Teams that don't deserve an invite....

[ShockTalk]

Virginia - No
Arizona St - No
Colorado - No
Oklahoma - Yes
Baylor - No
Iowa st - Yes
Iowa - No
Minnesota - No
ISUblue - No
CU - Yes
Belmont - Yes
Murray St - Yes
Detroit - No
Kentucky - Yes
Bama - No
Tennessee - No

Let see:

Minnesota, Big 10, 18-9, projected RPI #22, SOS #2
vs
Murray St, Ohio Valley, 20-7, projected RPI #99, SOS #228

As much as I don't like teams with losing conference records getting in, Minnesota has probably made the best arguement to getting in.

No way Murray St is in short of winning the auto. Eastern Kentucky in the Ohio Valley has a better record and higher RPI.

[SubGod22]

There's no way Murray gets in as an at-large. Belmont, maybe.

I do think that you should have to have a winning conference record to get in. Maybe .500.

[ShockBand]

I agree Sub, I wish they would add a rule that your conference record must be .500 or better to be considered.

[pinstripers]

There's no way Murray gets in as an at-large. Belmont, maybe.

I do think that you should have to have a winning conference record to get in. Maybe .500.

good idea

[rrshock]

The minimum .500 in conference should absolutely be a requirement. The BCS conferences always seem to get teams in that are under .500. The year that the Big East got 9 in, I believe only 6 of them had winning records in conference. Heck, I think one of them was even in a play-in round game at the conference tourney.

[molly jabali]

well, that kind of goes back to the argument...do you want the best 64 teams.....or more of a spread out pie...because, trust me, Minnesota (this years' example) is for real...but with 5 other 'for real teams' ahead of them...

I see both sides, actually...

[jdmee]

The minimum .500 in conference should absolutely be a requirement. The BCS conferences always seem to get teams in that are under .500. The year that the Big East got 9 in, I believe only 6 of them had winning records in conference. Heck, I think one of them was even in a play-in round game at the conference tourney.

This is a bad example. The team that was in the play-in round of the conference tourney actually happened to win the National Title that year.

[rrshock]

This is a bad example. The team that was in the play-in round of the conference tourney actually happened to win the National Title that year.

That's right. I forgot that. I thought that UCONN wasn't a play-in team. But I think you get my point with this.

[shockmonster]

The minimum .500 in conference should absolutely be a requirement. The BCS conferences always seem to get teams in that are under .500. The year that the Big East got 9 in, I believe only 6 of them had winning records in conference. Heck, I think one of them was even in a play-in round game at the conference tourney.

More often than not this is the way it should be. How often do you see the BCS teams avoid leaving home and/or playing non-BCS teams in the non-con? They take the easier road in the non-con and then play less than 500 in theirconference schedule.

[Shocker85]

The minimum .500 in conference should absolutely be a requirement. The BCS conferences always seem to get teams in that are under .500. The year that the Big East got 9 in, I believe only 6 of them had winning records in conference. Heck, I think one of them was even in a play-in round game at the conference tourney.

2011.

UConn was 9-9 in the Big East. 12-0 in the non-con. 9th place in the Big East. They won 11 elimination games in a row to win the national championship. Would they have made the NCAA tournament if they hadn't won the Big East Tournament? Possibly not.

I am not a BCS apologist by any stretch, but going .500 in a stacked league like the Big East was in 2010-2011 is far more impressive than sweeping through some crappy or even mediocre conference. The Power 6 or 8 or whatever the number is are always going to get the lion's share of the at large bids. The only way to avoid that is to expand the tournament to some ridiculous number and then we get stuck watching 32 crappy play-in games or something.

There are always arguements for 5-6 teams that could be in or out and at the end of the day, most of those have no real shot at winning the tournament anyway.

--'85.

[small tyme baller]

Let see:

Minnesota, Big 10, 18-9, projected RPI #22, SOS #2
vs
Murray St, Ohio Valley, 20-7, projected RPI #99, SOS #228

As much as I don't like teams with losing conference records getting in, Minnesota has probably made the best arguement to getting in.

No way Murray St is in short of winning the auto. Eastern Kentucky in the Ohio Valley has a better record and higher RPI.

LOL sorry forgot to mention in my post ... thats just IMO stuff, no stats and numbers to back up .... just eye test having watched multiple games from the aforementioned teams.

And Minnesota will most likely be in .. have some quality wins, but have tanked it of late. That's why I had em out ... I see their continual losing coupled with an early exit in the Big10 tourn

[NCAABound]

This thread has me extremely excited. It means that JH4P's bracketology and blog pimping will be arriving soon. I can't wait!!! Will he have 14 or 15 Big East teams in this year?!

[im4wsu]

It doesn't make sense to me that a team that has played .500 in the conference and many times has lost to the teams above it one or two times or in some cases three times, should even have an opportunity to become national champion. To me, it makes more sense to give other teams outside the conference with better records the opportunity to see if they can beat one of the teams that finished higher in the league standings. I guess my preference is to have a champion based on the season-long body of work and not a hot streak or a luck-of-the-draw comparatively easy road to the title.

[Dave Stalwart]

It doesn't make sense to me that a team that has played .500 in the conference and many times has lost to the teams above it one or two times or in some cases three times, should even have an opportunity to become national champion. To me, it makes more sense to give other teams outside the conference with better records the opportunity to see if they can beat one of the teams that finished higher in the league standings. I guess my preference is to have a champion based on the season-long body of work and not a hot streak or a luck-of-the-draw comparatively easy road to the title.

That is a really good point

[GoShockers89]

Normally I agree that the committee screws mid-majors, but anyone who doesn't make the field this year has only themselves to blame. This is an atrocious bubble group.

I can't think of one single non-BCS team that is unfairly set up to be screwed out of a bid at the moment. Indiana State is still in everyone's Last 4 Out at the moment and they have crumbled more than a NuWay Burger.