tourney at large teams.

[billiken_roy]

here is my guess of the number of teams that will get an invite per conference.

*America East (1)

Atlantic Coast (5)

*Atlantic Sun (1)

Atlantic Ten (3)

Big East (6)

*Big Sky (1)

*Big South (1)

Big Ten (3)

Big Twelve (6)

Big West (1)

*Colonial (1)

Conference USA (6)

Horizon (1)

*Ivy League (1)

*Metro Atlantic (1)

*Mid-American (1)

*Mid-Continent (1)

*Mid-Eastern (1)

Missouri Valley (2)

Mountain West (3)

*Northeast (1)

*Ohio Valley (1)

Pacific Ten (3)

*Patriot League (1)

Southeastern (7)

*Southern (1)

*Southland (1)

*SWAC (1)

*Sun Belt (1)

*West Coast (1)

Western Athletic (1)

the conferences with an * are the conferences i think are probable one bid conferences that will be out of luck if the current top team gets upset.

i think their are probably about 9 spots up for grabs and assuming no more "big conference upsets" (slu winning the cusa title would constitute a "big conference upset") whereby a big conference would now get one more bid, that makes the below nine teams my guess for in by the skin of their teeth.

colorado and missouri

dayton and richmond

depaul

utah and air force

washington

michigan state

here would be your list dickie v and fudge packer will whine about next sunday:

maryland

notre dame

rutgers

oklahoma

michigan

xavier

and of course belmont

that was a long way to go for the belmont joke.

[Quickdraw]

So many things would be in Belmont's favor to give them "bubble" consideration. But they obviously lack any "quality" wins.

[cheesycow]

even though Maryland with their losing conference record shouldn't make it. They're 29th* in rpi right now, with the 5th* strength of schedule. All this in the #1 conference in the land, no way the ACC only gets 5.

*per ken pomeroy

[billiken_roy]

if the acc gets 6, then the big 12 wont. i just have a problem endorsing a team with a losing record in their own conference.

[kwyjibo]

Losing record in conference is not a selection factor. In order to get Washington a bid you have to ignore their RPI and string of bad losses (Washington lost to Houston by 15). You also have to ignore that the Pac 10 simply does not have that great of teams (Arizona and Stanford are good enough obviously for bids).

Every team you listed as excluded has a better case than Washington although they are currently media darlings. There has never been an at large team offered with 6 100+ RPI losses. SO, the criteria for selection are used to include certain teams when it suits the big conferences. Washington does have some quality wins and is hot down the stretch, but so is Pacific (Pacific has only lost to St. Joe's and Utah St. since Christmas).

[cheesycow]

I think the pac 10 is more likely to have only 2 than the big 12 having 5. I think 2 of these three teams get in: Colorado, Oklahoma, Mizzou. Depends on how the tournament plays out, but my picks are Colorado and Mizzou at this point. Washington's just too much of a stretch, IMO.

[kshoe]

the RPI is a crock of b.s. if it keeps a quality team like Washington out. They are 12-2 in their last 14, have beaten Arizona twice, have beaten an undefeated team and barely lost a tough game at NC State. How there were playing in November should not determine their March fate.

Also, Maryland deserves to go. The NCAA should be about taking the top 35 at-large teams and Maryland clealry falls in that category, regardless of them falling one game short of .500 in perhaps the strongest conference in the past 10 years. If they played in any other conference they would easily make the dance.

If nothing else, I hope Washington gets in as a 12 seed so I can pick them in my brackets for the Sweet 16 and rack up the points as they do it.

[cheesycow]

My only response to that is yes, Arizona twice and stanford are good wins. But what about their 2 losses to UCLA? Their 15 point loss to Houston? the 16 point loss to wyoming? the 8 point loss to USC?

They lost a close game with NC state, but a loss is a loss. I don't ask for Mizzou to get credit for "tough losses" to Illinois, Gonzaga, Memphis, Kansas, or texas because they don't deserve any. A loss can be a moral victory, but not a case for entrance into the Big Dance. Washington is 10-6 against teams 101-200 in rpi. They're 3-3 against top 50 teams, but only playing 6 teams in the top 50? who's to say if they play 5 more top 50 teams they don't end up at 3-8 like the bills?

In my opinion, Washington hasn't done enough yet. They need to beat arizona or stanford in the tournament for me to put them in.

[Schasz]

The PAC 10 is a joke this year, as far as I am concerned I would not be upset if the dudes in the room passed AZ over too and only picked Stanford from that conference. With their p!ss poor RPI then if UW does get in, the selection dudes might as well quit telling us how important the RPI is in the selection process.

