OT: Dickie V gets one right

[Yorkeez4]

Recently I heard Dickie V suggest that teams with less than a .500 record in league play not be eligible for the big dance, unless of course they win the conference automatic bid.

I wholeheartedly agree with this but realize it will never happen since it would be taking dance cards out of the hands of p5 members.

With the introduction of the quadrant metrics the NCAA has given more slots to the p5 + 2 conferences and fewer to the middle and low majors. Metrics are a good way to reduce subjectivity in the selection process but lose great value if they favor a particular group as these metrics do.

If Dickie V's suggestion were instituted it would reduce the p5 +2 pool of eligible teams resulting in more middle and low majors dancing. And that's not a bad thing.

And yes the +2 does include the AAC even though not many of their members dance.

 

[auror]

Quadrant system is not new. It was RPI Top 50, 100, etc. wins before. By valuing road wins of less than top 50 teams, it theoretically helps mid majors have more ability to get those wins. This was why it was recommended by the larger coaching group.

Hard and fast rules like this are dumb. They don't allow for nuance and complex ideas. The entire point of a committee is to avoid these hard and fast rules.

Why are there more Major 7 schools getting in now? Because there are more Major 7 schools than there used to be.

Why else? Because the committee has started using more advanced metrics, which recognize better teams more clearly. They are not able to be "gamed" as easily as the RPI was, so you don't end up with situations like the Missouri Valley in 2006. The major conferences have a higher number of better teams, and sometimes it makes situations like B12 this year where teams finish with less than .500 records in conference play.

 

[Travelman6]

well, why can't the "hard and fast" rules just start and end at .500 conference record? It is not even that strict of a rule and I am not sure why anyone, outside of cuse or the occasional sec team like bama be against it. There is still tons of room for nuance and complex ideas even with that kind of rule in place. Boohoo if it leaves out 1 or 2 really bad P5 teams. but yah, it will never happen.

 

[auror]

well, why can't the "hard and fast" rules just start and end at .500 conference record? It is not even that strict of a rule and I am not sure why anyone, outside of cuse or the occasional sec team like bama be against it. There is still tons of room for nuance and complex ideas even with that kind of rule in place. Boohoo if it leaves out 1 or 2 really bad P5 teams. but yah, it will never happen.

Because there's no reason to start with any rule. We have real human beings making decisions based on a lot more information than just conference record and the rule is totally unnecessary, unless your aim is to let in worse teams by limiting the committee.

For example, UConn in 2011 was 9-9 in conference play. What if we had lost the South Florida OT game in conference play and then lost the OT Syracuse game in the BE tournament. Those 2 more losses (and 1 less good win not attempted) probably drop our seed from 3 to maybe 8-10 range. Nope, sorry. Nothing we can do, there's a rule that forbids it. We're out.

 

[Travelman6]

they already are letting in worse teams, like cuse, oklahoma and bama.

 

[storrsroars]

Because there's no reason to start with any rule. We have real human beings making decisions based on a lot more information than just conference record and the rule is totally unnecessary, unless your aim is to let in worse teams by limiting the committee./QUOTE]

How many other areas of life do you bend hard and fast rules to satisfy your interpretation of them? Steal just a little because they won't miss it? Lie on your taxes because you don't like the party in control?? Run red lights when no one's looking?

I'm guessing you support activitist judges.

 

[Ewekon]

Quadrant system is not new. It was RPI Top 50, 100, etc. wins before. By valuing road wins of less than top 50 teams, it theoretically helps mid majors have more ability to get those wins. This was why it was recommended by the larger coaching group.

Hard and fast rules like this are dumb. They don't allow for nuance and complex ideas. The entire point of a committee is to avoid these hard and fast rules.

Why are there more Major 7 schools getting in now? Because there are more Major 7 schools than there used to be.

Why else? Because the committee has started using more advanced metrics, which recognize better teams more clearly. They are not able to be "gamed" as easily as the RPI was, so you don't end up with situations like the Missouri Valley in 2006. The major conferences have a higher number of better teams, and sometimes it makes situations like B12 this year where teams finish with less than .500 records in conference play.

What defines a major 7 school? You invented something that doesn't exist.

 

[auror]

How many other areas of life do you bend hard and fast rules to satisfy your interpretation of them? Steal just a little because they won't miss it? Lie on your taxes because you don't like the party in control?? Run red lights when no one's looking?

I'm guessing you support activitist judges.

I'm a facts/numbers guy. But I know that due to small sample sizes, unbalanced schedules, and limited data, you can't quantify or define with high confidence an abstract concept like "most deserving team". That is not true for binary circumstances like stealing, taxes, or whether or not you ran a red light. Now you can add hard/fast rules, but then you're changing your mission statement. Instead of "the most deserving teams", it's "the most deserving teams that finished above .500 in conference play". Those are often the same, but definitely not always. I see no reason to change the mission of the NCAA tournament selection committee.

What defines a major 7 school? You invented something that doesn't exist.

Well I didn't, but someone did.

 

[gtcam]

What defines a major 7 school? You invented something that doesn't exist.

Yeah - its a descriptive that's been used since the fall in some talk shows and sports blogs. Maybe you should read/listen more before jumping down someone's throat
So it wasn't something that Auror invented - sorry to rain on your parade Auror as a blossoming inventor!!!!

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

You invented something that doesn't exist.

Quite frankly, how often has the latter prevented some Boneyarders from posting all sorts of conjured up malarkey?