Creme Bracketology 3/4

[Vowelguy]

You are blaming the messenger.

All Creme is trying to do is project what Committee will do.

+100000000000000000000000000000000

 

[willtalk]

You are blaming the messenger.

All Creme is trying to do is project what Committee will do.

I don't understand why people care so much about his projections beyond it sometimes tells them things they don't want to hear.

Frankly I don't put very much credence in what Creme says. What the problem is that some people do. That is the crux of the discussion. How much credence does Creme even deserve, not about which teams and where he puts them. They are only relevant in respect to concluding if he is using reason or is just rationalizing.

In my case it is also about an "Emperors New Clothes" syndrome. That is were no one even questions his conclusions just because he writes for ESPN. In respect to Creme I was looking for a discernible rational for his picks and didn't find one. For someone who is being paid to do this every year he should have some sort of formula or standard that he sticks too. I have seen far better efforts by random posters on WCBB sites, who seem to have put in far more effort. They should be doing these Brackets for ESPN.

As to Creme only trying to predict what the committed will do -- total BS. He often has criticized the committee's picks and decisions when they didn't match up with his own perspectives. He even uses the term Critique in respect to his latest take on their prelim bracket. He does critique and if you do that you are not predicting what they will do. If he was predicting he would only critique his predictions.

It is less that he is projecting what they will do rather more what they should do.

 

[maccca3232]

The fact that we have a thread every time he releases his latest version means it is, at least in part doing what it is supposed to do, which is create interest / discussion around WBB. Her Hoops Stats Medium released their Bracketology on 8 Feb and I don't remember seeing a thread on that.

One example is LSU and Tenn (currently 8th and 9th in SEC both with 7-9 conference records) who Creme has projected as Last In and First Out. That adds interest to a potential match up in the SEC Conference Tournament, which would otherwise be meaningless, except for those team's fans.

Now both may make it or neither my make it into the NCAA Tourney but Creme's projections, do add value right now.

Edited: Updated the link for Her Hoops Stats Medium to Week 14 Bracketology released on Feb 8.

 

[Plebe]

To begin with my post was not not directed specifically at any individual teams either making or not making the bracket except for Tenn. And even they were only an example for my claim that Creme does not use a constant criteria or standard methodology, rather he cherry picks to justify his own preconceived biases and conclusions.

I am not mad about any Pac 12 team being excluded. While some of those excluded might be more worthy than others that are included, their records do not justify getting mad at any gross injustice. It appears by your response that it might be you who is actually mad. Why because I am critical of Cremes flawed lazy methodology that relies entirely too much on RPI. ? Why defend Cremes methodology -- unless perhaps it reflects yours as well. I also accuse him of cherry picking and you respond with examples of specific individual games--- cherry picking. Are you implying that if Oregon St and Arizona had beaten TA&M everything would be different? And what do UNC and FS losing to two SEC teams mean. Teams lose all the time to lesser teams. And Texas was over rated when Tenn beat them. The arguments while not even applicable to my post, could never the less be argued and rebutted with other examples until the cows come home. But they are not relevant to my post.

My post was a follow response to something I posted in respect to Cremes very early Bracket the first week of Jan. It was then that I commented on what I perceived as Creme having already locked in how many spots were to be allocated to the Pac 12. At that time Tenn was not a factor. It was not even Pro Pac 12. I just used the Pac 12 as an because they were a highly rated conference and were the perfect example.

Right before league play began, both the ACC and the Pac 12 were considered to be the strongest conferences in WCBB and that was upheld by the various rating services. In fact I believe the Pac 12 was rated the highest. Oregon, Stanford, Oregon St, Cal, and Arizona St were considered locks, with Utah, UCLA, USC and Arizona as possibles. Well after Arizona beat Arizona St it became the 6th and final team in the Bracket. Then the pattern began to manifest. When Utah beat both Stanford and Cal, they replaced the team previously there. I mentioned that it appeared that he had decided to limit the strongest conference to 6 teams. With basically UCLA, USC and Utah fighting for the final spot. That proved to be true.

