Imagine a conference where...

[ShockTalk]

JH4P - 1) Anything is possible

2) If 18 bids are taken by auto bids from 1 bid conferences, that leaves 50 spots

3) Barring an upset in a conference tourney by a team not in the top 50 over a top 50 team, if you can PROVE that that 11th team is indeed a top 50 team, then yes, they can get in. I won't go so far as to say they should get in as that is not what your talking about with this hypo.

For me, and maybe some others, it's harder to understand how to justify something when you don't start with step #1 in the process, but jump to step 5 or 6. Like I said, anything is possible, but is it likely or justifiable. It's tough for me to get around the idea of a team under .500 in their league and well into that conference's second division, even if they are a top 50 team, getting in as I don't believe in that, but that's not the way it's set up. I guess it's also hard for me to understand how a #21 RPI team is not allowed in (SMS 2006), yet they may go out of their way to justify this scenario.

[SHOXAAC]

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.

Don't take this personal, but I might suggest moving forward in your analysis. You being polite and asking for feedback before moving on with such a large member base in this fan forum, although noble, can be counter productive. I believe you have many of us interested in the outcome of your hypothetical league theory. But in the interest of continuity, and an ADD mentality, please proceed.

[jdmee]

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.

Not exactly top 50, however Marquette was 131 OCC and is now at 68. They are 6-7 in the Big East, and you have them in before the mid major I was talking about Wichita State. They are close to having it happen.

I agree get along with your scenerio. Many of us are predicting where this is going and talking where we predict this is going to go.

[XManCometh]

I can't add much more to this conversation, but I'll throw this in there:

JH4P's hypothetical situation states that this 8-10 Major Conference team IS a Top 50 team. No doubt about it. We know this as fact because of the Magical powers Dick Vitale has in this hypothetical situation. 8)

Anyway, I believe there has to be some sort of firm rules set into place to get into the tournament. That way there's only a handful of teams in the argument for an At-Large birth and teams mostly know what they need to accomplish in any given season to get into the Dance. Here are a few off the top of my head:

1) Must finish .500 in conference. I don't care if you're the 12th best team in the country and the top 11 happen to be in the same conference as you. If you finish 8-10, you're out. Sorry.

2) Must have an RPI in the top 65. This is only for at-large teams, not auto-bids.

3) Must have at least 18 wins (Conference Tourny counts). If your RPI is in the top 65, you'll most likely have at least 18 wins.

That's all I'm coming up with right now. No reason to rack my brain. I'm sure many of you will have problems with this, but some others might not. I wanted to do something with OOC SOS, but couldn't come up with something on the spot.

[Kung Wu]

For those who don’t know, anomalous refers to deviating from what is usual or “the norm”. Kung Wu, I don’t understand why you have a problem with my hypothetical being unusual. All I am trying to look at is what would happen if 11 teams all “got good” at the same time in a 16 team conference. If that happened, I want to know if my scenario is a plausible way that things could play out. We can argue about the likelihood of my hypothetical ever happening, but that is distinct and separate from the conversation about what would happen if it did. Am I missing something?

What “4 statistical groups” did I show? What does this affect?

Finally, I “favored the bottom group by two extra wins”? So what. There are 128 games being played in this conference season, and you are complaining that the bottom teams won a total of 2 more than you would expect? This may not be the most likely outcome, but I just want to show that it is a reasonable one. My points are going to be made based on this scenario, and I just want to avoid people saying 'that could never happen". I believe the scenario I laid out is very realistic once you make the assumption that 11 top 50 teams have been placed in the same league.

Sorry for the late response -- have been too busy to Shockernet lately. Now that we know where you were going with this, most of my comments are irrelevant. I thought we were going to do a fun math exercise, but that's obviously not where you were headed.

Disregard.

[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.

Not exactly top 50, however Marquette was 131 OCC and is now at 68. They are 6-7 in the Big East, and you have them in before the mid major I was talking about Wichita State. They are close to having it happen.

