Bilas Wants To Ignore Tourney Wins

[auror]

I understand his point: power conference teams have so many more chances to pick up "quality wins."

The problem is reliance on arbitrary RPI Top X records in aggregate. Winning % in those games is often treated as less important than raw numbers, because it's figured that if you played in more of those games then your strength of schedule is more impressive. I've said this elsewhere already, but who is better, a team that's 2-1 against the Top 50 or one that's 5-7? The truth is that we don't know just based on that, for a number of reasons including the fact that home/road isn't factored in and the sample size in general, but if the 5-7 is in a major conference and one or two of those wins is on the road against a top seed their "resume" is often seen as more impressive.

I disagree with Bilas' solution, for obvious reasons. But bracketologists and the committee need to get away from these team sheets and nitty gritty's organized by RPI range wins. KenPom's A/B tiers is slightly better, since at least that factors in home/road and isn't rooted in RPI. A de-emphasis on the sheer quantity of wins would accomplish the same result that Bilas is looking for.

To further my point:

 

[auror]

I understand his point: power conference teams have so many more chances to pick up "quality wins."

The problem is reliance on arbitrary RPI Top X records in aggregate. Winning % in those games is often treated as less important than raw numbers, because it's figured that if you played in more of those games then your strength of schedule is more impressive. I've said this elsewhere already, but who is better, a team that's 2-1 against the Top 50 or one that's 5-7? The truth is that we don't know just based on that, for a number of reasons including the fact that home/road isn't factored in and the sample size in general, but if the 5-7 is in a major conference and one or two of those wins is on the road against a top seed their "resume" is often seen as more impressive.

I disagree with Bilas' solution, for obvious reasons. But bracketologists and the committee need to get away from these team sheets and nitty gritty's organized by RPI range wins. KenPom's A/B tiers is slightly better, since at least that factors in home/road and isn't rooted in RPI. A de-emphasis on the sheer quantity of wins would accomplish the same result that Bilas is looking for.

More fuel for the fire:
"Syracuse's inclusion in the field wasn't close. He said the Orange had five top 50 wins, including at Duke and neutral-site wins over UConn and Texas A&M in the Bahamas that were the difference" - Committee chair Joe Castiglione.

"Castiglione said Tulsa got in over its competition because of four top 50 wins. "

 

[jibsey]

Bilas was once the most objective and realest analyst in the biz but he has lost his way in the last couple of years. Come back to us Jay!

I agree. Fame and self importance have a way of doing that.

 

[CallMeBruce]

I initially hated the idea, but I ultimately think it could be really interesting. You'd pick the at-large teams before the tournament which would place a greater emphasis on regular season success. In addition, a team that's in before the tournament can't fall out with one bad game. This wouldn't mean that the tournaments don't count, though. First of all, you'd still have the autobids to pick. Secondly, a number of at-large teams would win their conference tournaments, opening up more bids. Basically this would have a relatively minor effect, making the regular season more significant without doing serious harm to the tournaments. I think it's a pretty good idea.

 

[Rico444]

It really is amazing. What was even the point of the punishment if the games won't even count?

When Calhoun got suspended 3 games in 2012, those games counted against us. The double standard is absurd.

 

[dogpause]

In all sports, what matters most is how good you are at the end of the season. Otherwise, Syracuse would be a perennial NCAA champion.

 

[Leebo]

It seems like they almost did this in a lot of cases... when Tulsa and Cuse lost their first tournament games everyone wrote them off, except the committee.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Jay is right about a lot of things, but on this he is absolutely wrong.

His hard on for Monmouth this year is....odd

All he's done for the last few years is find some procedural NCAA thing to whine about and take all of the air out of the room. He's become pretty insufferable.

 

[Kembacity]

I am starting to think Tulsa got in because Memphis was there and could have stolen a bid by beating us. So they basically set the field in case UConn won, and replaced Tulsa with Memphis if they were to win, so that they didn't have to do any work after our game started.

 

[intlzncster]

All he's done for the last few years is find some procedural NCAA thing to whine about and take all of the air out of the room. He's become pretty insufferable.

I feel like he's not putting in as much work (analytically) as he used to. He's probably got a lot more comfortable, and doesn't think he needs as much prep. I often find myself thinking, "has he even watched this team (whoever) play"? He's not a dumb-arse, so I can only conclude he doesn't watch as much.

