bdance

'Nuff said also works, if you want to mix it up a bit. Not as strong though.

UMass87

As of today, SLU is probably a 9 seed. If they lose on Friday they will probably be an 11 seed.

RF1

While Drexel had a great streak to close out its season, it was for the most part (save the bracket buster blowout of 69-49 at Clevelend State) against a fairly weak CAA. Drexel unfortuantely played just about no one in its OOC schedule. It in fact played just one BCS team all year scoring just 35 points in a 49-35 loss to Virginia at a neutral site. The Dragons then have the loss to Norfolk State at a neutral site which does not look good. The only other OOC games of note versus top 100 teams were a 62-49 loss to St. Joe's and a 64-60 win over Princeton. They have a lot of wins but they are mostly over poor teams. They failed in probably both of their best OOC opportunities (Virginia and St Joe). I could not blame the committee for keeping them out based on their overall resume.

SpiderDave19

Historically, the committee does just that. Teams from bad conferences that rack up lots of wins against bad teams do not get into the tournament. They've beaten nobody.

Look at St. Joe's. They have a non con win that blows anything Drexel did out of the water. They have another handful of wins in the Atlantic 10 that are better than anyone Drexel beat.

St. Joe beat Creighton, a top 20 RPI team. They beat Temple, currently projected as a 5 seed.

St Joe beat Umass, Lasalle, and Dayton, all likely NIT teams. And they beat Duquesne, who won't make the NIT but boast Bob Vetrone A10 Media Award Winner Ray Goss as their radio play-by-play guy. Talk about intimidating.

Drexel split with VCU, who is decent this year. After that? Uhhhhh.....Princeton? George Mason? Not too pretty.

St Joe lost to American. Drexel lost to Delaware, Norfolk St., and Georgia St. And St. Joe.
St Joe RPI 57, SOS 47
Drexel RPI 70, SOS 222

And St. Joe beat Drexel by double digits.

St. Joe's is currently the last of the NEXT FOUR OUT, meaning Lunardi has SEVEN teams ahead of St. Joes who would not get in. But Drexel should? Wow.

If Drexel gets in, there will be a handful of teams justifiably pissed.

Flyer75

Something has to be fixed and I'm not sure what it is or how to do it but the thing to remember is, this tournament is NOT about getting the best 64 (68) teams in the tournament. It's just not. If it were, the A10 would send 5 teams (Temple, SLU, X, St. Bonnie, Dayton, heck maybe even more). It's frustrating every year to be in a conference that gets no respect and to have a decent enough team and left out. We had the 7th rated conf this year and are in danger of getting only 2 teams in (I still think 3 will happen: Temple, SLU, and either X, UD or SJU).

txg

Well, the OP makes a compelling case. I don't know if Drexel deserves to be in or not. I would guess just barely in or just barely out sounds about right. I hope they get in. But good lord, saying they would be the worst at-large of all time is a bit much. I'm sure there will be worse at-larges this year.

The "eye test" is a hackneyed phrase that I hate, but if we don't have to actually watch the teams to select the field, why don't we simply plug all the numbers into a computer and be done with it. I watched South Florida and Villanova last night and my eyes are still bleeding. USF seems to be in according to most, but they are 1-8 against the top 50. Does anyone think that if Drexel had 6 more games against top-50 opponents that they wouldn't win at least one of them?

SpiderDave19

We're 7th rated because we have a couple good teams, and an inordinate number of decent teams that will probably result in an A10 record of NIT bids. I don't think it's unfair, our other teams just don't have at large resumes. Yet.

It makes no sense to assume that the number of bids should mirror the conference rank. Some conferences are top heavy and might have 4 very good teams and some really bad ones that hurt their rank.

We're middle-heavy.

rogabee

Too hard to tell IMO. I'd like to see a further breakdown rather than just lumping the road/neutral into one record. Best win/worst loss overall? Also their record vs. top 100 and top 50 is too difficult to determine...there's a huge difference between playing #55 and #95. I know we've become accustomed to those categories, but some more work has to be done IMO. The same with the 3 sub-100 Ls...were those at tough places to play or just clunkers? It's tough to win games at somewhere like at ODU, Kent St, Clemson, Iowa (who beat Indiana, Michigan, Whisky at home), etc. A lot of bubble teams would struggle to win those (see NWern struggling against PSU and Iowa, where a slight upgrade from around and RPI #140 to #115 or so probably results in a loss).

