Wichita State: at Tulsa (02/05/23)

[Kung Wu]

I would be fine with that, in the sense that conference regular season champs should get the auto bid instead of the tournament champion. It implies that your season matters more than a three or four game stretch. It is frustrating seeing a team like Belmont or Furman destroy their conference competition, only to lose a championship game by a possession.

That said, and I think this might be what you’re getting at, each conference in Division 1 should have a chance to get into the tournament. Most will only have one bid, but that creates a better tournament.

While I believe strongly in this philosophy for at-large bids, the automatic bid process should remain the same.

Yeah, from a pure statistical point you are right -- conference wins/losses cutoff would be artificial. But from a pure statistical standpoint there should be no automatic bids either then. But the whole country likes the automatic bid process and therefore doesn't want a purely statistical bracket system.

Part of that is because power conference bottom dwellers get an artificial boost simply from conference affiliation and being rewarded to play nobody-home games in non-con. Teams in other conferences don't have that luxury. So along with automatic bids, I think most people agree that power conferences should have a cap on the number of entries they get into the tournament. One reasonable way to set that cap is by requiring a 0.500 win/loss record in your conference.

It's not statistically correct, but it's a decent way to minimize power conference incest and allow other schools to reap financial and recruiting rewards of participating in the tournament.

[WuShock16]

My response would be, they can leave the conference if it’s too tough for them and join an “easier” mid major league and see if that makes it easier for them to make the tournament.

These teams also get a billion chances at quality wins, and half of them at home. They have way more opportunity than the little guy. If they can’t win more games than they lose, then they are by definition losers and should make other plans in March.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

You shouldn’t get to benefit from all of the advantages of being in high-profile conferences and then complain that it’s too hard.

[Kel Varnsen]

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

You shouldn’t get to benefit from all of the advantages of being in high-profile conferences and then complain that it’s too hard.

But the big conference teams could say the opposite about small conference teams as well. "You shouldn't get to beat up on minnows in your conference and complain that you get no respect nationally when a team from a big conference would perform similarly or better."

The method I'm advocating would account for all of that, admittedly due to the work of people much smarter than myself. I looked at it for last season, and the following teams would have changed if we were using WAB per Torvik instead of a committee.

In	Conference Record	Out	Conference Record
SMU	13-4	Davidson	15-3
Wake Forest	13-7	Iowa St.	7-11
Texas A&M	9-9	Michigan	11-9
Oklahoma	7-11	Wyoming	13-5
North Texas	16-2	Rutgers	12-8
VCU	14-4	Indiana	9-11
BYU	9-6	Notre Dame	15-5

So it would have left two teams out who have losing records in conference, while adding one. Iowa St. played a joke of a schedule to start the non-conference portion of the season, so this makes sense. Notre Dame makes sense because the ACC was weak last year and they had a terrible non-con.

Anyways, there's just such a better way to do the selection process than what the committee does right now. The NET doesn't know what it's measuring, and while it's better than the RPI, it's still a poor way to evaluate teams.

[Kel Varnsen]

One reasonable way to set that cap is by requiring a 0.500 win/loss record in your conference.

It's not statistically correct, but it's a decent way to minimize power conference incest and allow other schools to reap financial and recruiting rewards of participating in the tournament.

I think that's probably a fair point, but I still believe that we have to account for record relative to schedule both ways.

[forevershockerfan]

That was an impressive dunk by the Tulsa player. However, in the Valley, they might have waved it off for charging into Porter, No?

[TrackSuitAndTie]

I don't think teams (power conference or otherwise) should be rewarded for losing a lot of close games, even if they have strong metrics.

[Shockm]

I agree with a decent amount of what you’re saying. High-major teams have been favored by the selection committee compared to mid and low majors (again, something I have a deep-seeded problem with).

Some of this has to do with the problem of the selection committee process, which we can all agree is inconsistent, and the advent of the NET, which is a metric that has no clue what it’s measuring, and while better than the abomination that was the RPI, is still lackluster.

I simply think that there’s a way (WAB, SOR) to evaluate teams that eliminates that bias against mid-majors and low-majors, while standardizing for strength of schedule. It would typically favor those non-high major schools if you applied it historically, but would also account for the few high-major schools who happened to play a ridiculously tough schedule. Which to me is fair.

These advanced metrics lack consistency and vary quite a bit too. It still depends a lot on the ("beauty of the beholder") so the bias' will never not be a part of the process. Now with the NIL, while some schools that aren't in the Power conferences can still compete, it's getting more difficult. It's impossible to get rid of the Power bias, and as I said above, it's getting worse, which is what television pushes. However, they should be careful what they want when more non-power conference fans stop paying attention.

