Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
21 - 40 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
AA, the point is the conference said they'd make every effort possible to make sure UR and VCU didn't play on their home court, and then clearly put in - oh - 0% effort to do so.

FWIW, Jerry Palm says SBU at large is in peril. I believe the A10 is staring at auto-bid only at this point. Shit, SLU and UD have better wins than SBU.
One of SLU’s “better” wins is over the Bonnies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
I hope you're right 03, it just is vaguely familiar to 2016 in the win column where our only good wins to speak of were in conference and the argument was we beat nobody outside of the A10. That team had some bad (bad) losses though.
Of course I'm right! This is what the ESPN bubble guy says and I think this is accurate:
21079
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,797 Posts
I hope you're right 03, it just is vaguely familiar to 2016 in the win column where our only good wins to speak of were in conference and the argument was we beat nobody outside of the A10. That team had some bad (bad) losses though.
Well if it makes you feel any more secure the computer guys had you about 80 in 2016 but 34 today after the loss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
AA, the point is the conference said they'd make every effort possible to make sure UR and VCU didn't play on their home court, and then clearly put in - oh - 0% effort to do so.

FWIW, Jerry Palm says SBU at large is in peril. I believe the A10 is staring at auto-bid only at this point. Shit, SLU and UD have better wins than SBU.
If they kept the schedule 100% pure with no time adjustments on the order of games, you'd have to give UR or VCU a home game, because they're both "odd numbered games." So if you put UR at VCU, the VCU ends up at VCU.

For all of you saying "they clearly favor VCU," they freaking should! VCU is the 2 seed, Richmond is the 8 seed. Damn straight it should be VCU playing at home if one of the has to. You don't give the #8 seed a home game vs the #1 seed. Giving the #7 seed a road game vs the #2 seed is totally fine.


That being said, they could have played Richmond/Bona (assuming) in Seigel, followed by VCU vs 7/10 winner in Robins as the next game... because the Semis are at 6 pm and 8 pm on Saturday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
Palm is one of the worst ones out there. Our resume has a blemish on it but every team in that range has at least 1 if not more. We definitely burned all of our equity and now have a must win QF. If that means its in peril, I guess so but If the tournament started today we would be in by a decent margin.
I hope you're right 03, it just is vaguely familiar to 2016 in the win column where our only good wins to speak of were in conference and the argument was we beat nobody outside of the A10. That team had some bad (bad) losses though.
Two things. One is that not a lot of people in Division I beat a lot of other people OOC. Like, "Hey, Georgia Tech had a 287 Non-Conference SOS and lost to 135 Mercer and 138 Georgia State! But we're going to keep the Bonnies out because they went 2-0 OOC due to COVID? Eff that noise.

The system is rigged. If we get left out, it's not because of anything we did or didn't do, but because we're not a member of the cartel. It's that simple. The entire fucking enterprise is a self-fulfilling prophesy: Palm and Lunardi are trying to PROJECT what the committee will do based on what they've done in the past. So there's 110 bracket projections with us on the cutline because the committee was fucking stupid 5 years ago (and has been stupid since Greg Shaheen got booted by the cartel).

The MYTH of BCS superiority is cemented by the fact that committee can use the projections of how shitty they will be on Selection Sunday to justified being shitty! The perception has shifted from "Non-Cartel Teams will be SCREWED OVER" to "Non-Cartel teams DON'T DESERVE A BID because they're not as good as the cartel."

Prime example, Stephen F. Austin beat Duke on November 26, 2019 and all the guys projecting said "There's no way SFA can possibly get an at-large based on how bad the Southland is." They beat the team that ended up #6 in the NET, on the road and it's mathmatically impossible for them to get an at-large? 25-3 and 77th in the NET by the way. Win over Duke. Losses to #30 Rutgers, #55 Alabama (And #314 Texas A&M CC). If your system wouldn't give a 26-4 SFA team that played Duke, Rutgers and Alabama on the road and went 1-2, and went 22-1 in their other games an NCAA bid, your system is fucked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,797 Posts
If they kept the schedule 100% pure with no time adjustments on the order of games, you'd have to give UR or VCU a home game, because they're both "odd numbered games." So if you put UR at VCU, the VCU ends up at VCU.

