NCAA/NIT Tournament selection doesn't work.

[FoolKiller]

I have a rant here.

How many teams are small conference winners that get an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament? Now, how many NIT teams were in harder conferences, such as the Big East, ACC, or even the SEC, that are better than those smaller conference winners? We have the OVC champions, Murray State, in the tournament while a NIT team like Louisville (It hurts me to defend them here, so you know I'm being honest) or South Carolina could mop the floor with them.

I pulled up the NIT bracket and compared it to the NCAA bracket and realized that at least half the teams in the NIT are better than some of the teams in the NCAA. This is the first time that I have ever noticed this, but I usually ignore the NIT and only watch Kentucky. I always just figured the NIT was a consolation prize for the bad teams.

Having actually looked at it, because I have a lot of friends that are Louisville fans, all this occured to me. Why are teams getting blocked out of the big tournament so that a worse team that just beat even worse teams could get in. I understand they want every conference to get representation but this is ridiculous. If a South Carolina or a Louisville just popped into one of these small conference tournaments for fun they would blow them all out.

So Louisville has to go to the NIT because they had to play U-Conn and Villanova twice? Yeah, that seems fair.

Now, I am not just ranting, I have a possible solution.

Say you take the ranked teams that by ranking alone could get into the NCAA tournament and then have them play a wild card game against the conference winners that currently are taking their spots. You have a wild card day just like we have a play-in game day. Most of the good teams would win but you would have a few upsets and those little teams would have shown that they earned that spot.

That's my rant. What do you guys think?

 

[JohnBM01]

Well, Foolkiller... it's the same way I felt about the Houston Cougars. I do feel that Houston's trying as hard as they can for the past two years to get into the NCAA tournament for the first time since 1992. The past two seasons, Houston's been doing pretty well, though this is my first season REALLY following college basketball. Houston has over 5 Final Fours, including the legendary "Phi Slamma Jamma" in the 1980s and that shocking reminder of North Carolina State knocking off the Cougars from perhaps their first National Championship. I'm not going to make a case for the U. of Houston Women's team, because they had a horrible year without players like Sancho Lyttle and Chandi Jones. Maybe I'm complaining too much about Houston, but when I think about it... Houston trailed by 21 to LSU at the half, and came back to upset the LSU Tigers. Then we took on Arizona, and at both halves, we led. Houston upset Arizona at home, and then LSU on the road. We had a great win streak in Conference USA, all to lose to teams like Virginia Commonwealth (not in C-USA), rivals Rice, UTEP, and TWICE to Memphis. But where do they go despite a steallar season? The NIT. So you mean to tell me that any no-name team can upset Arizona and come back from almost forever to LSU and not have any consideration for the NCAA? Almost NOBODY gave Houston any consideration. I know that the Missouri Valley Conference has some hot teams, but Houston had staged a good run. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to get the NCAA thinking "they deserve a National Championship shot."

So then, I do ask... what makes a team worthy of National Championship contention? Putting in teams like Duke and Kentucky and such is almost a given. You know what you're getting out of the major schools. But what about teams like Bradley, Northern Iowa, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Denver, Northern Arizona, and such to make the tournament? People are going to be snubbed. I don't know how the system works, but to get in 64 teams with maybe a play-in deal to make it 65 teams can be tough to call.

 

[FoolKiller]

Maybe I'm complaining too much about Houston, but when I think about it... Houston trailed by 21 to LSU at the half, and came back to upset the LSU Tigers.

Nice. *cough*GreatestComebackEver*cough*

So then, I do ask... what makes a team worthy of National Championship contention? Putting in teams like Duke and Kentucky and such is almost a given. You know what you're getting out of the major schools. But what about teams like Bradley, Northern Iowa, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Denver, Northern Arizona, and such to make the tournament? People are going to be snubbed. I don't know how the system works, but to get in 64 teams with maybe a play-in deal to make it 65 teams can be tough to call.

Well, there are 31 conferences where the winner of their tournament gets an automatic bid. This is my propblem. Is the winner of the OVC conference better than many of the NIT teams? Not by a long chance, but because they got an automatic bid for beating a bunch of second-rate teams they claim a NCAA spot, not because they are even close to being ranked in the top 64.

This is also the reason for the play-in game. There are 31 automatic bids, which means an odd number of teams. The top ten seeds are mainly reserved for major schools. Check out the bracket and you'll see all of the 10 seeds and below actually deserved a spot based on talent for placement. Aside from moving them up one or two seeds you can't argue any of those. Now look at the 11-16 seeds. Many of those can be argued. They are a bunch of "who dat?" teams.

Honestly, if you were ranking teams would you have Southern U., Penn., Oral Roberts, Belmont, Albany, Winthrop, Monmouth, Davidson, George Mason, or San Diego St. over Maryland, Wake Forest, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Louisville, Cincinnatti, Florida St (they beat Duke), South Carolina, Clemson, or Michigan?
And really, is Air Force better than Houston?

If there was a coaches/AP poll, or whatever poll you prefer to go by, and those rankings determined the top 64 teams do you think that the brackets would look like they do currently?

My point is just that if we want to make the NCAA about the best 64 teams then we need to do away with the automatic bid thing.


Then of course we come to why the system is like this. The NCAA has never denied the fact that it allows this for fair TV time for these teams. Many of these teams would have never been heard of if they didn't get an automatic bid. I wouldn't be making jokes at Oral Roberts if it weren't for this system because I wouldn't know they exits. However, I would rather see South Carolina or Houston, or Louisville play Memphis than have a good chance at a joke.

 

[JohnBM01]

First of all, I really confuse things with college basketball. I read scores backwards. They trailed by 12. But still, they came back to win. Want proof? Look here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/boxscore?gid=200511290319

I apologize with the misleading numbers. Perhaps UH trailed at 21 in some point. My source was usually ESPNEWS while games were in progress. So, my apologies and disregard the use of "down by 21."

Wow, FoolKiller... the only spread between Houston's comeback and Kentucky's is 10 points. Houston trailed by 21, Kentucky trailed by 31. Good news is, both won. I'm not a student of the University of Houston, but I respect them for the fact that my brother is a Houston alum. I sometimes call my brother on his cell phone talking about Houston Cougar games. This includes football and basketball. Their football team is good, but can be better. Maybe even much better. Houston's been trying to topple the C-USA ranks in hoops, but their biggest challenges are UAB and especially Memphis. If Louisville didn't jumpshift to the Big East, they'd be the Coog's third biggest challenge.

Funny enough... both Houston and Kentucky came back to win against the same opponent- LSU. Either it's a small world, or it's possible for any team to win any game against anyone. Size doesn't matter. I do feel a bit too benevolent about things. I think conference champions should get the automatic bid. Like, the moment when I seen Syracuse lost at DePaul, I wanted Syracuse to not advance into the NCAA tournament because you can't lose to a team you know you can beat. And especially not in a blowout. The same went when I saw (then) #2 Kansas get upset at Villanova by more than 30 points a few years ago. I don't know if you believe in RPI, but look at Hempstead, NY's Hofstra University. They had a great RPI, but never advanced to The Big Dance despite their 24-6 record. But then, how the hell did Air Force get in? And if George Washington had a very easy go in their pre-season, how did they get in? They lost to North Carolina State before 2005 came to an end, then they'd lose IN THE FIRST ROUND of the Atlantic 10 tournament. But they got in and took on North Carolina-Wilmington (results to come in my NCAA Tourney thread) in the first round.

Being more of a college football guy than a college basketball guy, people probably can't argue that no matter what snubs and bonehead offers are made, at least it's better than what the BCS does to Division 1-A teams. You know, win six games, you're likely going to the postseason. But let's say Kentucky's football team (this may be rare) ends up upsetting teams like Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and uh... even Texas and Louisville? Do you think they deserve a chance at a National Championship if college foootball had a playoff and not the BCS? I'm reversing your question by putting this situation in another situation. The point I'm getting at is that people admit to have a tough time deciding who gets in and who doesn't. Had there been tournament play in football, it would be easier with only 119 schools (could be 120 because North Carolina-Charlotte is thinking about stating a football program after this coming season). But in D1 basketball, you got 320 to 334 schools. How do you decide which 64 gets in or what extra 65th team has a chance to get into the tournament? In defense of college basketball, at least the NCAA Tournament selection isn't the BCS.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wow, FoolKiller... the only spread between Houston's comeback and Kentucky's is 10 points. Houston trailed by 21, Kentucky trailed by 31. Good news is, both won.

We wear that like a badge. You can still buy the shirts.

Funny enough... both Houston and Kentucky came back to win against the same opponent- LSU. Either it's a small world, or it's possible for any team to win any game against anyone. Size doesn't matter.

I always believe this. The movie "Any Given Sunday" tries to emphasize this point. It is why there are upsets. Talent alone will not win the game.

I don't know if you believe in RPI, but look at Hempstead, NY's Hofstra University. They had a great RPI, but never advanced to The Big Dance despite their 24-6 record. But then, how the hell did Air Force get in?

Odd you should mention this. I argued this with a co-worker yesterday. Thsi is the response about RPI rankings that I gave him.

11 teams ranked below 64 in the tournament, one of them ranked 284. Yeah, Hampton (284) and Oral Roberts (130) deserve their bids over Missouri St. (21), Hofstra (30), Creighton (39), Cincinnati (40), St. Joseph’s (43), Michigan (47), Maryland (49), Houston (53), WKU (54), Colorado (59), South Carolina (62), or Florida St.(63 – they beat Duke!).

In defense of college basketball, at least the NCAA Tournament selection isn't the BCS.

I agree, but I still like my wild card games to get into the tournament idea.