[SubGod22]

I’ll challenge this. Why so?

If we can make an arbitrary cutoff based on win percentage in conference, why can’t we establish a cutoff based on win percentage in conference relative to conference schedule strength? Clearly there are conferences that are better than others, so shouldn’t we keep that in mind? Strength of schedule has long been a metric by which we have judged teams, and although it hasn’t been applied properly, can be a useful part of an overall team evaluation. “Well you haven’t played anyone and lost three or four conference games!” shouldn’t be an argument either, in the reverse sense.

I have long been an ardent defender of the fact that small schools (particularly UNCG a few years ago) have been absolutely hosed in terms of the lack of objectivity in the selection process. So this should not be construed as some sort of defense of power conference schools.

However, we have to evaluate record relative to schedule if we evaluate tournament resumes. There are many people doing this. Wins Above Bubble is available via Torvik and Seth Burn, and Strength of Record is available on ESPN as well. They’re both resume-based metrics as opposed to predictive metrics, but they also rely on predictive metrics to establish a baseline for the strength of teams, influencing a prediction of an average bubble team against a given schedule. So if you play a bunch of top 25 teams based on predictive metrics within your conference, the evaluation of your team should absolutely change because of that.

Anyways, wanted to challenge this way of thinking because I believe it’s overly simplistic and leads to making judgments on one end that we wouldn’t like to have made the other way. Also, the population of teams this applies to is fairly small.

If you can't finish above .500 in your conference you don't deserve a shot at the national title unless you win your auto bid. I'd much rather see teams that don't get a boost from losing to good teams that actually win games than yet another low level P school that doesn't deserve a chance and won't do anything anyway. At least that first or second place team in a "lesser" conference has shown an ability to win. Why punish them because the P schools won't play them? Why reward P schools that get all of their wins against mostly weak competition and then ride the coattails of their conference mates who generally beat them?

I'm not negating the games in tougher conferences, but if you can't win them, should it really matter?

[SubGod22]

I think that's probably a fair point, but I still believe that we have to account for record relative to schedule both ways.

That would be accounted for, at least when considering .500 teams compared to .800 teams.

[ShockingButTrue]

Some of this has to do with the problem of the selection committee process, which we can all agree is inconsistent, and the advent of the NET, which is a metric that has no clue what it’s measuring, and while better than the abomination that was the RPI, is still lackluster.

Here's an idea; let's replace RPI with something new and improved, just like Coke back in the day, and call it a 'Quadrant' based merit projection. That way inherent RPI bias won't be drawn upon to measure value. Genius...

[WstateU]

Here's an idea; let's replace RPI with something new and improved, just like Coke back in the day, and call it a 'Quadrant' based merit projection. That way inherent RPI bias won't be drawn upon to measure value. Genius...

[Kel Varnsen]

Here's an idea; let's replace RPI with something new and improved, just like Coke back in the day, and call it a 'Quadrant' based merit projection. That way inherent RPI bias won't be drawn upon to measure value. Genius...

The quadrant “metrics” are rubbish.

[WuShock16]

But the big conference teams could say the opposite about small conference teams as well. "You shouldn't get to beat up on minnows in your conference and complain that you get no respect nationally when a team from a big conference would perform similarly or better."

I can shut that argument down really quickly:

Big Conference: 2014 WSU, you only played in the Valley. You aren’t that good.
WSU: Fine, then put us in the Big 12.
KU/KSU: Oh, **** no!

You can’t hammer a team for having a weak conference but then not let said team in bigger conference.

[Kung Wu]

Also the "played nobody" argument fails, if "somebody" won't play you.

[Kel Varnsen]

I can shut that argument down really quickly:

Big Conference: 2014 WSU, you only played in the Valley. You aren’t that good.
WSU: Fine, then put us in the Big 12.
KU/KSU: Oh, **** no!

You can’t hammer a team for having a weak conference but then not let said team in bigger conference.

So you think that Gonzaga should be allowed in the Pac-12 and no schools should object? Even though they don't have football and don't align university-wise with any of the other universities in the conference? And you think that the universities in the Pac-12 should be fine with them being a money drain on the conference? Because that's what we would be in the Big 12.

The Big 12 should never have let us in the way the university was constituted in 2014 and is constituted now. We don't line up with them on a whole lot of things. That's fine. But as far as the tournament is concerned, let's just adjust for the fact that teams are in different conferences and have different strengths of schedule.