And as a lawyer, it's pretty easy for him to freelance on procedural issues, without having to put in much time. Always gives him something to talk about. As an added bonus, he becomes a star in the land of the hot takes.

 

[Leebo]

I am starting to think Tulsa got in because Memphis was there and could have stolen a bid by beating us. So they basically set the field in case UConn won, and replaced Tulsa with Memphis if they were to win, so that they didn't have to do any work after our game started.

Memphis, as an auto-bid, would have not been possible to slot into the play-in game. Unless you think UConn would have dropped all the way to that.

 

[Deadrody]

If you can't beat Iona in a do or die game, you shouldn't make the tournament.

Exactly. Monmouth may not have many "big game opponents" on their schedule, but they did have "bad loss opponents" on their schedule, including Iona.

What I don't understand is how these guys just ignore the plethora of statistical ratings out there. None of them would suggest to you that Monmouth is a tournament team.

Monmouth lost to Army, Canisius, and Manhattan, in addition to Iona (twice). Come on.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Bubble implications are the reason why so many people watch conference tournament games outside of their own teams

And anyway, why shouldn't they count? They count towards your record. Is it just because it's a tournament format? Should they stop counting wins/losses from early season tournaments too?

We should stop counting the NCAA Tourney and just award the title to whoever ends the season as #1. You know, like college football used to do, before they changed it...

 

[Deadrody]

I understand his point: power conference teams have so many more chances to pick up "quality wins."

The problem is reliance on arbitrary RPI Top X records in aggregate. Winning % in those games is often treated as less important than raw numbers, because it's figured that if you played in more of those games then your strength of schedule is more impressive. I've said this elsewhere already, but who is better, a team that's 2-1 against the Top 50 or one that's 5-7? The truth is that we don't know just based on that, for a number of reasons including the fact that home/road isn't factored in and the sample size in general, but if the 5-7 is in a major conference and one or two of those wins is on the road against a top seed their "resume" is often seen as more impressive.

I disagree with Bilas' solution, for obvious reasons. But bracketologists and the committee need to get away from these team sheets and nitty gritty's organized by RPI range wins. KenPom's A/B tiers is slightly better, since at least that factors in home/road and isn't rooted in RPI. A de-emphasis on the sheer quantity of wins would accomplish the same result that Bilas is looking for.

The RPI is worthless. It has the veneer of statistical analysis without any such thing.

 

[storrsroars]

Exactly. Monmouth may not have many "big game opponents" on their schedule, but they did have "bad loss opponents" on their schedule, including Iona.

What I don't understand is how these guys just ignore the plethora of statistical ratings out there. None of them would suggest to you that Monmouth is a tournament team.

Monmouth lost to Army, Canisius, and Manhattan, in addition to Iona (twice). Come on.

If you want to use advanced metrics as the be-all and end-all, then why even bother with the mid-major tourney winners? Take 'em all out of D1 hoops and relegate them to their own league. Remove 230 teams from 22 typical one-bid leagues. Leave 121 teams from the 10 usual multi-bid leagues to fight it out. Make it just like football - everyone in the remaining D1 conferences with a .500 record or better gets at least one extra game. Sounds like that would make you happy.

Oh, and no more scheduling from the lower divisions. Only other D1 teams can be on your schedule.

If you want to go in the direction you're suggestion, might as well go all the way.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

I feel like he's not putting in as much work (analytically) as he used to. He's probably got a lot more comfortable, and doesn't think he needs as much prep. I often find myself thinking, "has he even watched this team (whoever) play"? He's not a dumb-arse, so I can only conclude he doesn't watch as much.

And as a lawyer, it's pretty easy for him to freelance on procedural issues, without having to put in much time. Always gives him something to talk about. As an added bonus, he becomes a star in the land of the hot takes.

I'm not sure about his work ethic overall these days, but it seems like he's taken to honing in on a couple of particular teams each year and stumping non-stop for those teams. He can't stop himself from gushing over UNC this year.

Him talking NCAA machinations as much as he does is usually just completely irrelevant to whatever is happening in the game, and makes watching games become a chore at times. He's paid to be a color man for basketball games, not analyze bureaucratic nonsense. I don't even feel like the whole "pay these players" topic even has much traction behind it anymore.

