A10 Semifinal GW vs Dayton 11AM CBSSN

[MSGRET]

On paper I have a problem when the P5 leagues send 7 or 8 teams to the big dance but again, maybe the lower 2 or 3 teams in these leagues are "better" teams. I admit that I don't watch many games when 1 of the teams is not top 25 (except if it's a UConn game).

Here is another idea, no team can get an "At Large Selection" if they have a losing record in their Conference.

 

[Plebe]

According to the one that is USED by the NCAA for selection and scheduling it is 116. That is RPIratings.com and was through games 03/02/18

As that site says, it's an independent duplication of the RPI without input from the NCAA. Not sure what would explain the discrepancy, but it's pretty small beans.

Bottom line is, Minnesota has earned its at-large bid with quality wins. If the goal is to pick the 32 best at-large teams, Minnesota is clearly one of them: #40 in RPI, #32 in Massey, #32 in Sagarin.

 

[Plebe]

Here is another idea, no team can get an "At Large Selection" if they have a losing record in their Conference.

Again, why? These are totally arbitrary rules that ultimately would undercut the goal to select the best available at-large teams.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Win Tomorrow and George Washington is in the Tourney If they lose, they'll probably make the WNIT tournament.

St Joe's currently leads St Louis in the 1st half and looks like that's who GW will face. GW beat St Joe's during the regular season 49-46 at St Joe's. They split their meetings with St Louis if that's who they meet for the Championship.

 

[MSGRET]

Again, why? These are totally arbitrary rules that ultimately would undercut the goal to select the best available at-large teams.

Just like it is totally arbitrary rules that a team is punished for their SOS, why shouldn't be for their play in their Conference. If you can't have a winning record in your own conference what is to say you qualify to be one of "the best available at-large teams.

 

[Plebe]

Just like it is totally arbitrary rules that a team is punished for their SOS, why shouldn't be for their play in their Conference. If you can't have a winning record in your own conference what is to say you qualify to be one of "the best available at-large teams.

Because not every conference is the same strength level. So you're basically wanting to punish team for being in a strong conference when they could probably dominate more than half the conferences in the country.

You realize that you're saying that Oregon (who went 8-10 last year in the Pac-12) wasn't deserving of an at-large bid last year?

 

[MSGRET]

Because not every conference is the same strength level. So you're basically wanting to punish team for being in a strong conference when they could probably dominate more than half the conferences in the country.

You realize that you're saying that Oregon (who went 8-10 last year in the Pac-12) wasn't deserving of an at-large bid last year?

If they want to get more Non Power 5 in the tourney and that was rule, then yes. Whats to say that Dayton or any other team that had 15-1 record in their Conference couldn't beat some of those teams that have losing records in their conference play.

 

[Plebe]

If they want to get more Non Power 5 in the tourney and that was rule, then yes. Whats to say that Dayton or any other team that had 15-1 record in their Conference couldn't beat some of those teams that have losing records in their conference play.

Perhaps they could beat another bubble team. But that doesn’t mean their resume is better. Look at who Dayton has played and who they’ve lost to. It’s reallu not a close call.

 

[MSGRET]

Perhaps they could beat another bubble team. But that doesn’t mean their resume is better. Look at who Dayton has played and who they’ve lost to. It’s reallu not a close call.

Yet Dayton has a higher RPI then Minn, and a better OOC and SOS, but you will ignore that

 

[Plebe]

Yet Dayton has a higher RPI then Minn, but you will ignore that.

The committee doesn’t go strictly by RPI and never has. If it did, Buffalo would be a top 16 team.

 

[Vowelguy]

Perhaps they could beat another bubble team. But that doesn’t mean their resume is better. Look at who Dayton has played and who they’ve lost to. It’s reallu not a close call.

Definitely.
Dayton has non-conference losses to Toledo, Quinnipiac, Green Bay, James Madison, USF.
Their best win of the year is Virginia, which is a bubble team.

 

[MSGRET]

The committee doesn’t go strictly by RPI and never has. If it did, Buffalo would be a top 16 team.

You tell me which team has a better out of conference schedule.



