Bids per conference in NCAA and WNIT

[Plebe]

Listed by conference RPI rank.
AQ in bold.
NCAA seeding in parentheses for NCAA teams.
RPI rank in parentheses for WNIT teams.

1. Pac-12
   NCAA (7): Oregon St (2), Stanford (2), Washington (3), UCLA (4), Arizona St (8), Cal (9), Oregon (10)
   WNIT (3): Utah (79), Washington St (101), Colorado (110)
   
   
2. SEC
   NCAA (8): S Carolina (1), Miss St (2), Kentucky (5), Texas A&M (5), Tennessee (5), Missouri (6), LSU (8), Auburn (11)
   WNIT (2): Ole Miss (121), Alabama (132) [Georgia (86) apparently declined autobid]
   
   
3. ACC
   NCAA (7): Notre Dame (1), Duke (2), Florida St (3), Louisville (4), Miami (4), NC State (6), Syracuse (8)
   WNIT (4): Virginia (53), Georgia Tech (61), Wake Forest (88), Virginia Tech (105)
   
   
4. Big 12
   NCAA (6): Baylor (1), Texas (3), Oklahoma (6), West Virginia (6), Kansas St (7), Iowa St (9)
   WNIT (1): Oklahoma St (81)
   
   
5. American
   NCAA (3): UConn (1), Temple (7), South Florida (11)
   WNIT (3): Tulane (74), UCF (97), SMU (100)
   
   
6. Big Ten
   NCAA (4): Maryland (3), Ohio St (5), Purdue (9), Michigan St (9)
   WNIT (4): Michigan (46), Indiana (51), Iowa (64), Penn St (87)
   
   
7. Big East
   NCAA (3): Marquette (5), DePaul (7), Creighton (7)
   WNIT (3): Villanova (67), Georgetown (70), St. John's (71)

 

[JordyG]

If the SEC doesn't do well this year things change next year. One of them has to make the FF, 2 in the E8. If not, no more than 5-6 tops

 

[LO TRADER]

Which conference has the best chance to land 2+ teams in the FF?

 

[Plebe]

If the SEC doesn't do well this year things change next year. One of them has to make the FF, 2 in the E8. If not, no more than 5-6 tops

It doesn't really work that way because bids are awarded on an individual basis, not allocated by per-conference quotas. It's not like FIFA World Cup qualifying.

Only two SEC teams are among the top 4 seeds, so it would take an upset for more than two of them to even get to the Sweet 16.

 

[Plebe]

Which conference has the best chance to land 2+ teams in the FF?

I'd say the ACC. Followed closely by the Big 12. Both have a team strongly favored to make it to the Final Four, plus at least one other strong contender.

The Pac-12 has 3 strong contenders but none of them would be considered a favorite in Vegas terms.

 

[JordyG]

It doesn't really work that way because bids are awarded on an individual basis, not allocated by per-conference quotas. It's not like FIFA World Cup qualifying.

Only two SEC teams are among the top 4 seeds, so it would take an upset for more than two of them to even get to the Sweet 16.

Indeed. But the committee will take notice. And clearly more and more weight is being given to OOC and not how well team's within the conferences beat up on each other. As the SEC (and Big 10) teams start to play tougher OOC's the true strength of conferences will be clearer. I think the SEC will start to have less and less OOC success leading to fewer bids. I also think the PAC 12 playing tougher OOC's will start to prove out to be #2 behind the ACC. But, I've been wrong before.

 

[Plebe]

Indeed. But the committee will take notice. And clearly more and more weight is being given to OOC and not how well team's within the conferences beat up on each other. As the SEC (and Big 10) teams start to play tougher OOC's the true strength of conferences will be clearer. I think the SEC will start to have less and less OOC success leading to fewer bids. I also think the PAC 12 playing tougher OOC's will start to prove out to be #2 behind the ACC. But, I've been wrong before.

Well, since the Pac-12 got 7 of its 12 teams into the tournament, compared to the ACC's 7 out of 15, I'd say the Pac-12 is in some sense ahead already.

