NCAA Tourney Talk

[ShockRef]

Drake's seed isn't that difficult to figure out, really.

How many teams that are in the tournament did they beat? One. Show me a 4-seed that Drake should replace? I don't see one. Every 4-seed has more impressive wins than Drake. Look at 6-seed Marquette. Yes, they had nine losses, but only one was outside the RPI top-30, and that was to #55. Drake had two losses outside the top-100.

I'm trying to figure out how Oklahoma gets a 6-seed with 11 losses, two of them being to Colorado (161) and Nebraska (95).

Barring a truly magical season (such as an awesome OOC and only 1 or 2 losses in conference), a 4-5 seed is about the best an MVC team can expect. That's why the non-conference is so important in the Valley.

BCS teams are always going to have a seeding advantage. They get plenty of games to play against tournament-caliber competition so their resumes will look better. That's one of the reasons ISU probably didn't get in. They didn't have ample opportunity to make up for their loss to E. Michigan or their four losses outside the top 100. They also had no wins against at-large teams. At least Baylor only had one loss outside the top 100 and three wins against tournament teams. In looking at good wins vs. bad losses, I don't see where ISU has a case against the teams that got in ahead of them. Don't fall into the RPI trap!

And that leads into my annual RPI perspective lecture: The RPI has nothing to do with seeding. The committee does not look at it for that purpose. They only use it to evaluate good wins and bad losses.

Logical post, that utilizes facts. Indeed, hard to argue against.
The OU 11 seed also mystifies yours truly, along with Arizona even getting a bid.
If you watched OU get blasted Saturday, you know they are not a very good team.
When the selection committee implements certain criteria that teams must meet, the process will be based on facts, instead of gut feelings.
Point being: No team should be considered if they don't have a winning conference record. I don't care if they were 'close loses' or a certain player didn't play. This isn't horse shoes and a loss is a loss.
If you lose, you don't get invited - you stay home. 8)

The Zona bid follows the same logic as the OU seed. Zona was 16-6 when healthy...and Bayless is the heart and soul of that team. I think the question of how heavily injuries should be weighed is a very valid one.

They still lost the games played.
According to this logic, a team starts 6-0 and then loses a player or two and ends up say, 8-20. However, the players came back for the last couple of games and presto, it's time to give them a bid. Sorry, not buying. 8)

[newshock1234]

as much as we complain about the selection comittee. College basketball process sure beats the hell out of the way College football does it. :)

[engrshock]

Why is the RPI not used other than as an excuse to keep some teams out or in? There were only two teams in the top 40 RPI that did not get into the tournament and that was Ill. St. and Dayton at 31 and 32 yet Kentucky and Oregon at 57 and 58 made it in.

Still until WSU gets back into the tournament, I do not really care.

[RoyalShock]

Why is the RPI not used other than as an excuse to keep some teams out or in? There were only two teams in the top 40 RPI that did not get into the tournament and that was Ill. St. and Dayton at 31 and 32 yet Kentucky and Oregon at 57 and 58 made it in.

Still until WSU gets back into the tournament, I do not really care.

Again, you can't look directly at a team's RPI for tournament consideration. You look at the RPI of teams they played.

Oregon had two losses outside the top 100. But they made up for it with wins against KSU (50 and NCAA-bound), Arizona twice (38) and Stanford (14). Kentucky had bad losses against Gardner Webb (200), Georgia (98) and San Diego (94). (Maybe Houston at 80). They had wins against Vandy (12), Tennessee (2), Arkansas (31) and Mississippi (48). That is the only team I really see an argument with. But out of all the at-large selections, there will be one or two questionable ones.

I still see the BCS teams getting an advantage from the RPI, not a disadvantage. So all this talk from the pundits (Bilas, Katz, Packer, etc.) is still drivel. Are they not paying attention?

[7hottamales]

Drake's seed isn't that difficult to figure out, really.

How many teams that are in the tournament did they beat? One. Show me a 4-seed that Drake should replace? I don't see one. Every 4-seed has more impressive wins than Drake. Look at 6-seed Marquette. Yes, they had nine losses, but only one was outside the RPI top-30, and that was to #55. Drake had two losses outside the top-100.

I'm trying to figure out how Oklahoma gets a 6-seed with 11 losses, two of them being to Colorado (161) and Nebraska (95).

Barring a truly magical season (such as an awesome OOC and only 1 or 2 losses in conference), a 4-5 seed is about the best an MVC team can expect. That's why the non-conference is so important in the Valley.

BCS teams are always going to have a seeding advantage. They get plenty of games to play against tournament-caliber competition so their resumes will look better. That's one of the reasons ISU probably didn't get in. They didn't have ample opportunity to make up for their loss to E. Michigan or their four losses outside the top 100. They also had no wins against at-large teams. At least Baylor only had one loss outside the top 100 and three wins against tournament teams. In looking at good wins vs. bad losses, I don't see where ISU has a case against the teams that got in ahead of them. Don't fall into the RPI trap!

And that leads into my annual RPI perspective lecture: The RPI has nothing to do with seeding. The committee does not look at it for that purpose. They only use it to evaluate good wins and bad losses.

Logical post, that utilizes facts. Indeed, hard to argue against.
The OU 11 seed also mystifies yours truly, along with Arizona even getting a bid.
If you watched OU get blasted Saturday, you know they are not a very good team.
When the selection committee implements certain criteria that teams must meet, the process will be based on facts, instead of gut feelings.
Point being: No team should be considered if they don't have a winning conference record. I don't care if they were 'close loses' or a certain player didn't play. This isn't horse shoes and a loss is a loss.
If you lose, you don't get invited - you stay home. 8)

The Zona bid follows the same logic as the OU seed. Zona was 16-6 when healthy...and Bayless is the heart and soul of that team. I think the question of how heavily injuries should be weighed is a very valid one.

They still lost the games played.
According to this logic, a team starts 6-0 and then loses a player or two and ends up say, 8-20. However, the players came back for the last couple of games and presto, it's time to give them a bid. Sorry, not buying. 8)

I don't necessarily disagree...especially if there were any truly worthy teams left out.

Arizona still beat Texas A&M & UNLV in the non-con and gave Kansas by far its toughest game (OT) in AFH.

[BA2929]

drake who lost 3 games. is a 5 seed.
last year duke lost 11 games.
Duke was a 5 seed. and lost to VCU
This year, Illinois State lost 9 games, 3 of them to drake.
And didnt make the tournament.
see the flaws here.

Did Drake have to play UNC, Georgetown, Indiana, Gonzaga, Virginia, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Davidson and Maryland this season? Duke played all of those teams last year and all of those teams made the dance. Drake played a total of 2 NCAA tournament teams this year. Butler and Saint Mary's. I'd say SOS came into play on both decisions. - As for Illinois State who did they beat? Cincinnati? Wright State? RPI is very overrated and having 0 quality wins didn't help ISU this season. I would have liked to see them in, but they just didn't have enough "quality wins" for the committee this year.

[newshock1234]

drake who lost 3 games. is a 5 seed.
last year duke lost 11 games.
Duke was a 5 seed. and lost to VCU
This year, Illinois State lost 9 games, 3 of them to drake.
And didnt make the tournament.
see the flaws here.

Did Drake have to play UNC, Georgetown, Indiana, Gonzaga, Virginia, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Davidson and Maryland this season? Duke played all of those teams last year and all of those teams made the dance. Drake played a total of 2 NCAA tournament teams this year. Butler and Saint Mary's. I'd say SOS came into play on both decisions. - As for Illinois State who did they beat? Cincinnati? Wright State? RPI is very overrated and having 0 quality wins didn't help ISU this season. I would have liked to see them in, but they just didn't have enough "quality wins" for the committee this year.

BCS lover huh?

[wsu789]

BA, the answer is obvious. The bigger question is, would Drake have played those teams if given a chance? As long as the BCS schools refuse to play high caliber non-BCS schools, the BCS schools will be able to rely on the but-you-guys-didn't-play-anybody defense.

A few years ago, the committee seemed to be encouraging those types of games to take place. Now, I'm not so sure. Until the BCS schools are willing to schedule good non-BCS programs on a home and home, the system will be inherently unfair.

[BCSCat]

FWIW Blake Griffin and Longar were both healthy when KSU beat OU.

Somebody mentioned that dividing D1 basketball up like football would help. I agree - seems to me that a D1 and D1A division work work well to limit the nondeserving low level teams which would allow more mids in. I'm not sure if attendance would be the best way to separate the divisions but it would be a good start.

I just can't get excited watching the 1/16 seed games.

[Indy23]

Thanks, Indy. But I'm not sure about your last comment. The committee has said for probably the past decade that the RPI is just a tool to evaluate schedules. There was, of course, a false perception among fans that it meant more than that. It looks like that perception still exists, to a point.

