Should teams with a conference record below .500 be considered for an at large bid?

[FadedCrown]

[FadedCrown]

Just to throw this out there, TCU is a team that was discussed in the Bracketology thread, they have a KenPom of 49.

49 TCU - 18-12 (6-11) Big 12
51 Belmont - 25-4 (16-2) Ohio Valley

I could easily see TCU going 16-2 in the Ohio Valley.

[ShockerPrez]

I could easily see Belmont going 6-11 in the big 12

[WuShock16]

"I could easily see TCU going 16-2 in the Ohio Valley."

No, they wouldn't...because Jamie Dixon wouldn't be TCU's coach if TCU played in the OVC.

[ShockingButTrue]

They probably could go 16-2.

I could also easily see Belmont beating the sooners. No? Belmont could never beat the sooners?

[wusphlash]

I just don't believe the strength of a conference entitles teams with records under .500. They're losers. I believe I heard one of the braketologists speak to how poorly these teams do in the tournament.

Think of the late season games that could happen between teams trying to get to the .500 mark.

Unfortunately it is never going to change.

[Dan]

exactly. They have a proven over the conference season that they can't win tough games. Why reward teams that either can't win on the road or can't beat good teams. Teams like Belmont might be thought of as inferior but at least they win and should be given a shot of proving their worth on the bigger stage.

[JVShocker]

No. No no no no no. Please don't get me started on this topic. I always thought the NCAA Tournament was a showcase of college basketball's best teams. Pitting the best teams in the entire country against one another to see which team is the best (at least on that particular night). It shouldn't be a reward for playing a good non conference schedule early in the season. The non conference play is the test or battle ground, where your team learns what it is capable of. How can we win, what makes us lose games. Many times those early non-conference games are fluke wins. Two of the most important things to look at in regards to Tourney success are 1. How did they finish the season and 2. How did they play on the road. If your last 9 games your record is 3 wins, 6 losses - and your conference record is 6 wins and 10 losses, there is no argument for you to be included in at-large bid-talk. None. No. no no no no no.

Prove it. Beat a far better team in your over rated conference tonight if you want to make a statement.

[ShockTalk]

"Prove it. Beat a far better team in your over rated conference tonight if you want to make a statement."

You mean like West Virginia beating KU? Or Texas beating KSU? Or TCU beating ISU twice and also Baylor?

[Dan]

so the year we went tot he Final 4, the fact that Evansville beat us twice meant they were worthy of consideration? It's not a handful of good wins that gets you in, the body of work.

[JVShocker]

Oklahoma should beat KU for consideration.

And if Evansville was 12-5 in league that year, swept us, and had a "body of work" that merited at large consideration, including road good road wins, then YES Evansville should be in. No arguments from me. Strength of conference is irrelevant because ALL conferences are worthy of merit. That's why teams from so called "power conferences" rarely schedule road games, opting for the neutral court TV game to "showcase" their talents. Nobody wants to get beat on Evansville's home court, but hey, (sh)it happens. By the same token, having a body of work that is sufficient in road play, going 12-5 in conference and LOSING in your conference tourney should not preclude a team from getting in. OU is not 12-5.

[Kel Varnsen]

Absolutely, they should be considered. Now, they should only be considered if they meet other metrics (high marks in computer ratings, SOS, estimated record of a bubble team vs. their schedule, etc.), but there are instances where that should be the case.

[ShockTalk]

Frankly, I look at the regular season as the first proving ground. Second, is a boarder line team improving late in the regular season. Third chance is winning conference tournaments (maybe making the finals). That's 3 opportunities to show you should get another chance.

I understand the money grab by the NCAA and power conferences, but the tournament would only be a shell of itself without all the underdogs. It's just totally disinteresting to see teams in the field with bad losing records (in conference). I could get on board with 8-10 (just 1 loss from .500 in conference), but 7-11 or worse is just or poor look for the NCAA.

[JVShocker]

This. Agreed.
Its the CBS Tourney. THEY decide who gets in. I'd rather watch the BEST 1-3 teams from every conference play than be subjected to another Michigan/Michigan State. And when (if) it comes down to the tourney being nothing more than power schools playing each other, I imagine that like many people, I will become disinterested.

[ShockBand]

I just noticed this morning that Penn State has a NET ranking of 48 with an overall record of 12-17. So the NET must seriously apply the theory of "good losses" and compound them, right?

I thought about having a rule of .500 or better in conference, or at least 20 wins overall, but would that encourage middle of the pack P5 teams to schedule nothing but softies in the non-conference season? Of course doing that would mean they would not be as ready as they should for their conference season.

FBS football has a clear line, 6 wins to be bowl eligible, why not a similar rule for hoops?

[FadedCrown]

No, Penn State is a decent team according to efficiency.

[ShockTalk]

I guess they're just not quite efficient enough among their own conference, however. This is why you have "conference tournaments". Let's give them one more chance within their own conference to check their worthiness for the Dance. Otherwise, go away.