 

[LETTERL]

Well, since the Pac-12 got 7 of its 12 teams into the tournament, compared to the ACC's 7 out of 15, I'd say the Pac-12 is in some sense ahead already.

I think everyone in the ACC would gladly hand Boston College to another conference -- any other conference. Mostly terrible teams and terrible atmospheres when we have to visit them.

 

[Bonpland]

Auburn in before Michigan?

 

[Dillon77]

Listed by conference RPI rank.
AQ in bold.
NCAA seeding in parentheses for NCAA teams.
RPI rank in parentheses for WNIT teams.

1. Pac-12
   NCAA (7): Oregon St (2), Stanford (2), Washington (3), UCLA (4), Arizona St (8), Cal (9), Oregon (10)
   WNIT (3): Utah (79), Washington St (101), Colorado (110)
   
   
2. SEC
   NCAA (8): S Carolina (1), Miss St (2), Kentucky (5), Texas A&M (5), Tennessee (5), Missouri (6), LSU (8), Auburn (11)
   WNIT (2): Ole Miss (121), Alabama (132) [Georgia (86) apparently declined autobid]
   
   
3. ACC
   NCAA (7): Notre Dame (1), Duke (2), Florida St (3), Louisville (4), Miami (4), NC State (6), Syracuse (8)
   WNIT (4): Virginia (53), Georgia Tech (61), Wake Forest (88), Virginia Tech (105)
   
   
4. Big 12
   NCAA (6): Baylor (1), Texas (3), Oklahoma (6), West Virginia (6), Kansas St (7), Iowa St (9)
   WNIT (1): Oklahoma St (81)
   
   
5. American
   NCAA (3): UConn (1), Temple (7), South Florida (11)
   WNIT (3): Tulane (74), UCF (97), SMU (100)
   
   
6. Big Ten
   NCAA (4): Maryland (3), Ohio St (5), Purdue (9), Michigan St (9)
   WNIT (4): Michigan (46), Indiana (51), Iowa (64), Penn St (87)
   
   
7. Big East
   NCAA (3): Marquette (5), DePaul (7), Creighton (7)
   WNIT (3): Villanova (67), Georgetown (70), St. John's (71)

Thanks, Plebe, for putting this right in front of our eyes.
I was concerned that the committee might favor Auburn over a George Washington but to reward a team that rolled into the NCAAs with
a 3-9 closing record over Virginia, Michigan as well as GW is beyond me.

 

[UcMiami]

Yeah, there are a few really strange bubble team choices - but really, all the teams on the bubble that didn't get in controlled their own destiny and left it up to a committee. The one I find strangest is Northern Iowa - they have two good wins in the 1-50 range, but that they only add one more win in the 51-100 range and while they have a 52 RPI their SOS is 120 which is worse than every other bubble team under consideration by a wide margin. Cool for Missouri Valley to get two bids, but...

I would also love it if they just put a hard and fast rule in place - if you can't win 40% of your conference games you do not go dancing - 50% is too harsh for a really strong conference, but 40% would seem to be a pretty fair cut off (adjust it if you want but Cal at 7-13!)

It is going to be interesting - and which conference with the best chance at two FF - SEC might be it. I don't think except for the travel SC has that tough a road, and depending on if and how Jones comes back, the OK region is pretty open and Miss St if they are on could win if Baylor isn't 100% - they have a dynamic point and a lot of bodies if they can get some offensive production. I'm not sold on either Duke or FSU for the ACC, and while Stanford and OSU have really solid coaches I don't think either can score enough consistently to get through, and Washington is just not a complete enough team - I don't think they are as good as last year and they no longer have the surprise factor.

 

[Justavisitor]

Listed by conference RPI rank.
AQ in bold.
NCAA seeding in parentheses for NCAA teams.
RPI rank in parentheses for WNIT teams.