Well the committee also says they don't seed for TV, yet every year there seem to be a few perfect match-ups (Mayo/Beaz, e.g.). I'm too lazy to look at the numbers, but I don't think we'd see such a drop in non-BCS participation unless the RPI was being devalued (or it was being overvalued) by the committee. It's just speculation on my part. I could be wrong. I am prone to false perceptions. I thought C.J. Giles had learned his lesson. :wacko:

[forevershockerfan]

Just wanted to reflect back how the "domino wholesale coaching changes" played out.

Kentucky releases Tubby and he goes to Minnesoata. Did they end up making the NIT? It appears they did make a move forward from last Season and did not have huge expectations early on for Tubby. It should be a nice fit.

Billy Gillispie leaves a Sweet 16 Texas A&M team and heads to Kentucky to face a very rocky start and some embarrassing losses only to finish strong and make the Dance. BG is likely to take this Program forward. He better. The Kentucky fans have big ideas.

Mark Turgeon heads to Texas A&M and is loaded with talent and several good recruits from Billy and sevaral solid players returning. He starts out like wildfire with an patsy schedule only to get beat up some in the rugged Big 12 Conference. Then he worried me during this storm as he was talking a bit too much but made a nice recovery and landing to the Dance to save face. The proof of the pudding will be the next few years as he brings in his own recruits.

Gregg Marshall takes over for a troubled WSU team and faced unknown adversity from jump street. Considering the loss of former players, recruits, and injuries, he still has the support of the masses in Shocker Country. We are moving forward and are elated HCGM is aboard and our Skipper. What a great fit for this job and we will sail to the Dance in due time.

Last but not least, Randy Peele took over at Winthrop and they made it again to the Dance. In due time, we will see how he does as he brings in his own recruits. So far though, RP seems to be rocking on in both coaching and recruiting and he had an awesome mentor before him.

[Shox21]

Why is the RPI not used other than as an excuse to keep some teams out or in? There were only two teams in the top 40 RPI that did not get into the tournament and that was Ill. St. and Dayton at 31 and 32 yet Kentucky and Oregon at 57 and 58 made it in.

Still until WSU gets back into the tournament, I do not really care.

Again, you can't look directly at a team's RPI for tournament consideration. You look at the RPI of teams they played.

Oregon had two losses outside the top 100. But they made up for it with wins against KSU (50 and NCAA-bound), Arizona twice (38) and Stanford (14). Kentucky had bad losses against Gardner Webb (200), Georgia (98) and San Diego (94). (Maybe Houston at 80). They had wins against Vandy (12), Tennessee (2), Arkansas (31) and Mississippi (48). That is the only team I really see an argument with. But out of all the at-large selections, there will be one or two questionable ones.

I still see the BCS teams getting an advantage from the RPI, not a disadvantage. So all this talk from the pundits (Bilas, Katz, Packer, etc.) is still drivel. Are they not paying attention?

If the Selection Committee is going to put most of the emphasis on the OOC schedule and SOS, then there should be some type of formula or mandate to allow the non BCS leagues to be able to play the BCS teams, or some type of meaningful punishment if they don't OR some type of boon if they do. Yes, I know, they have a right to refuse to play anyone. That's just the problem. They will only play you IF they know they won't come out with a loss. If you are in the Big-12 conference or Big East, you get PLENTY of chances to play good, strong teams during the normal season -- you don't have to have a strong OOC schedule. We, unfortunately, are not so lucky. If we can't schedule some strong OOC teams, then once the conference play starts we are left to beat up on ourselves. The only thing we can keep hoping for is that the pre-conference tournaments keep happening for us. Something needs to change in the way the Selection Committee looks at the brackets or there needs to be a different criteria added to make up for the inequities of the system. Let's face it, the system is set up to favor the BCS conferences (like everything else).

[BostonWu]

I guess with the injury factor I can understand OU's seeding a little more.

But, 7hot, I can't agree with your assesment that ISU getting in only helps ISU.

The simple reason it helps is financial. The more MVC teams in, and the more they win, the more money comes the way of all MVC schools (which helps with coaching hires and recruiting budgets).

While I can't prove it, I would think that teams who get at-large births are looked at more favorably when it comes time to schedule games against quality opponents. Getting those games improves not just that team's RPI, but the RPI of teams who play them. That then helps the quality wins vs. bad losses when a team is getting looked at for an at-large bid. It's a process that feeds on itself. And I think we've been seeing the value in that for the past several years.