I agree get along with your scenerio. Many of us are predicting where this is going and talking where we predict this is going to go.

Marquette's unbalanced schedule is fooling you. Their conf schedule is easier than average down the stretch. If they only finish 8-10, they are projected to see their RPI drop down to about 85. Even 9-9 will only get them to 69. It will take winning out and going 11-7 before their RPI will sniff the top 50.

OK, enough with that. My next post will get back on topic.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Alright, moving on with our original discussion...

if you can PROVE that that 11th team is indeed a top 50 team, then yes, they can get in. I won't go so far as to say they should get in as that is not what your talking about with this hypo.

It's tough for me to get around the idea of a team under .500 in their league and well into that conference's second division, even if they are a top 50 team, getting in as I don't believe in that, but that's not the way it's set up.

I believe there has to be some sort of firm rules set into place to get into the tournament. That way there's only a handful of teams in the argument for an At-Large birth and teams mostly know what they need to accomplish in any given season to get into the Dance.

These quotes are just a sample of the thought process I have seen expressed by many. I don't see anything wrong with what is being expressed. I disagree with some of it, but opinions are opinions. My main goal is to get a few things out in the open. Often times we state our opinion "A" but don't realize the unintended consequences "B" or "C" that must necessarily go along with it.

ShockTalk, you have pretty much made it clear that you "don't believe" a team with an 8-10 record should ever receive an atlarge bid. Although I would disagree, I think many on here feel the same way as you do. What I found interesting was that you simultaneously admitted that my hypothetical 8-10 team WAS INDEED a top 50 team. This is not necessarily a contradiction, but it requires 1 huge principal to be laid out...

"Principal #1" - In certain cases, a stronger team should be left out of the atlarge field in favor of a weaker team.

Remember, we are not talking about auto-bids here. Obviously, some very weak teams have won auto-bids over the years. We are talking about atlarge bids. I have almost never heard anyone argue, "Well, TEAM A is better than TEAM B, but I still think TEAM B should get in ahead of TEAM A." This is in effect what is being said, that we are not simply looking for the best teams, but that we are actually including other factors into the equation. XManCometh laid forth a set of rules that he would like to see set in place for identifying atlarge teams. Once again, I have seen many people in favor of these types of rules. However, I think it follows that arbitrarily laid out rules also require "Principal #1" to be established. Our discussion about sub .500 teams is actually just one of many rules that have been thrown out as possible ways to improve the NCAA field. I would like to propose that "improving the field" this way is equal to "not choosing the best teams". That is the next point I would like to discuss...

Are we really, seriously, actually wanting to admit that we are purposely not choosing the teams we think are best?

We can get into reasoning in a bit. For now, I would just like to know if anyone is ready to admit to believing in "Principal #1". If I am offering a false choice, let me know. If not, I'll quickly jump into discussing reasons to follow "Principal #1" or not. For now, I just want to know if you think I am laying out a fair argument.

Thoughts?

[MadDog]

JHFP, you ask: Are we really, seriously, actually wanting to admit that we are purposely not choosing the teams we think are best?

I don't think the guidelines being tossed out, such as not giving an at-large to a sub-500 record in league team, indicate that. Teams don't play the same schedules. How many opponents do WSU & Marquette have in common? I just don't know how you compare the two and can draw an absolute conclusion about who is better.

People may say the tournament is about the best teams determining the national champion. But is that all there is to it? I think not. The first weekend is the most watched because thats where the special moments are... when David beats Goliath. If Marquette beats Purdue, is that an upset? Technically I suppose it is. But is it an upset any one can feel good about? Will people still be talking about it next year like UNI-KU? Of course not. If you make this thing an all BCS at large tournament, where the schools with all the money and all the advantages are the only ones that get to play, the fun will be gone. And eventually, the TV ratings will go too...

