The more I think about it, I realize how dumb the road/neutral record is

[NineOneSeven]

In comparison to other "metrics".

*disclaimer- absolutely understand we played ourselves into this situation*

Team 1- record 18-14 (10-8), 2 wins road/neutral, key wins Duke/FSU/UVA/UM

Team 2- record 18-14 (10-8), 5 wins road/neutral, key wins Duke/FSU/UVA/UM

Which is better? Team 2 looks better with those 5 road wins right? What if I told you each team had the exact same victories though? If we beat Pitt, Ga tech, and BC on the road but lost at home, that's the difference for team 2 above.

Would the argument then be we weren't that great at home? The "bad losses" still exist either way in this scenario.

NCAAT is great but anytime you are using a subjective system to determine, and seed, matchups, it's so much more difficult to win championships than in other sports, especially pro level. Part of the excitement.

Here's a fact- in the NCAAT you play good teams that are not on the road. Yet we use bad losses and games on the road to determine teams. Yes, you need multiple ways to determine teams or else teams would just manipulate the scheduling, but like Bilas said, some consistency year to year would benefit a lot. There is always going to be subjectivity here, no way around it. I think having all basketball people in the room though is definitely an interesting thought.

 

[CaptainJ]

In comparison to other "metrics".

*disclaimer- absolutely understand we played ourselves into this situation*

Team 1- record 18-14 (10-8), 2 wins road/neutral, key wins Duke/FSU/UVA/UM

Team 2- record 18-14 (10-8), 5 wins road/neutral, key wins Duke/FSU/UVA/UM

Which is better? Team 2 looks better with those 5 road wins right? What if I told you each team had the exact same victories though? If we beat Pitt, Ga tech, and BC on the road but lost at home, that's the difference for team 2 above.

Would the argument then be we weren't that great at home? The "bad losses" still exist either way in this scenario.

NCAAT is great but anytime you are using a subjective system to determine, and seed, matchups, it's so much more difficult to win championships than in other sports, especially pro level. Part of the excitement.

Here's a fact- in the NCAAT you play good teams that are not on the road. Yet we use bad losses and games on the road to determine teams. Yes, you need multiple ways to determine teams or else teams would just manipulate the scheduling, but like Bilas said, some consistency year to year would benefit a lot. There is always going to be subjectivity here, no way around it. I think having all basketball people in the room though is definitely an interesting thought.

Boeheim also said they needed consistent metrics vs this morphing/subjective BS. Last year our quality wins got us in. This year, we had 3 top ten wins, and in unprecedented fashion for that achievement, were left out...regardless of a much weaker bubble than most years. I'm glad I learned to forgive, because for those who can see we were indeed screwed, it may be tough to get over without some help.

 

[PoppyHart]

I get the call for a transparent formula: 2 parts OOC schedule, 1 part KenPom, 3 parts conference record, etc...etc... and spit out a team.

The biggest problem as I see it is that the smaller schools do not get a chance to play on an even playing field. Illinois State is never getting an invite to Maui, Atlantis, Pre Season NIT, etc... and they sure as heck are not gonna draw a big time power to Normal, IL unless it was under unusual circumstances, like say a homecoming game for a 4-year star @ Duke. And the number of opportunities to get marquee wins ceases by New Years' Day.

If you remove the little guys from the equation completely, as some suggest, the tournament loses its charm, some of the smaller schools, which rely on selling the dream of NCAA glory to recruits by winning their conference, fall deeper into the abyss and programs may even go under.

The solution, therefore, might be to keep the tourney and auto-bid structure, but set aside 1-2 at-large slots each year for the typical one-bid leagues (MAAC, Patriot, etc...), 4-6 for the mid-tier leagues (the A-10s, MVC, MW, WCC) and the rest for the P5+1s. Then you can truly have a "formula" driven, transparent analysis without having to reconcile scheduling issues and other variables which distort the comparisons.

You can even allocate mandatory spots per conference, based on some initial power rating structure, while still leaving a handful of wildcards. As time goes by, the seed allocation can change, based on tournament success, graduation rates, whatever... In could be similar to the way th Champions League or FIFA divvies up AQ slots.

