Imagine a conference where...

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

In you hypo situation you want it written in stone that the 11 place BCS is better than the mid champ. No question about it. Correct ?

Actually, that doesn't matter. A mid champ was introduced sort of as a side discussion.

I simply want to talk about a scenario where 11 top 50 teams play in the same league and are all top 50 type teams all season long. I want to know if it would be reasonable to see 1 of our 11 top 50 teams finish at 8-10, even with the assumption that they play like a top 50 team the whole season. Given the fact that there has to be a loser every time a game is played, I'm saying that it is very possible that some team would end up going 8-10.

[moshock]

In you hypo situation you want it written in stone that the 11 place BCS is better than the mid champ. No question about it. Correct ?

Actually, that doesn't matter. A mid champ was introduced sort of as a side discussion.

I simply want to talk about a scenario where 11 top 50 teams play in the same league and are all top 50 type teams all season long. I want to know if it would be reasonable to see 1 of our 11 top 50 teams finish at 8-10, even with the assumption that they play like a top 50 team the whole season. Given the fact that there has to be a loser every time a game is played, I'm saying that it is very possible that some team would end up going 8-10.

I understand what you are saying and I don't want to go backwards here but if they lose 10 games in the league they have only proven that they cant compete with the top 49. A lot also depends on where the 10 teams in front of them are....are they all top 10 ? 20 ? 30 ?

The Mid team has proven nothing other than they are winners.

IMHO the 11th place BCS team has already played their tourney and proven they don't belong.

[The Mad Hatter]

One of the very reasons that a conference like the Big East can have 10-11 quality teams is that the elite teams at the top of the conference generate huge media attention and revenue for the conference as a whole.

As such, every team in that conference has advantages in media exposure and recruiting on the basis of conference affiliation. There is clearly nothing wrong with this. However, if teams are going to get the benefit of better exposure and recruiting because of their conference affiliation, they should also have to live the with difficulty of winning games in that conference.

They shouldn't be simply given all the benefits of being in such a conference, but excused from living with the consequences of failing to be in the top half of their conference or have a winning conference record.

So you are advocating that the #51 team in the country (if they are a mid-major) should be chosen over the #50 team in the country (if they are BCS) simply because the #50 team was only a little better, and not a lot better?

How do we determine how much better the BCS team has to be than the mid-major? A little better? A medium amount better? A lot better?

What about within the MVC? If WSU is slightly better than UNI, does UNI still get the bid because they were working with so much less fanbase and revenue?

This sounds like a judgement nightmare and something to stay far away from.

No it is a matter of saying there is an objective standard to getting into the NCAA (i.e. having a winning record in conference), just like there is a minimum win total to be bowl eligible in football.

This actually eliminates the judgment call problems of trying to figure out if a team that couldn't even win half of their conference games deserves to be in the NCAAs. It sets a clear standard for what you have to do to be eligible, while not really hurting the big conferences because they would still have plenty of at-large eligible teams and would still get way more bids than the smaller conferences.

There are way more judgment calls under the system you are advocating (our current system) than one that sets an objective standard that must be met to be NCAA eligible.

[ShockTalk]

One of the very reasons that a conference like the Big East can have 10-11 quality teams is that the elite teams at the top of the conference generate huge media attention and revenue for the conference as a whole.

As such, every team in that conference has advantages in media exposure and recruiting on the basis of conference affiliation. There is clearly nothing wrong with this. However, if teams are going to get the benefit of better exposure and recruiting because of their conference affiliation, they should also have to live the with difficulty of winning games in that conference.

They shouldn't be simply given all the benefits of being in such a conference, but excused from living with the consequences of failing to be in the top half of their conference or have a winning conference record.

So you are advocating that the #51 team in the country (if they are a mid-major) should be chosen over the #50 team in the country (if they are BCS) simply because the #50 team was only a little better, and not a lot better?

How do we determine how much better the BCS team has to be than the mid-major? A little better? A medium amount better? A lot better?

What about within the MVC? If WSU is slightly better than UNI, does UNI still get the bid because they were working with so much less fanbase and revenue?

This sounds like a judgement nightmare and something to stay far away from.

No it is a matter of saying there is an objective standard to getting into the NCAA (i.e. having a winning record in conference), just like there is a minimum win total to be bowl eligible in football.

This actually eliminates the judgment call problems of trying to figure out if a team that couldn't even win half of their conference games deserves to be in the NCAAs. It sets a clear standard for what you have to do to be eligible, while not really hurting the big conferences because they would still have plenty of at-large eligible teams and would still get way more bids than the smaller conferences.

There are way more judgment calls under the system you are advocating (our current system) than one that sets an objective standard that must be met to be NCAA eligible.

I like where you're heading with this and using the BCS's own cash cow as a basis for it.

[Snapshot9]

What if the BCS team, 8-10, won their 8 games by an average of 6 points, and the MId-Major team won theirs by an average of 14 points? Wouldn't that be an argument for the Mid-Major team being chosen over the BCS team for the Dance?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

What if the BCS team, 8-10, won their 8 games by an average of 6 points, and the MId-Major team won theirs by an average of 14 points? Wouldn't that be an argument for the Mid-Major team being chosen over the BCS team for the Dance?