1. Pac-12
   NCAA (7): Oregon St (2), Stanford (2), Washington (3), UCLA (4), Arizona St (8), Cal (9), Oregon (10)
   WNIT (3): Utah (79), Washington St (101), Colorado (110)
   
   
2. SEC
   NCAA (8): S Carolina (1), Miss St (2), Kentucky (5), Texas A&M (5), Tennessee (5), Missouri (6), LSU (8), Auburn (11)
   WNIT (2): Ole Miss (121), Alabama (132) [Georgia (86) apparently declined autobid]
   
   
3. ACC
   NCAA (7): Notre Dame (1), Duke (2), Florida St (3), Louisville (4), Miami (4), NC State (6), Syracuse (8)
   WNIT (4): Virginia (53), Georgia Tech (61), Wake Forest (88), Virginia Tech (105)
   
   
4. Big 12
   NCAA (6): Baylor (1), Texas (3), Oklahoma (6), West Virginia (6), Kansas St (7), Iowa St (9)
   WNIT (1): Oklahoma St (81)
   
   
5. American
   NCAA (3): UConn (1), Temple (7), South Florida (11)
   WNIT (3): Tulane (74), UCF (97), SMU (100)
   
   
6. Big Ten
   NCAA (4): Maryland (3), Ohio St (5), Purdue (9), Michigan St (9)
   WNIT (4): Michigan (46), Indiana (51), Iowa (64), Penn St (87)
   
   
7. Big East
   NCAA (3): Marquette (5), DePaul (7), Creighton (7)
   WNIT (3): Villanova (67), Georgetown (70), St. John's (71)

What stands out more is the host sites
PAC 12 - 4 teams can host the first weekend, although Stanford isn't due to scheduling conflict with the arena.
SEC - 2 teams hosting the first weekend
ACC - 5 teams hosting
Big 12 - 2 teams hosting
American - 1 team hosting
Big 10 - 1 team hosting
Big East - no teams hosting.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Yeah, there are a few really strange bubble team choices - but really, all the teams on the bubble that didn't get in controlled their own destiny and left it up to a committee. The one I find strangest is Northern Iowa - they have two good wins in the 1-50 range, but that they only add one more win in the 51-100 range and while they have a 52 RPI their SOS is 120 which is worse than every other bubble team under consideration by a wide margin. Cool for Missouri Valley to get two bids, but...

I would also love it if they just put a hard and fast rule in place - if you can't win 40% of your conference games you do not go dancing - 50% is too harsh for a really strong conference, but 40% would seem to be a pretty fair cut off (adjust it if you want but Cal at 7-13!)

More reality is that 50% probably wouldn't work - but I could get behind it. If you can't win half your conference games, you probably weren't a top team in your conference. Don't need to go dancing.

But, since P5 teams play seriously easy OOC schedules and rack up wins, they can afford a bad conference season and still be attractive to the committee - but they shouldn't be. So, the long and short of it is I'll get behind your 40%. Think the NCAA wants to hire us to solve their problems????

 

[Plebe]

Yeah, there are a few really strange bubble team choices - but really, all the teams on the bubble that didn't get in controlled their own destiny and left it up to a committee. The one I find strangest is Northern Iowa - they have two good wins in the 1-50 range, but that they only add one more win in the 51-100 range and while they have a 52 RPI their SOS is 120 which is worse than every other bubble team under consideration by a wide margin. Cool for Missouri Valley to get two bids, but...

All of the bubble teams this year had major flaws in their body of work, and deciding those last few spots required some nose-holding.

In comparing the "last 4 in" (Auburn, Cal, Purdue, Northern Iowa) to the "first 4 out" (GW, Michigan, South Dakota St, Virginia), the difference that jumps off the page is that of quality top-50 wins. This was clearly the factor that carried the day, for better or worse.

UNI's overall SOS (#120) was weak but their OOC SOS (#20) was strong. The committee surely gave them credit for challenging themselves in the portion of the schedule that they could control. And their wins over K-State and Creighton were a better pair of wins than what any of the "snubbed" teams had.

 

[Phil]

Did you consider including the WBI?

Brown - Ivy League
Campbell - Big South
Charleston Southern - Big South
Eastern Washington - Big Sky
Idaho - Big Sky
Lamar - Southland
Maryland-Baltimore County - America East
Milwaukee - Horizon
North Carolina-Greensboro - Southern
Rice - Conference USA
Saint Francis (PA) - Northeast
Southern Illinois - Missouri Valley
Stephen F. Austin - Southland
Texas-Rio Grande Valley - WAC
Texas State - Southland
Utah State - Mountain West

 

[AndyCT]

By comparing the "last 4 in" (Auburn, Cal, Purdue, Northern Iowa) to the "first 4 out" (GW, Michigan, South Dakota St, Virginia), the difference that jumps off the page is that of quality top-50 wins. This was clearly the factor that carried the day, for better or worse..