Just the fact that in a down year we were talking about the possibility of getting our 2nd-best team in the tournament says a lot.

I realize I'm in the minority and I totally understand the other side of the argument...I just have never liked the other schools in the Valley so it's much easier for me to fixate on my counterexamples. I fully understand that I may be wrong, but I am definitely jealous of Gonzaga's situation.

It doesn't really matter anyways, because the window of opportunity to create that situation was probably wasted during the period of Cohen, Thompson, and Smithson. There's probably too much competitive balance in the league for any one team to rise above the fray and become a perennial top 20 program.

Having said that, how many times in the past 20 years has the Valley gotten only 1 team in?

7hot - I respect your opinion, you've always been a good SN contributor but you're 100% wrong on this one. You stated you don't like the other Valley schools - So brother just set the emotion to the side and understand the following:

There are mutliple advantages to a strong multi-bid league:

1) Greg Marshall stated that is one of the reasons (if not the main) he's here. He got tired of 1-bid crap leagues.

2) Helps recruiting. Kids like exposure and the chance to play on TV on the most important stage.

3) Helps OOC scheduling. There's a certain respect for perrenial multiple bid leagues.

4) Helps our team. I strongly feel there was a direct correlation with WSU and Bradley advancing to the S16 and a very strong Valley.

5) Financial advantages have already been stated.

And I know I'm missing other advantages.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

I think the major problem this year is that there wasn't really 34 teams that deserved an at-large. As parity has reigned, typically there have been a few non-BCS teams that have won some quality games, had a solid conference record, and gotten a bid. Ill St was on the outside looking in all along. It had it's chances, and missed. A win vs. Drake at any point gets them in. A win over Indiana or Kent State and they are in.

With no non-BCS teams really standing out, the committee decided to not go out on a limb, but instead reward they teams they knew (BCS).

[proshox]

7hottamales wrote:
RoyalShock wrote:
I guess with the injury factor I can understand OU's seeding a little more.

But, 7hot, I can't agree with your assesment that ISU getting in only helps ISU.

The simple reason it helps is financial. The more MVC teams in, and the more they win, the more money comes the way of all MVC schools (which helps with coaching hires and recruiting budgets).

While I can't prove it, I would think that teams who get at-large births are looked at more favorably when it comes time to schedule games against quality opponents. Getting those games improves not just that team's RPI, but the RPI of teams who play them. That then helps the quality wins vs. bad losses when a team is getting looked at for an at-large bid. It's a process that feeds on itself. And I think we've been seeing the value in that for the past several years.

Just the fact that in a down year we were talking about the possibility of getting our 2nd-best team in the tournament says a lot.



I realize I'm in the minority and I totally understand the other side of the argument...I just have never liked the other schools in the Valley so it's much easier for me to fixate on my counterexamples. I fully understand that I may be wrong, but I am definitely jealous of Gonzaga's situation.

It doesn't really matter anyways, because the window of opportunity to create that situation was probably wasted during the period of Cohen, Thompson, and Smithson. There's probably too much competitive balance in the league for any one team to rise above the fray and become a perennial top 20 program.

Having said that, how many times in the past 20 years has the Valley gotten only 1 team in?


7hot - I respect your opinion, you've always been a good SN contributor but you're 100% wrong on this one. You stated you don't like the other Valley schools - So brother just set the emotion to the side and understand the following:

There are mutliple advantages to a strong multi-bid league:

1) Greg Marshall stated that is one of the reasons (if not the main) he's here. He got tired of 1-bid crap leagues.

2) Helps recruiting. Kids like exposure and the chance to play on TV on the most important stage.

3) Helps OOC scheduling. There's a certain respect for perrenial multiple bid leagues.

4) Helps our team. I strongly feel there was a direct correlation with WSU and Bradley advancing to the S16 and a very strong Valley.

5) Financial advantages have already been stated.

And I know I'm missing other advantages.


------------------------

This arguement is not mutually exclusive.. The simple fact is that WSU or any other Valley team should make the tournament if they take care of business. In our current Valley situation (Creighton, SIU, Drake, etc) it would be nice to know that the Valley will always have multiple bids, because coming through the regular season without bumps is just about impossible. Other than that - poor results will keep Gonzaga or WSU out of any tournment. I would much rather play in a competitive 3-4 bid valley then whatever conference Gonzaga plays in.