ESPN Bubble columns

[wu_shizzle]

I can't argue with his WSU - WVU example but the Utah State - Mich State comparison was weak.

[pie n eye]

Let's do away with conference affiliation (at least for scheduling purposes) and go with a tiered system instead. The tiers change each year based on your prior year performance in the regular season and ncaa tournament. Each team plays a certain number of teams from each tier so that everyone gets a chance for good wins and bad losses.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Since my name came up, I'll just mention that I think Katz blew it big time with that article. How he decided to do an article about how "Mid majors have had their chance" and then reference Utah State, the perfect example of a team that hasn't had their chance, is beyond me.

Utah State is going to be nearly impossible to seed this year. 8? 12? Who knows? That said, as of today they deserve to be in the tournament by any respectable standard.

[XManCometh]

Since my name came up, I'll just mention that I think Katz blew it big time with that article. How he decided to do an article about how "Mid majors have had their chance" and then reference Utah State, the perfect example of a team that hasn't had their chance, is beyond me.

Utah State is going to be nearly impossible to seed this year. 8? 12? Who knows? That said, as of today they deserve to be in the tournament by any respectable standard.

They did play both BYU and Georgetown. #2 and #3 in the RPI. I suppose he considers those "chances". WSU has basically had two chances this season as well.

[jocoshock]

Leave WSU out of the discussion altogether. The system is rigged and everyone knows it.

The addition of four teams stacks it even more. If a mid major gets even one of the additional 4 spots, I will be flabbergasted...

:-x

When you hear discussions about whether the Big East could get 10 or 11 teams in, that's all you need to know....

[tw805]

The comparison might be valid if they were "chances for good wins," as these things are consistently referred to. But that is intellectually dishonest. What guys like Katz are saying is that when given the opportunity, a mid-major can and should get an upset over a higher-ranked team in order to justify even getting a chance to play in the tournament. But if a "middling" team loses to a higher ranked team within the conference, it is somehow no punishment because it just plays in a really tough conference. It is a painful double standard. If you play a team with a higher rank than you, the loss should be expected. If you play a team with a lower rank than you, the win should be expected. Justifying placement at all on the ability to beat those teams that are judged better than you makes no sense at all.

Taking this tortured logic to its certainly illogical conclusion, there would be four #1 seeds and no others. After all, you have to justify being placed in the tournament by proving you can beat a higher ranked team when you have the opportunity.

[XManCometh]

Re: ESPN Bubble columns

Katz telling it like it is... :(

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...d-their-chance

This strikes me as a sad, sad, lazy argument. And this is from someone who has not paid that much attention to the global NCAA basketball situation this year. Way to phone it in Katz. Kudos for meeting your deadline.

Actually, Katz is one of the very few College Basketball guys anywhere that pays attention to the "global NCAA Basketball situation". If there's anyone who gets it right a majority of the time, it's Katz. He's written many glowing articles about the Valley and Wichita State this year and in previous years.

For example, he wrote this before Maui:

Wichita State is the Missouri Valley favorite and a top-30 team.

I could have written that article, as could have virtually anyone on this forum, in ten minutes.

Go ahead and write one. I'd love to read it. Your clock starts now.

Allow me:

By all means we should let in "big conference" teams that are mediocre at best. After all, they play lots of sub-50 RPI teams over the course of the year. Sure, those games are compelled by forces greater than the teams themselves, and they managed to lose about half of them, and they provide a disincentive to scheduling top-50 teams outside the realm of that compulsion, but they're top 50 games for crying out loud! You have to reward that by letting them into the tournament, thereby perpetuating the system that makes it impossible for "mid-majors" to schedule top-50 games at all. Who could see a flaw in that logic?

Gonzaga doesn't have a problem with it. Neither does Butler. Neither does San Deigo State. George Mason is in the top 25 of the RPI. BYU is 2nd in the RPI. Xavier does alright each year. So does Memphis. Lot's of teams like Old Dominion, Cleveland State, Utah State, Princeton and Harvard are getting into the top 50 of the RPI being in horrendous conferences. Heck, in the Ivy League has half the conference under .500 and Princeton and Harvard are STILL higher in the RPI than Wichita State.
There are 19 of what I consider "mid major" teams in the top 52 of the RPI. That's nearly 37%. Two of them in the Top 5. TOP 5. Face it, your argument is a mid-major crutch that isn't needed.
Major conference teams, small conferences (that don't deserve more than one team in anyway) and bad mid major teams that aren't going to win more than they lose take up probably 75% of college basketball... Just a rough guess. Tthat leaves, what, probably 10-12 good mid major teams that might deserve an at large spot in the tournament? Maybe not even that many. Not this year anyway. You can't possibly sit there and tell me that New Mexico or Northern Iowa deserve a spot in the tournament over someone like West Virginia or even Missouri. I hate to say it, but if a team goes 19-9 and doesn't beat anyone over the course of the season, then a team that's 16-11 who beat a few top 25 teams along the way is getting in. Why? Because they actually beat someone. I'm not a BCS homer, but I'm getting tired of people who want to hand out bids to teams that don't deserve it.

[XManCometh]

The comparison might be valid if they were "chances for good wins," as these things are consistently referred to. But that is intellectually dishonest. What guys like Katz are saying is that when given the opportunity, a mid-major can and should get an upset over a higher-ranked team in order to justify even getting a chance to play in the tournament. But if a "middling" team loses to a higher ranked team within the conference, it is somehow no punishment because it just plays in a really tough conference. It is a painful double standard. If you play a team with a higher rank than you, the loss should be expected. If you play a team with a lower rank than you, the win should be expected. Justifying placement at all on the ability to beat those teams that are judged better than you makes no sense at all.

Taking this tortured logic to its certainly illogical conclusion, there would be four #1 seeds and no others. After all, you have to justify being placed in the tournament by proving you can beat a higher ranked team when you have the opportunity.

So what should be done about it? Throw conferences out the window? Throw RPI out the window? Throw the Top 25 out the window? Just go on record alone? If they did that there would be even LESS Mid Major teams in than there are now because the big schools like KU and Duke would just schedule Drake or VMI over and over again to rack up wins before conference starts. Should the NCAA step in and force Pitt or Duke to play nothing but Mid-Majors all non-conf so the small teams "get their chance"? Also there IS a punishment for playing in a major conference. You play tougher teams, which makes it tougher to get into the dance if you lose a million games. You think Marquette wishes they weren't in the Big East right now and in Conference USA still? I doubt they'd be "on the bubble" if they were.

[wusphlash]

Jay Bilas "It may not be fair but this is the world we are living in". This is where some of my Bilas bias comes from. This clip is from two years ago but still fun.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Watch-Jay-Bilas-and-Dick-Vitale-get-very-angry-w?urn=ncaab-148260

[tw805]

The comparison might be valid if they were "chances for good wins," as these things are consistently referred to. But that is intellectually dishonest. What guys like Katz are saying is that when given the opportunity, a mid-major can and should get an upset over a higher-ranked team in order to justify even getting a chance to play in the tournament. But if a "middling" team loses to a higher ranked team within the conference, it is somehow no punishment because it just plays in a really tough conference. It is a painful double standard. If you play a team with a higher rank than you, the loss should be expected. If you play a team with a lower rank than you, the win should be expected. Justifying placement at all on the ability to beat those teams that are judged better than you makes no sense at all.

Taking this tortured logic to its certainly illogical conclusion, there would be four #1 seeds and no others. After all, you have to justify being placed in the tournament by proving you can beat a higher ranked team when you have the opportunity.

So what should be done about it? Throw conferences out the window? Throw RPI out the window? Throw the Top 25 out the window? Just go on record alone? If they did that there would be even LESS Mid Major teams in than there are now because the big schools like KU and Duke would just schedule Drake or VMI over and over again to rack up wins before conference starts. Should the NCAA step in and force Pitt or Duke to play nothing but Mid-Majors all non-conf so the small teams "get their chance"? Also there IS a punishment for playing in a major conference. You play tougher teams, which makes it tougher to get into the dance if you lose a million games. You think Marquette wishes they weren't in the Big East right now and in Conference USA still? I doubt they'd be "on the bubble" if they were.

No, you provide incentive to play out of conference competition for the good of an overall evaluation of the team, as well as for the good of competition itself. Too many teams get to play crap teams in the non-conference and rely on the conference schedule to bring the RPI and SOS back up. If the committee would simply look at that objectively, they would see that this:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/239/baylor-bears

is not impressive. And Lunardi has them in at 11.

[wusphlash]

The comparison might be valid if they were "chances for good wins," as these things are consistently referred to. But that is intellectually dishonest. What guys like Katz are saying is that when given the opportunity, a mid-major can and should get an upset over a higher-ranked team in order to justify even getting a chance to play in the tournament. But if a "middling" team loses to a higher ranked team within the conference, it is somehow no punishment because it just plays in a really tough conference. It is a painful double standard. If you play a team with a higher rank than you, the loss should be expected. If you play a team with a lower rank than you, the win should be expected. Justifying placement at all on the ability to beat those teams that are judged better than you makes no sense at all.