There are 36 at-large bids. Not counting the AQ, you could break it down something like this (2017 at-large bids in parenthesis):

ACC: 6 (8)
Big 12: 4 (5)
Big 10: 4 (5)
Big East: 3 (6)
SEC: 3 (4)
Pac-12: 3 (3)
Mid-Majors: 4 (3)
Low-Majors: 1 (0)

Wild Cards: 8

 

[MarketCuse]

Yep this was my point even before Bilas said it.

We aren't playing bad teams in the tournament. Why would bad teams be a factor? What kind of bizzarro world do we live in where bad losses from 4 months ago are more important than great wins four weeks ago?

This bad loss statistic is stupid & subjective. ESPECIALLY WITH THEM HAPPENING LAST YEAR!

Since when did home wins only count as a half of a win? How many road games are left in college basketball?

So yeah let's judge them on losses to bad teams and road losses. Because those two things are impossible to happen in the tournament.

Good wins are not good wins unless they are pac12 wins or on the road.

 

[jdubs30]

Ironically if we gave up the UVA and FSU wins - and won @Pitt and @Vatech instead - we'd be in.

The committee just saw way too many holes. I think the bad losses compounded with the R/N record was a bad look. If we beat GTown and St.Johns - we'd still have 2-11 record but our bad losses would have shrunk to 2 - that probably gets us in as well.

 

[Cuse House]

It's dumb when USC's only two good wins came at home. If you are going to cite that as a reason we got left out you can't justify USC being in when we had 3x more good wins.

That's my only gripe with us not being in. Have some consistency... I don't care if you beat UC Bakersfield on the road, we'd have more wins than USC if we played their cupcake slate.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Yep this was my point even before Bilas said it.

We aren't playing bad teams in the tournament. Why would bad teams be a factor?.

I think the argument is (and for the most part I agree) that teams aren't selected on their ability to advance. They are selected based on if they had successful seasons. So yes, we may be strong enough to do well in the tournament, but that based on our performance, we haven't done enough to earn a spot.

 

[Quazzum69]

Road wins are important because a committee determined they were important decades ago!

The statisiticians say home court is only worth a couple baskets but the selelction committee are kind of meat heads with their "hostile environment" narrative.

Basketball needs a BCS system in the worst way.

 

[CousCuse]

I think the argument is (and for the most part I agree) that teams aren't selected on their ability to advance. They are selected based on if they had successful seasons. So yes, we may be strong enough to do well in the tournament, but that based on our performance, we haven't done enough to earn a spot.

How many teams in the field of 68 would go 10-8 in the ACC? Maybe 15-20, maybe.

 

[Cusefan0307]

We are better off beating Colgate and Cornell in Hamilton and Ithaca than beating Duke or FSU in the dome and that right there is why the RPI is a horrible metric.

 

[upperdeck]

they should just change the system from 4 play in teams to 1-8 play in games. this year there were 2 bubble teams really left.. so play 2 more play in games.. make it a moving target instead of rigid logic

 

[Knicks411]

We are better off beating Colgate and Cornell in Hamilton and Ithaca than beating Duke or FSU in the dome and that right there is why the RPI is a horrible metric.

I get your point, but is that true? Your winning% is only 25% of the formula, I would imagine the other 75% makes up for the extra boost for winning the road game.

But yeah, the RPI sucks

 

[Cusefan0307]

I get your point, but is that true? Your winning% is only 25% of the formula, I would imagine the other 75% makes up for the extra boost for winning the road game.

But yeah, the RPI sucks

Road wins count as 1.4 wins regardless, and home wins count as .06 wins regardless. I think they are doing away with the RPI anyway after this year, but it seems the committee still paid attention to it.

 

[Knicks411]

Road wins count as 1.4 wins regardless, and home wins count as .06 wins regardless. I think they are doing away with the RPI anyway after this year, but it seems the committee still paid attention to it.

Right, but that's 25% of the formula. It's not worth going through the math, I don't care that much, but I can't imagine a road win at Cornell helps your RPI more than a home win over Duke.

You'd think since they were getting rid of it after this year they would be phasing it out in a more graduated fashion, but I guess not.