Poll Should a .500 conference record be required for an at-large bid?

[im4wsu]

Poll Should a .500 conference record be required for an at-large bid?

[shockmonster]

I'm not sure about the word required, but it should be a very important guideline that is followed by the committee.

[Chickenhawk hunter]

How about a .500 road record?

[ShockerFever]

I'd like to hear from the 2 "any record" votes. I know one of them is Jamar, but who is the other? State your case for mediocrity.

[shockerfan34]

I'd like to hear from the 2 "any record" votes. I know one of them is Jamar, but who is the other? State your case for mediocrity.

I voted "any record" mostly because I dont think adding a hard cutoff rule is needed. Im open to there being a scenario where a team might not be .500 in league but worthy of a bid, even if its 1 in 100.

If a team has a great non conference with good road wins, some good wins in league it might be worth considering them as an at large on a weak bubble.
In the case of say Syracuse, I say no chance in hell if you only win some big games at home and didnt do much in the non league.

The gist of my argument being teams under .500 in league dont really deserve a bid, but I dont think a rule is a good idea. The bubble usually sorts that out on its own anyway.

[FlyingWheat]

I voted "any record" mostly because I dont think adding a hard cutoff rule is needed. Im open to there being a scenario where a team might not be .500 in league but worthy of a bid, even if its 1 in 100.

If a team has a great non conference with good road wins, some good wins in league it might be worth considering them as an at large on a weak bubble.
In the case of say Syracuse, I say no chance in hell if you only win some big games at home and didnt do much in the non league.

The gist of my argument being teams under .500 in league dont really deserve a bid, but I dont think a rule is a good idea. The bubble usually sorts that out on its own anyway.

I agree. I similar, albeit unwritten, rule is the reason that MSU didn't get in the tourney in 2006, even with an RPI of 23. In practice, 99% of sub-500 conference teams do not deserve a bid. But putting a hard and fast rule to it is unnecessary. Better committee guidelines, including a reduced emphasis on top 50/100 RPI wins would be much better.

[shockmonster]

I voted "any record" mostly because I dont think adding a hard cutoff rule is needed. Im open to there being a scenario where a team might not be .500 in league but worthy of a bid, even if its 1 in 100.

If a team has a great non conference with good road wins, some good wins in league it might be worth considering them as an at large on a weak bubble.
In the case of say Syracuse, I say no chance in hell if you only win some big games at home and didnt do much in the non league.

The gist of my argument being teams under .500 in league dont really deserve a bid, but I dont think a rule is a good idea. The bubble usually sorts that out on its own anyway.

But it needs to be rare. The problem with this is that it appears to be growingly more acceptable. It used to be that teams like ISUR and WSU were all but guaranteed an at large bid, and teams like TCU and KSU were on the wrong side of the bubble until they went very far in their conference Tournament Championships (like final day, etc.). Kentucky was on the wrong side of the bubble in 2014 until they made it to the Championship game because their regular season record wasn't good. It's not that way anymore.

[shockerfan34]

But it needs to be rare. The problem with this is that it appears to be growingly more acceptable. It used to be that teams like ISUR and WSU were all but guaranteed an at large bid, and teams like TCU and KSU were on the wrong side of the bubble until they went very far in their conference Tournament Championships (like final day, etc.). Kentucky was on the wrong side of the bubble in 2014 until they made it to the Championship game because their regular season record wasn't good. It's not that way anymore.

I agree.

That being said, the problem for ISU is there is an arguement against them being in. They have bad losses. They dont have many good wins. They dont have the advanced stats models showing that those previous facts might be an anomaly. I would certainly rather see a team like them in compared to TCU, but in this case, ISU lost to TCU this season which wont help. Now granted that was a close road game, which leads me to the issue of P5 teams refusing to go on the road against good mid-majors but thats an issue for another thread.

On a quick glance, it seems like KSU and TCU are the only sub .500 in league that have a shot at an at large so it doesnt appear to be a wide spread problem this year. Rather than creating the proposed rule in this thread, id like to see what more inclusion of things like kenpom will do for future field selection.

[AZ Shocker]

I think every team in a P5 conference except the last place team should be considered for an at-large bid. Simply because that's how grand a P5 team and school is. I mean a 7-18 record is quite impressive if your a P5 school.

[Keyser Soze]

I'd like to hear from the 2 "any record" votes. I know one of them is Jamar, but who is the other? State your case for mediocrity.

Others have explained it well, but I think they should get the best at large teams possible. Arbitrary rules applied blindly can prevent that from happening. Syracuse made the Final 4 last year after being 9-10 in the ACC. I believe they proved to be worthy on inclusion. Same story with Oklahoma State this year. I believe they deserve to be in even though they were 9-10 in the Big 12.

[Cdizzle]

Maybe St. Mary's would have won the title if they had been in instead of Syracuse.

[ShockerFever]

Others have explained it well, but I think they should get the best at large teams possible. Arbitrary rules applied blindly can prevent that from happening. Syracuse made the Final 4 last year after being 9-10 in the ACC. I believe they proved to be worthy on inclusion. Same story with Oklahoma State this year. I believe they deserve to be in even though they were 9-10 in the Big 12.

No. No. No.

I HATE this dumb logic. Any team that gets into the tournament has the ability to get hot and win games. All most of them need is a chance. And they're even more dangerous with a chip on its shoulder. Syracuse did not deserve a bid last year regardless of what they did in the tournament. Plain and simple. Should WSU have not gotten a 1 seed in 2014 since they lost in the second round? Upsets happen. Syracuse had the luxury of playing Middle Tennessee State last year to go to the Sweet 16. Wow, what a toughy.

I think .500 records or better in regular season should be eligible. Anything below that.. do better or move to a lower conference if it's too tough for you. The P5 conference have all of the weight and benefits anyway. The least you could do is win more games than you lose in it, especially when you get half of your tough conference slate at home.

And it appears the people have spoken. 34-8. A curb-stomping.

[shockmonster]

Syracuse made the Final 4 last year after being 9-10 in the ACC. I believe they proved to be worthy on inclusion. Same story with Oklahoma State this year. I believe they deserve to be in even though they were 9-10 in the Big 12.

Your Syracuse argument has a faulty side too. What if WSU had received their seed instead of our play in one. We might have been a Final 4 team too if we had not been so tired because we had to play so quickly after we had our play in game. We were seeded lower than we should have been.

[Keyser Soze]

Your Syracuse argument has a faulty side too. What if WSU had received their seed instead of our play in one. We might have been a Final 4 team too if we had not been so tired because we had to play so quickly after we had our play in game. We were seeded lower than we should have been.

So WSU lost last year because they were tired? Please explain VCU in 2011.

[Shock Top]

So WSU lost last year because they were tired? Please explain VCU in 2011.

Idk about VCU's game schedule that year, but WSU was playing their third game before ANY team was playing their second (sans their opponent Miami). Had they got to play later in the day, maybe that would have made a difference, maybe it wouldn't have.