[ShockerFever]

Penn State should join the Moral Victory Conference.

[ShockCrazy]

I just noticed this morning that Penn State has a NET ranking of 48 with an overall record of 12-17. So the NET must seriously apply the theory of "good losses" and compound them, right?

I thought about having a rule of .500 or better in conference, or at least 20 wins overall, but would that encourage middle of the pack P5 teams to schedule nothing but softies in the non-conference season? Of course doing that would mean they would not be as ready as they should for their conference season.

FBS football has a clear line, 6 wins to be bowl eligible, why not a similar rule for hoops?

Penn State is really weird. KenPom has them at 43. They are 346 of 353 in luck. They have been really unfortunate in close games add in the 2nd toughest SOS in KenPom and 3rd in NET and you end up with a well below .500 team who is probably much better than their record shows. They've played 3 games games against teams with NET 150+ only one of those at home, one was in their non-con tourney, so they didn't put it on the schedule, and the other was offically @Duquesne, though a pseudo neutral game.

[ShockerFever]

The NCAA Tournament should be full of winners, not losers.

If your conference is too tough for you, then leave and go to an “easier” conference. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

[WstateU]

I 100% agree... don’t reward mediocrity.

[ShockTalk]

Well, I guess the NCAA thinks you can, but you shouldn't. Just stupid.

[BOBB]

No

[ShockingButTrue]

Penn State is really weird. KenPom has them at 43. They are 346 of 353 in luck. They have been really unfortunate in close games add in the 2nd toughest SOS in KenPom and 3rd in NET and you end up with a well below .500 team who is probably much better than their record shows. They've played 3 games games against teams with NET 150+ only one of those at home, one was in their non-con tourney, so they didn't put it on the schedule, and the other was offically @Duquesne, though a pseudo neutral game.

Explain the luck metric.

They're as good as their record shows they are. Hypotheticals are nice and all, but reality reveals a Lions loss to the Bradley Braves. That loss doesn't mean Penn St. wouldn't win the Valley, any more than their schedule proves they would (hypothetically of course). There are better teams out there than Penn St. to use as criteria to endorse the validity of a what-if scenario, and sometimes better methods too. Just sayin'. Not trying to get into a long winded debate.

[Horn28Clem30]

I know i'm in the vast minority here, but I would much rather see a talented 6-10 conference team in then a team from the OVC or A-Sun or whatever who beat up on garbage competition all year, who are just going to get smoked in the tourney.

[WstateU]

P5 tournament, here we come. Yea!

https://media.giphy.com/media/ZhBG5GM5BuQik/giphy.gif

[ShockTalk]

I rather see the next best conference champion that lost their conference tournament than a second division conference....well, loser as ShockerFever says.

Either cut out half the D-I conferences to make D-I(a) or cut out those for the Dance that can't get it done in their own conference.

[ShockingButTrue]

I know i'm in the vast minority here, but I would much rather see a talented 6-10 conference team in then a team from the OVC or A-Sun or whatever who beat up on garbage competition all year, who are just going to get smoked in the tourney.

Like the Ramblers running k-state out of the gym, and tournament, last year? Isn't the Valley without WSU at the level of the OVC?

How about a Conference USA team with 10 losses?

[WSUwatcher]

Loyola was very fortunate to get where they did (look at their divinely inspired results in the first three rounds), but get there they did. And they stand as an embarrassment to the Power5 apologists, and will do so for years. Way to go, Sister!

[ShockerFever]

I know i'm in the vast minority here, but I would much rather see a talented 6-10 conference team in then a team from the OVC or A-Sun or whatever who beat up on garbage competition all year, who are just going to get smoked in the tourney.

Like UMBC did to Virginia last year?

[Horn28Clem30]

Yeah, cuz those happen so often. The probability of a blowout and a bad basketball from a shitty conference team is WAY more likely than the outliers. Just my opinion. I prefer good basketball in the tourney.

[ShockerPrez]

Perhaps a losing record in conference isn't the end all, but when you are taking the 7th and 8th place teams in a conference and their record is 4 games below .500 against the 'real' teams, why are they worthy for a shot at the title?

As we know, playing 20 games against teams who give you their best shot every game and winning means something.

Knowing you can jerk off on half your games and know you don't have to give your best every game and still get a bid is not what the tourney is about.

Rewarding mediocrity is what this is.

[Horn28Clem30]

Yeah but that 7th or 8th place team in the big12, ACC etc is going to basically win (and more than likely go unbeaten) in about every non P-6 conference.

[pie n eye]

I very seriously doubt that, Horn28Clem30, but
I have no way to prove it one way or the other.

[Horn28Clem30]

No argument at all, it's just conjecture on anyone's part. I can say one way and can't be proven wrong, but i can't prove the other side is wrong either.