For all of you saying "they clearly favor VCU," they freaking should! VCU is the 2 seed, Richmond is the 8 seed. Damn straight it should be VCU playing at home if one of the has to. You don't give the #8 seed a home game vs the #1 seed. Giving the #7 seed a road game vs the #2 seed is totally fine.


That being said, they could have played Richmond/Bona (assuming) in Seigel, followed by VCU vs 7/10 winner in Robins as the next game... because the Semis are at 6 pm and 8 pm on Saturday.
On the other hand, giving the 2 seed a neutral win instead of a home win, and the 1 seed an away win instead of a neutral win, does improve the at-large resume of both does it not?

But that only works because of the fading 8 seed...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
On the other hand, giving the 2 seed a neutral win instead of a home win, and the 1 seed an away win instead of a neutral win, does improve the at-large resume of both does it not?

But that only works because of the fading 8 seed...
Well, yeah, that assumes they win. Which when you see Saint Joe's knocking off bubble teams, and La Salle winning 3 straight against pre-season favorites.

The conference shouldn't "play favorites." To mean that means "we shouldn't pick between VCU and Richmond for NCAA bubble chances."

However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't play favorites between Bona, VCU, Richmond and SLU and EVERYONE ELSE. We absolutely should play favorites for our bubble candidates and get as much money possible. And if someone (UMass this year) has a problem with it, get on the bubble and get the benefits of it. We should be serving our NCAA chances more than anything else. Because that's the rising tide that lifts us all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Yeah, Georgia Tech didn't do anything out of conference, but they're lucky enough to have had shots at good wins and they converted: Va Tech, UNC, FSU and Clemson.

We can all blame the "cartels" and whatever, but the fact is we really could have been a FIVE BID league. Terrible losses by Dayton, Richmond and SLU did that in.

If Bona had any type of OOC, they would have had a chance to showcase their legitimacy.

The SFA example is a bit of an extreme because they play in arguably the worst conference, so they would have had to play a much deeper OOC to get an at large. ONE good win all year does not make your season. It sucks that it's that way for the bottom of D1, but it won't change until they have the money to get a better schedule.

Is it fair Bona has to play home and homes with low-level MAAC schools and often plays more road games by the end of November than an ACC will be in the first three months, of course not, but that's not the fault of anyone besides SBU.

The A10, save Dayton and SLU to an extent, never consistently get the resume-building wins against the B1G, ACC, etc. Add in the fact that we just don't win enough games OOC and you have a dangerous combination.

The more money you have for buy games and the more home games you have, the more likely you are to win games and ultimately get into the NCAAs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,787 Posts
The SFA example is a bit of an extreme because they play in arguably the worst conference, so they would have had to play a much deeper OOC to get an at large. ONE good win all year does not make your season. It sucks that it's that way for the bottom of D1, but it won't change until they have the money to get a better schedule.

Is it fair Bona has to play home and homes with low-level MAAC schools and often plays more road games by the end of November than an ACC will be in the first three months, of course not, but that's not the fault of anyone besides SBU.

The A10, save Dayton and SLU to an extent, never consistently get the resume-building wins against the B1G, ACC, etc. Add in the fact that we just don't win enough games OOC and you have a dangerous combination.

The more money you have for buy games and the more home games you have, the more likely you are to win games and ultimately get into the NCAAs.
What you're saying here is regurgitating the myth of BCS superiority. It's all circular logic:
The quad system rewards teams for playing "strong teams," but to be a strong team, you have to be in a deep enough conference that wins OOC to all be in the higher quads. You do that by buying games at home, hiring the officials yourself and bullying poorer schools.

If the A-10 goes .900 in OOC play against middle tier SOS and has 9 teams in the top 50 of the NET... the committee will say "But they didn't beat anyone out of conference" and give us 3 bids.

It's not anyone's fault but SBU? You think the Bonnies are turning down home/homes with Syracuse, Villanova, Duke, etc? That's insanity. It IS the Cartel's fault because they refuse to visit the RC.

The NCAA rules put 5 members from Cartel Conferences on the 10 person selection committee.
The members of the cartel refuse to play home/home with non-cartel members.
The committee then blames the SOS, and not playing the schools that refuse to play them as why they keep the non-Cartel teams out.

