A Suggestion for the NCAA Tournament

[diggerfoot]

This suggestion applies to both the men's and women's side. First, an understanding of the goals of the tournament. The most obvious is to crown a champion. Yet if that were the only goal there would be no need for a 64 (68) team field. Indeed, on the women's side history has shown you could limit your pick to the top sixteen from where the champion will rise.

Another goal is to reward each conference champion, and in so doing give each conference at least a taste of the tournament, and every school in the country at least a hypothetical chance to someday experience the excitement of the tournament.

A third goal is to provide entertainment in one of two ways: by watching good games between two successful teams and by watching the occasional David from a mid-major slaying the Goliath from a major conference.

I think everyone agrees from this that there are multiple goals, whether or not we agree with combining those goals or not. However, I don't think anyone anywhere thinks that an intended goal should be to reward being in a major conference, despite lack of success, for the sake of getting 64 teams in the tournament. Yet that is what is done when teams with losing conference records get into the tournament because they are assumed better than mid-major teams with great records.

I've always thought there should be two filters for a selecting tournament teams. Absolutely none with losing records in their conferences; absolutely none with losing records outside their conferences. In other words, a fourth goal is to reward only success within and without a team's conference, no matter what conference that is. I know that the 2011 men cut it close with a 9-9 record, but .500 is not a losing record and I don't believe any team with a losing conference record has become champion. There still remains the possibility that a team with a losing conference record can be in the NCAA tournament by winning their conference tournament first (which would have included the 2011 men even if they had a losing record). Perhaps that is as it should be. If you're not a "David" nor does the regular season reveal you to be even a "top half" team with the big boys of your conference, you better demonstrate your worth by winning your conference tournament first.

With such a rule including teams like both Iona and Marist would be a no-brainer, over the selection of an SEC (or ACC, etc.) team with a losing conference record. I understand that one who favors the single goal of crowning a champion would see this suggestion as pointless but, once again, that single goal already is compromised.

Anyways, that's always been my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

[ndmb]

I think that misses the point. Other than the exception of allowing each conference tournament winner into the NCAAs, I don't think that which conference you are in should have a direct impact on your selection. If you put Florida State in the Southwestern conference, I think that it'd be very likely that they'd go undefeated against Texas Southern, Southern U., Alabama State, Prairie View, Jackson State, Grambling State, Mississippi Valley, Alabama A&M, Alcorn State, and Arkansas Pine-Bluff. At the same time, it should be pretty clear that their losing record against the ACC was a more difficult accomplishment.

 

[diggerfoot]

I think that misses the point. Other than the exception of allowing each conference tournament winner into the NCAAs, I don't think that which conference you are in should have a direct impact on your selection. If you put Florida State in the Southwestern conference, I think that it'd be very likely that they'd go undefeated against Texas Southern, Southern U., Alabama State, Prairie View, Jackson State, Grambling State, Mississippi Valley, Alabama A&M, Alcorn State, and Arkansas Pine-Bluff. At the same time, it should be pretty clear that their losing record against the ACC was a more difficult accomplishment.

?? I think you missed the point embedded in the three goals. Clearly the 64 team field is not designed to reward the 64 best teams, or even the 64 most successful teams. It's just not. Yet if one of your obvious goals is allowing all conferences and, by extension, all schools an opportunity to participate in the tournament designed to crown a champion from the much more limited pool of best and most successful schools, then let's also use that secondary goal, whether anyone agrees with it or not, to avoid rewarding failure as epitomized in a losing conference record.

On edit: Let's look at it this way. Your school only aspires to be a mid-major, yet at least given those aspirations your school performs well. A mediocre school from a major might still be able to beat you six or seven times out of ten, yet in theory that mediocre school's aspirations were to succeed in their major conference, and instead they failed. When one of your goals prevents you from picking the 64 best teams to begin with, let's at least provide a little more incentive not to fail, and a reward for success, in regards to a school's aspirations.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Idea has merit, and might be good to ship a bunch of P5 mediocrities off to the NIT. I'm not sure any of us really knows where the balance should be with the goals for the NCAAs, but saying that LSU should be in the tourney because it could beat the likes of Prairie View and Alcorn State is not likely a big reason. OTOH, the P5 teams with losing conference records are often the ones that get picked off by the better mid-major teams, so you might actually reduce the percentage of those nice Cinderella upsets a bit, or maybe not.

