Knobby

Agreed - Temple took a lot of schidt for getting a good seed then falling flat in the first round. It instantly brings up - what did the A-10 do to get that much respect (or tht many teams in) questions.....

Nobody questions the Bonnies losing with a 12 seed, but there was a lot of chatter when Temple went down in a 5-12 game (and a 4-13 game as well - I thnk)....

__________________
Well, we were smaller, but at least we were slower!

xavierhoops

Muddy appears to be strongly pleased that Xavier has done nearly more for the A-10 than the next top 3 teams combined. Only with your delusion could you be strongly pleased about this.

But Muddy, I hate to burst your bubble, but... winning 20 games every year and making your annual NIT trip (while only winning 1 NCAA game in 20+ years) doesn't do a whole heck of a lot for the conference. (Which by the way, may explain why Dayton's AD only managed to get 1 of UD's games on an ESPN network this past season outside of the tourneys).

*Edit- By the way, any ranking system that includes NIT's as a way of measuring significant contributions to the conference is seriously flawed. I would hope all the teams in the top 2/3 of the A-10 would have a goal to make the NCAA (even at a first round loss) than win the NIT .

AdamtheFlyer

Simply getting to the NCAA tourney is a bigger positive than anything that happens in the NIT, because no one outside of fans of teams participating watches the NIT. The NIT is a joke.

Temple has been to 5 straight NCAA tourneys. They can't be behind a team with 1 NCAA berth over that span.

__________________
Sure, I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is, I'm not. I honestly just feel that America is the best country and the other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

FlyingElvis

The weighting of the points is very debatable, but I do think that winning the whole NIT gets a better perception than getting upset by one of the low level auto-bids in the NCAA tournament.

I like the concept of this thread. I think each individual could propose his own grading system.

__________________
"US Bank Arena can't be that bad"

UMass87

I wish I had entered the records of each team (maybe I'll go back and do that) because then it would be relatively easy to set up any grading system.

FYI - I've played around with different weightings and there is no significant difference in relative positions of the teams. The simple fact is that winning a lot helps and losing a lot hurts.

ace93

I think that the loss to a lower seed is forgotten a year later unless it happens over and over. Similarly, who lost in the NIT final is quickly forgotten unless that team was from your conference. That loss to a lower seed in the NCAA still brings in an NCAA unit, so in that regard that team did more for the conference than the NIT finalist or champion did.

As Bona Wolf said, making a run in the NIT is also likely giving double points since it often propels teams into the next level in total wins. So not only does the NIT champ get 9 points, they likely pick up at least 2 points (possibly more) by adding to their win total. Meanwhile the first round loser in the NCAA does not add wins, so they get only 5 points at best, possibly only 2 if they lose to a lower seed.

Throwing this together is a good exercise and I, for one, appreciate your doing it as it gives us something to talk about, I just think you are overvaluing the NIT a bit and possibly undervaluing an NCAA appearance.

mateer

098m7nb

__________________

Knobby

He called Muddy a Bubble But

You can get reprimanded for that you know!

__________________
Well, we were smaller, but at least we were slower!

mateer

I see my two year old has made his first post ever on a messageboard.

My thoughts which are a little different than 098m7nb.

I like the exercize, though it's only really useful if it tells us something we don't know. Not sure we are any more enlightened. However, if you want to debate the worthiness of the metric and fine tune it, I have some suggestions:

I'd contend any postseason success is net positive for the A10. Even if coverage is local or regional there is coverage that otherwise wouldn't be there. So I'd argue CBI Championships or whatever those other tournaments are should at least garner half a point or something and maybe making the finals a quarter point. Also, I'd contend garnering a single digit seed is as much a positive (if not more) as getting upset in the NCAAs is a negative. Minus points seems a bit harsh.

An N.I.T. title has to be worth more than a first round NCAA bid. Sorry, multiple games, that you win on ESPN, are worth something.

Also, perhaps you should include preseason championships and finals made. They are positive and attract media attention on a national level. So too, winning games on national TV in the non conference (same concept as N.I.T. success). Probably won't change the results that much but would be interesting to see how they do. Those noncon wins on TV have more value than the same ones that aren't televised.

__________________

mateer

Also, losing to a lower seed. They only negative you attract is you were overseated... the committee bares that. When you lose badly as a dog sometimes they say you didn't deserve the bid. That's worse than being accused of being on the wrong line.

So I'd suggest NCAA bid +5, Single Digit Seed +3, Upset to lower seed -3.

__________________

owlfan2272

Either way 2nd or 3rd is fine. Everytime I read South Florida a little knife stabs me though.

__________________
Temple Owls have won a lot.

UMass87

Mateer - I like the seeding component. Don't know if I agree on the CBI - I suspect you make a valid point regarding regional coverage if you make the finals of the CBI. National outlets like ESPN do tend to talk about the CBI final albeit very briefly. My concern is that the coverage actually taints the participants with the rinky-dink nature of the tournament. The NIT is different insofar as that most people think that the NIT championship participants probably should have been an 11 or 12 seed in the tournament. I'm not sure I think the in-conference performance is important but I agree that regional and local coverage is enhanced with regular season and tournament championships and that should lead to increased home attendance which is positive for the conference.

LumsdnA10academc98SBU

So a No. 9 seed that loses to a No. 8 or a No. 10 that loses to a No. 7 in the NCAA Tournament has contributed as much as a team that only made the NIT? Winning 20 games is three times better than winning 19? Winning 25 games is almost twice as good as 24?

Please don't rely on these measures at all. These are totally arbitrary, meaningless and an inaccurate measure of teams' contributions.

AdamtheFlyer

My opinion is, we are a major conference, and we need to start acting like it. Placing anything that happens in the NIT over anything that happens in the NCAA cannot happen. The NCAA tournament is what separates the men from the boys. You can't look back and say "Well, they won some NIT games and you lost in the NCAA, so they did more". That is completely ridiculous.

__________________
Sure, I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is, I'm not. I honestly just feel that America is the best country and the other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

UMass87

Seriously?????

That's the best you got? Look at the rank order. Where is your beef? You don't like SBU second to last? You have to accept that the six years from 02-03 through 07-08, where SBU lost 20 or more games FIVE TIMES and 18 once, were a very bad reflection on the A10.