Now in respect to the strength of the SEC and Tenn. Creme held Tenn to a different standard than he would have any other team and this reflected his evaluation of the SEC. Any other team that tanked as quickly as Tenn would have long been dropped from the Bracket. But instead of down grading Tenn, he instead up graded the team that beat them. Thus he decided that it wasn't that Tenn was over rated, but that the SEC was underrated.

Again, I am not referring to any specific teams rating, but a pattern that was modified to justify not diminishing Tenn to the point of eliminating them from the bracket. What I am referring to is using a double standards and rationalizations to justify predetermined objectives. It didn't start out as a system to protect Tenn, rather it evolved into one that justified it now. I mean what will it take to eliminate them?

I don't feel he is pro SEC. Rather he has become pro SEC because it serves the purpose of justifying Tenn.

Vowelguy-------In respect to Creme eliminating Tenn for one week-- He sort of had too because of their long losing streak, but he figured they had some easy victories coming up. He needed them to win a few in row to justify putting them back in. again you have to recognize patterns to recognize agenda. I said as much at the time that he would put them back in once they had a couple of victories ( even though against bottom dwellers ) under their belt again.

I would not be as harsh against an average poster. The thing is that he works for ESPN and should be held to a higher standard than just looking at polls and the RPI. Very lazy. The RPI would be valid only as statistical starting point. It is too flawed to be a real measure of a teams actual strength of schedule.

Your post is deliciously conspiratorial. Without getting into the details of your seemingly forensic analysis of Creme's evil machinations, I just have to ask:

Why do you think Creme is so hell bent on a campaign to "justify" Tennessee, as you describe it? Do you think he's being paid off by them? And which teams currently not in his bracket have, in your estimation, a clearly better résumé than Tennessee?

 

[willtalk]

I think Creme like many other people who have done evaluations and ratings of teams for the last few years are influenced by the Tenn that once existed. They kept looking for rational to rate them high in the beginning of the season and again when the brackets came out. I am not the only one who believes this. I have nothing against Tenn. I just have something against people who do not judge upon merit but rather reputation. If you are in a position of responsibility it should be your objective to be objective.

I do believe that Maccca3232 has a good point. His perspective is probably better than mine. It at least brings reason to the unreasonable. It is done to stir up interest, discussion and better yet controversial debate as is happening on this thread. In that Creme has been successful. A lot of sports writers are doing that now.

As you asked me I began to think about why I thought Tenn shouldn't be in the tourney. You asked me which team has a better record. Now there may be teams that have better records and as I stated before I haven't thought about which teams deserve via their records are more worthy. Well thinking about it I come to the conclusion that teams do not need to have a better record. A similar record should put them in over Tenn. Why should an underachieving team that often seems to just go through the motions deserve a tie breaker just because of the schools history. In boxing if all things are equal the give the benefit to the boxer who is aggressive and tries harder. The tourney should reward good play and effort not something that this Tenn team has devolved into.

In Tenn case they have been on the bubble for a long time and really haven't beaten a top team. For most teams that is a major criteria to move up. As I said before they were removed because of a long losing streak against some mediocre teams they should have beaten easily. I mean the also lost to Vandy after the were given a gift of being put back in because of two lower level wins. Granted I can see why some people believe they are better than their record because of the level of players they have on their team. And that often does play a part, but it shouldn't in this case because of the level of tanking that has happened. Their level of underachievement has to be unprecedented. To put it bluntly-- They do not deserve to go. Let some over achieving team that has played hard get the spot.

As too what teams have better resumes than Tenn. I refer you to a thread on Rebkell. There many posters have answered that very question much better than I ever could.

 

[Roux4]

As I predicted- Tenn. win over national power Miss secured them a trip to the dance in Cremes brackets. He probably wants to do anything he can to assure Holley keeps her job. If on incompetent gets canned it might mean he could be next.

If you are saying Tennessee beat Mississippi State, you are wrong. They did not.

