NIT Bracketology (3/6/24)

[Glory to the Green]

Looks like they’re predicting FAU to get the NCAA Bid. Is that how you all read it?

 

[CMJ]

Yes, they think FAU will defeat USF in the league tourney.

[BigWillie]

It is crazy how hard the NIT is to get into now. And people like to crap on it, but it is almost like the runner up to the NCAA. Almost....

[Glory to the Green]

What would we need to do to get into the NIT?  Or are we NCAA or bust via the AAC Tourney?

[wardly]

We probably need to win at least two tournament games to be considered. Also the professional pundits predict if FAU beats USF in AAC final that both teams might get a bid, but if USF wins FAU won't.

[Andrew]

4 hours ago, Glory to the Green said:

Looks like they’re predicting FAU to get the NCAA Bid. Is that how you all read it?

 

Many projections I have seen have FAU and USF in the dance. Memphis and SMU in the NIT. 

[NorthTexasWeLove]

They have a 23-5 squad in the NIT? That is ridiculous. usf will be a 26 or 27 win team they're falling on and off the bubble, but they have 17-11s sneaking in on the 11 and 12 lines of the NCAA tournament. They think we're idiots and can't see what is happening. We clearly see. It's all an absolute joke. 

[CMJ]

41 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

They have a 23-5 squad in the NIT? That is ridiculous. usf will be a 26 or 27 win team they're falling on and off the bubble, but they have 17-11s sneaking in on the 11 and 12 lines of the NCAA tournament. They think we're idiots and can't see what is happening. We clearly see. It's all an absolute joke. 

They have two Quad 4 losses, which really hurts them.

[NorthTexasWeLove]

1 hour ago, CMJ said:

They have two Quad 4 losses, which really hurts them.

But they're valuing devaluing what else they've done while valuing other programs (wink wink) losing to "tough competition." 

[NT93]

If USF goes 17-1 in conference and doesn’t make the NCAA Tournament, the selection process is more screwed up than I realized.

[MeanGreenZen]

FAU and USF deserve to make the NCAA tournament.

If we can win a couple conference tournament games, I hope we accept a postseason tournament bid, don’t care which one. 

Edited March 7 by MeanGreenZen

[CMJ]

6 hours ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

But they're valuing devaluing what else they've done while valuing other programs (wink wink) losing to "tough competition." 

Quad 4 losses cancel out Quad 1 wins (they only have one of those).  Most of the bubble teams don't have multiple Quad 4 losses...they are devastating.  Then it falls to the other criteria, which does make it dicey for USF given they only have one Quad 1 win.     

[greenminer]

On 3/7/2024 at 7:19 AM, CMJ said:

Quad 4 losses cancel out Quad 1 wins (they only have one of those).  Most of the bubble teams don't have multiple Quad 4 losses...they are devastating.  Then it falls to the other criteria, which does make it dicey for USF given they only have one Quad 1 win.     

Body of work vs. current quality of performance.

If the committee says they want to use the AL bids to invite the next best teams based on quality of play RIGHT NOW, USF - currently ranked by coaches USF -  should be considered and the impact of those Q4 losses takes a back seat to how well they are playing RIGHT NOW.  IMO, USF clearly figured something out and is not the same team that lost those early games.

But that's not what is going to happen.  The committee will look at all those middle major teams that carry good brand, with little to celebrate or hold against them, and find ways to put them in.  The easiest way to do that is to find mid majors with Q4 losses, even early ones like USF's that clearly are not indicative of how they are playing right now - and leave them out of the convo by holding those losses against them.

Just my idiot 0.02, but when it comes to selecting teams, the committee is not consistent about basing their selections on body of work vs. current quality of performance.  And it can be super frustrating how it seems to (usually) work against the mid-majors.
 

Edited March 9 by greenminer

[CMJ]

3 minutes ago, greenminer said:

Body of work vs. current quality of performance.

If the committee says they want to use the AL bids to invite the next best teams based on quality of play RIGHT NOW, USF - currently ranked by coaches USF -  should be considered and the impact of those Q4 losses takes a back seat to how well they are playing RIGHT NOW.  IMO, USF clearly figured something out and is not the same team that lost those early games.

But that's not what is going to happen.  The committee will look at all those middle major teams that carry good brand, with little to celebrate or hold against them, and find ways to put them in.  The easiest way to do that is to find mid majors with Q4 losses, even early ones like USF's that clearly are not indicative of how they are playing right now - and leave them out of the convo by holding those losses against them.

Just my idiot 0.02, but when it comes to selecting teams, the committee is not consistent about basing their selections on body of work vs. current quality of performance.  And it can be super frustrating how it seems to (usually) work against the mid-majors.
 

About a decade ago the committee dropped record in the last ten games as a criteria.  How you're playing right now doesn't play into how they select teams...at least not consciously.

[greenminer]

PS: of course, the argument in favor of body of work usually involves some examples of teams that faltered late, got an AL invite anyways, and made a respectable run that reflects who they were earlier in the season.  My question would be: how often does that actually happen? It's got to be pretty rare.  Would like to see data that shows AL teams that were in a late season funk, got the AL invite anyways, and compared those that were one-and-done (didn't get out of the funk) vs. those that righted their ship and made a good run.

My guess is the one-and-dones far out number the latter.

 

1 minute ago, CMJ said:

About a decade ago the committee dropped record in the last ten games as a criteria.  How you're playing right now doesn't play into how they select teams...at least not consciously.

This is new news to me.

[greenminer]

2 minutes ago, CMJ said:

About a decade ago the committee dropped record in the last ten games as a criteria.  How you're playing right now doesn't play into how they select teams...at least not consciously.

How nice of them to find a way to diminish USF's run, though, right?!

[greenminer]

USF became ranked during the last 10 games of the season.  Does that get ignored, too?

Does the committee freeze the rankings at WK16 and ignore anything that moves up/down after that?

Edited March 9 by greenminer

[BigWillie]

9 minutes ago, greenminer said:

USF became ranked during the last 10 games of the season.  Does that get ignored, too?

Does the committee freeze the rankings at WK16 and ignore anything that moves up/down after that?

Yeah, this seems completely dumb.

[CMJ]

12 minutes ago, greenminer said:

USF became ranked during the last 10 games of the season.  Does that get ignored, too?

Does the committee freeze the rankings at WK16 and ignore anything that moves up/down after that?

No, but they don't take the voted on rankings into consideration.  I remember the year a top 20 Gonzaga team got a 9 seed in the tournament.