For MooFan, if SPUMAC isn't on life support as far as getting a bid then something is wrong because right now they don't deserve a Big Dance bid...we might see you NITing???

[cheesycow]

I never said they're in. We very well might be NITing. We need two wins in the tournament to be in.

A SLU vs. Mizzou matchup would be great. I'd hate to be in the NIT, but I do love the way Mizzou matches up with SLU. Mizzou would own the bills down low, but SLU's guards have the potential to light us up if they get hot, especially Reggie. We've given up open 3's all year, and Reggie could definitely exploit them. I'd predict a Mizzou victory, but only if AJ touched the ball on every posession.

[kwyjibo]

The problem with your argument and most of the media is that you are not looking at all teams at once. It is easy to selectively choose which criteria you think are important (beating Arizona twice and Stanford once are good things but accomplishments teams like Mizzou have equalled). Also, if you think playing down the stretch is important or "playing teams closes" is important (which is NOT a selection criteria BTW) take a look at Pacific (which beat Utah St. and was respectable against Duke and St. Joe's). I use Pacific not because I think they deserve a bid but as an example of the hypocrisy inherent in selectively choosing criteria.

Also, I am not saying that Washington cannot earn its way into the tournament; I am saying they have not done it yet. If they are as good as you think they are they will have no problem finishing off 3-4 teams in the Pac10 tourny so we can all agree they deserve a bid. But they have to beat a pretty mediocre UCLA team (whom they have lost to TWICE).

[kshoe]

good as Stanford? As good as Arizona twice? MU is 2-8 against the top 50. Washington is 3-3. Which is more impressive? Stop beating up on Washington for what happened in November and December and just wake up and realize these guys are a very good team. I guarantee you there are plenty of 5 and 6 seeds that are praying they don't have to face those guys. The way they are playing now they are more like a 3-4 seed than a bubble team. If the last 10 games mean anything they will make the dance.

[kwyjibo]

You once again selectively spin the factors in Washington's favor (how does their 100+ RPI record compare?, BTW if Washington does get an at-large bid they will have the worst record against 100+ RPI teams in history).

Washington lost 5 straight games in January. They are somewhat hot now but even wiyh their best tourney criteria, last 10 games, they are 8-2. They played well and smart in a number of games and beat a very good Stanford team, but they still lost to Houston by 15, Wyoming by 16 and lost 6 games in a very mediocre conference.

I have nothing against Washington and I will repeat they could still earn their way into the tournament (and I will root for them to win because of Romar). My concern is two-fold:

1). I think things should be fair (even when that hurts my interest/team). When you start allowing media pressure and arbitrary criteria to enter into who gets invites you are being unfair. That is what my point about Pacific is (they are hotter than Washington and have at least 1 quality win). How do you know who is better than who? The media only sees what it wants and have real biases toward teams/conferences with larger historical following.

2). SLU has a better chance over time to get into the tournament when they are close if the selection is fair. SO, arguing for teams to go to the tournament based on subjective perceptions (which are biased to who is on TV), SLU will be treated unfairly. I usually do not have much problem with the committee's actually selection because they are much fairer than the media. Things could change I suppose. Your suggestion that Washington has earned a spot NOW would mean an "unfair" process and I definitely disagree with that (and it does not matter which team the media is seeking special consideration for--it is wrong and bad for the game).

[kshoe]

is the RPI then they ought to just say the top 34 at large RPI's will get in once the conference champions are crowned. Why even have a selection committee? Because the RPI is not perfect. In fact I think it is severely flawed in that margin of victory means nothing. I also think it is severely flawed because it puts undo emphasis on a few bad teams one might play. Beating two teams--one with a 2-26 record and one that is 26-2 should not be the same as beating two teams with 14-14 records. The fact that your own record matters only as much as your opponents opponents record should tell you how flawed the system is. The RPI should not be and is not the end-all of the selection decision. The committe says as much as they always say it is just one factor they look at (its fans like Kwijibo that think the RPI is the only thing that matters).

One other thing while I'm on a rant (and this has nothing to do with you Kwijibo), if I have to hear another sportscaster say "despite Mizzou (or any team for that matter) having a mediocre record they have a good RPI and a great strenth of schedule, so thats two things going for them" I am going to puke. The ONLY reason they have a good RPI is the strength of schedule. Thus, they are giving them credit twice for the same thing.