 

[southie]

When all is said and done, the committee will find a way to place UConn in Albany, Oregon in Portland, Notre Dame in Chicago, and South Carolina in Greensboro.

 

[Plebe]

When all is said and done, the committee will find a way to place UConn in Albany, Oregon in Portland, Notre Dame in Chicago, and South Carolina in Greensboro.

Not if Louisville wins the ACC tournament.

 

[southie]

Not of Louisville wins the ACC tournament.

Isn't Greensboro closer to Louisville than Chicago? If not, it looks close.

Where the committee decides to send Baylor will dictate a lot of other teams' fate.

 

[Vowelguy]

Isn't Greensboro closer to Louisville than Chicago? .

No. 300 vs 500 miles

 

[Plebe]

Isn't Greensboro closer to Louisville than Chicago? If not, it looks close.

Where the committee decides to send Baylor will dictate a lot of other teams' fate.

The critical difference is that Chicago is classified as "driving distance" from Louisville (<350 miles) while Greensboro isn't.

 

[MilfordHusky]

The critical difference is that Chicago is classified as "driving distance" from Louisville (<350 miles) while Greensboro isn't.

As Creme noted, flying v. driving is a big factor in the brackets.

 

[willtalk]

If you are saying Tennessee beat Mississippi State, you are wrong. They did not.

No I meant as I wrote it- They beat the National Power Miss. . Forgot the sarcasm emoji. It was a follow up of what I had said would happen if Tenn beat a couple of even bottom dwelling teams. They were restored back to the bracket.

 

[southie]

If Notre Dame or Louisville does win the tourney, the picture might be clearer as to who should be placed in Chicago (unless it ends up being Baylor).

I know that Chicago has a large ND alumni base, most likely much larger than Louisville. But, that doesn't mean those alumni are women's hoops fans and would attend the regional. Not sure how well Louisville fans would travel to Chicago. We'll find out in a couple of weeks if any of that are factors.

 

[Plebe]

If Notre Dame or Louisville does win the tourney, the picture might be clearer as to who should be placed in Chicago (unless it ends up being Baylor).

I know that Chicago has a large ND alumni base, most likely much larger than Louisville. But, that doesn't mean those alumni are women's hoops fans and would attend the regional. Not sure how well Louisville fans would travel to Chicago. We'll find out in a couple of weeks if any of that are factors.

Chicago will go to whichever of the two win the ACC tournament, period. If neither of them win it, it'll probably go to whichever of them did better. If they both lose in the semis, it will probably stay with Louisville.

 

[maccca3232]

I have read posters mention that the Committee values 'quality' wins over 'bad' losses but a problem with that ethos, while understandable, is the fact that not all teams get the same amount of opportunities to achieve 'quality' wins. Obviously that them favors bubble teams in P5 conferences.

I created a file analyzing the performances of teams based on the teams they actually played against the expected performance for each game based on ratings from RPI (Real Time RPI), Her Hoops Stats Rating and Massey and then created an average rating.

Notes:
The results were taken from Her Hoops Data and include only Division I games.
If you beat the lowest ranked team you get no benefit similarity if you lose to the best team you get no penalty.
It is easy to add additional ratings if requested.

I found it interesting that Tennessee was only the fifth worst rated At-Large bid (worst was Buffalo. Results Rank 53rd).

Does anyone believe that Tennessee (Results Rank 43rd) is more worthy of an At-Large bid then say Ohio (Results Rank 39th).

If you exclude Tennessee's losses to Top 25 RPI (0-6) and compare:

Ohio is 7-4 vs RPI Top 100 and 16-0 vs Non RPI Top 100 (23-4 combined)
Best Wins:
Central Mich. (26)
Buffalo (32)
Lamar University (52)
American (78)
Purdue (87)
Kent St. (89) x 2
Losses:
H Central Mich. (26)
H Buffalo (32)
H Miami OH (46)
A Toledo (83)

Tennessee is 7-3 vs Top 100 and 11-2 vs Non RPI Top 100 (18-5 combined)
Best Wins:
Texas (27)
Missouri (28)
Auburn (48) x 2
Clemson (55)
Belmont (58)
LSU (70)
Losses:
H Missouri (28)
H Arkansas (96)
A Georgia (100)
A Alabama (153)
H Vanderbilt (197)

Are Tennessee's wins that much better that they override their much worse losses?

