SEC and Efficiency Ratings (i.e. KenPom and NET)

[tzznandrew]

I'm fine with how it's currently working, my expectations on the MM ever doing anything more than a first round win is limited.

If proof is needed regarding the ability of a low P4 making a dent vs a MM, look no further than Iowa & Texas. Both of those teams have pros on them - the Mid Majors have zero pros on them because they transfer up. If we lean one direction or the other, I'd rather have the best players in the tourney, not the nostalgia of the mid major as that model is done.

We have already moved in that direction. There have been more and more P4 schools for a while. We're probably at the max number of that. No need to put a 17-16 Auburn team in, or an 18-14 team. It's not like teams such as VCU, St. Louis, High Point, Utah State didn't win games. And a bunch of others performed fine.

Keep autobids the same. This isn't college football, and the more it looks like that the worse.

 

[RuffRuff]

We have already moved in that direction. There have been more and more P4 schools for a while. We're probably at the max number of that. No need to put a 17-16 Auburn team in, or an 18-14 team. It's not like teams such as VCU, St. Louis, High Point, Utah State didn't win games. And a bunch of others performed fine.

Keep autobids the same. This isn't college football, and the more it looks like that the worse.

Hear yeah - these MM's come out of no where and no one know anything about them until March.

Think about last year if Rutgers had gotten in. Would you rather see them, and future pros, or some MM with obscure players that you'll never hear of again? If anything, the MM's in the tourney are decent scouting sessions for the HM's for the portal.

 

[UConnJim]

I think what has happened to the metrics is that virtually all out of conference games happen now before January 1 and teams get better, or worse, over the season, but they only play conference games. St. John's is much better now than at the beginning of the season when they played their OOC games. Unfortunately, the Big East was relatively weak this year and there was no way for St. John's to significantly improve their metrics. BTW, the mid majors are being hurt in the metrics by not being able to schedule P5 games and then they get a lower seed and lose in the first round to a much higher seeded school.

For example, back in 2000, Temple from the A10 played ranked Maryland and ranked Cincinnati out of conference in mid February which would never happen now. UConn played at ranked Michigan St. in February 2000. Louisville (CUSA) played @ Gerogetown and against ranked Syracuse in February.

 

[RuffRuff]

I think what has happened to the metrics is that virtually all out of conference games happen now before January 1 and teams get better, or worse, over the season, but they only play conference games. St. John's is much better now than at the beginning of the season when they played their OOC games. Unfortunately, the Big East was relatively weak this year and there was no way for St. John's to significantly improve their metrics. BTW, the mid majors are being hurt in the metrics by not being able to schedule P5 games and then they get a lower seed and lose in the first round to a much higher seeded school.

For example, back in 2000, Temple from the A10 played ranked Maryland and ranked Cincinnati out of conference in mid February which would never happen now. UConn played at ranked Michigan St. in February 2000. Louisville (CUSA) played @ Gerogetown and against ranked Syracuse in February.

Michigan played Duke in Feb this year, there were a few games.

Catch with Pitino's model, which turns over year after year, is that new players in his system take awhile to figure it out. Not sure what the best strategy is for Rick's model, but I might try and schedule those games so he has a little more time.

It does make you wonder in the long run, with MM's already phasing out, the BE getting so few bids, if it's the P4's way of saying, we don't need these guys anymore.

 

[tzznandrew]

Think about last year if Rutgers had gotten in. Would you rather see them, and future pros, or some MM with obscure players that you'll never hear of again? If anything, the MM's in the tourney are decent scouting sessions for the HM's for the portal.

Why would I want to watch a sub-.500 team that got blown out against most good teams? Do we want good games between deserving teams, or do we want to just be explicitly a farm system for the NBA?

Also, I remember the names or faces and moments from those mid-major victories. What Bryce Drew or Ali Farokhmanesh or—dare I say it, Steph Curry—did as mid majors was far more interesting and lasting in my March Madness memory bank than what a great pro prospect like Kevin Durant did in the tournament.

To each their own, though.

 

[RuffRuff]

Why would I want to watch a sub-.500 team that got blown out against most good teams? Do we want good games between deserving teams, or do we want to just be explicitly a farm system for the NBA?

Also, I remember the names or faces and moments from those mid-major victories. What Bryce Drew or Ali Farokhmanesh or—dare I say it, Steph Curry—did as mid majors was far more interesting and lasting in my March Madness memory bank than what a great pro prospect like Kevin Durant did in the tournament.

To each their own, though.

Tis the issue though, today Steph would have transferred up.

I'm thinking more on behalf of the general public. My sense is that they'd rather see better players/teams than a cinderella hopeful that can't compete. I had zero confidence at all they'd be able to win Sat/Sun and it played out.