will recognize most of the individuals who posted.

[bbtds]

I do not admire Wardle

Standing alone has never bothered me so I will reaffirm my support for Wardle and his outdated  methods. The last time we went to war on Wardle was March-April 2014 and the heated exchanges ultimately led to Milanmiracle dropping off our board. I was just too stubborn or stupid to leave and I haven't gotten any smarter in the interim. So if it is now me (less Milan) vs this board--I'm liking my odds.

I hope they get past the first round for their sake and the sake of the MVC.

Every Valley fan is now a Bradley fan and every Bradley fan is now a Wardle fan.

I wasn't on the board in 2014 so forgive me for asking for clarification.  Are you saying you support Wardle?  I don't have the brain power (head cold) so just tell me like it is...

It absolutely killed me to sit right behind the Bradley fans as they won the championship game because the UNI player had a brain fart committed a technical foul allowing the Bradley player to make 4 FT in a row. Wardle and the Braves we're handed that game.

I'm going to have to defend McDonnell, the UNI player. He did not have "a brain fart." The video showed McDonnell's contact with the Bradley player was caused by a push from behind on McDonnell by another Bradley player; therefore, it should have been called incidental contact rather than a flagrant foul. If McDonnell were pushed into an official by a Bradley player, would the official give McDonnell a technical foul for the contact or would the official recognize the source of the action?

Maybe I didn't really see what I thought I saw but I believe McDonnell may have over-protested the call that was made because of the foul not really being of his volition.

I believe the PA announcer in the Enterprise Center used the term technical foul and not flagrant foul when announcing the reason for the 4 FTs.

[valpopal]

I do not admire Wardle

Standing alone has never bothered me so I will reaffirm my support for Wardle and his outdated  methods. The last time we went to war on Wardle was March-April 2014 and the heated exchanges ultimately led to Milanmiracle dropping off our board. I was just too stubborn or stupid to leave and I haven't gotten any smarter in the interim. So if it is now me (less Milan) vs this board--I'm liking my odds.

I hope they get past the first round for their sake and the sake of the MVC.

Every Valley fan is now a Bradley fan and every Bradley fan is now a Wardle fan.

I wasn't on the board in 2014 so forgive me for asking for clarification.  Are you saying you support Wardle?  I don't have the brain power (head cold) so just tell me like it is...

It absolutely killed me to sit right behind the Bradley fans as they won the championship game because the UNI player had a brain fart committed a technical foul allowing the Bradley player to make 4 FT in a row. Wardle and the Braves we're handed that game.

I'm going to have to defend McDonnell, the UNI player. He did not have "a brain fart." The video showed McDonnell's contact with the Bradley player was caused by a push from behind on McDonnell by another Bradley player; therefore, it should have been called incidental contact rather than a flagrant foul. If McDonnell were pushed into an official by a Bradley player, would the official give McDonnell a technical foul for the contact or would the official recognize the source of the action?

Maybe I didn't really see what I thought I saw but I believe McDonnell may have over-protested the call that was made because of the foul not really being of his volition.

I believe the PA announcer in the Enterprise Center used the term technical foul and not flagrant foul when announcing the reason for the 4 FTs.

The call was a flagrant foul that happened during a dead ball, which is why it is labeled a technical foul. Here is a quote from the Des Moines Register: "'I talked to the ref, and he said I got him with the elbow,' McDonnell said. 'Definitely wasn't intentional, but it just sucks.'" The video showed McDonnell being pushed from behind by a Bradley player and his momentum forward causing the accidental contact with the Bradley player that was coming towards McDonnell. In fact, if you look at the video in slow motion, it is apparent that the Bradley player who gets hit actually comes down on McDonnell and bangs his face on McDonnell's elbow, which is at his side and not raised up above his shoulders. McDonnell did not protest strongly. He seemed in a state of shock at the call.

[crusader05]

https://abc7news.com/actresses-ceos-charged-in-alleged-college-admissions-scam/5186103/

Doesn't look like this has hit basketball but several sports coaches have been accused/indicated. I posted more about it in the general sports forum but wanted to drop this here too.

But between this and the basketball stuff not a great look for NCAA and college athletics in general.

[VUGrad1314]

It'll never fly with the committee but this is a darn solid case for Lipscomb

https://twitter.com/LipscombMBB/status/1105544850064240640

[NativeCheesehead]

They won't get in but I love the snark. Troll hard, Bisons. Troll hard.