Revised: Edited report to adjust the weight of losses, so that a 'good' loss adds small benefit and a 'bad' win subtracts small benefit.

 

[Alydar]

It seems obvious to me what Creme has been doing. He has been using justifications like this to include certain teams and keep numbers up from specific conferences. Why should a couple of slots opening up automatically go to Tenn or the SEC?

I mentioned long ago when he reduced the Pac 12's numbers to 6 while increasing the SEC to 8 that he was cherry picking to set up a scenario to justify more teams from the SEC. The whole idea is to discern the strength of a conference before league play begins to get an objective view of what their games mean against each other. Except in a case like Tenn where they just do a complete nose dive. The Pac 12 and the ACC started with equal number of bids as dictated by their out of conference rankings as the strongest leagues. Well now the Pac 12 has equal number of bids to the formally considered weak Big 10, while the SEC has jumped them with 7. Did these leagues get stronger based on playing themselves?

When the teams in the Pac 12 started beating each other and acquiring losses he punished them far more them equally if not far more than the loses teams acquired playing in obviously weaker conferences. He certainly didn't replace the teams that lost in the Pac 12 with the better teams in the Pac 12, but instead chose to replace them with teams from weaker conferences that the teams he favored were in.

I remember that I wrote a post long ago in respect to a pattern he displaced geared to justifying his long term term agenda . It is akin to heating the water of a pot slowly so that the frog does not recognize he is being boiled and jump out to save himself. Fortunately Creme does not pick the actual brackets. Still he is given the job of doing so by ESPN and should come up with a far more objective product. He is being paid to do so by a major News outlet and more should be expected from him than someone just posting on a site. In that context the guy is a hack period.

Good post. Creme may not pick the actual brackets but IMO he has become the point man for the NCAA committee. Until a couple of years ago his brackets were a joke. Then he wrote about how he attended a mock selection session and suddenly his brackets and the committee's were nearly identical and his rational was identical to the committee's.

Is it just a coincidence that Creme hypes the SEC and that ESPN owns the SEC network while the PAC12 Network owns the rights that conferences games? No. That would be dishonest and journalistically unethical. Charlie would never compromise his integrity like that, right?

 

[Plebe]

I have read posters mention that the Committee values 'quality' wins over 'bad' losses but a problem with that ethos, while understandable, is the fact that not all teams get the same amount of opportunities to achieve 'quality' wins. Obviously that them favors bubble teams in P5 conferences.

I created a file analyzing the performances of teams based on the teams they actually played against the expected performance for each game based on ratings from RPI (Real Time RPI), Her Hoops Stats Rating and Massey and then created an average rating.

Notes:
The results were taken from Her Hoops Data and include only Division I games.
If you beat the lowest ranked team you get no benefit similarity if you lose to the best team you get no penalty.
It is easy to add additional ratings if requested.

I found it interesting that Tennessee was only the second worst rated At-Large bid (worst was North Carolina. Results Rank 68th).

Does anyone believe that Tennessee (Results Rank 64th) is more worthy of an At-Large bid then say Ohio (Results Rank 24th).

View attachment 40608

If you exclude Tennessee's losses to Top 25 RPI (0-6) and compare:

Ohio is 7-4 vs RPI Top 100 and 16-0 vs Non RPI Top 100 (23-4 combined)
Best Wins:
Central Mich. (26)
Buffalo (32)
Lamar University (52)
American (78)
Purdue (87)
Kent St. (89) x 2
Losses:
H Central Mich. (26)
H Buffalo (32)
H Miami OH (46)
A Toledo (83)

Tennessee is 7-3 vs Top 100 and 11-2 vs Non RPI Top 100 (18-5 combined)
Best Wins:
Texas (27)
Missouri (28)
Auburn (48) x 2
Clemson (55)
Belmont (58)
LSU (70)
Losses:
H Missouri (28)
H Arkansas (96)
A Georgia (100)
A Alabama (153)
H Vanderbilt (197)

Are Tennessee's wins that much better that they override the much worse losses?