[cheesycow]

and it's not even because i'm a Mizzou fan. Should Marquette get bonus credit in the rpi standings for Savannah State by 38? What's more impressive? That, or pacific's 6 point win over Nevada? Howabout Mizzou's 1 point win over Oklahoma State? Would you be ok with Mizzou scheduling a ton of teams below 175 in rpi, and then running up the score to achieve a spot in the dance? I wouldn't. Howabout SLU? Should they get into the tournament for stomping Grambling? Of course not. The point of the selection committee is to determine which teams will be the most competitive against other top teams. That's why SLU playing 11 top 50 games and winning 3 is more impressive than Washington playing 6 top 50 games and winning 3. That's why we discuss Maryland making the tournament with a losing record in their conference.

Let's compare Mizzou and Washington's "resume."

RPI:

Washington- 76

Missouri- 39

Non-Conference RPI:

Washington- 131

Missouri- 45

Last 10 games:

Washington- 8-2

Missouri- 6-4

Vs. top 50:

Washington- 3-3

Missouri- 2-8

Vs. 51-100:

Washington- 1-1

Missouri- 6-4

Vs. 101-200:

Washington- 10-6

Missouri- 2-0

Vs. 201+

Washington- 3-0

Missouri- 5-0

Maybe the reason people say Missouri's SOS and RPI will get them in is because they only played 1/4 of their games against "patsies," while Washington played 3/4 of their games against patsies. I think you're off base, and it'd be a selector like you who (as kwyjibo said) would pick a team over slu based on factors that are essentially unfair.

[slufanskip]

The problem with the RPI is that you can go 2-8 against top 50 teams and get credit for that ... or 8-12 against top 100 teams and have an RPI ranking of 39. Hmmm do the math ... the system is seriously flawed. First of all if you are 2-8 against the top 50 ... how can you possibly say you belong in that group? 6-4 against top 100 tells me you belong in probably the top 3rd of that group.

To take it further I think to group the teams by top 50 and 50-100 is silly. There is a huge difference between the top 10 and 40-50. IMO they should be ranked 1-20, 21-50 and then 51-100. Also Home and away should play a bigger role. It is a bigger difference than they make it out to be. There is much more value to beating a team on the road than at home.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[kshoe]

Cheesecoy, in your infinte wisdom convince me that if two teams play the same exact 10 game schedule and both go 8-2 and one team loses both games by 1 point and wins all the others by 20 while the other team wins the 8 games by 1 point and loses the other two by 20 that they are equivalent. According to the RPI they would be exactly the same.

Any good computer formula that has margin of victory as a factor has a depreciating value in blow out wins...meaning the difference bewtween winning by 5 points instead 1 is not the same as winning by 39 instead of 35. This will adjust for the problem you mentioned in your post.

Any system where your ranking can actually go down regardless of how bad you beat a team (If we beat little sisters of the poor 100-5 I don't think our ranking should go down) while it can go up no matter how bad you get beaten if you play the right team is flawed by definition.

Thus, it will be good for the Bills to play @ Duke next year because no matter how much we lose by it will help our RPI. Lose by 1, lose by 40, its the same thing. There is something not right with that.

[kwyjibo]

I did not use the RPI in any of my arguments above. I do not think the RPI is perfect at all and have never said so. The committee does say that RPI is only one tool and I have never argued different (it is more important than you imply and that is based on the history of their selections rather). Once again, Washington may play themselves into a deserved bid (it all depends on how things look at the end of the week) even if they do not have the best RPI.

However, I think any objective measure of how teams perform (so long as it is agreed to and known in advance) is preferable to any subjective system in which the reasoning changes in order to support already priveleged teams. The media question the RPI and "poison the water" of fairness as a way to gain power. They want a "media poll" (like in football) to determine who the best is rather than actual performance on the court. So, while the RPI is not the best objective measure (I wish they would publicly modify the formula); it is better than the selective, incomplete and very biased opinion of Digger Phelps and Jay Bilas (who can't even count to 65).

The notion of having margin of victory in an objective measure is useful for handicapping and predicting. That is not the same as ranking and rewarding. The simple reason why margin of victory will not be a factor in tournament selection is that it promotes bad sportsmanship. Can you imagine John Calipari on the bubble playing USF? He would be popping blood vessels, working the ref, full-court traps, injuring opponents, all up 50 with 6 minutes to go. How could this be good for basketball (or humanity)?

Also, there are simple mathematical reasons that Margin of Victory should not be included as well (this can be corrected for but I doubt that many do). MOV is biased toward offensive teams (a 100-80 win is twice as valuable as a 50-40 win; now tell me something is not wrong with that). Also, in statistical terms, MOV includes more "noise" than it should-- or in basketball terms, a lot of points are scored in mop-up time that would influence rankings that are not at all reflective of the teams relative strengths.

I agree 100% about the use RPI and SOS in the same argument. Its redundantly redundant redundancy drives me nuts too.