[wh]

https://abc7news.com/actresses-ceos-charged-in-alleged-college-admissions-scam/5186103/

Doesn't look like this has hit basketball but several sports coaches have been accused/indicated. I posted more about it in the general sports forum but wanted to drop this here too.

But between this and the basketball stuff not a great look for NCAA and college athletics in general.

The unscrupulous actions of the people involved here fit perfectly with certain stereotype labels associated with their group.

[vu84v2]

https://abc7news.com/actresses-ceos-charged-in-alleged-college-admissions-scam/5186103/

Doesn't look like this has hit basketball but several sports coaches have been accused/indicated. I posted more about it in the general sports forum but wanted to drop this here too.

But between this and the basketball stuff not a great look for NCAA and college athletics in general.

The unscrupulous actions of the people involved here fit perfectly with certain stereotype labels associated with their group.

If you look at the 33 parents listed, most are lawyers, CEOs, corporate executives and hedge fund managers (or spouses).

[vu84v2]

I am watching the Saint Mary's - Gonzaga game and heard Dick Vitale actually say this:

"The NCAA selection process awards mediocrity (by taking teams from major conferences with 13+ losses). The NCAA should take the 36 at-large bids and do the following. Award 28 to the most deserving teams from the Power 6 conferences and award the other 8 to the most deserving teams from other conferences that did not win their conference tournament."

This sounds like a pretty good idea! (which will never happen)

[Just Sayin]

https://abc7news.com/actresses-ceos-charged-in-alleged-college-admissions-scam/5186103/

Doesn't look like this has hit basketball but several sports coaches have been accused/indicated. I posted more about it in the general sports forum but wanted to drop this here too.

But between this and the basketball stuff not a great look for NCAA and college athletics in general.

The unscrupulous actions of the people involved here fit perfectly with certain stereotype labels associated with their group.

If you look at the 33 parents listed, most are lawyers, CEOs, corporate executives and hedge fund managers (or spouses).

Unquestionably all lawyers, CEOs, corporate executives, and fund managers are evil.

[humbleopinion]

https://abc7news.com/actresses-ceos-charged-in-alleged-college-admissions-scam/5186103/

Doesn't look like this has hit basketball but several sports coaches have been accused/indicated. I posted more about it in the general sports forum but wanted to drop this here too.

But between this and the basketball stuff not a great look for NCAA and college athletics in general.

The unscrupulous actions of the people involved here fit perfectly with certain stereotype labels associated with their group.

If you look at the 33 parents listed, most are lawyers, CEOs, corporate executives and hedge fund managers (or spouses).

Unquestionably all lawyers, CEOs, corporate executives, and fund managers are evil.

A little defensive?

[Just Sayin]

A little presumptive?

[VUGrad1314]

Talk basketball or take this to the politics forum.

[IrishDawg]

I am watching the Saint Mary's - Gonzaga game and heard Dick Vitale actually say this:

"The NCAA selection process awards mediocrity (by taking teams from major conferences with 13+ losses). The NCAA should take the 36 at-large bids and do the following. Award 28 to the most deserving teams from the Power 6 conferences and award the other 8 to the most deserving teams from other conferences that did not win their conference tournament."

This sounds like a pretty good idea! (which will never happen)

Sounds lovely - what are his criteria?  Vitale, and many others can stump all they want for "deserving" mid-majors to be included rather than power programs with mediocre conference records.  The problem is that teams like Belmont, Lipscomb, and even Furman win a lot of games, and you can't discount that, but they win those games against really bad opponents, and the few times they do get opportunities against Power programs, they generally lose, or in Belmont or Furman's case, teams you beat like UCLA, Western Kentucky and Loyola aren't as good as expected and don't help you.

This is why I will always advocate for using a Sagarin, Kenpom, BPI, or some kind of predictive analytical rating to rank teams, and take the humans completely out of it.  You can even set up an algorithm for seeding and where the teams play at to prevent those regular season re-matches in the early rounds.  Scheduling wouldn't matter (e.g. Wofford is ranked 18th in Kenpom despite having the 107th ranked schedule), and then you'd at least have a better chance of actually getting the best teams in the dance and seeding them properly.  Teams like Furman, Belmont, Lipscomb would still likely be on the outside looking in (as they're all ranked 50th or worse on Kenpom), but at least they'd know where they stood all season long and they wouldn't feel like they got their hearts ripped out on Selection Sunday when a subjective process is used to determine whether or not they should be included.

[may know]

Northwestern is top 70 in KenPom.

