|
Post by stlexplorer on Feb 5, 2013 0:43:42 GMT -5
14. [45] Butler (5-2, 18-4) 30. [57] La Salle (5-3, 15-6) 47. [116] UMass (4-3, 14-6) 50. [21] VCU (6-2, 18-5) 54. [126] Charlotte (5-2, 17-4) 55. [69] Temple (3-4, 14-7) 56. [41] St. Louis (5-2, 16-5) 75. [88] Richmond (4-4, 14-9) 77. [92] Xavier (5-3, 12-9) 79. [80] St. Joe's (4-3, 13-7) 120. [72] Dayton (2-5, 12-9) 125. [109] St. Bonaventure (3-4, 10-10) 130. [96] GW (4-3, 10-10) 174. [141] Rhode Island (1-6, 6-14) 201. [218] Duquesne (0-7, 7-14) 208. [234] Fordham (2-5, 6-16)
Explorers Weekly Schedule:
- .vs. Fordham - 208th
rankings are from realtimerpi.com and bracketed rankings are from kenpom.com
|
|
|
Post by lasalle89 on Feb 5, 2013 9:05:52 GMT -5
Dick Vitale would always say that if you do not have a winning record in your conference that you should not get an at large bid. What do you guys think about this?
|
|
|
Post by explorer88 on Feb 5, 2013 9:09:06 GMT -5
Dick Vitale would always say that if you do not have a winning record in your conference that you should not get an at large bid. What do you guys think about this? I totally agree with that concept. It eliminates the advantage BCS/power schools have and makes them compete and win against their own level to get into the tournament. Since Syracuse won't go on the road to play VCU etc.... they should be required to win against their own to get in.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 9:25:51 GMT -5
Dick Vitale would always say that if you do not have a winning record in your conference that you should not get an at large bid. What do you guys think about this? It's fine. Remember UConn finished 8-8 and won the national championship by winning 5 straight in their conference tournament. So the teams that are marginal in their conference still have a chance to do damage, but no need to give them a free pass. They must earn it. If you can't at least win key games in your conference in March, then go NIT or go home.
|
|
|
Post by golasalle on Feb 5, 2013 9:50:56 GMT -5
Dick Vitale would always say that if you do not have a winning record in your conference that you should not get an at large bid. What do you guys think about this? I totally agree with that concept. It eliminates the advantage BCS/power schools have and makes them compete and win against their own level to get into the tournament. Since Syracuse won't go on the road to play VCU etc.... they should be required to win against their own to get in. I completely agree with that and may be one of the only things with which I agree with Vitale. However, the outcome that I highlighted in Mik's post is exactly why it will NEVER happen.
|
|
big5vet
Utility Bench Player
Posts: 176
Likes: 38
|
Post by big5vet on Feb 5, 2013 9:51:31 GMT -5
Agree with Dickie. Have to compete in your own conference to potentially become the national champion. I think as of a few years back, the NCCAA godfathers began to vote this way, i.e. favoring mid-majors, non BCS conference team.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 10:50:07 GMT -5
Per wikipedia: One absolute rule is that a team with a losing record after the conference tournament is barred from consideration for an at-large berth.
Therefore, a 7-9 team could potentially run to the finals and lose, but then be considered 11-10 in conference. I still don't see how such a team is as qualified as top midmajors who are on the bubble, but this is how it is allowed to happen. Strength of Schedule is 75 % of your RPI, which is why Drexel got shunned.
However, it was Iona, and the Xavier/Bonaventure result, that ultimately stole Drexel's bid, ultimately. Not some mediocre record BCS school. This is because the BCS schools were considered "locks" on account of their strength of schedule dominance. Whereas Xavier and Iona "stole" Drexel's bid by losing in their conference tournaments. It was an at large spot which was reserved for the best #2 teams in the best conferences, and clearly based on SOS alone, clearly A10(Xavier)>>MAAC(Iona)>CAA (Drexel), at least as of 2012 that was the case.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 5, 2013 13:09:33 GMT -5
Per wikipedia: One absolute rule is that a team with a losing record after the conference tournament is barred from consideration for an at-large berth. The NCAA's selection criteria do not mention any minimum W-L pct - either conference or overall - for consideration. It's very unlikely a team with an overall losing record would be chosen, but it is not unlikely that a team with a losing conference record might get a bid. For example, look at last year's field. UConn had an 8-10 regular-season Big East record and a 10-11 record after the tournament - but they got a bid to the tournament as a 9 seed.