Team A: RPI 40 SOS 116 Team B: RPI 31 SOS 90


OOC OOC


GM 1 198 54

GM 2 334 130

GM 3 281 277

GM 4 205 30

GM 5 216 70*

GM 6 103 332

GM 7 86 42*

GM 8 118* 21*

GM 9 214 64

GM 10 111 15*

GM 11 174* 339

GM 12 146 Conf Play

GM 13 257 Conf Play


* Denotes a loss

 

[MSGRET]

Definitely.
Dayton has non-conference losses to Toledo, Quinnipiac, Green Bay, James Madison, USF.
Their best win of the year is Virginia, which is a bubble team.

Toledo RPI 70, Quinnipiac 42, Green Bay 21, USF 15, They did not lose to James Madison. While Minnesota lost to UNC 118 and San Diego 174

Minnesota had one of the weakest OCC's, RPI of those are as follows Lehigh - 198, Rhode Island - 334, VCU - 281, BC - 205, Xavier - 216, WF - 103, UNLV - 86, UNC - 118, Eastern Michigan - 214, Georgetown - 111,
San Diego - 174, Cal Poly - 146, and UC Riverside - 257.
Dayton OOC was Harvard - 54, Tulane - 130, Morgan State - 277, Virginia - 30, Toledo - 70, UA Pine Bluff - 332, Quinnipiac - 42, GB - 21, James Madison - 64, USF - 15 and Miss Valley St - 339.

 

[Plebe]

You tell me which team has a better out of conference schedule.

Team A: RPI 40 SOS 116 Team B: RPI 31 SOS 90

OOC OOC

GM 1 198 54
GM 2 334 130
GM 3 281 277
GM 4 205 30
GM 5 216 70*
GM 6 103 332
GM 7 86 42*
GM 8 118* 21*
GM 9 214 64
GM 10 111 15*
GM 11 174* 339
GM 12 146 Conf Play
GM 13 257 Conf Play

* Denotes a loss

The nonconference schedule only accounts for about 40% of the season. The committee looks at the entire season.

If mere strength of nonconference schedule were all that mattered, then Southern of the SWAC would get an at-large bid.

 

[Charles T]

OK to make a comment about the game? GW vs Dayton? Big difference was turnovers. Dayton had 11; GW had 1. One turnover. Amazing coaching and players taking care of the ball. Shooting % for each was about 33%. Dayton 17 for 52, and GW 20 for 60. GW had eight more shots and made enough to win.Turnovers a big factor.

 

[Plebe]

OK to make a comment about the game? GW vs Dayton? Big difference was turnovers. Dayton had 11; GW had 1. One turnover. Amazing coaching and players taking care of the ball. Shooting % for each was about 33%. Dayton 17 for 52, and GW 20 for 60. GW had eight more shots and made enough to win.Turnovers a big factor.

In the entire game? 11 isn’t bad. 1 turnover for an entire game is unheard of.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Charlie Creme has tweeted that Dayton will make the tournament and Nebraska will not because of Dayton taking an at large bid instead of the automatic qualifier.

 

[diggerfoot]

Again, why? These are totally arbitrary rules that ultimately would undercut the goal to select the best available at-large teams.

Why? Plebe, I think you are absolutely one of the best posters on here. That's why I'll pick a fight with you. Actually, it's a discussion that reoccurs every year, the answer to your question "Why?" (select teams with little chance of winning a championship over a power conference team).

There is not one, but no less than three goals for the tournament, listed here in order of importance.
1. Crown a champion.
2. Reward success and have representation from every single conference.
3. Provide entertainment that will keep the public and corporate sponsors happy.

I'm in favor of the "tie or winning record" within conference for any team, otherwise goal number two should read: "Reward success in every single conference, unless from a power conference, in which case you can be rewarded even if you are not successful." Since no team with a losing record in conference has won a championship, you are not compromising the first goal by adhering to the second even for power conferences. The example you gave, Oregon, did not make it to the Final Four and were not remotely close to winning a national championship.

