MWC Bids

MCMLXXX · March 17, 2023

The MWC had 4 bids with the lowest being an 11 seed and came away with one win. New Mexico lost their NIT game. Last year they were 0-4 in the NCAA and 0-1 in the NIT.

San Diego's win ended an 0-11 streak for the MWC. CUSA deserved at least one more bid in my opinion.

Edited March 17, 2023 by MCMLXXX

akriesman · March 17, 2023

I saw a CNN article yesterday pointing out various statistics regarding the NCAA Tourney. They mentioned North Texas as being the highest rated NET school (38) to not make the tournament. They also pointed out all the other teams that got at-large bids with lower NET ratings. Pittsburgh made the tournament with an at large bid and a NET rating of 67.

This was a crime and the NET was supposed to stop this sort of bias.

That same article mentioned that CUSA has won 5 of the last 7 first round tourney games with no seed being higher than 12. That's an amazing achievement that should be recognized. It's not.

Edited March 17, 2023 by akriesman

BigWillie · March 17, 2023

1 hour ago, akriesman said:

I saw a CNN article yesterday pointing out various statistics regarding the NCAA Tourney. They mentioned North Texas as being the highest rated NET school (38) to not make the tournament. They also pointed out all the other teams that got at-large bids with lower NET ratings. Pittsburgh made the tournament with an at large bid and a NET rating of 67.

This was a crime and the NET was supposed to stop this sort of bias.

That same article mentioned that CUSA has won 5 of the last 7 first round tourney games with no seed being higher than 12. That's an amazing achievement that should be recognized. It's not.

I would love to read this article. It is exactly the thing that has been so frustrating.

akriesman · March 17, 2023

17 hours ago, BigWillie said:

I would love to read this article. It is exactly the thing that has been so frustrating.

Yeah. I wish that I could have saved the article link. It had a lot of good information overall about the tournament history. It was posted before the tournament actually started. And, I said CNN (typo). I believe it was ESPN or maybe CBS Sports.

BigWillie · March 18, 2023

This really makes me want to scream at the clouds. Like I do not understand how a league can get so many bids and do so badly at the tournament.

It should show more based on what FAU did tonight.

UNTethered Eagle · March 18, 2023

On 3/16/2023 at 9:55 PM, MCMLXXX said:

The MWC had 4 bids with the lowest being an 11 seed and came away with one win. New Mexico lost their NIT game. Last year they were 0-4 in the NCAA and 0-1 in the NIT.

San Diego's win ended an 0-11 streak for the MWC. CUSA deserved at least one more bid in my opinion.

Especially when you consider FAU beating Memphis last night.

GMG_Dallas · March 18, 2023

Problem is they consider every season independent of the previous. Allegedly. Even though we all know program names and conference affiliation hold weight based on historical performance. They need start to determining how many bids a conference gets based on that conference's recent year performance but they won't.

CMJ · March 18, 2023

2 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

Problem is they consider every season independent of the previous. Allegedly. Even though we all know program names and conference affiliation hold weight based on historical performance. They need start to determining how many bids a conference gets based on that conference's recent year performance but they won't.

Actually what people here are asking for is sort of determining worth based on previous performance since recent MWC games in the tourney keep getting brought up. Aren't folks screaming about judging based on to remove "names" as well as the NET since we were ranked so high?

NET rankings of the MWC

SDSU 14

Utah State 18

Boise State 29

Nevada 37

All ranked above us. Nevada was also one of the last four in given they played in the First Four.

Edited March 18, 2023 by CMJ

SUMG · March 18, 2023

One thing I wish they would do. I heard someone (Packer? Vitale?) mention this years ago. NO team should be in the tournament....if they didn't finish at least .500 in league play. That would take out WVa (7-11 in the Big XII) and Arkansas and Miss. State (both 8-10 in the SEC). That would open up three spots for deserving teams.

CMJ · March 18, 2023

Vitale definitely used to argue that and I agree. About the only time I might consider otherwise is if you were 8-10 in your league and, won three games in your league tourney, but lost in the final. At that point you'd be (unofficially) 11-11. I might have a squad in consideration under such a scenario.

GMG_Dallas · March 18, 2023

1 hour ago, CMJ said:

Actually what people here are asking for is sort of determining worth based on previous performance since recent MWC games in the tourney keep getting brought up. Aren't folks screaming about judging based on to remove "names" as well as the NET since we were ranked so high?

NET rankings of the MWC

SDSU 14

Utah State 18

Boise State 29

Nevada 37

All ranked above us. Nevada was also one of the last four in given they played in the First Four.