Tennessee's wins *are* better than Ohio's. How much better? Well...

There are of course infinite ways to slice the analysis, but the committee is likely to see it as Tennessee having 2 wins over teams in the 6 to 7 seed range, compared to one for Ohio in the same seed range (over Central Michigan), and having an additional 4 wins over fellow bubble teams (Clemson, Auburn x2, LSU), compared to 2 for Ohio (Buffalo and Miami OH). (If we're generous with our definition of "bubble team" we could include Ohio's win over Lamar, but then we'd have to also add Tennessee's win over Belmont.)

I would say this gap is not negligible but of course not huge either, and yes, not as substantial as the difference in bad losses. The losses to Alabama and especially Vanderbilt are damaging. But again, the committee has consistently shown that quality wins matter more than bad losses. Just how much more? The million-dollar question.

You mention that the "quality win" emphasis favors the P5 teams, and this could well be true. But you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins, and that's a glaring weakness in Ohio's resume. The committee will not look favorably on Ohio's dismal nonconference SOS ranking of #266, compared to Tennessee's #55, and that is a huge difference that could break the comparison Tennessee's way. But regardless, no doubt it's a close call.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Good post. Creme may not pick the actual brackets but IMO he has become the point man for the NCAA committee. Until a couple of years ago his brackets were a joke. Then he wrote about how he attended a mock selection session and suddenly his brackets and the committee's were nearly identical and his rational was identical to the committee's.

Is it just a coincidence that Creme hypes the SEC and that ESPN owns the SEC network while the PAC12 Network owns the rights that conferences games? No. That would be dishonest and journalistically unethical. Charlie would never compromise his integrity like that, right?

Good post. Creme may not pick the actual brackets but IMO he has become the point man for the NCAA committee. Until a couple of years ago his brackets were a joke. Then he wrote about how he attended a mock selection session and suddenly his brackets and the committee's were nearly identical and his rational was identical to the committee's.

Is it just a coincidence that Creme hypes the SEC and that ESPN owns the SEC network while the PAC12 Network owns the rights that conferences games? No. That would be dishonest and journalistically unethical. Charlie would never compromise his integrity like that, right?

You've made a conspiracy out of a guy doing his job.

he decides to put out projections as part of his WBB coverage. According to you he is bad at it.

He embeds with the Committee to understand the process better and gets better at it once he understands their criteria.

He informs the public about what the criteria is. Maybe he has contacts within the committee who help make his projections more accurate.

Literally, that's just someone doing their job well.

IF you don't like the way the Committee seeds the tournament then your problem is with the tournament. It's absurd to blame Creme for being mostly correct in his projections that aren't especially important in any way besides providing WBB content.

 

[Vowelguy]

You've made a conspiracy out of a guy doing his job..

Thank you.
Though sad that we now have to rely on visitors to call BS on BS posts.

 

[Alydar]

But you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins,

Actually it's almost impossible for a non-P5 team. The P5 teams don'y like to play good mid-major teams in the stronger mid major conferences, and if they do it's only in their own arena. Most P-5's know the RPI/SOS game and avoid teams that can beat them OOC. P-5 teams aren't exactly lining up to play teams like Buffalo, FGC, Green Bay et al. They are avoided like the plague.

You've made a conspiracy out of a guy doing his job.

he decides to put out projections as part of his WBB coverage. According to you he is bad at it.

He embeds with the Committee to understand the process better and gets better at it once he understands their criteria.

He informs the public about what the criteria is. Maybe he has contacts within the committee who help make his projections more accurate.

Literally, that's just someone doing their job well.

