I like this list for tournament selections

[BigWillie]

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/43905236/the-bilas-index-vol-ii-top-68-teams-mens-college-basketball-2024-25

Maybe Lunardi can take note.

[NT80]

5 hours ago, BigWillie said:

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/insider/story/_/id/43905236/the-bilas-index-vol-ii-top-68-teams-mens-college-basketball-2024-25

Maybe Lunardi can take note.

The Tournament "should" include the Top 68 teams.  But with required auto-bids to conference champion upset teams it eliminates those better teams with the auto-bid.  Not enough at-large openings to accommodate all Top 68 teams.

[NT93]

I never really liked the autobid for conference tournament champions.  The regular season should mean more than an end of season tournament.  

Isn’t there a conference that’s making it almost impossible for anyone but maybe a top 4 seed to win the conference tournament?  I know I saw a crazy bracket, but I can’t remember if it was real or just a proposal.

I also don’t like the fact that there will be several teams in the tournament who are not as good as UNT, but honestly, many of those teams are what make the tournament special every year.

[greenminer]

In case you missed it, Bilas sees us as 55.

[untjim1995]

1 hour ago, NT93 said:

I never really liked the autobid for conference tournament champions.  The regular season should mean more than an end of season tournament.  

Isn’t there a conference that’s making it almost impossible for anyone but maybe a top 4 seed to win the conference tournament?  I know I saw a crazy bracket, but I can’t remember if it was real or just a proposal.

I also don’t like the fact that there will be several teams in the tournament who are not as good as UNT, but honestly, many of those teams are what make the tournament special every year.

Gonzaga’s conference gave them a double bye in a conference with like 8 teams. That’s protecting the asset…

[GMG_Dallas]

I like the auto bid as is. Those teams often make the first 2 rounds of the big dance special. 

I think after the auto bids, it should just go by NET Rankings. For example,  I see #57 Indiana in at-large talks with a 2-11 Quad 1 record yet they're in the bubble and we aren't despite a higher NET ranking. Just solidifies my belief that we need to load up the OOC with as many neutral and road games against high-major opponents. Going something like 3-6 in Quad 1 games and 20 total wins will get us an at-large bid.

Edited yesterday at 12:49 PM by GMG_Dallas

[THOR]

10 hours ago, NT93 said:

I never really liked the autobid for conference tournament champions.  The regular season should mean more than an end of season tournament.  

Isn’t there a conference that’s making it almost impossible for anyone but maybe a top 4 seed to win the conference tournament?  I know I saw a crazy bracket, but I can’t remember if it was real or just a proposal.

I also don’t like the fact that there will be several teams in the tournament who are not as good as UNT, but honestly, many of those teams are what make the tournament special every year.

https://sunbeltsports.org/documents/2024/10/25//2025_Men_s_Basketball_Championship_Bracket.pdf

 

good ole sun belt

[Censored by Laurie]

15 minutes ago, THOR said:

https://sunbeltsports.org/documents/2024/10/25//2025_Men_s_Basketball_Championship_Bracket.pdf

 

good ole sun belt

I actually like this a lot...it far more values your performance in conference play and helps to prevent some team with a sub .500 record from getting hot for 3-4 games being your sole NCAA representative. don't want to play 6-7 games to reach your final? perform throughout the season. 

especially in the case of a mid/low major conference where your best team could be an 11/12 seed, but a deep upset in the conference tourney could have your rep as a 15/16 seed

[MrAlien]

Its not perfect, but I think the committee gets it right far more often then they get it wrong.  There is a path for just about every team to get into the Big Dance this late in the season.  31 automatic qualifiers through their conference championships, and the next best 37. 

[CMJ]

There are a few  league tournaments that don't allow the 11th or 12th place in or whatever, but I agree.  Practically everyone has a chance to make it to the Dance, no matter how underwhelming your season is.  Just get hot in March.  

 

It's honestly part of the charm.

[Greendylan]

2 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I actually like this a lot...it far more values your performance in conference play and helps to prevent some team with a sub .500 record from getting hot for 3-4 games being your sole NCAA representative. don't want to play 6-7 games to reach your final? perform throughout the season. 

especially in the case of a mid/low major conference where your best team could be an 11/12 seed, but a deep upset in the conference tourney could have your rep as a 15/16 seed

Also, if a low seed ends up winning your tournament, they would have to have won so many games in a row that they probably (by that point) would have a respectable record going into the NCAA tournament. 

[NT80]

5 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

I think after the auto bids, it should just go by NET Rankings. For example,  I see #57 Indiana in at-large talks with a 2-11 Quad 1 record yet they're in the bubble and we aren't despite a higher NET ranking. Just solidifies my belief that we need to load up the OOC with as many neutral and road games against high-major opponents. Going something like 3-6 in Quad 1 games and 20 total wins will get us an at-large bid.

I agree.  Playing MS Valley St and Wayland Baptist isn't gaining us anything.  Poor attendance, poor competitive game, no value for bids.  

[greenminer]

5 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

I like the auto bid as is. Those teams often make the first 2 rounds of the big dance special. 

I think after the auto bids, it should just go by NET Rankings. For example,  I see #57 Indiana in at-large talks with a 2-11 Quad 1 record yet they're in the bubble and we aren't despite a higher NET ranking. Just solidifies my belief that we need to load up the OOC with as many neutral and road games against high-major opponents. Going something like 3-6 in Quad 1 games and 20 total wins will get us an at-large bid.

