Jump to content
Rampage

Two years only one team in NCAA mens tournament. Is this the new norm?

Recommended Posts

I think one of the big problems the MWC has is travel.  Because there are so many long trips, it is very hard for teams to win most of their road games.  It means that the top two teams rarely have less than three losses.  To get two bids, you need a dominant regular season champion and a different winner in the tournament or two teams that go 16-2 or better in conference.  If the conference could make one of those two scenarios happen, they would get multiple bids.  The other way, of course, is to win meaningful out of conference games.  I still think this is not the norm, but unless schools start winning some of those out of conference games, it could be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a while, yes.

We need programs that are consistently capable of knocking off schools with bigger names to consistently get more in. We are in short supply of that right now, for sure.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, masterfrog said:

I think one of the big problems the MWC has is travel.  Because there are so many long trips, it is very hard for teams to win most of their road games.  It means that the top two teams rarely have less than three losses.  To get two bids, you need a dominant regular season champion and a different winner in the tournament or two teams that go 16-2 or better in conference.  If the conference could make one of those two scenarios happen, they would get multiple bids.  The other way, of course, is to win meaningful out of conference games.  I still think this is not the norm, but unless schools start winning some of those out of conference games, it could be.

 

usc was 10-8 in conference

 

this season was all about doing nothing in the non-conference

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, toonkee said:

For a while, yes.

We need programs that are consistently capable of knocking off schools with bigger names to consistently get more in. We are in short supply of that right now, for sure.  

Bingo.

It's OOC scheduling. I used to think any group of teams could step up, be great and lift the conf like UNLV, SDSU and UNM used to do ("the BIG 3"). I have turned around on that opinion. There is one simple reason...

OOC Scheduling

Apparently the only two teams who can put together top notch OOC schedules year in and year out are UNLV and SDSU (to a lesser degree, UNM). Now that both of those programs are down, the conference gets little to no resume building wins. When our good teams are UNR or WYO or CSU, we can't count on getting enough good wins OOC to build the conf resume.

In year's past, when SDSU and UNLV (some years BYU and UNM) would notch great wins OOC, then you could have another team that could "ride the coattails" by beating a couple of them in conference, thereby building a legit resume for themselves.

I see two ways out of this...

1. The current good schools schedule up legit P5's and win on a consistent basis. From what I have read on scheduling issues, this appears simply impossible for some schools. It is what it is. If those schools end up being our best teams, we are a 1 bid league.

2. The teams who CAN put together great schedules (UNLV, SDSU, UNM) get to the point where they can win those games. Then stay good enough in the conference games that they don't damage themselves too much.

I've personally never been in favor of the above opinion because it basically puts the pressure for the whole conference on 2 or 3 schools, but the evidence seems to bear it out.

Another question I struggle with now is what is a "good OOC schedule" now? RPI is moving out as a metric and kenpom seems like black magic to me.

I have read the opinion that there is a "changing of the guard" away from the big 3. That seems to be the case. If it is, we are stuck as a 1 bid for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, masterfrog said:

I think one of the big problems the MWC has is travel.  Because there are so many long trips, it is very hard for teams to win most of their road games.  It means that the top two teams rarely have less than three losses.  To get two bids, you need a dominant regular season champion and a different winner in the tournament or two teams that go 16-2 or better in conference.  If the conference could make one of those two scenarios happen, they would get multiple bids.  The other way, of course, is to win meaningful out of conference games.  I still think this is not the norm, but unless schools start winning some of those out of conference games, it could be.

Travel has always been a problem. However . . .

On a 10 scale of the 10 FBS conferences, basketball and football combined, the MWC was once about a 6.5 and it's now about a 3.5.

A year ago SDSU went 16-2 in the regular season and then to the tournament finals but didn't get in the NCAAs.

Anybody who believes there is reason to think the MWC can even reach 5.0 again should kindly explain.

Yes, one bid is now the new norm for hoops with two bids on occasion and one access bowl trip only every fifth year should also be expected.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SharkTanked said:

Bingo.

It's OOC scheduling. I used to think any group of teams could step up, be great and lift the conf like UNLV, SDSU and UNM used to do ("the BIG 3"). I have turned around on that opinion. There is one simple reason...

OOC Scheduling

Apparently the only two teams who can put together top notch OOC schedules year in and year out are UNLV and SDSU (to a lesser degree, UNM). Now that both of those programs are down, the conference gets little to no resume building wins. When our good teams are UNR or WYO or CSU, we can't count on getting enough good wins OOC to build the conf resume.

In year's past, when SDSU and UNLV (some years BYU and UNM) would notch great wins OOC, then you could have another team that could "ride the coattails" by beating a couple of them in conference, thereby building a legit resume for themselves.

I see two ways out of this...

1. The current good schools schedule up legit P5's and win on a consistent basis. From what I have read on scheduling issues, this appears simply impossible for some schools. It is what it is. If those schools end up being our best teams, we are a 1 bid league.

2. The teams who CAN put together great schedules (UNLV, SDSU, UNM) get to the point where they can win those games. Then stay good enough in the conference games that they don't damage themselves too much.