It's the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
What you're saying here is regurgitating the myth of BCS superiority. It's all circular logic:
The quad system rewards teams for playing "strong teams," but to be a strong team, you have to be in a deep enough conference that wins OOC to all be in the higher quads. You do that by buying games at home, hiring the officials yourself and bullying poorer schools.

If the A-10 goes .900 in OOC play against middle tier SOS and has 9 teams in the top 50 of the NET... the committee will say "But they didn't beat anyone out of conference" and give us 3 bids.

It's not anyone's fault but SBU? You think the Bonnies are turning down home/homes with Syracuse, Villanova, Duke, etc? That's insanity. It IS the Cartel's fault because they refuse to visit the RC.

The NCAA rules put 5 members from Cartel Conferences on the 10 person selection committee.
The members of the cartel refuse to play home/home with non-cartel members.
The committee then blames the SOS, and not playing the schools that refuse to play them as why they keep the non-Cartel teams out.

It's the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rules.
That's just not true.

Our two highest conference win % of the last decade were in 2013 and 2014. You know what happened? We got five and six bids to the dance.

The A10 is one of the few "non-power" conferences to get home and homes with the powers and yet we still have poor records against them.

Yes, SBU is not ducking games against Nova, SU, etc., but we do agree to damaging h&h's with CC, NU, and Siena. Why? Because we do not have an extra $150,000 to shell out for buy games. That's an SBU problem, not some crazy conspiracy against us.

I am not advocating for every team to play a poor schedule, but if you are not projected in the top half of the conference, you shouldn't be playing an OOC schedule that is going to result in north of six or seven losses. Mason did this a couple years ago and their NET was 100 spots higher than Fordham who did the opposite.

Dayton, VCU, SJU, UR, URI and SLU are teams when in contention get great OOC games. SLU cashed in on two of those three wins, that's why they're still on the bubble despite a rocky A10 performance.

Syracuse ain't playing in the RC again for the same reason we shouldn't play a H&H with Canisius or Jackson St. You lose a ton of money playing away from the dome and you lose more games playing true road games.

It is annoying that we have not secured a big game in Buffalo or Rochester lately, but when we are projected to be good, we get in good tournaments and put together strong schedules. We had that in 2012, 2018 and it appears we will have that next season.

Again, we were in position to have potentially five teams in the tournament. The A10 squandered that.

A10's biggest threat is itself and schools in the conference doing damaging things in scheduling their OOC slates.

We put together a very poor OOC in 2016, lost multiple Q3/Q4 games and still almost made it off conference wins alone. This year, people are annoyed that schools from the Big 10, ACC, Big East are doing that...

A10 members are in a better position to succeed than 25 or 26 of the 32 D1 conferences. We are much closer to being a power than we are a mid major. Win your damn OOC games and stop getting bounced the first weekend of the dance and good things will come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
.. a bunch..
You gotta cut it out with the myth crap. The power conference schools are stronger, are better, and they have the OOC records to prove it. There are only a handful of non-P5(6) schools that would go .500 in a power conference regular season on a regular basis.

The question isn't who's better .. Michigan State or Drake, it's who deserves a bid. Because of scheduling inequities, we don't know who's better (actually we do.. it's MSU 9/10), so you have to look at the resumes and say, this team never got a chance to prove itself let's give them a chance.

The .500 conference record cut line got thrown around this past week via ESPN with Dick Vitale and Joe Lunardi both agreeing you should have to be .500. There's two sides to this coin. On one hand, yeah if you can't even beat half your conference you've proven you aren't a title contender. On the other, MSU fans can look at Drake and say, well they wouldn't .500 in the B1G either. And they're probably right.

So do you want the best teams in? Or the teams that deserve to be in? Right now it's a hybrid. Shit they take 15 conference winners that have no business shooting for a national title already. But that's where the discussion lies, until the inequities are removed you will have this battle of mediocre P5's - still very good teams - on the bubble vs. great mid-majors. My personal opinion is award the team with the wins and give them a chance to either back it up or fall on their face.

But the power schools are better. Don't tell us BCS superiority is a myth.
 