I don't know.  I really like the idea of including a human element.  The battle is the bias they seem to have towards the majors.  If we could somehow minimize or completely eliminate that bias, and still include a committee(s), maybe it could be a lot better.

Edited yesterday at 06:36 PM by greenminer

[GMG_Dallas]

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

I don't know.  I really like the idea of including a human element.  The battle is the bias they seem to have towards the majors.  If we could somehow minimize or completely eliminate that bias, and still include a committee(s), maybe it could be a lot better.

So long as you have the human element, you will have bias. College sports are the only competitions in the country where a panel of people decide who gets to compete for a championship. NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc... all go by straight record no matter how week or strong their conference and/or division is. Even the conference tournaments in college go by straight record for seeding but all of a sudden for the big dance we care about who you've beaten and try to assume how good you may be based on games played months ago.

[CMJ]

7 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

So long as you have the human element, you will have bias. College sports are the only competitions in the country where a panel of people decide who gets to compete for a championship. NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc... all go by straight record no matter how week or strong their conference and/or division is. Even the conference tournaments in college go by straight record for seeding but all of a sudden for the big dance we care about who you've beaten and try to assume how good you may be based on games played months ago.

Well it's different when there's only 30 teams or so, like most pro leagues have, and 350, like college basketball has. Pro leagues play similar schedules. Colleges have as many conferences (30ish) as games in a season. Any measure of trying to compare teams isn't satisfactory. We use the NET but no one even knows the formula.

[GMG_Dallas]

45 minutes ago, CMJ said:

Well it's different when there's only 30 teams or so, like most pro leagues have, and 350, like college basketball has. Pro leagues play similar schedules. Colleges have as many conferences (30ish) as games in a season. Any measure of trying to compare teams isn't satisfactory. We use the NET but no one even knows the formula.

This is the issue. We have the NET but we don't use the NET as a stand-alone and there lies the problem. Develop a formula and stick to it or don't develop anything at all.

[BigWillie]

20 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

This is the issue. We have the NET but we don't use the NET as a stand-alone and there lies the problem. Develop a formula and stick to it or don't develop anything at all.

This is what I subscribe to. I get that there are over 300 teams, but based on an unbiased and strength of schedule relative formula, it gives every single team equal opportunity to make the tournament and doesn't rely on a human to have an opinion.

[CMJ]

33 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

This is the issue. We have the NET but we don't use the NET as a stand-alone and there lies the problem. Develop a formula and stick to it or don't develop anything at all.

I meant no one even knows exactly what goes into the NET, not that it's only one factor among several (which it also is).  Also, what they balance every year in the NET also apparently changes every season, so there's really no point in only looking at the NET as the single qualification.

Edited 23 hours ago by CMJ

[GMG_Dallas]

13 minutes ago, CMJ said:

I meant no one even knows exactly what goes into the NET, not that it's only one factor among several (which it also is).  Also, what they balance every year in the NET also apparently changes every season, so there's really no point in only looking at the NET as the single qualification.

The formula is the same for everybody. Problem is mid-majors regularly infiltrate the top 50 and the committee doesn't like that so they resort to Quad 1 and Quad 2 record. Well naturally, when mid-majors play less of those games it puts those programs at a disadvantage in the eyes of the committee because the other metrics like efficiency get ignored.

This reminds me of the Patriots under Belichick and Brady. Every year people would point to their weak division to discredit them saying the Jets, Dolphins, and Bills were regularly 6 "free" wins while downplaying the Patriots' dominance. Fact of the matter is they won their games and with the way the NFL works, they'd get in the playoffs as a top seed. In college sports, their strength of schedule would have often pushed them out of top seeds earned by their record. Yes, college has more teams. That doesn't mean you can ignore records and metrics when convenient.

Edited 23 hours ago by GMG_Dallas

[CMJ]

The formula may be the same for everyone, but the formula itself changes every season.  Things are weighted differently.

 

I also wouldn't say the Quad 1s and 2s are done solely to keep schools like us out (that's just an added benefit).  I feel like every year there will be a a team with a questionable ranking get in, not only over mid majors, but over other power league schools.   I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I know it's happened where a Stanford would be like 81 in the NET (or the old RPI when used) and jump over like 40 other schools - mid majors, power league schools, everyone - it didn't matter.  

[MrAlien]

Every year it comes down to those 8 bubble teams (last 4 in, first 4 out), and most bracket projections have those same 8 teams after the conference tournaments are done.  And if your team is not included in those last 8 then they probably dont belong in the conversation. 

[BigWillie]

2 hours ago, CMJ said:

The formula may be the same for everyone, but the formula itself changes every season.  Things are weighted differently.

 

I also wouldn't say the Quad 1s and 2s are done solely to keep schools like us out (that's just an added benefit).  I feel like every year there will be a a team with a questionable ranking get in, not only over mid majors, but over other power league schools.   I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I know it's happened where a Stanford would be like 81 in the NET (or the old RPI when used) and jump over like 40 other schools - mid majors, power league schools, everyone - it didn't matter.  

So are you advocating for NET usage solely with this comment? Based on your example, NET would have made this more reasonable.

[CMJ]

1 minute ago, BigWillie said:

So are you advocating for NET usage solely with this comment? Based on your example, NET would have made this more reasonable.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying there is no single standard that can really be used. 

[BigWillie]

Just now, CMJ said:

No, I'm not.  I'm saying there is no single standard that can really be used. 

But how would following the NET only allow a questionable team to get in?

[CMJ]

I feel like using the NET only is like saying we're only going to use Sagarin or KenPom or any of the other dozen computer rankings out there.  Not sure any are more valid than the other.