Now if changing goal #2 to "Reward success in every conference, unless from a power conference" at least enhanced the third goal, providing entertainment value, then perhaps that would justify rewarding teams unsuccessful in their conferences even though they have very little chance of winning a championship. However, the opposite is likely true. An upset by a mid-major generally provides more buzz than an upset by a team that was unsuccessful in their conference.

Thus, you neither compromise Goal #1, and enhance Goal #3, by insisting that all teams selected to the tournament have had success within their conferences, as determined by a distinctively nonarbitrary criteria of not having a losing record in your own conference. You are, after all, insisting that a team can succeed at its own playing field (with the set of opportunities its own particular conference provides), before given the chance to succeed on the ultimate tournament stage.

 

[Blueballer]

I thoroughly enjoyed this BIG win for Jen's team. Loved her emotional interview at the end capped by the Bill Sullivan hug!

Sorry - should have put this in other thread!

 

[Plebe]

Why? Plebe, I think you are absolutely one of the best posters on here. That's why I'll pick a fight with you. Actually, it's a discussion that reoccurs every year, the answer to your question "Why?" (select teams with little chance of winning a championship over a power conference team).

There is not one, but no less than three goals for the tournament, listed here in order of importance.
1. Crown a champion.
2. Reward success and have representation from every single conference.
3. Provide entertainment that will keep the public and corporate sponsors happy.

I'm in favor of the "tie or winning record" within conference for any team, otherwise goal number two should read: "Reward success in every single conference, unless from a power conference, in which case you can be rewarded even if you are not successful." Since no team with a losing record in conference has won a championship, you are not compromising the first goal by adhering to the second even for power conferences. The example you gave, Oregon, did not make it to the Final Four and were not remotely close to winning a national championship.

Now if changing goal #2 to "Reward success in every conference, unless from a power conference" at least enhanced the third goal, providing entertainment value, then perhaps that would justify rewarding teams unsuccessful in their conferences even though they have very little chance of winning a championship. However, the opposite is likely true. An upset by a mid-major generally provides more buzz than an upset by a team that was unsuccessful in their conference.

Thus, you neither compromise Goal #1, and enhance Goal #3, by insisting that all teams selected to the tournament have had success within their conferences, as determined by a distinctively nonarbitrary criteria of not having a losing record in your own conference. You are, after all, insisting that a team can succeed at its own playing field (with the set of opportunities its own particular conference provides), before given the chance to succeed on the ultimate tournament stage.

I commend you for the in-depth presentation, but the committee's stated goal in at-large selection is to "select the 32 best teams to fill the bracket, regardless of conference affiliation." This is the fairest approach. When half the teams in a strong conference are among the best 32 available at-large candidates, some of those teams might have sub-.500 conference records. That's just the way the math works out.

Conference representation is already guaranteed through the automatic bid. Teams that fail to earn the automatic bid need to be among the top 32 non-AQ teams, regardless of conference affiliation, to earn an at-large bid. That's the fairest approach and the one that yields the strongest tournament field.

 

[diggerfoot]

I commend you for the in-depth presentation, but the committee's stated goal in at-large selection is to "select the 32 best teams to fill the bracket, regardless of conference affiliation." This is the fairest approach. When half the teams in a strong conference are among the best 32 available at-large candidates, some of those teams might have sub-.500 conference records. That's just the way the math works out.

Conference representation is already guaranteed through the automatic bid. Teams that fail to earn the automatic bid need to be among the top 32 non-AQ teams, regardless of conference affiliation, to earn an at-large bid. That's the fairest approach and the one that yields the strongest tournament field.

I did not know that "select the 32 best (remaining) teams to fill the bracket" was a stated goal. That settles the discussion and your knowledge base is why I appreciate your postings. I would just point out that if "select the 32 best teams to fill the bracket" is a stated goal, then satisfying that by requiring teams "to be among the top 32 non-AQ teams" is a tautology. It's not a matter of fairness, it's the goal. You could also consider it fair to insist teams succeed in their conference by the absolute minimum of standards, if doing so does not weed out what could have been the champion and "select the 32 best teams to fill the bracket" was not a stated goal.