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

[AndShock]

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

We got the first game of the day in the round of 32. VCU got a night game in the round of 32.

I have no idea if the game time actually made a difference or not, but people were definitely pissed off when our time slot on Saturday was revealed.

[shockmonster]

So WSU lost last year because they were tired?.

You obviously don't agree or just don't know. WSU beat Vandy in Dayton late Tuesday night, traveled all day Wednesday (don't remember where), beat Arizona late Thursday night, did get Friday to visit with a media frenzy, and had to play an 11 AM Saturday morning game against a well rested Miami team who had been there since Tuesday, and played the early Thursday game.

[shockmonster]

I also think that maybe VCU was under seeded that year.

[Shock Top]

I also think that maybe VCU was under seeded that year.

VCU was lucky to make it in, but took advantage of their opportunity.

I did thinking playing the last game on Thursday, then the first game on Saturday was BS, but the TV err... NCAA controls your faith unfortunately.

[jdshock]

Syracuse getting in and making the Final Four is not a good argument.

A good argument is why have a silly arbitrary rule? 99% of the teams that don't finish above .500 in conference play aren't going to sniff the tournament.

What if we have a super conference? It's got 10 teams. All 10 crushed the best teams in America during their non-conference. They're far and away the best teams in the country, but they have to play each other in conference. By definition, some aren't going to finish above .500, but they all deserve to be in the tournament.

If you adopt the silly rule, it has the potential to prevent a good team from making the tournament. If you don't adopt the rule, the committee can still choose to leave undeserving teams out. I truly don't understand why anyone would advocate for this kind of weird line in the sand. I feel like most of the proponents must be really saying "I can't imagine a scenario in which a sub-.500 team is deserving of an at large, which is fine, but is a radically different argument.

[ShockingButTrue]

[QUOTE=Keyser Soze;712958]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.[/QUOTE

Good point. But for every Syracuse, or LSU in 86, there is a multitude of Red Raiders. Although the Orangemen and Tigers both proved their worthiness in spite of mediocre records, there are teams who had better seasons (winning %) who were left out. Teams like VCU and WSU, and many more, have made the case for non P5 schools being deserving of of at-large, or play in status, over teams with unexceptional conference seasons.

[wufan]

Syracuse getting in and making the Final Four is not a good argument.

A good argument is why have a silly arbitrary rule? 99% of the teams that don't finish above .500 in conference play aren't going to sniff the tournament.

What if we have a super conference? It's got 10 teams. All 10 crushed the best teams in America during their non-conference. They're far and away the best teams in the country, but they have to play each other in conference. By definition, some aren't going to finish above .500, but they all deserve to be in the tournament.

If you adopt the silly rule, it has the potential to prevent a good team from making the tournament. If you don't adopt the rule, the committee can still choose to leave undeserving teams out. I truly don't understand why anyone would advocate for this kind of weird line in the sand. I feel like most of the proponents must be really saying "I can't imagine a scenario in which a sub-.500 team is deserving of an at large, which is fine, but is a radically different argument.

I think in the dominant super-conference scenario, if some of those teams didn't get in because their record was below .500, it would encourage some of those teams to break off into other conferences thereby creating more parody in college basketball.

[jdshock]

I think in the dominant super-conference scenario, if some of those teams didn't get in because their record was below .500, it would encourage some of those teams to break off into other conferences thereby creating more parody in college basketball.

I don't see why parity across conferences should be a goal of the NCAA selection committee. Frankly, I don't see why it's desirable by anyone. Would regular season basketball really be more enjoyable if every conference had one elite teams, two tournament teams, a handful of mediocre teams, and a few cellar dwellers? No way, I want to see the best playing the best, night in and night out.

[proshox]

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

Logic fail

[wufan]

I don't see why parity across conferences should be a goal of the NCAA selection committee. Frankly, I don't see why it's desirable by anyone. Would regular season basketball really be more enjoyable if every conference had one elite teams, two tournament teams, a handful of mediocre teams, and a few cellar dwellers? No way, I want to see the best playing the best, night in and night out.

It shouldn't be the goal of the selection committee, but it should be a goal of the non-P5 to have an opportunity to earn an at-large bid. Besides that, it's not like Syracuse would jump to the MEAC. There are lots of advantages to staying in their conference. Making a sub 500 record a single penalty isn't exactly some horrendous disadvantage.

You say you want to see the best of the best play. Okay, so allow the teams an opportunity to show their mustard. All schools can earn a bid by winning their conference, so all schools can earn a bid. Well all P5 schools can earn a bid by going .600 in conference. Seems a bit of an unfair advantage when teams that are 17-1 get left out.

[shoxlax]

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.

They were 9-9, in no world do we start saying tournament w/ls count. Otherwise, ISUR must vacate their co share of the title with us (fine with me by the way)

[jdshock]

it should be a goal of the non-P5 to have an opportunity to earn an at-large bid.

This rule is an imaginary hypothetical. Why don't we just try to create a system where the selection committee picks the absolute best teams, regardless of their conference affiliation? This is what the opponents of the proposal are saying.

The rule has the potential to leave out a team that deserves to be in. Without the rule, we could conceivably have a selection committee that chooses to place the best teams in the tournament, regardless of conference affiliation.

More importantly, if you really believe the selection committee has a P5 bias, what makes you think the MVC would be the beneficiary of your rule change? It would be teams like Cal that are over 500 and have no right to be in the tournament.

[ShockerFever]

All the greed and power that these super conferences want and demand should have their negatives too. Nobody forced Syracuse to join a 16 team mega conference. Don't like getting your ass handed to you the majority of the time? Get better or get out.

You have HALF of your chances at quality wins played on your HOME floor. If you can't win at least half of your conference games, then you pretty much blew your chance. It's not like it's asking that much for a team to win as many games as it loses. I mean, is it?

Stop pandering to the P5 with EVERYTHING. The P5's have EVERY benefit in their pockets. I think one reasonable negative isn't demanding too much.

[Kung Wu]

The answer is easy. It's a good rule if a) it helps WSU get in more often, and b) never ever prevents WSU from getting in!

[Cdizzle]

Syracuse getting in and making the Final Four is not a good argument.

A good argument is why have a silly arbitrary rule? 99% of the teams that don't finish above .500 in conference play aren't going to sniff the tournament.

What if we have a super conference? It's got 10 teams. All 10 crushed the best teams in America during their non-conference. They're far and away the best teams in the country, but they have to play each other in conference. By definition, some aren't going to finish above .500, but they all deserve to be in the tournament.

If you adopt the silly rule, it has the potential to prevent a good team from making the tournament. If you don't adopt the rule, the committee can still choose to leave undeserving teams out. I truly don't understand why anyone would advocate for this kind of weird line in the sand. I feel like most of the proponents must be really saying "I can't imagine a scenario in which a sub-.500 team is deserving of an at large, which is fine, but is a radically different argument.

Sounds like another good reason for this rule. And a reason that I include in my decision. Not allowing super-conferences.