I've personally never been in favor of the above opinion because it basically puts the pressure for the whole conference on 2 or 3 schools, but the evidence seems to bear it out.

Another question I struggle with now is what is a "good OOC schedule" now? RPI is moving out as a metric and kenpom seems like black magic to me.

I have read the opinion that there is a "changing of the guard" away from the big 3. That seems to be the case. If it is, we are stuck as a 1 bid for a long time.

I strongly disagree with this, I think it just takes time for schools to get the reputation to schedule well OOC. Back when Nevada was good we had series against Kansas, North Carolina, Cal, Washington(when they were good), etc. Our problem is that we were viewed as an RPI anchor until this year. 

Also, you're acting like UNLV, UNM, and SDSU play horribly difficult schedules OOC. UNLV's OOC SOS was 197th and only better than 3 teams in the MW. As our reputation improves we'll get invited to better tournaments and get chances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bigd said:

I strongly disagree with this, I think it just takes time for schools to get the reputation to schedule well OOC. Back when Nevada was good we had series against Kansas, North Carolina, Cal, Washington(when they were good), etc. Our problem is that we were viewed as an RPI anchor until this year. 

Also, you're acting like UNLV, UNM, and SDSU play horribly difficult schedules OOC. UNLV's OOC SOS was 197th and only better than 3 teams in the MW. As our reputation improves we'll get invited to better tournaments and get chances. 

Funny, I have heard the opposite claims from UNR fans here. No one would ever want to come to Reno... or they are too afraid of getting beaten and have it show as a "bad loss." You can't base an entire OOC on tournament games (much like UNLV can't base one on Duke, Kansas, Oregon and then a bunch of horrible turds, which is how we arrived at the SOS we did this year).

So now you guys with an awesome RPI are going to have a great schedule next year OOC?

I'm not saying UNLV is the only ones capable of bringing in the big names, just that they are the only ones who have proven to regularly be able to do it consistently, along with SDSU. If someone else steps up, I am all for that. Let's see it happen though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Nevada doesn't lose to Iona their RPI sits at 22

If CSU doesn't lose to Long Beach and Maramount their RPI would be 52

If Boise State doesn't lose to Evansville, 63

If Fresno doesn't lose to Prairie View, 61

If SDSU beats loyala Chicago and Grand Canyon,  74

If New Mexico completes the Aggie sweep, 75.

If the league were played out with these improved numbers the RPI would be higher still. Nevada would have two top 50 wins over CSU. Fresno and Boise would be a stones throw away from being top fifty wins as well. Just by avoiding a few of our worst losses we could improve the league substantially. We're not that far from being a 2 bid league even after 2 dreadful years.

To get more than 2 bids we need to win big games as well as not lose the terrible ones.

  • Like 2

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

It's my understanding that RPI is not a significant factor in the Committee's decision making now. Sagarin and Kenpom are given equal weight.

These fans are stuck in 2005.

RPI's been dead. It's been outdated for years. THe bearing it had a decade ago, holds no bearing now.

All is well, For Rice is gone.                  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BestintheWest said:

These fans are stuck in 2005.

RPI's been dead. It's been outdated for years. THe bearing it had a decade ago, holds no bearing now.

I figured this would be the case, but based on the tournament this year it appears RPI still a bigger factor than the other rating systems (hence Wichita's low seed). 

You've been arguing that RPI is dead nonstop, but where is the evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

It's my understanding that RPI is not a significant factor in the Committee's decision making now. Sagarin and Kenpom are given equal weight.

A teams individual rating doesn't matter. What they accomplish vs the teams in the top 50, top 100, and sub 100 groups is still the most important thing looked at when the committee compares teams. If the advanced metrics mattered half as much as people say they do, number 8 kenpom Wichita State wouldn't be a 10 seed.

5 minutes ago, BestintheWest said:

These fans are stuck in 2005.

RPI's been dead. It's been outdated for years. THe bearing it had a decade ago, holds no bearing now.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-basketball/2017/1/13/14264948/ncaa-tournament-selection-committee-process-rpi-advanced-stats

The only bad news? This meeting is taking place too late for any of this to affect the way the 2017 NCAA Tournament is seeded. Using an aggregate metric won't be an option to be part of the selection process until at least 2018.

 

  • Like 1

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

If Nevada doesn't lose to Iona their RPI sits at 22

If CSU doesn't lose to Long Beach and Maramount their RPI would be 52

If Boise State doesn't lose to Evansville, 63

If Fresno doesn't lose to Prairie View, 61

If SDSU beats loyala Chicago and Grand Canyon,  74

If New Mexico completes the Aggie sweep, 75.

If the league were played out with these improved numbers the RPI would be higher still. Nevada would have two top 50 wins over CSU. Fresno and Boise would be a stones throw away from being top fifty wins as well. Just by avoiding a few of our worst losses we could improve the league substantially. We're not that far from being a 2 bid league even after 2 dreadful years.

To get more than 2 bids we need to win big games as well as not lose the terrible ones.