Overall I'd probably go with team B because of the neutral/road record.

I also hate people using the SOS as a number (particularly the #2 criteria listed), as a good bit of it is fixed to start (especially with an 18 game conf. schedule and a BB game for 19 then 3 conf. tourney games for 22 games set already). Also, playing the #1 and #330 team combines to a #150 team in the SOS, but so does playing 2 #150 teams. They shouldn't be counted equally IMO. Eventually, I'd prefer to just look at who you beat, who did you lose to, and where did you do it.

Flyer75

So true, UD beat Minnesota, Ole Miss, Alabama, X, SLU and Temple. Drexel couldn't rack up those kinds of wins in 3 seasons but are ahead of us in the brackets.

In comparing the resume to Drexel:

UD RPI 74 SOS 68 vs. Top 50 3-2
Drexel RPI 70, SOS 222 vs. Top 50 1-2 (losses to Norfolk St., Georgia St, Delaware) 3 biggest wins: Princeton, VCU, George Mason!!! ONE BCS team played and they scored 35 points against them.

No way in hell Drexel should get in.

SpiderDave19

Strictly by numbers, they would indeed be the worst at large team ever.

And I have nothing against them, I've watched them twice and they can play. They really defend and when they are shooting well they are very dangerous.

But the resume is way short of what we normally see from teams under consideration. The only saving grace is the "hot" factor, they've won 20 of 21 or something. I don't think that's anywhere near enough to offset the shortcomings when you consider the quality of all but one of those wins.

rogabee

As far as Drexel, you have no clue what they'd do in a power conference. Reverse that question...what would other bubble teams like Seton Hall do in the CAA? Would they be better than 16-2? Doubtful, considering they lost to Rutgers and De Paul. It's the same for many others listed there.

Flyer75

Well, that's kind of my point. Since the tourny isn't about getting the best teams in, we aren't going to get 5 in. A few years back Georgia got in simply because they won 4 straight SEC games in their post season tourny. 26 games played prior to that had zero bearing on that decision. Georgia was under .500 for the year until that run. That took a spot from a more deserving team. Listened to Mike and Mike this morning and they talked about this, about how post season conf tourny's are pretty much a joke. You've played 30 games up until that point and regular season should determine the champion and pick the NCAA from that 30 game data. There's enough data there to get the teams you need and that way you at least eliminate some .500 team from sneaking in and stealing a spot from a team that actually earned it over 30 games. What if Murray St hadn't won their tourny (and it was close)?

Now, I know this would probably change allot of things that teams do to get in but that's just my opinion.

Flyer75

I hate when people ask this question. One, we have no clue. Programs are built up over time so you can't just say, "What if UD were in the Big 10?" Well, what UD team? A first year UD team or a UD team that has been in the Big 10 for 6, 7, 2, 5 years???? Which is it? And then if you move a BCS team to a lower conference wouldn't it suffice to say that they would suffer in the long run? Recruiting for Seton Hall 6 years into the CAA would be what? Probably what it is for Drexel. We'll never know. Fact is, Drexel could have scheduled harder and they didn't. Their schedule is a joke.

SpiderDave19

There is an unfairness to the system that is clearly worth the trade off. The excitement of seeing teams get hot and win their tournament when they would not have received a bid otherwise is a big part of the fun.

If you are a Dayton, Lasalle, UMass fan right now, you probably think you have a realistic chance to win three in a row this week. Wouldn't it suck if that just got you a better NIT seed? You are "stealing" a bid from the most borderline team out there, so I don't feel like it's terribly unfair. Not like Lasalle wins the A10 and bumps Missouri, who had a fantastic season. You bump Texas or Tennessee.....a team who had plenty of chances to solidify their chances, and left it up to chance. Not a perfect system. But not any gross injustice going on.

UMass87

I get why people think Drexel should not get an at-large bid but the fact is that if they do it will be consistent with past NCAA selection. Drexel seems, from the SOS and RPI numbers, to be a gross outlier for at-large selection. This is simply not the case. How do I know? Because Dance Card ( http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm ) predicts that Drexel will get an at-large bid. Unlike all of us, Dance Card is PURELY objective. Unlike us, Dance Card is based ENTIRELY on past at-large selections. You and I may THINK that Drexel would be an historically gross outlier of an at-large selection but the FACT is that it would not.