NCAA College Basketball Talk

[vu84v2]

There was more to Vitale's comments during the Saint Mary's - Gonzaga game. In regards to .500 or below conference records, Vitale said, "nobody forced you to be in that conference...if you can't achieve an above .500 record, accept that you are not worthy of a tournament birth." Again, surprising comments (that will never lead to changes in the selection process).

Should Valpo have gotten a birth instead of Syracuse in 2016....yes. What Syracuse did in the tournament is irrelevant since the selection committee did not know that when making the decision. At the time the decision was made, Valpo was more deserving.

[bigmosmithfan1]

The NCAA could make this process a lot easier and a lot more fair with a simple rule -- need to be above .500 in your conference to be eligible for an at-large berth. Anything less, win the auto-bid. It's a completely fair and reasonable standard to meet. At a certain point, you have to win games. Anything else rewards mediocrity.

Those arguing for the outdated notion that a Belmont couldn't compete in the B1G could easily prove that on the court by scheduling them. (The folks who argue this always omit the inconvenient fact that playing a B1G schedule would mean that they'd get 10 B1G teams going to Belmont's building and if there's one thing P5 teams hate, it's playing on the road). As it stands with our one data point, Belmont came closer to beating Purdue at Mackey than IU did.

What we've actually seen in the tourney is 7 midmajor teams in the Final Four the past 12 years and the top overall seed from the ACC getting smashed into oblivion by a 16 seed that was the 2nd place team in the America East. The paradigm has changed and the old arguments won't suffice anymore.

[VULB#62]

The NCAA could make this process a lot easier and a lot more fair with a simple rule -- need to be above .500 in your conference to be eligible for an at-large berth. Anything less, win the auto-bid. It's a completely fair and reasonable standard to meet. At a certain point, you have to win games. Anything else rewards mediocrity.

Those arguing for the outdated notion that a Belmont couldn't compete in the B1G could easily prove that on the court by scheduling them. (The folks who argue this always omit the inconvenient fact that playing a B1G schedule would mean that they'd get 10 B1G teams going to Belmont's building and if there's one thing P5 teams hate, it's playing on the road). As it stands with our one data point, Belmont came closer to beating Purdue at Mackey than IU did.

What we've actually seen in the tourney is 7 midmajor teams in the Final Four the past 12 years and the top overall seed from the ACC getting smashed into oblivion by a 16 seed that was the 2nd place team in the America East. The paradigm has changed and the old arguments won't suffice anymore.

YES. YES. YES.  Simple but so logical. Why would the NCAA want a conference loser in the tourney unless i was an autobid.

[a3uge]

If IU goes on the road to Murray State, Jacksonville State, Loyola, etc they likely lose a handful of those games as well. IU won 3 road games all year, and two of those were against dreadful teams (Illinois and Penn State).

They dropped 5 games at home as well.


At a certain point, you have to value actually winning games. It's shameful that the committee will reward IU for playing only two ooc road games (getting slaughtered in one, losing to a non tournament team in the other). Those losses are completely ignored because they happened to catch Michigan State during a rough stretch and their uniforms are red and say Indiana.

[valpo95]

The NCAA could make this process a lot easier and a lot more fair with a simple rule -- need to be above .500 in your conference to be eligible for an at-large berth. Anything less, win the auto-bid. It's a completely fair and reasonable standard to meet. At a certain point, you have to win games. Anything else rewards mediocrity.

We were talking about something very similar back in September on this thread: https://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=2803.msg103971#msg103971


I'd suggest that .500 records are eligible for an at-large invitation, as are teams that make their conference championship game (yet might lose). Look at the sample of teams that are in the last 16 under consideration on ESPN's bracketology, with their conference records.

St. John's  (8-10)
Texas (8-10)
TCU (7-11)
Ohio State (8-12)
Indiana (8-12)
Alabama (8-10)

Look, I have no problem with a team like Texas getting into the tournament if they get hot in the Big12 tournament and lose a close game to Texas Tech or Kansas. Doing so should earn them consideration.

Yet not all of these teams should be bubble teams - Jay Bilas even listed Butler as #54 in his recent list of the 68 best teams in college basketball (TCU was #55) and there is no way that finishing tied for last in conference should earn a tournament invitation.

[vu84v2]

The NCAA could make this process a lot easier and a lot more fair with a simple rule -- need to be above .500 in your conference to be eligible for an at-large berth. Anything less, win the auto-bid. It's a completely fair and reasonable standard to meet. At a certain point, you have to win games. Anything else rewards mediocrity.