As an occasional visitor to Waterloo I was rooting for the mighty Panthers of Northern Iowa. One thing that may have helped them was the fact that they lost the conference tournament to Drake in overtime. In fact they only had three conference losses, all to Drake, two in overtime, and no horrible losses out of conference, so the committee may have treated them as essentially the equivalent of the MVC champion, and that may have been enough to seperate them from some of the more flawed bubble teams. Still I was as surprised as anyone.

I'm sure my fellow Panther fans will also point out that last year the men's team made the tournament so Northern Iowa has had some success in basketball. Still we're talking about Iowa, and Iowa will always be a wrestling state; Waterloo is the birthplace of the greatest wrestler of all time, Dan Gable, and home to the National Wrestling Hall of Fame.

Waterloo was also the birthplace of the five Sullivan brothers of World War II fame.


Go Panthers!

 

[Bajan Best]

Which conference has the best chance to land 2+ teams in the FF?

The "Former" Big East

 

[UcMiami]

All of the bubble teams this year had major flaws in their body of work, and deciding those last few spots required some nose-holding.

In comparing the "last 4 in" (Auburn, Cal, Purdue, Northern Iowa) to the "first 4 out" (GW, Michigan, South Dakota St, Virginia), the difference that jumps off the page is that of quality top-50 wins. This was clearly the factor that carried the day, for better or worse.

UNI's overall SOS (#120) was weak but their OOC SOS (#20) was strong. The committee surely gave them credit for challenging themselves in the portion of the schedule that they could control. And their wins over K-State and Creighton were a better pair of wins than what any of the "snubbed" teams had.

That almost works as a justification, but Virginia had by far the best win over FSU and a second goodish top 50 over Dayton and went 5-2 against the 51-10 while UNI went 1-3. Again, none of the bubble was good, but it is what I would call an inconsistent decision based on the committee history and they have to get pretty convoluted to ignore things that they considered paramount in other decisions they were making at the same time. I don't think they have ever given an at large bid to a team with an SOS over 100 as an example.

 

[diggerfoot]

I would also love it if they just put a hard and fast rule in place - if you can't win 40% of your conference games you do not go dancing - 50% is too harsh for a really strong conference, but 40% would seem to be a pretty fair cut off (adjust it if you want but Cal at 7-13!)

I have had this discussion in the past, I believe with j66kicker in opposition. I would go for either 50% conference win pct. or no more than half the teams in a conference invited. The NCAA tournament really has multiple objectives, one of which is to crown a champion. While there is precedence for a team with a 50% pct. winning the tournament (our own men's team), I don't believe there is any precedent for below that mark. In other words, you are not depriving any potential champion an opportunity by setting the mark at 50%.

What you are doing, however, is penalizing teams who should theoretically have the same recruiting opportunities as teams in their conference but are not able to succeed as well as their peers. This then makes less pertinent the game such teams might play with OOC scheduling and more pertinent the ability to compete in their own conference. At the same time you also enhance the entertainment value of the tournament which, let's face it, is one of its main objectives in addition to crowning a champion, by providing more opportunities to very good mid-majors.

 

[Plebe]

That almost works as a justification, but Virginia had by far the best win over FSU and a second goodish top 50 over Dayton and went 5-2 against the 51-10 while UNI went 1-3.

But Virginia also had one more "bad" loss (RPI 100+) than UNI. There's always another layer to potentially analyze. UNI's 1-3 record vs. 51-100 was entirely on the road and mostly against teams in the lower 60s, whereas Virginia got to play five of its seven 51-100 games at home or on neutral courts, and largely against teams in the upper 80s.

I don't think they have ever given an at large bid to a team with an SOS over 100 as an example.

Princeton last year got an at-large with a SOS in the 120s.