And when a lot of these P5 teams with losing conference records had atrocious OOC slates, it's clear that the game for many is just to build up the win totals more than the team quality before entering conference play because then like GA and Arkansas you can point to 20 to 19 wins as your reason for being in the tourney.

One issue that may not be that huge but could be the difference between an 8-8 or 7-9 record is the slightly unbalanced schedules of the P5 teams. If you finished 7-9 but had two games against the upper level teams in your conference while an 8-8 team got to play two against the bottom dwellers, I'd feel a little miffed. But maybe I'd do better playing in the NIT anyway.

 

[meyers7]

I don't mind your idea. In fact I think they try to do that usually. However, you have missed the biggest goal of the NCAA tournament.........to make money. (at least on the men's side).

 

[diggerfoot]

I don't mind your idea. In fact I think they try to do that usually. However, you have missed the biggest goal of the NCAA tournament....to make money. (at least on the men's side).

That's sort of embedded in the third goal I mentioned; to entertain and thereby to make money. I can understand someone listing that as a fourth goal, as if the NCAA had some separate altruistic purpose to entertain; to me it's the same.

 

[meyers7]

That's sort of embedded in the third goal I mentioned; to entertain and thereby to make money. I can understand someone listing that as a fourth goal, as if the NCAA had some separate altruistic purpose to entertain; to me it's the same.

Oh ok. Although I would probably put it as making money by entertaining (or not, as long as they make money) .

 

[DobbsRover2]

I don't mind your idea. In fact I think they try to do that usually. However, you have missed the biggest goal of the NCAA tournament....to make money. (at least on the men's side).

No that can't be right. I checked through the NCAA tournament seeding rules and nowhere does it state even for the men, "Seeding factor no. 1 is for us to make a pot of gold." Of course if they had that type of statement for the women's tourney, the rules would be up for the best comedy script award at Oscar time.

But though intuitively you would think that having an Arkansas in the tourney than say a James Madison, it may not be so. JMU has a much better home attendance than the Hogs, and in fact 15 of the top 50 schools in attendance last year were not P5 schools. Schools like Gonzaga, MTSU, Delaware, and Toledo were in the Top 25 in attendance last year, so a lot of the smaller schools are putting the bigger state mediocrities to shame. I do think that having an Iowa State in the tourney is likely a good thing since they're #2 in attendance and some of those fans must travel, but some of the mid majors have a hard core of devoted fans that the longtime P5 mediocrities can only dream of. That may not translate into eyeballs on the screen, but the number of viewers who will tune in for the Auburn women if they make it may not be huge.

But when we come down to it, the number of teams affected by the rule might be very small (the number of 7-9 conference record teams that are selected this year).

 

[cabbie191]

I've always thought there should be two filters for a selecting tournament teams. Absolutely none with losing records in their conferences; absolutely none with losing records outside their conferences. In other words, a fourth goal is to reward only success within and without a team's conference, no matter what conference that is. .

I'm sympathetic to what you are advocating but I think the implications of what you suggest as highlighted above, when it comes to conference tournaments, is going to preclude this from ever being adopted.

Take our conference and pretend that neither UConn nor Louisville are so incredibly dominant as to be considered unbeatable by other teams except by something approaching a miracle. Of the ten teams, six have losing conference records. By your argument, even if one of them got hot and won the tournament, they would be denied entry into the NCAA tournament. What incentive would they have to play in the conference tournament with passion, knowing that at best they would be consigned to the NIT?