[vu84v2]

I am watching the Saint Mary's - Gonzaga game and heard Dick Vitale actually say this:

"The NCAA selection process awards mediocrity (by taking teams from major conferences with 13+ losses). The NCAA should take the 36 at-large bids and do the following. Award 28 to the most deserving teams from the Power 6 conferences and award the other 8 to the most deserving teams from other conferences that did not win their conference tournament."

This sounds like a pretty good idea! (which will never happen)

Sounds lovely - what are his criteria?  Vitale, and many others can stump all they want for "deserving" mid-majors to be included rather than power programs with mediocre conference records.  The problem is that teams like Belmont, Lipscomb, and even Furman win a lot of games, and you can't discount that, but they win those games against really bad opponents, and the few times they do get opportunities against Power programs, they generally lose, or in Belmont or Furman's case, teams you beat like UCLA, Western Kentucky and Loyola aren't as good as expected and don't help you.

This is why I will always advocate for using a Sagarin, Kenpom, BPI, or some kind of predictive analytical rating to rank teams, and take the humans completely out of it.  You can even set up an algorithm for seeding and where the teams play at to prevent those regular season re-matches in the early rounds.  Scheduling wouldn't matter (e.g. Wofford is ranked 18th in Kenpom despite having the 107th ranked schedule), and then you'd at least have a better chance of actually getting the best teams in the dance and seeding them properly.  Teams like Furman, Belmont, Lipscomb would still likely be on the outside looking in (as they're all ranked 50th or worse on Kenpom), but at least they'd know where they stood all season long and they wouldn't feel like they got their hearts ripped out on Selection Sunday when a subjective process is used to determine whether or not they should be included.

My understanding is that they tried get closer to an analytical method with NET. And looking at the current NET rankings, I would think that if they used this analytical method these teams would get in:

Utah State: 30
Furman: 41
New Mexico State: 45 (still needs to play conference tournament, and would drop with a loss in that conference)
Belmont: 46
Lipscomb: 48

[wh]

I am watching the Saint Mary's - Gonzaga game and heard Dick Vitale actually say this:

"The NCAA selection process awards mediocrity (by taking teams from major conferences with 13+ losses). The NCAA should take the 36 at-large bids and do the following. Award 28 to the most deserving teams from the Power 6 conferences and award the other 8 to the most deserving teams from other conferences that did not win their conference tournament."

This sounds like a pretty good idea! (which will never happen)

Sounds lovely - what are his criteria?  Vitale, and many others can stump all they want for "deserving" mid-majors to be included rather than power programs with mediocre conference records.  The problem is that teams like Belmont, Lipscomb, and even Furman win a lot of games, and you can't discount that, but they win those games against really bad opponents, and the few times they do get opportunities against Power programs, they generally lose, or in Belmont or Furman's case, teams you beat like UCLA, Western Kentucky and Loyola aren't as good as expected and don't help you.

This is why I will always advocate for using a Sagarin, Kenpom, BPI, or some kind of predictive analytical rating to rank teams, and take the humans completely out of it.  You can even set up an algorithm for seeding and where the teams play at to prevent those regular season re-matches in the early rounds.  Scheduling wouldn't matter (e.g. Wofford is ranked 18th in Kenpom despite having the 107th ranked schedule), and then you'd at least have a better chance of actually getting the best teams in the dance and seeding them properly.  Teams like Furman, Belmont, Lipscomb would still likely be on the outside looking in (as they're all ranked 50th or worse on Kenpom), but at least they'd know where they stood all season long and they wouldn't feel like they got their hearts ripped out on Selection Sunday when a subjective process is used to determine whether or not they should be included.

My understanding is that they tried get closer to an analytical method with NET. And looking at the current NET rankings, I would think that if they used this analytical method these teams would get in:

Utah State: 30
Furman: 41
New Mexico State: 45 (still needs to play conference tournament, and would drop with a loss in that conference)
Belmont: 46
Lipscomb: 48

They invented it to be used. They'd better use it.

[VUGrad1314]

You need to be in the top 37 to theoretically have a shot at an at large None of those teams is getting in. The smartest thing the SOCON could do is grab Belmont and Lipscomb for hoops.