IF you don't like the way the Committee seeds the tournament then your problem is with the tournament. It's absurd to blame Creme for being mostly correct in his projections that aren't especially important in any way besides providing WBB content.

Who's BLAMING anyone? And for what? I'm just giving my opinion based on what I have read over the last 10 years or so. The only thing you have correct is that I don't like the way the NCAA runs it's tournament. But that is a topic for another thread.
It's no secret that most sports writers are in a symbiotic relationship with the game they cover. Some are merely hucksters, paid to promote the sport, not to report the sport. Some are insightful analysts. But they are all selling the game.
Now I admit that without ESPN wcbb wouldn't have hardly any exposure at all. But let's not pretend that they are some unbiased news source. Those people courtside and in the studio are there primarily to promote wcbb and criticizing the organization that runs it is not on their agenda.

 

[Plebe]

Actually it's almost impossible for a non-P5 team. The P5 teams don'y like to play good mid-major teams in the stronger mid major conferences, and if they do it's only in their own arena. Most P-5's know the RPI/SOS game and avoid teams that can beat them OOC. P-5 teams aren't exactly lining up to play teams like Buffalo, FGC, Green Bay et al. They are avoided like the plague.

Games this season between P5 teams and strong mid-majors (top 75 of RPI).

On the home court of the mid-major:​

Stanford @ Gonzaga​

Louisville @ Central Michigan​

Iowa @ Drake​

Stanford @ Buffalo​

Oregon @ South Dakota State​

Iowa State @ South Dakota​

Cal @ BYU​

Purdue @ Ohio​

Auburn @ New Mexico​

Oklahoma @ New Mexico​

Louisville @ Boise State​

Oregon @ St. Mary's​

Cal @ St. Mary's​

Duke @ Maine
Mississippi St @ Little Rock​

Texas A&M @ Little Rock​

Kansas State @ Little Rock​

Northwestern @ Green Bay​

Wisconsin @ Green Bay​

On a neutral court:​

Rutgers vs. Gonzaga​

Notre Dame vs. Gonzaga​

Rutgers vs. Drake​

Notre Dame vs. Drake​

Baylor vs. South Dakota State​

North Carolina vs. Rice​

TCU vs. BYU​

Indiana vs. South Dakota​

Texas vs. Quinnipiac​

Missouri vs. Quinnipiac​

Stanford vs. Florida Gulf Coast​

So no, it's not "nearly impossible." The vast majority of the top mid-major teams managed to play at least one game against a P5 team either at home or on a neutral court.

There were also quite a few games played on the P5 team's home court that are part of home-and-home series.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Stanford @ Gonzaga
Louisville @ Central Michigan
Iowa @ Drake
Stanford @ Buffalo
Oregon @ South Dakota State
Iowa State @ South Dakota
Cal @ BYU
Purdue @ Ohio
Auburn @ New Mexico
Oklahoma @ New Mexico
Louisville @ Boise State
Oregon @ St. Mary's
Cal @ St. Mary's
Duke @ Maine
Mississippi St @ Little Rock
Texas A&M @ Little Rock
Kansas State @ Little Rock
Northwestern @ Green Bay
Wisconsin @ Green Bay

It's striking that close to a third of that entire list is comprised of just three PAC-12 schools: Stanford, Oregon, and Cal (6/19). (And add in Louisville and almost half the list (8/19) is just 4 P5 schools).

All things considered, your list actually seems to prove Alydar's point. Out of 65 P5 schools, only 15 scheduled an away game at a mid-major. That's less than 1/4th of P5 schools. Even if you assume all of those are home and aways, and you double it to count the P5 home games this year that either were a mid-major home game last year or will be next year, that's still less than half of the P5's scheduling an away game at a mid-major over a two-year cycle.

And of all mid-majors, only a total of 13 mid-majors got to host a P5 school, because a number of them (mostly the notable ones) got two or three home games.

(Neutral sites are almost always multi-team tournaments, so those don't really count for the purposes of measuring the willingness of a P5 school to play away games at a mid-major. Schools commit to those tournaments often without knowing the full lineup, and almost always without knowing which schools they'll end up playing.