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

JHFP, you ask: Are we really, seriously, actually wanting to admit that we are purposely not choosing the teams we think are best?

I don't think the guidelines being tossed out, such as not giving an at-large to a sub-500 record in league team, indicate that. Teams don't play the same schedules. How many opponents do WSU & Marquette have in common? I just don't know how you compare the two and can draw an absolute conclusion about who is better.

MadDog, let me know if this is a good paraphrase of what you just said:

It is not that we are purposely avoiding choosing the best teams; it is that we are unable to definitively determine who they are. Instead of making what amounts to educated guesses, we need rules set ahead of time to help make the process less subjective. If we accidentally choose a slightly lesser team in the process, so be it. That is probably already happening anyway due to the impossibility of making absolute rankings using the current system.

If my paraphrase is correct, then I have no problem with what you said. In that case, your intent is good. I have plenty of follow-up questions about implementing these new rules, but I’ll save those for after you respond to my paraphrase.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

People may say the tournament is about the best teams determining the national champion. But is that all there is to it? I think not. The first weekend is the most watched because thats where the special moments are... when David beats Goliath. If Marquette beats Purdue, is that an upset? Technically I suppose it is. But is it an upset any one can feel good about? Will people still be talking about it next year like UNI-KU? Of course not. If you make this thing an all BCS at large tournament, where the schools with all the money and all the advantages are the only ones that get to play, the fun will be gone. And eventually, the TV ratings will go too...

MadDog,

In this case, it seems that you are touting the benefits of Cinderellas in the NCAA Tourney over mid-level BCS teams. Right, wrong, good, bad, or otherwise, isn't this an argument for choosing teams other than the absolute best?

[SHOXAAC]

People may say the tournament is about the best teams determining the national champion. But is that all there is to it? I think not. The first weekend is the most watched because thats where the special moments are... when David beats Goliath. If Marquette beats Purdue, is that an upset? Technically I suppose it is. But is it an upset any one can feel good about? Will people still be talking about it next year like UNI-KU? Of course not. If you make this thing an all BCS at large tournament, where the schools with all the money and all the advantages are the only ones that get to play, the fun will be gone. And eventually, the TV ratings will go too...

MadDog,

In this case, it seems that you are touting the benefits of Cinderellas in the NCAA Tourney over mid-level BCS teams. Right, wrong, good, bad, or otherwise, isn't this an argument for choosing teams other than the absolute best?

I think you can have a Cinderella story even in the best case scenerio of having the most deserving 68 teams. Most deserving meaning it's a given that of the 31 auto-bid conferences, about 16-18 of the auto-bids are not going to be even close to the top 68 teams (conferences like Sun Belt, etc...), but it's the rules that have been delt. When the likes of Richmond, College of Charlston, Oakland and Belmont make the dance and beat a Goliath, it will continue to give us fans those lasting March Madness memories.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

SHOXMVC, I agree that we can have Cinderellas AND have the best teams choosen. They are not mutually exclusive.

Back to the main topic... this seems like the first instance where someone is directly saying they prefer to NOT pick the best teams in some instances. I'm interested what everyone else thinks. Anyone else care to admit that this is their preference as well? MadDog, if I'm misrepresenting you, please correct me.

[MadDog]

jHFP yes, I would say you paraphrased me correctly in both instances.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

jHFP yes, I would say you paraphrased me correctly in both instances.

Awesome! Looks like I can move right along then. Hopefully either tomorrow or Wednesday I'll take this one step further.

[Kung Wu]

"Principal #1" - In certain cases, a stronger team should be left out of the atlarge field in favor of a weaker team.

There is a scenario where that is desirable. In the event that a key player is injured, suspended, or arrested at the end of the season and the team has lost several consecutive games as a consequence.

The loss of O'Rear has devestated UNI, as an example. If we wanted the strongest three teams in the Valley we couldn't look at the RPI anymore. We would have to look at the state of the teams and weight their recent streaks.