And while recognizing that injuries are part of the game and can derail a team's season (we know this from our own experience years ago when we lost Shea and Svetlana), consider that SMU and Temple, both 8-10 in the conference, were actually better than their records suggest because they had early season injuries that led to a losing record early in the conference schedule, but their stars are now healthy and they could be expected to legitimately compete both in the conference and NCAA tournaments now that the teams are whole. I think that would lead to cries of unfairness.

 

[DobbsRover2]

As the OP noted below, the rule would be for at-large selections. He said that as with if UConn guys in 2011 had had a losing record in conference, they would still make the tourney by the tourney champ rule. But yeah the red-bolded line should be amended a bit.

 

[geordi]

Nearly every team in the country is included in the NCAA Tournament now; the exceptions being those conferences that don't hold their own tournaments like the Ivy. The conference tournaments are just extensions of the NCAA tournament and provide nearly every team an opportunity to move forward. After all, only two or three teams in the country, the champions of the NCAA , NIT, etc tournaments finish the year with a win.

 

[diggerfoot]

I'm sympathetic to what you are advocating but I think the implications of what you suggest as highlighted above, when it comes to conference tournaments, is going to preclude this from ever being adopted.

Take our conference and pretend that neither UConn nor Louisville are so incredibly dominant as to be considered unbeatable by other teams except by something approaching a miracle. Of the ten teams, six have losing conference records. By your argument, even if one of them got hot and won the tournament, they would be denied entry into the NCAA tournament. What incentive would they have to play in the conference tournament with passion, knowing that at best they would be consigned to the NIT?

And while recognizing that injuries are part of the game and can derail a team's season (we know this from our own experience years ago when we lost Shea and Svetlana), consider that SMU and Temple, both 8-10 in the conference, were actually better than their records suggest because they had early season injuries that led to a losing record early in the conference schedule, but their stars are now healthy and they could be expected to legitimately compete both in the conference and NCAA tournaments now that the teams are whole. I think that would lead to cries of unfairness.

I worded that poorly, though elsewhere I did confirm that if you win the conference tournament you are in the NCAA tournament, so that is what I meant. As to life being fair: it's not. What can be fair is a selection process that adheres to certain rules. Life WILL interfere at times. We can either bemoan that inevitable fact or learn how to deal with it.

 

[meyers7]

No that can't be right. I checked through the NCAA tournament seeding rules and nowhere does it state even for the men, "Seeding factor no. 1 is for us to make a pot of gold." Of course if they had that type of statement for the women's tourney, the rules would be up for the best comedy script award at Oscar time.

But though intuitively you would think that having an Arkansas in the tourney than say a James Madison, it may not be so. JMU has a much better home attendance than the Hogs, and in fact 15 of the top 50 schools in attendance last year were not P5 schools. Schools like Gonzaga, MTSU, Delaware, and Toledo were in the Top 25 in attendance last year, so a lot of the smaller schools are putting the bigger state mediocrities to shame. I do think that having an Iowa State in the tourney is likely a good thing since they're #2 in attendance and some of those fans must travel, but some of the mid majors have a hard core of devoted fans that the longtime P5 mediocrities can only dream of. That may not translate into eyeballs on the screen, but the number of viewers who will tune in for the Auburn women if they make it may not be huge.

But when we come down to it, the number of teams affected by the rule might be very small (the number of 7-9 conference record teams that are selected this year).

I imagine most of their money is in TV, not so much attendance. But I could be wrong.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I imagine most of their money is in TV, not so much attendance. But I could be wrong.

But does having a mediocre big state school like Oregon State in the tourney necessarily mean more moolah than having an Iona in the tournament? I don't know the answer to that. OSU does get 200 more in attendance, but Iona dominates the ratings here in Westchester and probably NYC.

I don't have the stats to evaluate the issue, but it's possible that the "big school" bias might not amount to much in WCBB viewing.

 

[ndmb]

?? I think you missed the point embedded in the three goals. Clearly the 64 team field is not designed to reward the 64 best teams, or even the 64 most successful teams. It's just not. Yet if one of your obvious goals is allowing all conferences and, by extension, all schools an opportunity to participate in the tournament designed to crown a champion from the much more limited pool of best and most successful schools, then let's also use that secondary goal, whether anyone agrees with it or not, to avoid rewarding failure as epitomized in a losing conference record.