Taking this tortured logic to its certainly illogical conclusion, there would be four #1 seeds and no others. After all, you have to justify being placed in the tournament by proving you can beat a higher ranked team when you have the opportunity.

So what should be done about it? Throw conferences out the window? Throw RPI out the window? Throw the Top 25 out the window? Just go on record alone? If they did that there would be even LESS Mid Major teams in than there are now because the big schools like KU and Duke would just schedule Drake or VMI over and over again to rack up wins before conference starts. Should the NCAA step in and force Pitt or Duke to play nothing but Mid-Majors all non-conf so the small teams "get their chance"? Also there IS a punishment for playing in a major conference. You play tougher teams, which makes it tougher to get into the dance if you lose a million games. You think Marquette wishes they weren't in the Big East right now and in Conference USA still? I doubt they'd be "on the bubble" if they were.

No, you provide incentive to play out of conference competition for the good of an overall evaluation of the team, as well as for the good of competition itself. Too many teams get to play crap teams in the non-conference and rely on the conference schedule to bring the RPI and SOS back up. If the committee would simply look at that objectively, they would see that this:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/239/baylor-bears

is not impressive. And Lunardi has them in at 11.

I think Baylor could easily go 1-4 the rest of the way.

[tw805]

Let's hope they do go 1-4 the rest of the way!

[Ashockalypse]

Yes the NCAA should step in on the scheduling and make Duke play AT Utah State and AT Alcorn State at least their fair share of the time in the nonconference so that it is FAIR. Katz said a mouthfull "Fair or not" that is the way it is. If the NCAA doesn't even want to set up its competition to be fair then it is really not hard to see why things are screwed up and why there will always be bitching about it. So when things are not fair that means they are unfair and if that is the way they want it then fine but the high majors should derive less satisfaction since they have stacked the deck in their favor.

The reality is that money governs everything and if Duke or Carolina or UCONN will only schedule what will preserve their place in the Heirarchy and ESPN will not pay as much for Duke vs. Missouri State in Springfield instead of Duke vs. Illinois in Madison Square Garden. The NCAA as an organization derives financial benefit from the stacked deck so they are not about to change it. The biggest TV markets and the schools whose teams have fans in those markets will always control.

[60Shock]

*****, *****, *****, *****, *****.

We know (and certainly our AD and head coach knows) what the system is and in general what the unwritten rules are to qualify for an at-large bid.

Until things change, which is very unlikely to ever happen as long as the BCS schools dictate the policy, we can either try and qualify by their rules or stand on the sidelines bitching that it is unfair. But nothing is going to change and as long as we keep our heads buried in the sand, we likely will rarely be granted an at-large bid.

So what do we do? Continue our fallacy of scheduling and beating up on cream puffs to balloon our won/loss record hoping that our quantity of weak wins will win out over other schools quality wins when we know going in, this will not be the case.

The situation is only going to get worse as the BCS conferences get larger and larger and today's top mid-majors get swallowed up.

HMMMMMMMMM. But that is another topic for another day.

[tw805]

*****, *****, *****, *****, *****.

We know (and certainly our AD and head coach knows) what the system is and in general what the unwritten rules are to qualify for an at-large bid.

Until things change, which is very unlikely to ever happen as long as the BCS schools dictate the policy, we can either try and qualify by their rules or stand on the sidelines bitching that it is unfair. But nothing is going to change and as long as we keep our heads buried in the sand, we likely will rarely be granted an at-large bid.

So what do we do? Continue our fallacy of scheduling and beating up on cream puffs to balloon our won/loss record hoping that our quantity of weak wins will win out over other schools quality wins when we know going in, this will not be the case.

The situation is only going to get worse as the BCS conferences get larger and larger and today's top mid-majors get swallowed up.

HMMMMMMMMM. But that is another topic for another day.

The last I checked, we were trying to schedule quality teams, but there was no incentive for the quality teams to schedule us, nor any disincentive for them to fail to do so. I wrote on here once about a conversation with the KU assistant AD, who described having no incentive to do anything but schedule horrible teams for guaranteed home wins, because they offered a lot of money with no penalty. They wanted no part of scheduling WSU even for a home game, because they couldn't guarantee the win. In his words, and I can't really dispute his point, "What's in it for us?"

When that is the case, I frankly do not understand the attitude that suggests everyone sit on the sidelines and refuse to speak, on the basis that while a blatant inequity exists, the power structure that keeps the inequity in place seems insurmountable.