Really Interesting... Speculations, Anyone?

[Marc Wigim]

I just read Kieran Darcy's "College Report Card" on ESPN's Page 2, and his poll was "What would you rather see more of in the NCAA tournament?" The answers were "More Mid-Majors" or "More Power Conference Teams."

Mid-Majors have a clear 64-36% margin.

What does this mean? This is where speculations are very appropriate, so I'll provide mine. Basically, it tells me that basketball fans believe that there are more qualified tournament teams in the Land Beyond the Big Six. Can you possibly sit there and tell me that despite being only 18-8 and playing in the often-underrated Horizon League that UW-Milwaukee will not provide some bloated Big Money Big Sixer a headache in the first few rounds of the tournament? Has ESPN finally gotten egg on their faces, touting their "Indiana as an at-large bid" nonsense only to find out that maybe (just maybe) that isn't what the people want?

I tell you this, give me the Wisconsin-Milwaukee Panthers in the tournament 18,000 times before you give me one 05-06 Indiana Hoosiers team.

Playing in a weaker conference does not guarantee that you are the weaker team. People know this through the faces of teams like Utah State and Davidson, who ripped through the regular season in years' past only to find out that you essentially have to win 19 games in a row once you start playing your conference boys if you want to get into the tournament. Or even worse... losing twelve of sixteen in your conference and then getting hot in three tournament games. You can honestly sit there and tell me that Utah State or Davidson still didn't deserve a chance? 64 of 100 people seem to agree with me.

And is it for my soapbox moment today. I thank you.

[Newsbreaker]

I think you're reading a bit much into it.

The question is flawed. I don't know many people who are fans of exclusively major conference teams, that think more of them should get into the tournament then already do. That doesn't neccesarily mean that they therefore believe more mid-majors should get in then currently do, nor that more mid-majors should get in at the expense of major conference teams.

[Marc Wigim]

It could just be that I'm really tired, but I'm confused by your statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you're saying:

You're saying that the question doesn't allow for the consideration of more mid-majors getting in at the expense of major conference teams? I believe that's what I'm getting there.

Anyway, if that's true, then your statement reminds me of the speculation that took place after the NIT was bought by the NCAA (ironically, that solution came about after the accusation of monopoly). Some thought that expanding the tournament to maybe 96 teams would open the door for more mid-majors to get into the tournament. While I would like to see that, I feel that doing so would water down the tournanment considerably, unless they treated those 32 or so play-in games as a chance to weed out many of the random conference-tournament cinderellas. Even then, there aren't enough of those types of teams, so again... the field would be greatly watered down. Luck would begin to play a large part of who is your national champion, rather than who is truly excellent at playing basketball.

Anyway, I rambled a bit too much again. My bad.

[DWadle1983]

I think you're reading a bit much into it.

The question is flawed. I don't know many people who are fans of exclusively major conference teams, that think more of them should get into the tournament then already do. That doesn't neccesarily mean that they therefore believe more mid-majors should get in then currently do, nor that more mid-majors should get in at the expense of major conference teams.

I think what the question is getting at is that people would rather see a 24-7 mid-major than a 18-13 BCS conference team picked when the final few at-large selections are being decided. I think most people would rather see any mid-major picked over Indiana or Virginia.

[Marc Wigim]

Newsy has me wondering now, too... the question is a little broad. If the question was "Would you rather see a 24-6 MM over a 17-13 BCS team (cough, Indiana, cough)" or something to that effect, there should be a "Hell yes" option on that poll. I would click it.

[Hime_Peterson]

A good Mid-Major team will also likely play harder and be more excited about being there than a sputtering, struggling, sinking-ship with a lame-duck coach like Indiana.

[tcondon]

Here's a look at what at large teams from Mid-major conferences have done vs. big 6 conferences.

2005: 25 teams from the top 6, 9 other conferences.

Non BCS conferences:
1st Round loss (3)-UNI, St. Mary's, Charlotte
2nd Round loss (5)-Southern Illinois, Pacific, Nevada, UAB, Cincinnati
Sweet 16 loss(1)-Utah

BCS conferences:
1st Round loss (10)-Iowa, UCLA, Texas, Stanford, Pitt, Minnesota, LSU, Kansas, Iowa State, Alabama
2nd Round loss(6)-Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Mississippi State, Georgia Tech, UConn, Boston College
Sweet 16 loss(2)-Villanova, NC State,
Elite 8 loss(4)-Wisconsin,West Virginia, Kentucky, Arizona
Final Four loss(1)-Michigan State
National Champion(1)-North Carolina

2004: 22 from BCS conferences, 12 from others

Non BCS conferences:
1st Round loss(8)-UTEP, Southern Illinois, Richmond, Louisville, Dayton, Charlotte, BYU, Air Force
2nd round loss(2)-Memphis, DePaul
Sweet 16 loss-(1)UAB
Elite 8 loss(1)-St. Joe's

BCS conferences:
1st Round Loss(6)-Arizona, Florida, Michigan State, Providence, South Carolina, Washington
2nd Round loss(6)-Boston College, Mississippi State, North Carolina, NC State, Seton Hall, Texas Tech,
Sweet 16 loss(6)-Illinois, Pitt, Syracuse, Texas, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest,
Elite 8 loss(2)-Alabama, Kansas
Final Four loss(1)-Duke
National championship loss(1)-Georgia Tech

