Well so much for the ACC being weak ..

[orangenauburn]

Basically he is looking for P5 conference seed quotas or NET protection for P5 conferences that stink OOC.
So when the ACC stinks the bed OOC (or any P5 conference stinks the bed in any given year) they will be protected from its negative impacts. Since the reputation of P5 schools suggests they are better than that. Not sure how any of that is fair but that is what some of these people want.

The solution for the ACC is simple and should not be that hard to avoid in future years. It was not hard to avoid in prior years either! Don't lose 17 games to the following Q3/Q4 teams, when other top conferences are losing nowhere close to that.


View attachment 215969

Only thing I'd add, If Colgate made the tourney, why are they a bad loss? I wouldn't quantify them as a good win, but they shouldn't be a bad loss if they made tourney.

They are a bad loss to us, for historical and local reasons.

 

[Dinkyspond]

For all the bad mouthing the ACC got, half of the F4 will be ACC

 

[MSOrange]

This is why using tourney performance to retroactively determine conference strength is silly. I know why people do it, but that doesn’t make it any less silly.

Just because UNC decided to be UNC 6 weeks ago, and Miami won a couple games unexpectedly, doesn’t mean the mediocre middle of the ACC is any better than they were 10 days ago.

That's exactly how I look at it. I keep thinking of a comparison of me going to the gym with Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime and we combine to bench 500 lbs with Arnold being 450 lbs of it. Then I run around bragging about how strong the two of us are.

 

[jncuse]

Only thing I'd add, If Colgate made the tourney, why are they a bad loss? I wouldn't quantify them as a good win, but they shouldn't be a bad loss if they made tourney.

They are a bad loss to us, for historical and local reasons.

For simplicity I defined bad loss as a Q3/Q4 Loss. The same way the committee determines a bad loss. Takes out any bias in my assessments and made it easier to count them.

Allowed me to come up with a # of bad losses from the the ACC and Other conferences, to see how bad (or not bad) the ACC was.

That being said I believe a loss at home to Colgate is indeed a bad loss.

I looked at other autobid tourney teams around the same NET as Colgate and :

Montana St went 0-1 vs P5 schools (or big east)
St Peters went 0-2 losing by an average of 18 (before tourney obviously)
Longwood went 0-2 losing by an average of 21 (including a loss to Georgetown)
Colgate went 0-2* losing to Pitt! and St. John's
Yale went 0-2 losing by an average of 29 points

Basically Colgate and their closest tourney peers went 0-9 against P5 schools before the tournament. Oops, make that 1-9 when we consider Syracuse.

*excluding Syracuse

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You all are moving the goalposts. You all keep saying oh SU should have made it then. Or this P5 conference should have had every team. That is moronic and not even close to what I am saying. Reading comprehension is a thing.

I will try to make it simple for the dummies. If team A (ACC), team B (P12), and team C (MWC) are all on the bubble they will all have similar resumes. There isn't much to separate the three. So how do you decide? That is where a conference's current and recent history of talented players and coaches should come into play. The P12 bubble school (not all P12 schools) should be taken over the MWC bubble team (not the best MWC team). And the ACC bubble team should be taken over the P12 bubble team.

If the P12 8th place team is good enough to come in 5th place in the MWC, that makes it harder for that P12 bubble team to have a stronger record than the MWC team. This happens across the P5. There is a greater chance of slip ups because the bottom teams have more talent than the middle of a mid major conference. The NET ranking and thus the Q1 level Ws (Qs are based on NET so they are crap), cannot take that into account.

Is it fair that the P5 gets favored over the mid majors? No, but it also isn't fair to have to play more talented coaches and players every week and get punished for it.

If the NCAAT is randomness then why do the same conferences, coaches, teams have success year in and year out while other conferences, coaches, and teams do not? If it is just randomness that the ACC has had half the conference in the Elite 8 the last dozen or so years, then the BBall Gods favor the ACC. And if the Gods favor the ACC why not make the Gods happy and select the ACC team (all things being similar bubble vs bubble)?

 

[kcsu]

Year in year out the ACC is the best basketball conference.

 

[DCUNITED13]

For all the bad mouthing the ACC got, half of the F4 will be ACC

Half of the Championship Game as well. Go ACC. Go CUSE

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I will try to make it simple for the dummies. If team A (ACC), team B (P12), and team C (MWC) are all on the bubble they will all have similar resumes. There isn't much to separate the three. So how do you decide? That is where a conference's current and recent history of talented players and coaches should come into play.

Just keep digging in on this awful idea tho.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Just keep digging in on this awful idea tho.

So what can we go off of then to separate who gets in and who gets out? The NET rankings are biased toward mid majors. Bias is bias. I rather the bias be toward the teams that can make a run in the NCAAT.

Even using the metrics how in the hell did Wyoming make the NCAAT? They might have the worst resume of all time. This isn't even a P5 thing as you could easily take Dayton over them.

Wyoming
Notable OOC Ws- at Washington in OT, Northern Iowa neutral by 2 points
OOC Ls- at Zona by 29 points, Stanford neutral
Conference Standings- MWC 4th place
Record vs Top 3 in MWC- 2-4 (one in OT and both at home)
Best road W- at 6th placed Fresno State
NET ranking- 50th
Pomeroy- 65th (barely ahead of SU)

Dayton
Notable OOC Ws- Miami neutral, Kansas neutral, Belmont neutral, VA Tech
OOC Ls- UMass Lowell, Lipscomb, Austin Peay, at SMU, at Ole Miss
Conference Standings- A10 tied 2nd place
Record vs Top 2 in A10- 2-1
Best road W- at tied for 2nd place VCU
NET ranking- 58th
Pomeroy- 45th


The A10 has done better recently in the NCAAT. Even without that benefit of the doubt, how is Wyoming more deserving than Dayton? Yes, Dayton stunk out of the gate those 1st three games. But they actually challenged themselves OOC. Those 4 Ws plus playing 2 other difficult OOC road games should more than make up for the 3 ugly Ls.

When you compare Wyoming to Wake, UVA, A&M, etc it is even worse. You are ok with the randomness of a committee picking Wyoming? You need to base it off of something and the tie breaker should go to your conference affiliation.

I can say the same thing for San Fran too.

San Fran
Notable OOC Ws- Davidson semi neutral, Towson neutral, UAB neutral, at Arizona State by 1
OOC Ls- Grand Canyon semi neutral, Loyola-Chicago neutral
Conference Standings- 3rd place WCC 10-6
Record vs Top 2 in WCC- 0-5
Best road W- at 5th place BYU
NET ranking- 22nd
Pomeroy- 23rd

They didn't challenge themselves OOC. They had 6 solid Ws and 2 poor Ls. That shouldn't be enough to get in.