[IrishDawg]

My understanding is that they tried get closer to an analytical method with NET. And looking at the current NET rankings, I would think that if they used this analytical method these teams would get in:

Utah State: 30
Furman: 41
New Mexico State: 45 (still needs to play conference tournament, and would drop with a loss in that conference)
Belmont: 46
Lipscomb: 48

But that's part of my point.  If they just went by a pure (you're ranked here, so you're in or you're out), then yeah, even though I think the NET is a half measure between the really poor ranking system of the RPI and a really good analytical model, then the process would be incredibly transparent, teams would know where things stood, and it would at least be good from that standpoint.  But my prediction is that the people in the room will be more concerned about Quad 1 wins and other subjective numbers, which puts the mid-majors at an automatic disadvantage.

I'm not going to say that the committee members don't put in a lot of time and effort into the selection process.  But the decision-making process could be simplified in a way that would make both mids and power programs happier than the current selection process, IMO.

[vu84v2]

You need to be in the top 37 to theoretically have a shot at an at large None of those teams is getting in. The smartest thing the SOCON could do is grab Belmont and Lipscomb for hoops.

The rankings include all of the teams that get (or will get) automatic births. If you assume that 15 of those teams are in the top 50, then you need to be in the top 50 overall to have a higher probability for an at-large birth.

[wh]

My understanding is that they tried get closer to an analytical method with NET. And looking at the current NET rankings, I would think that if they used this analytical method these teams would get in:

Utah State: 30
Furman: 41
New Mexico State: 45 (still needs to play conference tournament, and would drop with a loss in that conference)
Belmont: 46
Lipscomb: 48

But that's part of my point.  If they just went by a pure (you're ranked here, so you're in or you're out), then yeah, even though I think the NET is a half measure between the really poor ranking system of the RPI and a really good analytical model, then the process would be incredibly transparent, teams would know where things stood, and it would at least be good from that standpoint.  But my prediction is that the people in the room will be more concerned about Quad 1 wins and other subjective numbers, which puts the mid-majors at an automatic disadvantage.

I'm not going to say that the committee members don't put in a lot of time and effort into the selection process.  But the decision-making process could be simplified in a way that would make both mids and power programs happier than the current selection process, IMO.

Theoretically, Quad-1 wins are already taken into account (indirectly) in the NET calculation. Correct?  Now they're going to further take them into account?

[IrishDawg]

Theoretically, Quad-1 wins are already taken into account (indirectly) in the NET calculation. Correct?  Now they're going to further take them into account?

Correct, the strength of the opponent opponent is a portion of the NET Ranking, as is margin of victory (to an extent) and offensive and defensive efficiency differential (which isn't capped).  It'll be interesting to see what ultimately happens, but the bracketologists have all been using the Quadrant 1 records and wins when comparing teams, and that's where a team like Belmont whose only Quad 1 wins are over Lipscomb and Murray State when Ja Morant was hurt, and their only other Quad 1 games was against Purdue and Murray State in the conference tourney.  Then you have an Indiana, who is 5 spots behind Belmont in the NET Rankings, but has Quad 1 wins over Marquette, Louisville, Michigan State (twice), Penn State and Wisconsin.  This is why bracketologists rank IU ahead of a Belmont on their last four in/first four out sheets.  While they have WAY more opportunities, their wins are much better than what Belmont can put out there.

[valpo84]

And hence the circular argument begins about scheduling could begin.  Yes, Indiana has had more chances but has lost a whole bunch of games.  Let Belmont schedule home and homes with Indiana and Purdue or other P5s and then it's an even playing field.  Vitale's argument (and maybe 8 isn't the right number) is a solid argument -- teams like Belmont, St. Marys, Valpo 2016, Furman, etc. enhance the tourney because they are proven winners during the season.  They won the games they should have.  They are more entertaining and interesting and Cinderella-potential than watching a mediocre IU team lose in the play-in games or a first round game.  They are at best a play-in 12 or 11.  Let Belmont be the play-in 11 or 12 vs a mediocre P5 11 or 12 on the neutral court.  I agree with Dickie V--I'd rather watch that game or one between 2 mid-majors.  Again, first criteria for an at large should be >.500 in your league.  The only P5 team with .500 or better conference record to make the Final 4 in the past 35 years (based on a quick search) was Syracuse in 2016.  They were at least 9-9 (12-10 after conference tourney) and made the play-in game as an 11.  They had made also made it to the ACC Tourney Finals and then were blessed because Middle Tenn State knocked off Michigan State (2 seed) in "2d" round.  Very similar run to NC State in '83, NC State was 8-6 in conference (8 teams), but won the ACC tourney beating Jordan/Daugherty/Perkins and then Sampson's Virginia.   For fun, should Valpo have been in and Syracuse not?