|
|
|
Post by broderickpresident on Feb 5, 2013 13:31:10 GMT -5
Per wikipedia: One absolute rule is that a team with a losing record after the conference tournament is barred from consideration for an at-large berth.Therefore, a 7-9 team could potentially run to the finals and lose, but then be considered 11-10 in conference. I still don't see how such a team is as qualified as top midmajors who are on the bubble, but this is how it is allowed to happen. Strength of Schedule is 75 % of your RPI, which is why Drexel got shunned. However, it was Iona, and the Xavier/Bonaventure result, that ultimately stole Drexel's bid, ultimately. Not some mediocre record BCS school. This is because the BCS schools were considered "locks" on account of their strength of schedule dominance. Whereas Xavier and Iona "stole" Drexel's bid by losing in their conference tournaments. It was an at large spot which was reserved for the best #2 teams in the best conferences, and clearly based on SOS alone, clearly A10(Xavier)>>MAAC(Iona)>CAA (Drexel), at least as of 2012 that was the case. Wikipedia is off base on that one. Committee once admitted an Iowa State team that went 5-9 in the Big 8. Wouldn't be shocked to see a Big Ten team with a losing record (even after conf tourney) get in, as had happened before as well
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 5, 2013 13:37:38 GMT -5
I think the Wikipedia article is talking about OVERALL record, not conference record.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 5, 2013 14:37:28 GMT -5
I think the Wikipedia article is talking about OVERALL record, not conference record. Right, but there is nothing in the NCAA guidelines about overall record either.
|
|
|
Post by lasallerules1978 on Feb 5, 2013 15:07:19 GMT -5
I think you have to be above .500 for an nit bid, maybe that is the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 5, 2013 17:09:23 GMT -5
I think you have to be above .500 for an nit bid, maybe that is the confusion. That was true of the old NIT - where they had instituted that rule to try to maintain some integrity in a selection process that was largely controlled by ESPN and how many fans a given team could add to attendance or viewership. However since the NCAA took over the NCAA, they have put in the same basic selection process as the NCAA committee uses.
|
|
|
Post by explorer88 on Feb 5, 2013 17:12:31 GMT -5
I think you have to be above .500 for an nit bid, maybe that is the confusion. That was true of the old NIT - where they had instituted that rule to try to maintain some integrity in a selection process that was largely controlled by ESPN and how many fans a given team could add to attendance or viewership. However since the NCAA took over the NCAA, they have put in the same basic selection process as the NCAA committee uses. I thought the NIT automatically selects conference champions that lose their conference tournament and are not selected to the NCAA tornament. Is that still the case?
|
|
|
Post by explorerman on Feb 5, 2013 18:41:37 GMT -5
That was true of the old NIT - where they had instituted that rule to try to maintain some integrity in a selection process that was largely controlled by ESPN and how many fans a given team could add to attendance or viewership. However since the NCAA took over the NCAA, they have put in the same basic selection process as the NCAA committee uses. I thought the NIT automatically selects conference champions that lose their conference tournament and are not selected to the NCAA tornament. Is that still the case? I thought so also
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 5, 2013 19:21:47 GMT -5
They do. Honestly I like that rule too. Otherwise the MAAC, America East, etc. really has nothing on the line in the regular season. At least you get a spot in the little dance with the way it is now.
On that note, we're pretty much definitely in the NIT at least at this point right? I know everyone is thinking bigger (me too), but as long as we don't like lose out, we should basically have that wrapped up already right?
|
|
|
Post by stlexplorer on Feb 5, 2013 22:38:37 GMT -5
I think 2 more wins guarantees a NIT berth for us.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Feb 6, 2013 10:40:35 GMT -5
That was true of the old NIT - where they had instituted that rule to try to maintain some integrity in a selection process that was largely controlled by ESPN and how many fans a given team could add to attendance or viewership. However since the NCAA took over the NCAA, they have put in the same basic selection process as the NCAA committee uses. I thought the NIT automatically selects conference champions that lose their conference tournament and are not selected to the NCAA tornament. Is that still the case? Yes, the regular season champ gets in. One proviso, however, is that you have to be the league's #1 seed. If you tie for 1st but are seeded #2 in the cnference tournament due to the league tiebreaker, then you are out of luck as far as getting an automatic bid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 13:15:13 GMT -5
everyone is encouraged to correct wikipedia. That's a blessing and a curse. I should have known better than to cite it as a "source."
|
|