How do the mid-majors look next year?
-Nova loses Hilliard and Pinkston, but should still be top 20. They add #2 PG recruit Jalen Brunson.
-Georgetown will be Georgtown. Overrated all year. They lose a number of senior role players but should have DSR back. Not nearly a top 4 seed though.
-Gonzaga loses Pangos, Bell and Wesley but add Vandy's leading scorer from last year, eric McClellan. Will still have Wiltjer, Karnowski and Sabonis so they'll probably dominate the WCC after losing 2-3 OOC.
-Wichita State loses a few solid players but should have Baker and Van Vleet back. Probably not good enough to run the table again.
-Memphis and UConn won't be good enough.
I don't think there are any other relevant mid-majors to compete for a 1 seed. Unless Nova has a run like this year, it seems unlikely this will be an issue next year.
If you like upsets, doesn't this support the argument for mid major 1 seeds?2013 - Gonzaga out in round of 32
2014 - Wichita St out in round of 32
2015 - Nova out in round of 32
Besides Nova, the Big East didn't have another team in the top 20 of the RPI. There best win was over RPI #16 VCU
IMO, they do. Non P5 teams have given us no reason to justify them as 1 seeds. The NCAAF committee isn't giving Boise State a spot in the Final 4. For good reason.There can absolutely be deserving non-P5s, like the Jameer Nelson St. Joe's team. Evaluate teams by resume, not conference affiliation. Wichita lost closely to an ultra-talented Kentucky team that made the final game. Villanova lost to a good NCSU team that ran Duke off the floor in Raleigh. These games don't mean than non-P5s can't be #1s.
Not sure I agree Poppy. I think Georgetown will be a top 25 team, but they lose Smith, Trawick, Hopkins and Smith-Rivera could go pro.Georgetown will be top-10 pre-season, if not top-5.
IMO, they do. Non P5 teams have given us no reason to justify them as 1 seeds. The NCAAF committee isn't giving Boise State a spot in the Final 4. For good reason.
Two rules they should enact to be a 1 seed.
1. Only P5 teams can be a 1 seed
2. You have to win your conferences regular season title or your conference tourney.
The metrics don't work with mid majors. It's like having a GPS that constantly drives you off a cliff, but everytime you tell yourself, well it's a computer, so it must be right.
Everyone knows how to game the RPI now. The BE did it, the MWC did it, they all do it. It's a joke.
I can't wait till next year when Villanova looks unbeatable again after rolling through a league of has beens. Then we can watch them get a high seed again, and flame out the first time they play a halfway decent team.
I understand what you're saying, and there is definitely some hyperbole in this thread, but I really disagree about the BE this year. Maybe gaming the RPI isn't the best way to say it, but there's no way that the BE was a top 2 or 3 conference this year like I believe the RPI rated it as. There were only 2 good wins OOC, and then every other good win was just them beating themselves.The BE didn't game the RPI this year. Just because you call them all has beens doesn't make them has beens. They went 27-18 vs top 100 schools in OOC play, many on road or neutral courts. They went and played tough schools as a group and did fairly well.
They had 6 legit tourney teams this year... and the B12 probably had 7 as well. The problem is when you have a large % of the conference as tourney worthy is the seeds will tend to be inflated across the board -- from the top to the middle.
I do think it was a bit of a peak year for the Big East however.
The metrics don't work with mid majors. It's like having a GPS that constantly drives you off a cliff, but everytime you tell yourself, well it's a computer, so it must be right.
Everyone knows how to game the RPI now. The BE did it, the MWC did it, they all do it. It's a joke.
I can't wait till next year when Villanova looks unbeatable again after rolling through a league of has beens. Then we can watch them get a high seed again, and flame out the first time they play a halfway decent team.