Finally, some help from the committee

[VUGrad1314]

The NCAA has changed its selection criteria, and it makes the SOS boost we'll get from being in the Valley mean that much more. It could also lead to better nonconference games and even some P5 home and homes. The opportunities for the program here are tremendous! They're emphasizing road wins and taking some of the sting out of conference losses particularly road losses. It may not be perfect and it may not fully level the playing field, but compared to the load of  nothing schools like ours have gotten from the committee over the past few years especially, we should be ecstatic about this. Hopefully more refining to help out the mid majors will come soon, but we need to understand and accept that the field will never be level.All we can and should ask for is a reasonable chance to fight for an at-large where one loss in March doesn't negate an entire season's worth of work. Conference Tournaments shouldn't decide everything for mid majors. This gives us that and I applaud these changes.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-tournament-committee-to-emphasize-road-results-in-new-bracket-process/

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-men-s-basketball-committee-redefines-quality-win

[justducky]

Well it can't get any worse (or could it?), so I will be cautiously optimistic.

Longer term I have trouble imagining the big boys voluntarily surrendering any advantage simply from the goodness of their hearts. So what is their main motivation? Have they finally realized that having a few mid-majors logging some upsets is good for NCAA viewership numbers?

[FieldGoodie05]

Wholesale changes would be pointless.  I like the concept of one step at a time.  Limit the variables so we can see the results and understand them.

I'll reserve elation for the day that the inevitable loopholes are closed or restricted.

[justducky]

I'll reserve elation for the day that the inevitable loopholes are closed or restricted.

I am interpreting your comment to mean that prior to releasing this news, dozens of highly paid experts had already figured out how to game this new system. With that in mind the MVC is now only weeks behind them and LeCrone and company should be able to figure it out by 2020.

[IrishDawg]

I don't think this system changes a lot from the old system in terms of how teams are ranked on selection Sunday or scheduling.  Bigger leagues are going to have less opportunities to pick up top 50 wins at home, but the majority of the teams in those leagues are in the top 75 most of the time, so they'll still have roughly the same number of opportunities for quality wins as before, and it's the same for leagues like the MVC where you'll have a couple of teams that would qualify as column 1 wins if you beat them on the road, but the majority of games would be in columns 3&4.  Just as an example, here's Illinois State (a team that most believe were snubbed) vs. Providence (one of the last teams in).

Old System
Illinois State (1-2 vs. the top 50, 1-2 vs. 51-100, 4-1 vs. 101-150, 20-1 vs. 151+)
Providence (6-8 vs. the top 50, 2-1 vs. 51-100, 5-1 vs. 101-150, 7-2 vs. 151+)

New System
Illinois State (0-3 vs. Column 1, 1-2 vs. Column 2, 11-1 vs. Column 3, 14-0 vs. Column 4)
Providence (3-8 vs. Column 1, 5-1 vs. Column 2, 3-3 vs. Column 3, 9-0 vs. Column 4)

Maybe you don't feel this way, but the resumes for both teams are essentially the same either way you look at it to me.  Illinois State had less "bad" losses and less "good" wins either way you slice it, and outside of going strictly to an analytics based system which takes people out of it completely, I don't know if there is a "fair" way to look at one team vs. another.  On Kenpom, Illinois State ranked 50th, while Providence ranked 55th going into the tourney, but under that system, neither team would have likely gotten in, but at least that way you wouldn't have to worry about how the teams were measured.

[justducky]

Just as an example, here's Illinois State (a team that most believe were snubbed) vs. Providence (one of the last teams in).

Old System
Illinois State (1-2 vs. the top 50, 1-2 vs. 51-100, 4-1 vs. 101-150, 20-1 vs. 151+)
Providence (6-8 vs. the top 50, 2-1 vs. 51-100, 5-1 vs. 101-150, 7-2 vs. 151+)

New System
Illinois State (0-3 vs. Column 1, 1-2 vs. Column 2, 11-1 vs. Column 3, 14-0 vs. Column 4)
Providence (3-8 vs. Column 1, 5-1 vs. Column 2, 3-3 vs. Column 3, 9-0 vs. Column 4)

I would bet that the last 2 in and the first 2 out were matched up in every combination for recent years to establish the number of changes this new system might have suggested. Was Tulsa the last in and Saint Bonaventure the first out (or Monmouth) in 2016? That might provide a slightly better measure.

I have always been curious how TV ratings do once all the Cinderella's are gone early vs several having some deep run success. If viewership is expanded I would think the NCAA would devise ways to give the top bubble mid-major or mid majors the benefit of the doubt.

[IrishDawg]

I would bet that the last 2 in and the first 2 out were matched up in every combination for recent years to establish the number of changes this new system might have suggested. Was Tulsa the last in and Saint Bonaventure the first out (or Monmouth) in 2016? That might provide a slightly better measure.

I have always been curious how TV ratings do once all the Cinderella's are gone early vs several having some deep run success. If viewership is expanded I would think the NCAA would devise ways to give the top bubble mid-major or mid majors the benefit of the doubt.