We were talking about something very similar back in September on this thread: https://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=2803.msg103971#msg103971


I'd suggest that .500 records are eligible for an at-large invitation, as are teams that make their conference championship game (yet might lose). Look at the sample of teams that are in the last 16 under consideration on ESPN's bracketology, with their conference records.

St. John's  (8-10)
Texas (8-10)
TCU (7-11)
Ohio State (8-12)
Indiana (8-12)
Alabama (8-10)

Look, I have no problem with a team like Texas getting into the tournament if they get hot in the Big12 tournament and lose a close game to Texas Tech or Kansas. Doing so should earn them consideration.

Yet not all of these teams should be bubble teams - Jay Bilas even listed Butler as #54 in his recent list of the 68 best teams in college basketball (TCU was #55) and there is no way that finishing tied for last in conference should earn a tournament invitation.

Add:
Oklahoma (7-11)
Minnesota (9-11)

Who aren't even listed in ESPN bracket predictions as 'on the bubble' - instead they are 'in'. We're talking whether a team is at or under .500, but Oklahoma is 4 games under .500 in conference.

[RacerJoeD]

This is a little off topic, but I actually had someone challenge me on this,

What is Valpo's travel look like in the Valley? 50/50 bus to plane? What was it when you guys were in the Horizon?

[vu84v2]

This is a little off topic, but I actually had someone challenge me on this,

What is Valpo's travel look like in the Valley? 50/50 bus to plane? What was it when you guys were in the Horizon?

Other than Loyola, all of the teams fly the Valparaiso University jet out of Porter County Regional airport. The university started doing this a number of years ago after getting the airport to expand its runway to accommodate the university's A330 jet.

(sorry, I could not resist)

Honestly, I do not know. To get to Valpo by plane I would assume most teams fly into Midway or O'Hare in Chicago. They could possibly fly into South Bend, which would save a fair amount of time, but there are not many flights (if any) from MVC cities to South Bend.

RacerJoe - I have been to Murray and am one of the people that has commented on the remoteness of Murray, KY. Having been there, I should point out that Murray State has really great people and a very nice environment.

[RacerJoeD]

I take no offense to the talk about remoteness. We are two hours away from an international airport. That is just a fact. There is a regional airport about 45 mins away from Murray that has direct service to O'Hare.

But to those who would say that is too far, I would ask this question- how long would it take you right now to get to O'hare in a bus if you left right now?


(Normally I do this with Houston as anyone who has ever driven in Houston can attest, wherever you are, you are two hours at least from the airport)

[IrishDawg]

The NCAA could make this process a lot easier and a lot more fair with a simple rule -- need to be above .500 in your conference to be eligible for an at-large berth. Anything less, win the auto-bid. It's a completely fair and reasonable standard to meet. At a certain point, you have to win games. Anything else rewards mediocrity.

We were talking about something very similar back in September on this thread: https://www.valpofanzone.com/forum/index.php?topic=2803.msg103971#msg103971


I'd suggest that .500 records are eligible for an at-large invitation, as are teams that make their conference championship game (yet might lose). Look at the sample of teams that are in the last 16 under consideration on ESPN's bracketology, with their conference records.

St. John's  (8-10)
Texas (8-10)
TCU (7-11)
Ohio State (8-12)
Indiana (8-12)
Alabama (8-10)

Look, I have no problem with a team like Texas getting into the tournament if they get hot in the Big12 tournament and lose a close game to Texas Tech or Kansas. Doing so should earn them consideration.

Yet not all of these teams should be bubble teams - Jay Bilas even listed Butler as #54 in his recent list of the 68 best teams in college basketball (TCU was #55) and there is no way that finishing tied for last in conference should earn a tournament invitation.

It's a good way to get the major conferences to take their ball and go home, but conference records are not a good way to determine eligibility.  The Big Ten is infinitely better than basically every league other than the Big 12 and ACC.  If you wanted to do a pure hypothetical, a team like a Belmont (ranked 53rd in kenpom) would likely have a very similar season to a team like Indiana (42nd in kenpom) who went 8-12 in conference play if they were to play in the Big Ten.  So should they not receive consideration for an at-large bid?  Of course not.  Schedules are never going to be equal, whether you're a P5 program (The Pac 12 is awful this year), or playing in the SoCon or OVC. 

That's why putting a simple "If you're not .500 then you shouldn't get in" might make all the teams from mid-major conferences feel good, but it's not a good way to ensure that the best 68 teams get in the field, and it would put those with all the money and power in a position to cut bait and ruin what isn't the best way to determine a champion, but it's definitely more fun than the NBA.

