2016-17 Bracketology

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

WSU was 4-7 vs the top 100 last year, plus 1 loss to a 100+ team. Would you say that quality teams were "clearly too tough for them" and therefore they deserved the NIT?

Maybe the system is rigged in favor of teams who get to earn gaudy conf records because their league sucks? (I kid, but you get my point)

[molly jabali]

I see in one of the projections, IRUr old coach would play ISUr current coach...I DO think the NCAA does that kind of stuff, admitting it or not!

[SHOCKvalue]

WSU was 4-7 vs the top 100 last year, plus 1 loss to a 100+ team. Would you say that quality teams were "clearly too tough for them" and therefore they deserved the NIT?

Maybe the system is rigged in favor of teams who get to earn gaudy conf records because their league sucks? (I kid, but you get my point)

I would say they were a team with significant injury considerations that were ignored in seeding.

[jdshock]

WSU was 4-7 vs the top 100 last year, plus 1 loss to a 100+ team. Would you say that quality teams were "clearly too tough for them" and therefore they deserved the NIT?

Maybe the system is rigged in favor of teams who get to earn gaudy conf records because their league sucks? (I kid, but you get my point)

I'd love to know if college basketball sees more upsets in conference play than we do out of conference. Is it really harder to win conference games/easier to upset someone in conference? On the one hand, when WSU preps for ISUb they're going to see some footage of ISUr in the process. The coaches and players become incredibly familiar with opponents' strategies and game plans. That's all obviously in addition to the fact that you play the same team two or three times.

I ask this because it's the only possible reason I can see arguing with the logic you're providing.

[ShockerFever]

If WSU got 15 chances at Top 100 games on their home court, I bet they'd win 12 of them, at least.

If you can't take advantage of the perks given to you by a big, bad conference, move out, shut up, or enjoy some more fantastic home games in the NIT.

[Stickboy46]

To the ">=.500 or else crowd"...

What about a team that plays in a weaker conference and goes 7-9 vs the top 100, wins almost all their other games, and wins a weak league? Why do they get in when they can't win half their games vs quality competition?

Virtually the entire ACC is top 75. The only difference between these 2 example teams is how many of the quality opponents shared the same conference membership. The performance on the court is basically the same.

Then the teams at the bottom of the ACC are in the wrong league? Their RPI and Numbers are artificially inflated due to the fact that they have guaranteed games against top competition.

[ShockerEngr]

People filling out brackets can use whatever method they like..... Either trying to predict end of season results or projecting based on where things are now. If you are going with end of season projections and feel that Clemson will claw back to something sensible, it's not unreasonable to include them if that's their criteria.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I would say they were a team with significant injury considerations that were ignored in seeding.

Yes, you and I both think WSU should not only have gotten in (as they did), but that they deserved an even higher seed. That makes my point all the stronger. Hard fast rules often limit common sense from having an opportunity. I'm glad there is no hard fast rule about needing to go .500 or better vs the top 100 in order to be eligible. A similar rule about conf record would be just as undesirable IMO.

Something less than .500 vs the top 100 should not automatically exclude a team from an at-large. The % of these games that were in or out of conference should be irrelevant. WSU should not gain an advantage by playing most of its tough games out of conference. Tough games should just simply be tough games.

[Stickboy46]

To the ">=.500 or else crowd"...

What about a team that plays in a weaker conference and goes 7-9 vs the top 100, wins almost all their other games, and wins a weak league? Why do they get in when they can't win half their games vs quality competition?

Virtually the entire ACC is top 75. The only difference between these 2 example teams is how many of the quality opponents shared the same conference membership. The performance on the court is basically the same.

Also, to your same point. Clemson is 1-5 vs top 25, 3-6 vs Top 50 and 6-7 against the top 100 Plus have a loss outside the top 100 (Oklahoma .. at home). So your argument here also eliminates Clemson due to the fact that they are <.500 against good competition.

[jdshock]

Everyone here is saying, "If you're losing in a good conference, you're bad and don't belong in the NCAA tournament, so you should move to a bad conference so you can get into the NCAA tournament." This is in and of itself strange logic, but it's not as worrying as the ultimate conclusion. Let's say the "bad" teams do leave those conferences and are replaced with excellent teams. By definition, you're going to have a team with a losing record. If you had a conference that was just the pre-season AP top 10/kenpom top 10/whatever, some of those teams are going to have a losing record. Your argument is not that bad teams should leave good conferences, it's that good conferences need more bad teams to take on losses.

[Stickboy46]

Yes, you and I both think WSU should not only have gotten in (as they did), but that they deserved an even higher seed. That makes my point all the stronger. Hard fast rules often limit common sense from having an opportunity.

7-9 vs the top 100 (or something similar) should not automatically exclude a team from an at-large. The % of these games that were in or out of conference should be irrelevant. WSU should not gain an advantage by playing most of its tough games in Nov / Dec.

Clemson should not gain an advantage for getting guaranteed games against good competition in Jan/Feb, just because of their conference.

[WuShock16]

I once heard Gregg say that the hardest conference to win is the one in which you play.

And of course upsets happen more often in conference play. One is certainly familiarity. The things that the 2006-07 Shockers could do at the Carrier Dome weren't as easy in conference because Valley teams that year had experienced players and coaches who mostly had been around for awhile.

Also, the non-conference slate is heavily tilted towards the power teams who are able to load up on home games against inferior competition.At the very least, they can be choosy about how to set the non-conference schedule to play road games. For example, if KU went to the Big Ten, do you think they'd still willing play games in Manhattan?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Also, to your same point. Clemson is 1-5 vs top 25, 3-6 vs Top 50 and 6-7 against the top 100 Plus have a loss outside the top 100 (Oklahoma .. at home). So your argument here also eliminates Clemson due to the fact that they are <.500 against good competition.

No, my argument is that BOTH team should be eligible for consideration, not just one of them. As I already said, I wouldn't put Clemson in right now. I just think they should be eligible for consideration.

[Stickboy46]

No, my argument is that BOTH team should be eligible for consideration, not just one of them. As I already said, I wouldn't put Clemson in right now. I just think they should be eligible for consideration.

That's where we disagree. Both teams haven't won >.500 against good competition (which good is defined by an antiquated metric that values who you play rather than how you play and heavily benefits the power conferences). One team is dead last in the league. That eliminates them. If they manage to win enough games in their league to go >.500, then they can be considered, until then they are eliminated.

That's not how it is, because its heavily biased towards the big leagues that sell more tickets/ad revenue, but that's how it should be.

[Cdizzle]

There is a difference between a sub-.500 team being 'bad' and a sub-.500 team not having done enough with the opportunities presented to earn an at-large bid.