Can't give you an overall round-by-round tourney rating, but 2011 (when both Butler and VCU made the F4), the ratings for their semi-final was an 8.3, while UConn vs. Kentucky got a 9.5.  For a reference point, UNC-Oregon was an 11.5 while Gonzaga-South Carolina was a 9.3, so bigger-named teams are always going to help ratings.

In terms of last in and first out comparisons, I was more looking at the narrative that this would help mid-majors more than major conference teams.  In 2016, if you looked at a team like Monmouth or St. Bonaventure against a team like Michigan, which was the last major conference school to get in, it would look like this:

Old System:
Monmouth (1-1 vs. Top 50, 2-3 vs. 51-100, 7-0 vs. 101-150, 17-4 vs. 151+)
St. Bonaventure (3-2 vs. Top 50, 4-3 vs. 51-100, 3-1 vs. 101-150, 12-2 vs. 151+)
Michigan (4-11 vs. Top 50, 0-1 vs. 51-100, 6-0 vs. 101-150, 11-0 vs. 151+)
Valpo (1-1 vs. Top 50, 3-1 vs. 51-100, 6-3 vs. 101-150, 16-0 vs. 151+)

New System:
Monmouth (1-2 vs. Column 1, 5-1 vs. Column 2, 5-4 vs. Column 3, 16-0 vs. Column 4)
St. Bonaventure (3-3 vs. Column 1, 3-3 vs. Column 2, 7-2 vs. Column 3, 9-0 vs. Column 4)
Michigan (4-12 vs. Column 1, 1-0 vs. Column 2, 7-0 vs. Column 3, 9-0 vs. Column 4)
Valpo (1-1 vs. Column 1, 3-1 vs. Column 2, 8-4 vs. Column 3, 12-0 vs. Column 4)

Again, I don't think under either system that one team's resume looks much better under the new system vs. the old.

[bigmosmithfan1]

It depends. That "bad loss" on the road to a 19-win Ball State team, minus Tevonn, two days after returning from the West Coast is probably mitigated a lot more under this formula. Considering that most people felt that game was the difference-maker between us getting in and getting left out in 2016, there's a good chance we sneak in to the NCAA field with this recalculation.

[VU2014]

I think one of the biggest potential impacts of this new rule change is that it will possibly (Hopefully) force P5 and Big East schools to play more away games. Doesn't mean Duke will be coming to Valpo but there will hopefully be a scheduling trickle down affect and Mids can actually get some more decent home games.

[vu72]

I think one of the biggest potential impacts of this new rule change is that it will possibly (Hopefully) force P5 and Big East schools to play more away games. Doesn't mean Duke will be coming to Valpo but there will hopefully be a scheduling trickle down affect and Mids can actually get some more decent home games.

I hope you are right.  No doubt however, it will take a few years for them to realize that their scheduling needs to change.  Probably a few getting "missed" will open eyes!

[FWalum]

Can't give you an overall round-by-round tourney rating, but 2011 (when both Butler and VCU made the F4), the ratings for their semi-final was an 8.3, while UConn vs. Kentucky got a 9.5.  For a reference point, UNC-Oregon was an 11.5 while Gonzaga-South Carolina was a 9.3, so bigger-named teams are always going to help ratings.

In terms of last in and first out comparisons, I was more looking at the narrative that this would help mid-majors more than major conference teams.  In 2016, if you looked at a team like Monmouth or St. Bonaventure against a team like Michigan, which was the last major conference school to get in, it would look like this:

Old System:
Monmouth (1-1 vs. Top 50, 2-3 vs. 51-100, 7-0 vs. 101-150, 17-4 vs. 151+)
St. Bonaventure (3-2 vs. Top 50, 4-3 vs. 51-100, 3-1 vs. 101-150, 12-2 vs. 151+)
Michigan (4-11 vs. Top 50, 0-1 vs. 51-100, 6-0 vs. 101-150, 11-0 vs. 151+)
Valpo (1-1 vs. Top 50, 3-1 vs. 51-100, 6-3 vs. 101-150, 16-0 vs. 151+)

New System:
Monmouth (1-2 vs. Column 1, 5-1 vs. Column 2, 5-4 vs. Column 3, 16-0 vs. Column 4)
St. Bonaventure (3-3 vs. Column 1, 3-3 vs. Column 2, 7-2 vs. Column 3, 9-0 vs. Column 4)
Michigan (4-12 vs. Column 1, 1-0 vs. Column 2, 7-0 vs. Column 3, 9-0 vs. Column 4)
Valpo (1-1 vs. Column 1, 3-1 vs. Column 2, 8-4 vs. Column 3, 12-0 vs. Column 4)

Again, I don't think under either system that one team's resume looks much better under the new system vs. the old.

I have to agree with IrishDawg on this, I don't see much difference here and I don't think the P5's did either.  I doubt they would have let this go through if they thought it was going to cost their conferences money.

[valpo64]

I did notice that IU's new coach, A Miller, will get a bonus if he toughens up his pre-conference schedule this coming season.  Indiana had one of the weakest pre-conference schedules in the country last year.