[valpo95]

That's why putting a simple "If you're not .500 then you shouldn't get in" might make all the teams from mid-major conferences feel good, but it's not a good way to ensure that the best 68 teams get in the field, and it would put those with all the money and power in a position to cut bait and ruin what isn't the best way to determine a champion, but it's definitely more fun than the NBA.

The NCAA tournament is NOT about getting the best 68 teams in the field. Most people would consider Butler one of the top 68 teams in the country and they are probably better than any team in the MAAC, SWAC, NEC and perhaps other conferences. Yet Butler is tied for last in the Big East. There is no way they should get consideration for an at-large bid - OK, they can win their way in via the conference tourney.  Yet wouldn't a better tournament include Lipscomb or Belmont rather than Butler? (One could make a similar argument about TCU or Indiana being better than many conference champions.)

The .500 or better rule (or make the conference championship game) is simple, fair and has other advantages. It would put more weight and interest into the conference season. It would also encourage the P5 teams to do a better job of scheduling non-conference games.

[wh]

Bracketology Bubble Watch: NET rankings could pay dividends to power conference teams
By Jerry Palm Mar 13, 2019

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-bubble-watch-net-rankings-could-pay-dividends-to-power-conference-teams/amp/

This Jerry Palm article tells me all I need to know about the impact on the mid major world of using NET instead of RPI.

1. Palm confirms that teams at or near the bottom of the Power conferences are going to benefit disproportionately from NET rankings at the expense of top Mid teams.
2. He confirms something I alluded to yesterday that "Quad-1 wins" is a clever manipulation that mids will never be able to compete against.
3. Adding good mids to the MVC for the purpose of at-large positioning is an even higher risk proposition than it was, resulting inevitably in 12 teams annually competing for 1 bid, and receiving smaller revenue shares as icing on the cake. This serves no ones best interest - current and new members alike.

[vu84v2]

Bracketology Bubble Watch: NET rankings could pay dividends to power conference teams
By Jerry Palm Mar 13, 2019

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-bubble-watch-net-rankings-could-pay-dividends-to-power-conference-teams/amp/

This Jerry Palm article tells me all I need to know about the impact on the mid major world of using NET instead of RPI.

1. Palm confirms that teams at or near the bottom of the Power conferences are going to benefit disproportionately from NET rankings at the expense of top Mid teams.
2. He confirms something I alluded to yesterday that "Quad-1 wins" is a clever manipulation that mids will never be able to compete against.
3. Adding good mids to the MVC for the purpose of at-large positioning is an even higher risk proposition than it was, resulting inevitably in 12 teams annually competing for 1 bid, and receiving smaller revenue shares as icing on the cake. This serves no ones best interest - current and new members alike.

I see the points here, but NET is supposed to figure in Quad 1 wins. Honestly, it still is a travesty if teams like Furman (NET 41) and Belmont (Net 46) lose births due to team that are 10+ spots behind in NET (Seton Hall, St. John's, Arizona State).

[wh]

Bracketology Bubble Watch: NET rankings could pay dividends to power conference teams
By Jerry Palm Mar 13, 2019

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bracketology-bubble-watch-net-rankings-could-pay-dividends-to-power-conference-teams/amp/

This Jerry Palm article tells me all I need to know about the impact on the mid major world of using NET instead of RPI.

1. Palm confirms that teams at or near the bottom of the Power conferences are going to benefit disproportionately from NET rankings at the expense of top Mid teams.
2. He confirms something I alluded to yesterday that "Quad-1 wins" is a clever manipulation that mids will never be able to compete against.
3. Adding good mids to the MVC for the purpose of at-large positioning is an even higher risk proposition than it was, resulting inevitably in 12 teams annually competing for 1 bid, and receiving smaller revenue shares as icing on the cake. This serves no ones best interest - current and new members alike.

I see the points here, but NET is supposed to figure in Quad 1 wins. Honestly, it still is a travesty if teams like Furman (NET 41) and Belmont (Net 46) lose births due to team that are 10+ spots behind in NET (Seton Hall, St. John's, Arizona State).

I couldn't agree more. As the Palm article reveals, power conference teams are already set to receive a huge entry boost from the NET system. Now someone's saying if that doesn't do enough, we'll disregard it. I thought NET was supposed to be more objective, transparent and reliable. I guess we'll know soon enough.

[EddieCabot]

I couldn't agree more. As the Palm article reveals, power conference teams are already set to receive a huge entry boost from the NET system. Now someone's saying if that doesn't do enough, we'll disregard it. I thought NET was supposed to be more objective, transparent and reliable. I guess we'll know soon enough.

Nobody outside the NCAA knows what the formula is, so I'd say it's not transparent at all.  Maybe there is no formula at all ... some intern could just be ranking the teams every week and nobody would know the difference.

[VUGrad1314]

https://twitter.com/happeninghoops?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1089318089714470912&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valpofanzone.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D3343.75

https://twitter.com/happeninghoops?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1089318089714470912&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valpofanzone.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D3343.75

https://twitter.com/happeninghoops?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1089318089714470912&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valpofanzone.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D3343.75

https://twitter.com/happeninghoops?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1089318089714470912&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valpofanzone.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D3343.75

https://twitter.com/happeninghoops?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1089318089714470912&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valpofanzone.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D3343.75

https://twitter.com/happeninghoops?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1089318089714470912&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.valpofanzone.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D3343.75

[VUBBFan]

This is a little off topic, but I actually had someone challenge me on this, What is Valpo's travel look like in the Valley? 50/50 bus to plane? What was it when you guys were in the Horizon?

Other than Loyola, all of the teams fly the Valparaiso University jet out of Porter County Regional airport. The university started doing this a number of years ago after getting the airport to expand its runway to accommodate the university's A330 jet. (sorry, I could not resist) Honestly, I do not know. To get to Valpo by plane I would assume most teams fly into Midway or O'Hare in Chicago. They could possibly fly into South Bend, which would save a fair amount of time, but there are not many flights (if any) from MVC cities to South Bend. RacerJoe - I have been to Murray and am one of the people that has commented on the remoteness of Murray, KY. Having been there, I should point out that Murray State has really great people and a very nice environment.

Actually we do fly out of the County airport sometimes, and I'm sure some of the teams that play us fly in there also.


[tweet]1106773621559693312[/tweet]

[vu84v2]

Good that Belmont got in, but St. John's (NET 73) over Furman (NET 41) or Lipscomb (NET 49) is a joke.

[NativeCheesehead]

Izzo v Wardle. Lol.

[VUGrad1314]

Good that Belmont got in, but St. John's (NET 73) over Furman (NET 41) or Lipscomb (NET 49) is a joke.

Yay for Belmont... The bid that broke the MVC's hope for the future...

[bbtds]

Good that Belmont got in, but St. John's (NET 73) over Furman (NET 41) or Lipscomb (NET 49) is a joke.

Yay for Belmont... The bid that broke the MVC's hope for the future...

And any hope of the SLU admins wising up and moving the Billikens to the Valley vanished for the foreseeable future when they won the A10/14 tournament.

[crusader05]

https://twitter.com/AndyFurmanFSR/status/1109960066847916032

only one tweet so far, waiting for some further confirmation. Could also make NKU a landing place for Bryce

[bbtds]

i was an autobid.

I was once an autobid but then the auctioneer decided I wasn't worth as much as the drug dealer's used car.

[JD24]

https://twitter.com/AndyFurmanFSR/status/1109960066847916032 only one tweet so far, waiting for some further confirmation. Could also make NKU a landing place for Bryce

...and another coach from the Horizon League will find out what it's like making the move to the SEC although I think Bama is in better shape than Vandy was when Bryce made his move.

[valpo95]

I still maintain that for consideration for an at-large bid, teams have to have one of the three criteria: Have a .500 record in conference, make the conference tournament final game, be in the top 25 of the AP or USA poll. This is simple and rewards winning, and is consistent with needing 6 wins to go to a bowl game in football. It also would encourage the P5/6 teams schedule tougher non-conference competition. Within the conference, it would further increase the interest in late-season in conference games where some teams are desperately trying to get eligible. 

As a brief follow-up, there were four teams that made the field of 68 with below .500 records in conference play (conference records shown). Minnesota (9-11), Ohio State (8-12), and Oklahoma (7-11) all won their first game, and St. Johns (8-10) lost. However, none of the three winners advanced to the Sweet 16.

If these four teams did not make the tournament, one could easily have picked four teams from the following seven (not in any order, conference records shown): Clemson (9-9), NC State (9-9), Lipscomb(14-2), UNC-Greensboro (15-3), Furman (13-5), Colorado (10-8), Memphis (11-7). (There are other possible teams, yet these are some of the most likely candidates).

What is interesting about these seven is that six of them won their first round NIT game (Furman lost to Wichita State 76-70). Several won their second round NIT game, though some were matched with each other so it is hard to do an exact analysis after the first round games were done.

Overall, at least this year, the conclusion is that it would have been OK to exclude the four teams with below .500 records from at-large consideration for the NCAA tournament. The teams that would likely have replaced them would have been credible, both for their regular season records and their performance against decent competition in the NIT.