None of it is being followed. As long as there's a committee, there will be bias. Committees should determine who gets in a playoff tournament.

My opinion. If you want to reward stronger conferences, allow the number of bids conferences receive to be determined by recent performance in the dance. It needs to be determined by metrics and only metrics. From there, go by NET or whatever you want, within each conference to find which teams will get bids from each respective conference.

So, if conference A gets 4 bids, the top 4 in conference A gets those 4 bids. Or top 3 after the AQ is awarded of you want to keep that going.

Eventually, things will stabilize to where human bias no longer impacts the rankings.

CMJ · March 18, 2023

I think recent performance CAN be helpful, but there have been years where say 3 Pac 12 schools make the Elite 8 and then the next no one does. What do you do with that kind of difference? I don't particularly think the 2021 Pac12 was that much stronger than the '22 version, but in the Dance there was a massive difference.

You can't only go by how schools perform in March, because it can be a total crap shoot. One year Virginia gets upset by a 16 seed, the next they win the title. Were they really THAT much better the following year?

GMG_Dallas · March 18, 2023

2 hours ago, CMJ said:

I think recent performance CAN be helpful, but there have been years where say 3 Pac 12 schools make the Elite 8 and then the next no one does. What do you do with that kind of difference? I don't particularly think the 2021 Pac12 was that much stronger than the '22 version, but in the Dance there was a massive difference.

You can't only go by how schools perform in March, because it can be a total crap shoot. One year Virginia gets upset by a 16 seed, the next they win the title. Were they really THAT much better the following year?

Other pro sports entities around the world have been using metrics to determine how many teams each association can have in a tournament. Examples would be UEFA Champions League and FIFA World Cup. Is each tournament a crap shoot? Sure. But it's the only way to remove complete bias. If your association/league/conference wants to keep having lots of bids, you need to perform as an association/league/conference to keep those bids. Otherwise it comes down to who a group of people feel is worthy of getting in the tournament and where they will be seeded and the result is underperforming conferences snatching bids without merit.

NorthTexasWeLove · March 18, 2023

4 hours ago, CMJ said:

Vitale definitely used to argue that and I agree. About the only time I might consider otherwise is if you were 8-10 in your league and, won three games in your league tourney, but lost in the final. At that point you'd be (unofficially) 11-11. I might have a squad in consideration under such a scenario.

Nah. Give em an inch they'll take a mile..500 or better, period.

CMJ · March 18, 2023

15 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

Nah. Give em an inch they'll take a mile..500 or better, period.

Well, that is technically .500 or better. Just not officially.

Cooke County Kid · March 18, 2023

I think the selection committee must use those “alternative facts” Kellyanne talked about, something isn’t right.

NorthTexasWeLove · March 18, 2023

1 hour ago, CMJ said:

Well, that is technically .500 or better. Just not officially.

So average basketball teams can make their conference tourney finals in only some conferences (and we know who) and still make the NCAA tourney is really all I'm hearing.

CMJ · March 18, 2023

13 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

So average basketball teams can make their conference tourney finals in only some conferences (and we know who) and still make the NCAA tourney is really all I'm hearing.

If that's what you're hearing, you have something in your ears. 😉

If a league is rated #1 in the metrics (KenPom, Sagarin, NET, RPI, etc.), and a school has numerous wins over top teams in the conference (regular season and conference tournament), then it's not the same thing as someone from the Summit League getting to the conference final.

Edited March 18, 2023 by CMJ

NorthTexasWeLove · March 18, 2023

Just now, CMJ said:

If that's what you're hearing, you have something in your ears. 😉

If a league is rated #1 in the metrics (KenPom, Sagarin, NET, RPI, etc.), and a school has numerous wins over top teams in the conference (regular season and conference tournament), then it's not the same thing as someone from the Summit League going getting to the conference final.

So, by your creation of the rule, this only applies to the #1 rated conference in the country? It's created human logic and bias to our hopeful madeup rule to get rid of just that.

My fake new rules:

.500 or better record in leauge play.

Keep AQ intact for all 32 conferences.

Use a fair metric that takes the next top qualifying 36 teams remaining (.500 record or better in league play).

CMJ · March 18, 2023

I don't think the computer metrics are the be all end all, but I do think they mean something.

And yes, I do feel like a team should be at least .500 in league play. But I would give CONSIDERATION in the event that I mentioned earlier....an 8-10 school gets to the final of their conference and then loses. That doesn't even mean I'd let them in! But I'd consider it depending on how the bubble looked overall.