What if that question should be asked in another thread? :D

Seriously, this thread is not about how to evaluate teams. That is a long conversation that can be discussed elsewhere. This thread is about choosing atlarge teams AFTER YOU HAVE ALREADY EVALUATED teams relative to each other.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Let’s expand a bit more on our hypothetical. Our 11th place team (let’s call them “TEAM A”) has 9 home games and 9 road games. The 3 teams they play twice are the 2nd, 6th, and 14th best teams in the conference. Now, let’s look at how they might reach a record of 8-10. Green = Win, Red = Loss. 2 games went into OT.

2
@6
6
@11 (OT)
@17
21
@25
25
31
@36
40
@45
109
@116 (OT)
@121
121
@149
225

Does this seem reasonable? Remember, one of our 11 top 50 teams had to finish in 11th place. Not everyone can finish 1st or 2nd. Someone had to get a little unlucky, catch multiple teams on hot shooting nights, etc. For the purposes of this hypothetical, we are not evaluating how good this team is based on their record. We are assuming this team is a top 50 team and are then evaluating if this record is a possible outcome.

You either think this outcome is possible, or you don’t. Which is it?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I understand what you are saying and I don't want to go backwards here but if they lose 10 games in the league they have only proven that they cant compete with the top 49.

See my new post with the breakdown of the schedule and results.

4-8 vs top 50
3-2 vs 100-150
1-0 vs 150+

To say that this team "can't compete with the top 49" is an exageration.

Also, let me premptively state that we should assume this team had a reasonable non-conf season, just as you would expect from a top 50 team. I don't really want to get into specifics there, because that isn't what this is all about. I just want to avoid hearing people say how bad 3-2 is against 100-150. When you look at the entire season, that stat will look better.

[jdmee]

The problem people have with this 11th place team is that they can be the 130th best team out of conference, not play anybody, play all their games at home, now go 8-10 in conference and become the 50th best team.

Now you have the 55th best team a mid major rated 35th non conference, go 15-3 in conference, this team played two top 10 teams close but lose both, have a few teams not do as good as hoped.

The team in the best conference has no incentive to play anybody out of conference. Do decent in conference and they are golded. The mid major has to scratch and claw for any game they can get, have a couple of tough losses against the teams they do get, and not have a chance.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The problem people have with this 11th place team is that they can be the 130th best team out of conference, not play anybody, play all their games at home, now go 8-10 in conference and become the 50th best team.

Now you have the 55th best team a mid major rated 35th non conference, go 15-3 in conference, this team played two top 10 teams close but lose both, have a few teams not do as good as hoped.

The team in the best conference has no incentive to play anybody out of conference. Do decent in conference and they are golded. The mid major has to scratch and claw for any game they can get, have a couple of tough losses against the teams they do get, and not have a chance.

Don't tell me what this team "could be". I ALREADY TOLD YOU THEY ARE A TOP 50 TEAM. Why is it so hard for everyone to understand that?

The question remains... This team IS a top 50 team. Could they actually end up going 8-10 in my hypothetical league? It is a simple yes or no. If no, explain yourself, but please relate your answer to the question.

[jdmee]

If you read my response I called them a top 50 team. I also showed that before the conference season started they can be rated in RPI terms as the 130th best team. They can play 8-10 as conference and bring themselves up to the 50th best team.

I also showed that a mid major can RPI wise play themselves as the 35th best team out of conference, go 15-3 in conference and play themselves down to the 55th best team.

I agreed they are the 50th best team.
I agreed they can go 8-10 in conference.
But I am pointing out how that team got to be the 50th best team.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I am not speaking of RPI rank. I am speaking about actual rank. Our BCS team was never 130th in the non-con. I keep saying that they are a top 50 team and have been all season long.

Did you read this?

Also, let me premptively state that we should assume this team had a reasonable non-conf season, just as you would expect from a top 50 team.

This whole thread I have been trying to point out that this team is not just ranked top 50 using a specific ranking system, they ARE TOP 50. This is not a debate on if this team is overrated. jdmee, your entire argument deals with the idea that this BCS team is simply enjoying the benefits of a system structured to their advantage. When you complain about "how they got to be the 50th best team", you are implying that they aren't really a top 50 team, but they have managed to be a top 50 team in the rankings.

Can someone help me out here? I can't figure out how to make this any more clear.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

One more thing,

jdmee, you are making things up about a team being 130 in the RPI in the non-conf and then being able to be top 50 by simply going 8-10. This has never, ever happened.

Look at Michigan State this year. Their non-conf RPI was 59. They are now 6-7 in the 2nd rated conference in the country, and their RPI has only moved up to 50.

No team could be outside the top 100 of the RPI after the non-conference and then finish top 50 after having a losing record in conference play. Not even close.

Sorry, that was a side argument, but I wanted to point out how completely false some of the arguments being thrown out there really are.

[Shocker Rocker]

Solution: 346-team tournament. :)

[NCAABound]

:wacko: