Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: NCAA changes Tourney Teams evaluation process

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colville, Wa.
    Posts
    14,591

    Default NCAA changes Tourney Teams evaluation process

    This post is for March Madness seeding purposes only.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,159

    Default

    The one additional requirement I would like to see is that, barring winning their conference tournament, a team needs to be .500, or better, in conference play to receive an at large bid.

    Personally, I would prefer 2 teams from each conference. the conference tournament champion and the regular season champion (when the are different) or the second best team in the conference (when they are the same). I understand that many fans would rather see the at large pool feature teams from the P6 conferences, with the exception that the fans of each conference would prefer to see 2 of their schools get in. It also would help to address the disparity in monies paid to the conferences.

    What I am not sure that I understand is, since the NCAA appears to be making these decisions unilaterally, why the conference commissioners of the smaller conferences don't insert themselves into the conversation and demand a bigger share of the pie.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    The one additional requirement I would like to see is that, barring winning their conference tournament, a team needs to be .500, or better, in conference play to receive an at large bid.

    Personally, I would prefer 2 teams from each conference. the conference tournament champion and the regular season champion (when the are different) or the second best team in the conference (when they are the same). I understand that many fans would rather see the at large pool feature teams from the P6 conferences, with the exception that the fans of each conference would prefer to see 2 of their schools get in. It also would help to address the disparity in monies paid to the conferences.

    What I am not sure that I understand is, since the NCAA appears to be making these decisions unilaterally, why the conference commissioners of the smaller conferences don't insert themselves into the conversation and demand a bigger share of the pie.
    There are about 20 one bid conferences each year. Add a second team from some of these conferences and the number of top teams in the tournament will quickly drop http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_conf_Men.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Napa, CA
    Posts
    4,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    The one additional requirement I would like to see is that, barring winning their conference tournament, a team needs to be .500, or better, in conference play to receive an at large bid.

    Personally, I would prefer 2 teams from each conference. the conference tournament champion and the regular season champion (when the are different) or the second best team in the conference (when they are the same). I understand that many fans would rather see the at large pool feature teams from the P6 conferences, with the exception that the fans of each conference would prefer to see 2 of their schools get in. It also would help to address the disparity in monies paid to the conferences.

    What I am not sure that I understand is, since the NCAA appears to be making these decisions unilaterally, why the conference commissioners of the smaller conferences don't insert themselves into the conversation and demand a bigger share of the pie.
    I agree with the .500 in conference bit. If a team can't be at least in the top half of their conference, I don't see any reason they should make it. Less concerned about the 2 members from each, though I do think that winning the regular season could be used as a "tie-breaker" if debating on two teams.
    I will thank God for the day and the moment I have. - Jimmy V

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    The one additional requirement I would like to see is that, barring winning their conference tournament, a team needs to be .500, or better, in conference play to receive an at large bid.

    Personally, I would prefer 2 teams from each conference. the conference tournament champion and the regular season champion (when the are different) or the second best team in the conference (when they are the same). I understand that many fans would rather see the at large pool feature teams from the P6 conferences, with the exception that the fans of each conference would prefer to see 2 of their schools get in. It also would help to address the disparity in monies paid to the conferences.

    What I am not sure that I understand is, since the NCAA appears to be making these decisions unilaterally, why the conference commissioners of the smaller conferences don't insert themselves into the conversation and demand a bigger share of the pie.
    There are 32 total NCAA Div 1 conferences.

    There are 64 (68*) NCAA tournament spots.

    If you automatically invite 2 teams from each conferences, there are no other at-large bids available for anyone.

    You'd end up with 2 teams from the Metro Atlantic or Patriotic (their top 4 teams were 145, 187, 118, 159 on KenPom) and only 2 from the ACC. This year Duke and Louisville were 3rd and 4th in the ACC. Those two teams were 5th and 9th nationally in Kenpom. Both could not make the NCAA tournament under your plan, and even 1 of them couldn't unless one of them beat Virginia or FSU for their league tournament, which wasn't played out.

    It'll never happen, but simply inviting the top 64 teams from Kenpom makes infinitely more sense if the goal is a 64 team tournament of the nation's top teams.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,159

    Default

    I understand about the number of conferences etc.

    What I was trying to do was think outside the box.

    What you have now is the NCAA having $100 and giving $90 to the P6 conferences, and telling those schools fighting to split the last $10 that if they want more, somehow they have to improve....and yes I know the monetary amount is not right. It is figurative.

    Someone else come up with something, anything. I put my ideas out there. Do more than disagree with mine, come up with your own.

    Taking the top 64 schools and most people wouldn't have a school from their state or conference. The top schools would cut back on playing the small schools even more.
    How about, the P6 schools must play half of their OCC games outside the state they are in and half of the OCC games against schools from a non P6 conference?
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    A composite of the rankings would help, something like the BPKenSagarinPomI.

    I have liked the idea of needing a winning record for a while. I suppose there is scenario that a person could think of where that wouldn't be the best choice but I generally like the idea of rewarding winning.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    I understand about the number of conferences etc.

    What I was trying to do was think outside the box.

    What you have now is the NCAA having $100 and giving $90 to the P6 conferences, and telling those schools fighting to split the last $10 that if they want more, somehow they have to improve....and yes I know the monetary amount is not right. It is figurative.

    Someone else come up with something, anything. I put my ideas out there. Do more than disagree with mine, come up with your own.

    Taking the top 64 schools and most people wouldn't have a school from their state or conference. The top schools would cut back on playing the small schools even more.
    How about, the P6 schools must play half of their OCC games outside the state they are in and half of the OCC games against schools from a non P6 conference?
    The current system works pretty good. Out of the 68 teams in the tournament, there's really usually a disagreement over only 3-4 bids each year.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    I really like the NCAA Tourney a lot. Who doesn't. Honestly I like how it's done, and think that the Committee does a great job and it's a dang hard job that they do. I certainly appreciate all the hours and hard work that goes into finding the best 68 teams or so. They use a number of tools which really help them, and I'm sure hours and hours of debates. Because I think the best teams should be invited I would disagree with the top two teams in every conference being allowed to go.
    Go Zags!!! The Best Is Yet To Come!!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post
    The current system works pretty good. Out of the 68 teams in the tournament, there's really usually a disagreement over only 3-4 bids each year.
    Agreed. The current system is better than any suggestion thus far. There are always about 60 teams that 90+% of fans and writers agree on, and then about 10 teams that each have a case for those remaining spots.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LTownZag View Post
    Agreed. The current system is better than any suggestion thus far. There are always about 60 teams that 90+% of fans and writers agree on, and then about 10 teams that each have a case for those remaining spots.
    I think that it adds to the drama of it all and eliminating it would eliminate some of the intrigue and entertainment value of it, disappointment of the teams they didn’t get in notwithstanding.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willandi View Post
    The one additional requirement I would like to see is that, barring winning their conference tournament, a team needs to be .500, or better, in conference play to receive an at large bid.

    Personally, I would prefer 2 teams from each conference. the conference tournament champion and the regular season champion (when the are different) or the second best team in the conference (when they are the same).
    Love the first, not into the second. While we complain about the ACC getting tons of bids, I also think the ACC would be credible in complaining about losing an at-large bid or two if auto-bids had the potential to double (with the exception you noted about the regular season and conference champ being the same).
    Quote Originally Posted by Reborn View Post
    Go Zags!!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lido Beach, NY
    Posts
    49

    Default

    The Huskies have a hard enough time as it is trying to make the dance

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mead
    Posts
    223

    Default

    The NET will no longer include winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage or scoring margin.
    How do you think this will affect the Zags? Generally seems that it would drop us in the NET rankings somewhat. Playing lower level competition in general compared to other major conferences results in a higher winning percentage / scoring margin compared to the teams playing in tougher conferences.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    15,673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagdontzig View Post
    Love the first, not into the second. While we complain about the ACC getting tons of bids, I also think the ACC would be credible in complaining about losing an at-large bid or two if auto-bids had the potential to double (with the exception you noted about the regular season and conference champ being the same).
    Agree. If you look at the last NET rankings there are three WCC teams, three AAC, two A10, one SoCon and one ASUN in the top 68. That means that the majority of the teams in the nation ranked 32-68 don't get into the tournament now. I don't know how fired up I would be to see two MEAC or two SWAC teams in the tournament when their best teams don't even crack the top 200.
    'I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay… small acts of kindness and love.'
    - Gandalf the Grey

    ________________________________



    Foo Time

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    914

    Default

    I think posters would find it interesting to know that one of the NIT selection rules is that all teams that won regular season conference banners get an auto invite to the NIT (assuming they lose in the conference tourny and don't get an autobid or at large). The NIT used to have a .500 requirement too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •