Jay Bilas' Plan to Reward Regular Season, Not Conf. Playoffs

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

it's embarrassing man.

I'd be more embarrassed if I was you and was so down on the Shox, and then proven sooooo wrong.

3rd or 4th is a very real possibility.....By itself, the lack of post play could give the shox 6-7 MVC losses.

Won the league by 4 games. 16-2.

[WillieJeffJeffries]

I'd be more embarrassed if I was you and was so down on the Shox, and then proven sooooo wrong.



Won the league by 4 games. 16-2.

LOL....Yes that was right after Orlando I would guess, everyone was a little down on the shox then.....Around Jan 4th I said WSU would lose 2 conference games and probably 1 in St Louis. I know you remember that because it was in response to couple diff scenarios you had posted......And what happened???? Shox lost 2 MVC games and a game in St Louis....In fairness you should post that as well....correct.

And tell Chuck to learn how to use a touch screen monitor B4 the selection show starts....lol

[pinstripers]

It is logical that more value be placed on the regular season, but it is never gonna happen.

[im4wsu]

OU won about 5 games by 2-3 points. A couple extra bounces go against them and they go from 2 seed to NIT? Even if they just plain lost 2 more games, yes, they wouldn't be as good as they are now, but they would be what, a 5-6 seed? Surely they would still be top 25. Are there really that many teams each year getting left out that you would want instead of that hypothetical OU squad?

The 11-7 team in the Big 12 finished fourth in the conference. 11 games is the 60% of 18 games (10.8 rounds up to 11).

Suppose a requirement to qualify for the tournament was to win 50% of the points available (10 for beating the #1, team; 9 for beating #2, etc., but exclude the points for your finish, in this case "7") so that would require 48 points

That team could have any of the following records to get 11 wins and finish 4th

Conf Rank	Points	Wins	Wins	Wins	Wins	Wins
1	10	0	2	1	0	1
2	9	0	2	1	1	1
3	8	0	2	1	2	1
4	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	6	1	2	0	1	1
6	5	2	2	0	1	1
7	4	2	1	2	1	0
8	3	2	0	2	1	2
9	2	2	0	2	2	2
10	1	2	0	2	2	2
	48	36	80	47	50	50
		NQ	IN	NQ	IN	IN

[ShockingButTrue]

I don't believe the RPI is as good as many other metrics, so "bad" was a poor choice of words. The cut line for RPI ONLY was 72.

Michigan 56, Butler 57, Tulsa 58, Temple 60 (won conference), Vandy 63, and Syracuse 72 with several not challenging themselves enough OOC, while the Bonnies 30 (tied for champ conference that was good enough to have 3 other teams in), Akron 34 (won conference), St. Mary's 38 (won conference), San Diego St 41 (won conference, scheduled OOC well), Valpo 49 (won conference with good OOC SOS and RPI), and Monmouth 52 (won conference, good OOC and tried to schedule even better).

That's quite a range from 30 to 72 for the RPI. Not saying ban teams at 55, but more consideration should be given to team who went out and did well with what they had to work with. Yes, I feel a lot of P-5 are riding coat tails.

Lucid & incontrovertible (unless we're playing fantasy numbers). Well deserving of veneration.

[Shockerman]

I think we could clean this up a lot by going to 70 and having a play in game for each 16 seed. It gets a few more teams off the bubble while allowing the low majors a chance to win a game in the tournament. It also makes it possible for a 16 to eventually knock off a 1 due to a deeper pool.

[WSUwatcher]

Actually, Shockerman, if the NCAA wanted to do it they could have a play-in game for each #16 right now by simply eliminating the play-in games for the #11s or #12s, whichever it happens to be in any given year: sixty teams to make up the first fifteen seed lines, plus eight for #16, makes 68.

The play-in thing has kind of taken on a life of its own because it has proved popular on TV, it's become a big deal in Dayton, and some play-in teams have prospered (e.g., VCU in the final four). But if you go back to its origin, it was really an accident created some years ago when the tournament went from 30 conferences with autobids plus 34 at-large teams, to 31 conferences (I don't remember which one was added at that point). Suddenly the only way to stay at 64 teams was to drop an at-large spot, and the power conferences whose mediocre teams were, then as now, getting the bulk of the at-large spots wouldn't hear of that -- one of their teams was going to have to sit home, and one of their leagues was going to lose (at least) one tournament share. NF way, Jose!

Thus, the tournament became 65 teams, a truly goofball number, with a 64 vs. 65 play-in game. Later another conference was added, and of course the total of 34 at-large bids remained sacred; plus, the whole idea seemed to catch on as I mentioned above. So it really wasn't ever some careful, thoughtful grand design as much as it was a happenstance born of big conference greed and self-protection that grew from one extra team into four.