On edit: Let's look at it this way. Your school only aspires to be a mid-major, yet at least given those aspirations your school performs well. A mediocre school from a major might still be able to beat you six or seven times out of ten, yet in theory that mediocre school's aspirations were to succeed in their major conference, and instead they failed. When one of your goals prevents you from picking the 64 best teams to begin with, let's at least provide a little more incentive not to fail, and a reward for success, in regards to a school's aspirations.

No, I didn't. Your third goal doesn't make sense because being from a mid-major =/= David and being from a major conference =/= Goliath. I agree that it's fun to watch underdogs beat teams that are expected to win, but that will happen anyways (see Louisville beating Baylor last year. And yes, the 64 team field is designed to reward the best teams in the country, with the exception of ensuring that every conference is represented.

Moving on, having a losing conference record does not epitomize failure any more than Houston beating the All-Boneyard team ten times out of ten would epitomize success. Putting a line through the .500 mark is arbitrary and nonsensical, especially given that A) teams play OOC games and B) it leads to rewarding teams who have accomplished less. On top of that, your assumptions about aspirations are unwarranted, especially given that women's basketball programs don't tend to receive a ton of attention, even at major conferences.

 

[meyers7]

But does having a mediocre big state school like Oregon State in the tourney necessarily mean more moolah than having an Iona in the tournament? I don't know the answer to that. OSU does get 200 more in attendance, but Iona dominates the ratings here in Westchester and probably NYC.

I don't have the stats to evaluate the issue, but it's possible that the "big school" bias might not amount to much in WCBB viewing.

Other than more people have probably heard of Oregon State than Iona, at least from a Football reference. Also from an alumni perspective Oregon State is about 7-8 times larger. Don't know if that would help??

 

[DobbsRover2]

Other than more people have probably heard of Oregon State than Iona, at least from a Football reference. Also from an alumni perspective Oregon State is about 7-8 times larger. Don't know if that would help??

Other than that NYC is a tad bit bigger than Corvallis and basketball in the northeast has had a long history of being popular than in Oregon backwaters where beaver hunting is probably the main sport, and Iona also has that mystical Irish connection. And we're not talking about football and tailgating and beer balls here but women's basketball, and all that OSU's alumni base means is that there's 7-8 times as many of them ignoring a WCBB team. There's an article about the D3 NYU Violets making the NCAA tournament in the NY Times today, and that's the kind of attention that a women's college in Corvallis just can't get.

Last year two Ohio teams were at least in some contention for an at-large spot, which neither of them ended up getting. One was Ohio State at 18-13 with an 8-10 B10 mark and a 27-3 Toledo team with a 15-1 conference mark. Toledo had a much more rabid following than the big school with an average 400+ more fans at the home games at a remarkable 4000+, and the Rockets picked up two road wins in the NIT before falling to Illinois. The attendance for the three sites where Toledo played jumped hugely from the host school's normal attendance, and the Rocket fans likely had something to do with that. Ohio State did not play any postseason games.

If the final at-large pick had come down to a choice between the 27-3 Rockets and the 18-13 Buckeyes, I'm sure the choice would have been for OSU because of the presumed eyeballs even for a women's team that was a disappointment rather than the Toledo team that had excited their fans, but I'm not sure it would have been the right choice financially or that a horde of Buckeye fans would have been turning on their set to see the team lose one more time.

 

[diggerfoot]

Hmmm. Where to begin.

No, I didn't. Your third goal doesn't make sense because being from a mid-major =/= David and being from a major conference =/= Goliath.

I think what you mean to say, or what you should mean to say, is that my third goal is incomplete as stated. People like to see David beat Goliath irregardless of conference. I might suggest that watching a mid-major beat Goliath is a tad more exciting but that's besides the point, which is your "doesn't make sense" amounts to hyperbole to seemingly bolster your point. Of course my third goal makes sense .... to most people.