And even if you include the neutral court games, note that that only adds Rice, Quinnipiac and FGC to the list of mid-majors that got non-away games at P5 schools. So 16 total teams this year.)

 

[Plebe]

It's striking that close to a third of that entire list is comprised of just three PAC-12 schools: Stanford, Oregon, and Cal (6/19). (And add in Louisville and almost half the list (8/19) is just 4 P5 schools).

All things considered, your list actually seems to prove Alydar's point. Out of 65 P5 schools, only 15 scheduled an away game at a mid-major. That's less than 1/4th of P5 schools. Even if you assume all of those are home and aways, and you double it to count the P5 home games this year that either were a mid-major home game last year or will be next year, that's still less than half of the P5's scheduling an away game at a mid-major over a two-year cycle.

And of all mid-majors, only a total of 13 mid-majors got to host a P5 school, because a number of them (mostly the notable ones) got two or three home games.

(Neutral sites are almost always multi-team tournaments, so those don't really count for the purposes of measuring the willingness of a P5 school to play away games at a mid-major. Schools commit to those tournaments often without knowing the full lineup, and almost always without knowing which schools they'll end up playing.

And even if you include the neutral court games, note that that only adds Rice, Quinnipiac and FGC to the list of mid-majors that got non-away games at P5 schools. So 16 total teams this year.)

Before we run the risk of straying from the relevant point, my original statement which Alydar was countering was: "But you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins."

So let's not conflate "scheduling up" with "scheduling power-5 teams on your home court." It didn't do Ball State's resume any favors to host Vanderbilt this year, for example, nor did it help Louisiana Tech to host Ole Miss, nor did it help Mercer or UNLV to host Florida.

And many mid-majors are successful in scheduling up in their nonconference:

• Drake: nonconference SOS #4, with 8 top-50 opponents
• Green Bay: NC SOS #5, with 5 top-50 opponents
• South Dakota State: NC SOS #6, with 6 top-50 opponents
• Lamar: NC SOS #9, with 4 top-50 opponents
• Quinnipiac: NS SOS #15, with 5 top-50 (and 8 top-100) opponents
• Western Kentucky: NC SOS #21, with 6 top-50 opponents
• Central Michigan: NC SOS #66, including 5 top-50 opponents

So to say it's "nearly impossible" to schedule up is demonstrably false.

 

[Rocket009]

Games this season between P5 teams and strong mid-majors (top 75 of RPI).

On the home court of the mid-major:​

Stanford @ Gonzaga​

Louisville @ Central Michigan​

Iowa @ Drake​

Stanford @ Buffalo​

Oregon @ South Dakota State​

Iowa State @ South Dakota​

Cal @ BYU​

Purdue @ Ohio​

Auburn @ New Mexico​

Oklahoma @ New Mexico​

Louisville @ Boise State​

Oregon @ St. Mary's​

Cal @ St. Mary's​

Duke @ Maine​

Mississippi St @ Little Rock​

Texas A&M @ Little Rock​

Kansas State @ Little Rock​

Northwestern @ Green Bay​

Wisconsin @ Green Bay​

On a neutral court:​

Rutgers vs. Gonzaga​

Notre Dame vs. Gonzaga​

Rutgers vs. Drake​

Notre Dame vs. Drake​

Baylor vs. South Dakota State​

North Carolina vs. Rice​

TCU vs. BYU​

Indiana vs. South Dakota​

Texas vs. Quinnipiac​

Missouri vs. Quinnipiac​

Stanford vs. Florida Gulf Coast​

So no, it's not "nearly impossible." The vast majority of the top mid-major teams managed to play at least one game against a P5 team either at home or on a neutral court.

There were also quite a few games played on the P5 team's home court that are part of home-and-home series.

There you go using facts to back your position in the face of wild conjecture and straw men.

 

[Alydar]

Games this season between P5 teams and strong mid-majors (top 75 of RPI).