Very well said, the conference just can't lose to shitty teams OOC. Especially our good teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bigd said:

I strongly disagree with this, I think it just takes time for schools to get the reputation to schedule well OOC. Back when Nevada was good we had series against Kansas, North Carolina, Cal, Washington(when they were good), etc. Our problem is that we were viewed as an RPI anchor until this year. 

Also, you're acting like UNLV, UNM, and SDSU play horribly difficult schedules OOC. UNLV's OOC SOS was 197th and only better than 3 teams in the MW. As our reputation improves we'll get invited to better tournaments and get chances. 

 

UNLV played 3 of the top 9 seeds in the NCAA tournament.

We played 3 top tier teams.

TCU and ASU were supposed to be that 2nd tier. ASU finished 131st KENPOM (Notice I don't use RPI for anything...because it's useless)

TCU finished 41st Kenpom.

 

3 great teams. 2 good teams. Then fill the rest with W's or 250+ teams.

That's a good schedule.

It gets you easy W's and some home fillers. Gives you some good wins if you get em (ASU, TCU, So. Illinois)

Then you have the opportunity for resume builders if you steal a win vs those top 10 teams.

 

That's how you build a schedule for a NCAAT resume. One of the few Dave Rice strong points.

 

 

So, sure...go ahead and look at numbers and state, "OH, UNLV's SOS was 197th. and Reno's was top 100"

Yeah Reno did a nice job filling their OOC with strictly 100-200 ranked clubs. Yet you get no marquee games (You did, kinda, a blow out to St Marys who doesn't really get that much respect in 1st place)

Nothing to show a committee to make your school worthy of at large. They would much rather a schedule that looks like UNLV's than the one Reno had.

All is well, For Rice is gone.                  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bigd said:

I figured this would be the case, but based on the tournament this year it appears RPI still a bigger factor than the other rating systems (hence Wichita's low seed). 

You've been arguing that RPI is dead nonstop, but where is the evidence?

Look around. It's been dead.Articles been around since 2010. It's a flawed system. I actually just heard one of the former committee guys talk about it on radio yesterday.

Wichita's low rating is based on RPI?

Their RPI is 32...

 

Their Kenpom? 8th

 

Their seeding is absed on schedule. This why RPI weight has died.

They play in crap conference and OOC wasn't that great for them. They're better than their seed, but it just goes to show that different factors measure into the overall decision.

All is well, For Rice is gone.                  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BestintheWest said:

 

UNLV played 3 of the top 9 seeds in the NCAA tournament.

We played 3 top tier teams.

TCU and ASU were supposed to be that 2nd tier. ASU finished 131st KENPOM (Notice I don't use RPI for anything...because it's useless)

TCU finished 41st Kenpom.

 

3 great teams. 2 good teams. Then fill the rest with W's or 250+ teams.

That's a good schedule.

It gets you easy W's and some home fillers. Gives you some good wins if you get em (ASU, TCU, So. Illinois)

Then you have the opportunity for resume builders if you steal a win vs those top 10 teams.

 

That's how you build a schedule for a NCAAT resume. One of the few Dave Rice strong points.

 

 

So, sure...go ahead and look at numbers and state, "OH, UNLV's SOS was 197th. and Reno's was top 100"

Yeah Reno did a nice job filling their OOC with strictly 100-200 ranked clubs. Yet you get no marquee games (You did, kinda, a blow out to St Marys who doesn't really get that much respect in 1st place)

Nothing to show a committee to make your school worthy of at large. They would much rather a schedule that looks like UNLV's than the one Reno had.

I absolutely agree it's good to have the marquee games on the schedule. Even losses to these teams don't really hurt. But I don't think filling the rest with 200 level teams is a good idea. It's still better to have 100-200 type teams. But yeah, no doubt that you guys had a better schedule for a potential at-large this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BestintheWest said:

Look around. It's been dead.Articles been around since 2010. It's a flawed system. I actually just heard one of the former committee guys talk about it on radio yesterday.

Wichita's low rating is based on RPI?

Their RPI is 32...

 

Their Kenpom? 8th

 

You proved my point for me, if they were using Kenpom Wichita would be a 2 or 3 seed. Instead they looked at their lack of wins against RPI top 100 teams and their low RPI.

I absolutely agree that RPI is flawed, but based on this years bracket it seems to be the main criteria that the committee used (at least for wins against top 50 and top 100 teams). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

If Nevada doesn't lose to Iona their RPI sits at 22

If CSU doesn't lose to Long Beach and Maramount their RPI would be 52

If Boise State doesn't lose to Evansville, 63

If Fresno doesn't lose to Prairie View, 61

If SDSU beats loyala Chicago and Grand Canyon,  74

If New Mexico completes the Aggie sweep, 75.

If the league were played out with these improved numbers the RPI would be higher still. Nevada would have two top 50 wins over CSU. Fresno and Boise would be a stones throw away from being top fifty wins as well. Just by avoiding a few of our worst losses we could improve the league substantially. We're not that far from being a 2 bid league even after 2 dreadful years.

To get more than 2 bids we need to win big games as well as not lose the terrible ones.

Yeah so what our conference still has no good wins.  You want an at large you need top 50 wins 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...