 

[IMind]

If you want to use advanced metrics as the be-all and end-all, then why even bother with the mid-major tourney winners? Take 'em all out of D1 hoops and relegate them to their own league. Remove 230 teams from 22 typical one-bid leagues. Leave 121 teams from the 10 usual multi-bid leagues to fight it out. Make it just like football - everyone in the remaining D1 conferences with a .500 record or better gets at least one extra game. Sounds like that would make you happy.

Oh, and no more scheduling from the lower divisions. Only other D1 teams can be on your schedule.

If you want to go in the direction you're suggestion, might as well go all the way.

If that includes relegating Gonzaga then I'm all for it.

 

[Penfield]

What I don't understand is how these guys just ignore the plethora of statistical ratings out there. None of them would suggest to you that Monmouth is a tournament team.

Monmouth lost to Army, Canisius, and Manhattan, in addition to Iona (twice). Come on.

Actually it's the advanced statistical ratings that would make the suggestion. Monmouth lost to those teams but they also had to play those teams on the road. 11 road games vs rpi 200+ teams and they lost 3. For comparison Temple went 4-1 and Dayton went 2-1 vs rpi 200+ on the road. If major conference schools had to play those games on the road more often they would have those losses also. The problem is the committee simply by keying the wins and losses by rpi groups and not looking at the actual situations or weighing where the games occurred.

Here is a good explanation: http://basketballpredictions.blogspot.com/2016/03/how-well-did-computers-predict-field.html?m=1

 

[UConnSwag11]

 

[UconnFanNVa]

If your team cant compete well in a conference tournament, how well will they do in the NCAA tournament? I think its a good way to prove that your team can handle single elimination pressure. Some teams step up, some teams fold.

 

[Penfield]

Another benefit to Bilas' idea is that it will give the selection committee more than 1 night to seed the brackets. The way it works now they first meet on the Wednesday of championship week and don't actually start seeding until Saturday night. That is how we end up with a hot pile of garbage like we have this year. If they at least have an team ranking established prior to the conference tourneys starting, then they can use that entire week to work on the match-ups and locations.

 

[Penfield]

If your team cant compete well in a conference tournament, how well will they do in the NCAA tournament? I think its a good way to prove that your team can handle single elimination pressure. Some teams step up, some teams fold.

It doesn't seem to make a difference now on who gets selected. Monmouth & SMC both won 2 games in their tournaments while Cuse and Vandy won 0.

 

[UconnFanNVa]

It doesn't seem to make a difference now on who gets selected. Monmouth & SMC both won 2 games in their tournaments while Cuse and Vandy won 0.

They are in conferences that only get 1 bid the NCAA has decided. So unless you play an AMAZING OOC schedule reg season almost doesnt matter if the conference tournament winner gets an auto bid. If anything for those conferences, they should take away the conference tournament auto bid.

 

[pj]

They should stop counting games in November and December, so that Syracuse will quit being overseeded.

 

[Penfield]

They are in conferences that only get 1 bid the NCAA has decided. So unless you play an AMAZING OOC schedule reg season almost doesnt matter if the conference tournament winner gets an auto bid. If anything for those conferences, they should take away the conference tournament auto bid.

I hope you mean the conferences should decide to award the auto-bid to the regular season winner.

Personally I think its BS if the NCAA has pre-determined that any conference is only worthy of 1 bid.

 

[UconnFanNVa]

I hope you mean the conferences should decide to award the auto-bid to the regular season winner.

Personally I think its BS if the NCAA has pre-determined that any conference is only worthy of 1 bid.

I dont know if that is true or not, but its a theory of mine. But yea if that is the case then the NCAA should be able to use their judgment and say, for these conferences that only get 1 bid, there is no auto bid, we'll select who we think is the best. its all subjective. What if the team that beat out Monmoth had a worse record by 2 games but won the conference tournament? Too many variables. But i do feel like the NCAA has already decided that no matter what, the following conference are only getting x amount of bids. And i agree that is stupid.

 

[Penfield]

I dont know if that is true or not, but its a theory of mine. But yea if that is the case then the NCAA should be able to use their judgment and say, for these conferences that only get 1 bid, there is no auto bid, we'll select who we think is the best. its all subjective. What if the team that beat out Monmoth had a worse record by 2 games but won the conference tournament? Too many variables. But i do feel like the NCAA has already decided that no matter what, the following conference are only getting x amount of bids. And i agree that is stupid.

I guess that would be interesting if the NCAA said regardless of tourney we will pick the best team, however, it would mostly kill the fun of the conference tourneys. It should really be up to each conference to decide who the auto bid goes to.