On the home court of the mid-major:​

Stanford @ Gonzaga​

Louisville @ Central Michigan​

Iowa @ Drake​

Stanford @ Buffalo​

Oregon @ South Dakota State​

Iowa State @ South Dakota​

Cal @ BYU​

Purdue @ Ohio​

Auburn @ New Mexico​

Oklahoma @ New Mexico​

Louisville @ Boise State​

Oregon @ St. Mary's​

Cal @ St. Mary's​

Duke @ Maine​

Mississippi St @ Little Rock​

Texas A&M @ Little Rock​

Kansas State @ Little Rock​

Northwestern @ Green Bay​

Wisconsin @ Green Bay​

On a neutral court:​

Rutgers vs. Gonzaga​

Notre Dame vs. Gonzaga​

Rutgers vs. Drake​

Notre Dame vs. Drake​

Baylor vs. South Dakota State​

North Carolina vs. Rice​

TCU vs. BYU​

Indiana vs. South Dakota​

Texas vs. Quinnipiac​

Missouri vs. Quinnipiac​

Stanford vs. Florida Gulf Coast​

So no, it's not "nearly impossible." The vast majority of the top mid-major teams managed to play at least one game against a P5 team either at home or on a neutral court.

There were also quite a few games played on the P5 team's home court that are part of home-and-home series.

One game doesn't produce much of an RPI or SOS. The Celtics could play in wcbb and go undefeated, winning by an average of 75 pts. but if they are in a sucky conference they won't ever get much better than a 6 seed because of their RPI and SOS.

 

[Plebe]

Out of 65 P5 schools, only 15 scheduled an away game at a mid-major. That's less than 1/4th of P5 schools. Even if you assume all of those are home and aways, and you double it to count the P5 home games this year that either were a mid-major home game last year or will be next year, that's still less than half of the P5's scheduling an away game at a mid-major over a two-year cycle.

And of all mid-majors, only a total of 13 mid-majors got to host a P5 school, because a number of them (mostly the notable ones) got two or three home games.

Also, the way you’ve stated this is not at all true. I expressly limited my analysis only to mid-majors in the RPI top 75, since the argument was made that the P5 teams won’t play the *top* mid-majors anywhere other than their home floor.

If we expand the analysis to all non-P5 schools other than UConn, then we see that 56 of 65 P5 teams played a true road game at such a school, and most of those 56 played multiple such road games.

(I would argue that the implications of going on the road to play a Villanova or St. John’s or SMU are similar to visiting a mid-major, even if the BE and AAC are not technically deemed mid-majors. But even if we exclude teams from those two conferences, we have 51 of 65 P5 teams playing true road games at “true” (?) mid-majors.)

 

[Plebe]

 

[Plebe]

One game doesn't produce much of an RPI or SOS. The Celtics could play in wcbb and go undefeated, winning by an average of 75 pts. but if they are in a sucky conference they won't ever get much better than a 6 seed because of their RPI and SOS.

But it does disprove your assertion that P5 teams are unwilling to play road or neutral-court games against good mid-major teams.

Green Bay, Drake and South Dakota State, among others, have managed year in and year out to play an excellent nonconference schedule that includes multiple P5 opponents. Again, this proves my original point, which is that "you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins."

 

[Alydar]

But it does disprove your assertion that P5 teams are unwilling to play road or neutral-court games against good mid-major teams.

Green Bay, Drake and South Dakota State, among others, have managed year in and year out to play an excellent nonconference schedule that includes multiple P5 opponents. Again, this proves my original point, which is that "you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins."

I never mentioned neutral games. Those holiday tournaments aren't scheduled by the P5 teams. You listed 19 road games vs good midmajors. That's spread over 65 teams. So about 30% of the P5 plays those games.

You make good points. My disagreement is with those who say "if they want a better RPI they need to schedule more top 50 teams, like it's just a matter of making a call or 2 because there are loads of P5 teams lining up to schedule these games. That simply isn't true.