·
Registered
St. Bonaventure
Joined
·
6,961 Posts
But the power schools are better. Don't tell us BCS superiority is a myth.
The top programs from the P5? Sure. No argument here. However, I am convinced the middle-ish (let alone low end) P5 teams from year to year are definitively not superior to the top 3-4 teams from the A10, AAC, MWC, WCC, and MVC. That’s pretty much all I’ve ever contended.

It’s asinine that sub-.500 P5s can point to some subjective “eye test” when they hover at .500 all year. Minnesota has lost five straight, yet they are STILL considered a bubble team. Like you said, ‘85, at that point, common sense must prevail. Winning teams get those last 4-6 bids, and the only way to ensure that in the era of “cash trumps reason and fairness” is to have cast iron qualifying rules. Regulations are necessary sometimes—be they established by the federal government or the NCAA.
 

·
Piker
Joined
·
10,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
The top programs from the P5? Sure. No argument here. However, I am convinced the middle-to-lower P5 teams from year to year are definitively not superior to the top 3-4 teams from the A10, AAC, MWC, WCC, and MVC. That’s pretty much all I’ve ever contended.

It’s asinine that sub-.500 P5s can point to some subjective “eye test” when they hover at .500 all year. Minnesota has lost five straight, yet they are STILL considered a bubble team. Like you said, ‘85, at that point, common sense must prevail. Winning teams get those last 4-6 bids, and the only way to ensure that in the era of “cash trumps reason and fairness” is to have cast iron qualifying rules. Regulations are necessary sometimes—be they established by the federal government or the NCAA.
They look at them beating OSU, Michigan & Iowa among others. It is hard to stomach when they are 13-12 but this is not a new phenomenon. Such is life outside of the P5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
We have metrics that sort this shit out, they are WAB and SOR. This guy updates WAB

The whole "Indiana would dominate the Valley" arguments are the shit I hear from big school fans all the time. Its bullshit. The power schools are not better, and their records in the NCAAT are worse than the winning programs from smaller conferences. Lunardi wrote about it last summer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
The top programs from the P5? Sure. No argument here. However, I am convinced the middle-to-lower P5 teams from year to year are definitively not superior to the top 3-4 teams from the A10, AAC, MWC, WCC, and MVC. That’s pretty much all I’ve ever contended.

It’s asinine that sub-.500 P5s can point to some subjective “eye test” when they hover at .500 all year. Minnesota has lost five straight, yet they are STILL considered a bubble team. Like you said, ‘85, at that point, common sense must prevail. Winning teams get those last 4-6 bids, and the only way to ensure that in the era of “cash trumps reason and fairness” is to have cast iron qualifying rules. Regulations are necessary sometimes—be they established by the federal government or the NCAA.
BR, I really think it's only the bottom most teams that would struggle in a conference even like the A10. Teams like Vandy, Wake, BC, Iowa State, Nebraska, NW, Cal. They'd fare better in the CUSA, OVC level and would probably win those conferences. I really do believe that. Middle tier teams - SU, PSU, K-State, South Carolina, I think would be upper echelon A10.

3rd Shay has a ton of good points. We need to schedule like a major conference, and a major program. But then you also have to win the games. The power conferences do win the games. Their lower teams beat other lower teams, and their upper teams win games over anyone and everyone. A lot of the games are at home, but a lot of them aren't close contests either.

I just can't handle the myth angle from JP anymore. If we could get 4 "crappy" BCS teams on our schedule every year, and beat all 4, we'd be ecstatic. We were ecstatic because we beat a middling SU team in the 2018 season. And we should have been. But that team went 8-10 in the ACC.

If the A10 teams would schedule for no landmines, add some buy game $ to their budgets, and go .800+ in the OOC portion of the season, we put ourselves squarely in the "well come play us if you think you can beat us" category. The games don't happen, so we don't know, and yeah I know we've been on board with adding qualification rules. I've never thought it's because we are hands down better than a team like MSU this season for example, but it's because MSU has gotten the chance to play the top teams, lost those games, and we need to see what a solid mid-major program can do instead.
 

·
Piker
Joined
·
10,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
The hardest thing to stomach is when it is bubble time in March the national pundits vomit all over multiple bid talk for non P5 schools. Rothstein is spouting the one bid league thing now all over twitter and CBS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Russell
21 - 40 of 83 Posts
Top