And yes, the 64 team field is designed to reward the best teams in the country, with the exception of ensuring that every conference is represented.

Clause one: The 64 team field is designed to reward the best teams in the country.
Clause two: ensuring that every conference is represented.

Those are mutually exclusive goals, whether you want to phrase one as a dependent clause to the other or not. So, no, the 64 team field is not designed to reward the 64 best teams in the country. It's designed to give some of the best teams a chance to play for a championship, some other teams a chance to pull off an exciting upset and a few other teams a chance to simply be part of the excitement at some point in their school's history.

Moving on, having a losing conference record does not epitomize failure any more than Houston beating the All-Boneyard team ten times out of ten would epitomize success.

Whether a losing conference record epitomizes failure more or less than (degree of failure) some "nonsensical" (to borrow from you) hypothetical has no bearing on whether something IS failure or not. Obviously you mean to imply by this that a losing conference record does not epitomize failure, and are using a nonsensical hypothetical to provide an irrelevant emphasis to your argument, but it is irrelevant nonetheless. I think a losing conference record by any team that wants to compete in any kind of tournament should be considered a failure and a disappointment to that team, regardless of whether they make the tournament or not. But neither your opinion nor mine counts as much as those teams that wish to be competitors. If they weren't disappointed and considered a losing conference record to be a failure, well, they are not likely to turn that around and provide an inspiring performance in the tournament. I'd be very surprised if the opinions that counts, those from competitive teams, did not agree with my view of failure as opposed to yours.

Putting a line through the .500 mark is arbitrary and nonsensical, especially given that A) teams play OOC games and B) it leads to rewarding teams who have accomplished less.

Your "nonsensical" is based on what? I assume on the fact that you view a .500 mark to be arbitrary and, once again, you are using a little hyperbolic oomph to your argument (though hyperbole never makes an argument more correct). OK then, let's eliminate any criteria that has any kind of arbitrary component and only use nonarbitrary criteria. Um, what exactly would that be?

On top of that, your assumptions about aspirations are unwarranted, especially given that women's basketball programs don't tend to receive a ton of attention, even at major conferences.

?? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. I'll just clarify what I mean. Marist is not in a situation where it could even aspire to be in a major conference if they wanted. Colleges like Marist that aspire to be in Division I, rather than Division II or III, aspire by default to be a mid-major in Division I. Given that is their aspiration, should they perform well in that context they do not consider themselves to have failed, unlike a school from a major college who I suspect would be closer to my opinion than yours as to whether compiling a losing record in their conference was a failure. I suppose we would need to conduct some type of poll to see whether your view or mine is more on the mark as to whether Georgia, etc., views their losing conference record as a failure, but I'll hold to my view until some type of empirical evidence convinces me otherwise.

 

[stamfordhusky]

One thing this would accomplish would be to make sure fairly good teams that might be on the bubble would duck strong teams when setting up their ooc schedule. Why would a so-so team that played a horrible ooc schedule be eligible for inclusion but a good team that played a very strong ooc schedule be banned?

 

[DobbsRover2]

What does playing a bad OOC schedule have to do with a rule that states you have to have a non-losing conference record to have a shot at making the NCAAs? Obviously nothing. If anything, playing a good OOC might make a team more likely of being prepared to win in the conference.

 

[UcMiami]

The interesting thing here is that this change would actually only affect a very few teams each year and sometimes none. Of the at large bids most years, especially when you include conference tournament wins there are very few .500 conference teams and only one or teams that have less than a .500 conference record. This year partly because of the BE break-up and people discounting the resultant two conferences stats may have a higher number than in previous years even though the teams being discounted probably would have been strongly considered with worse records because the SOS and RPI would have been higher, i.e. they lost to more better teams.
I would have no trouble with that change and I do agree that rewarding a team that can't get to .500 in their league is silly. I would slap advocate for disqualifying teams from major conferences that played OOCs against the dregs of the WCBB universe - If you end up with an OOC that does not include a single top 25 team and you do not win your conference regular season or tournament, you are disqualified automatically no matter how well you do otherwise.

 

[diggerfoot]

One thing this would accomplish would be to make sure fairly good teams that might be on the bubble would duck strong teams when setting up their ooc schedule. Why would a so-so team that played a horrible ooc schedule be eligible for inclusion but a good team that played a very strong ooc schedule be banned?

I don't quite agree with this view, I'm more with DR and UcMiami, but I "liked" it because I think it does hint at a pertinent issue. You make a rule, teams and conferences will adjust accordingly. In this case what will a rule that you can't have a losing record neither in nor out of conference do? In conjunction with other criteria used it should have limited impact on OOC schedules, a team still risks making the tournament if SOS, etc. send up too much of a red flag. However, it SHOULD lead conferences to improve on imbalanced scheduling within the conference.

 

[UcMiami]

One thing this would accomplish would be to make sure fairly good teams that might be on the bubble would duck strong teams when setting up their ooc schedule. Why would a so-so team that played a horrible ooc schedule be eligible for inclusion but a good team that played a very strong ooc schedule be banned?

They are already ducking those games OOC.

 

[ndmb]

Hmmm. Where to begin.

No, I didn't. Your third goal doesn't make sense because being from a mid-major =/= David and being from a major conference =/= Goliath.

I think what you mean to say, or what you should mean to say, is that my third goal is incomplete as stated. People like to see David beat Goliath irregardless of conference. I might suggest that watching a mid-major beat Goliath is a tad more exciting but that's besides the point, which is your "doesn't make sense" amounts to hyperbole to seemingly bolster your point. Of course my third goal makes sense .... to most people.

It wasn't hyperbole. You made a statement that didn't make sense and I said that. You said, "A third goal is to provide entertainment in one of two ways: by watching good games between two successful teams and by watching the occasional David from a mid-major slaying the Goliath from a major conference." I agree (as would most people, I imagine) that providing the excitement of an upset is a key element of the tournament. However, "from a mid-major" and "from a major conference" were extraneous information, and their implications don't make sense. From your statement, if taken at face value, it follows that we should have more mid-majors in the NCAA tournament, since people like watching David slay Goliath. In reality, as you put it, people like to see David beat Goliath regardless of conference. Those upsets will occur anyways with the current rules.

And yes, the 64 team field is designed to reward the best teams in the country, with the exception of ensuring that every conference is represented.

Clause one: The 64 team field is designed to reward the best teams in the country.
Clause two: ensuring that every conference is represented.

Those are mutually exclusive goals, whether you want to phrase one as a dependent clause to the other or not. So, no, the 64 team field is not designed to reward the 64 best teams in the country. It's designed to give some of the best teams a chance to play for a championship, some other teams a chance to pull off an exciting upset and a few other teams a chance to simply be part of the excitement at some point in their school's history.

You won't see me saying, anywhere, that the 64 team field is designed to reward the 64 best teams in the country. Of course they're mutually exclusive goals, which is why I used the word exception. Once we've established the teams that get automatic bids, the at-large bids are determined as a reward for strong performance. You can argue about what it should be till you're blue in the face, but if we're talking about it is (which is implied by your use of the phrase "it's designed to give"), the teams with the best regular season and conference tournament performance (with some consideration to how good the teams currently are, by factoring injuries and weighting recent performance more highly) get the at-large bids. To paraphrase, they just do.

Moving on, having a losing conference record does not epitomize failure any more than Houston beating the All-Boneyard team ten times out of ten would epitomize success.

Whether a losing conference record epitomizes failure more or less than (degree of failure) some "nonsensical" (to borrow from you) hypothetical has no bearing on whether something IS failure or not. Obviously you mean to imply by this that a losing conference record does not epitomize failure, and are using a nonsensical hypothetical to provide an irrelevant emphasis to your argument, but it is irrelevant nonetheless. I think a losing conference record by any team that wants to compete in any kind of tournament should be considered a failure and a disappointment to that team, regardless of whether they make the tournament or not. But neither your opinion nor mine counts as much as those teams that wish to be competitors. If they weren't disappointed and considered a losing conference record to be a failure, well, they are not likely to turn that around and provide an inspiring performance in the tournament. I'd be very surprised if the opinions that counts, those from competitive teams, did not agree with my view of failure as opposed to yours.

In your reply you separate these two sentences, but they go together. Having a losing record does not epitomize failure BECAUSE putting a line through the .500 mark is arbitrary and nonsensical. I'm glad you understood what I meant (that having a losing record does not epitomize failure), but the Houston thing was a logical extreme to illustrate that you can't necessarily call a losing record a failure without context. Here's another: Imagine that instead of switching to the Southwestern Conference, Houston switches to the ACC. Next year, they play a quality OOC schedule and go undefeated OOC. In conference, they finish one game shy of .500. I would think that most people would agree that going from a team that was dead last in a relatively less than stellar American Conference to almost .500 in one of the best conferences in the country as a tremendous success. I would hope (and imagine) that they would see their record as a tremendous success.

Putting a line through the .500 mark is arbitrary and nonsensical, especially given that A) teams play OOC games and B) it leads to rewarding teams who have accomplished less.

Your "nonsensical" is based on what? I assume on the fact that you view a .500 mark to be arbitrary and, once again, you are using a little hyperbolic oomph to your argument (though hyperbole never makes an argument more correct). OK then, let's eliminate any criteria that has any kind of arbitrary component and only use nonarbitrary criteria. Um, what exactly would that be?

Whether or not I was being hyperbolic, the use of hyperbole doesn't make an argument incorrect either. For a guy that seems to be a little touchy whenever I say something that isn't directly a part of a formal, logical argument, you spend a lot of time making ad hominem claims about how I made an argument.

But I digress. To be clear, the decision to give at-large bids to the teams that we think have the best record is arbitrary, but how we determine those whose record is better is not. In comparison, the decision to give at-large bids to only teams whose season is a failure is arbitrary, as is the distinction between a failure and not. Don't get me wrong, determining which teams have a better record is imperfect but it follows both reason and a system, which means it is not arbitrary. If instead, we were trying to determine which teams have failed, it is impossible to objectively draw that line.

As for why drawing an arbitrary line is nonsensical, it doesn't make sense because it takes absolutely no account of the quality of schedule, rewards some teams with less impressive records, and doesn't factor the out of conference schedule (almost half of the regular season). And because it's arbitrary.

On top of that, your assumptions about aspirations are unwarranted, especially given that women's basketball programs don't tend to receive a ton of attention, even at major conferences.

?? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. I'll just clarify what I mean. Marist is not in a situation where it could even aspire to be in a major conference if they wanted. Colleges like Marist that aspire to be in Division I, rather than Division II or III, aspire by default to be a mid-major in Division I. Given that is their aspiration, should they perform well in that context they do not consider themselves to have failed, unlike a school from a major college who I suspect would be closer to my opinion than yours as to whether compiling a losing record in their conference was a failure. I suppose we would need to conduct some type of poll to see whether your view or mine is more on the mark as to whether Georgia, etc., views their losing conference record as a failure, but I'll hold to my view until some type of empirical evidence convinces me otherwise.

Teams move up to power conferences ergo, it's not impossible. We don't know what's going on in the heads of administrators of mid-major schools. We do know some mid-majors do receive support for growth and we know that lots of programs in major conferences don't have any aspirations whatsoever for their women's basketball programs because they don't care. I agree that programs that do more with less deserve recognition, and that there's a correlation between the aspirations of a program and how prestigious their conference is but, once again, you're using conference affiliation as a placeholder in a way that doesn't make sense.

 

[DobbsRover2]

However, it SHOULD lead conferences to improve on imbalanced scheduling within the conference.

Maybe a minor point since often the teams with schedules skewed toward playing extra games against the top teams in their conference are the kind that will make the tourney with a winning record anyway, but skewed schedules are often to get the best teams to play each other more and have better matchups. It's not necessarily something to cut back on.