2003 10 from non BCS schools, 24 from BCS

Non BCS conferences:
1st Round Loss(5)-BYU, Cincinnati, Memphis, Southern Illinois, St. Joe's,
2nd Round Loss(3)-Gonzaga, Xavier, Utah
Sweet 16 Loss(1)-Butler
Elite 8 Loss(0)
Final 4 Loss(1)-Marquette

BCS Conferences:
1st Round Loss(5)-NC State, Mississippi State, LSU, Colorado, Alabama
2nd Round Loss(9)-Wake Forest, Purdue, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Florida, Indiana, Cal, Arizona State,
Sweet 16 Loss(5)-Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Maryland, UConn, Auburn,
Elite 8 Loss(2)-Michigan State, Arizona,
Final 4 Loss(1)-Texas
National Championship loss(1)-Kansas
National Champion(1)-Syracuse

Over the past 3 seasons, 31 at large canidates have come from non BCS conferences. Of those 30 teams, 16 have gone out in the first round (52%). 10 have gone out in round 2 (32%), 3 have lost in the Sweet 16 (9%) and one team has gone to the Elite 8, one other to the Final Four.

Of the BCS conference schools, 71 at large bids have been given out. 21 have gone out in Round 1 (29%), 21 in Round 2 (29%), 13 have made it to the Sweet 16 (18%), 8 in the Elite 8 (11%), 3 went to the Final Four, 2 made it to the National title game and two won an NCAA Championship.

With these numbers, the argument could be made that the last at large spots should actually be given to teams from the BCS conferences. I would have never thought that.

Numbers are fun.

[Hime_Peterson]

tcondon,

There is a chance I'm going to be in the Cedar Falls area sometime in the next month.

If I am, I'm going to listen to your show--1650 at 5:00???

[tcondon]

tcondon,

There is a chance I'm going to be in the Cedar Falls area sometime in the next month.

If I am, I'm going to listen to your show--1650 at 5:00???

Correct Hime. PM me. I have a proposition for you...and no it is not anything like Indecent Proposal.

[Sex Panther...]

tcondon, how many of those non-BCS schools were incorrectly seeded lower than they should have been therefore playing a tougher first round opponent causing a trickle down effect in the rest of the numbers. Is it possible the reverse is true for those at large BCS schools? Your sample sizes aren't exactly equal as well (31 vs 71). I realize you used percentages....but come on.

Numbers are fun, they can mean whatever you want them to.

[MiloCat]

Here's a look at what at large teams from Mid-major conferences have done vs. big 6 conferences.

2005: 25 teams from the top 6, 9 other conferences.

Non BCS conferences:
1st Round loss (3)-UNI, St. Mary's, Charlotte
2nd Round loss (5)-Southern Illinois, Pacific, Nevada, UAB, Cincinnati
Sweet 16 loss(1)-Utah

BCS conferences:
1st Round loss (10)-Iowa, UCLA, Texas, Stanford, Pitt, Minnesota, LSU, Kansas, Iowa State, Alabama
2nd Round loss(6)-Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Mississippi State, Georgia Tech, UConn, Boston College
Sweet 16 loss(2)-Villanova, NC State,
Elite 8 loss(4)-Wisconsin,West Virginia, Kentucky, Arizona
Final Four loss(1)-Michigan State
National Champion(1)-North Carolina

2004: 22 from BCS conferences, 12 from others

Non BCS conferences:
1st Round loss(8)-UTEP, Southern Illinois, Richmond, Louisville, Dayton, Charlotte, BYU, Air Force
2nd round loss(2)-Memphis, DePaul
Sweet 16 loss-(1)UAB
Elite 8 loss(1)-St. Joe's

BCS conferences:
1st Round Loss(6)-Arizona, Florida, Michigan State, Providence, South Carolina, Washington
2nd Round loss(6)-Boston College, Mississippi State, North Carolina, NC State, Seton Hall, Texas Tech,
Sweet 16 loss(6)-Illinois, Pitt, Syracuse, Texas, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest,
Elite 8 loss(2)-Alabama, Kansas
Final Four loss(1)-Duke
National championship loss(1)-Georgia Tech

2003 10 from non BCS schools, 24 from BCS

Non BCS conferences:
1st Round Loss(5)-BYU, Cincinnati, Memphis, Southern Illinois, St. Joe's,
2nd Round Loss(3)-Gonzaga, Xavier, Utah
Sweet 16 Loss(1)-Butler
Elite 8 Loss(0)
Final 4 Loss(1)-Marquette

BCS Conferences:
1st Round Loss(5)-NC State, Mississippi State, LSU, Colorado, Alabama
2nd Round Loss(9)-Wake Forest, Purdue, Stanford, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Florida, Indiana, Cal, Arizona State,
Sweet 16 Loss(5)-Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Maryland, UConn, Auburn,
Elite 8 Loss(2)-Michigan State, Arizona,
Final 4 Loss(1)-Texas
National Championship loss(1)-Kansas
National Champion(1)-Syracuse

Over the past 3 seasons, 31 at large canidates have come from non BCS conferences. Of those 30 teams, 16 have gone out in the first round (52%). 10 have gone out in round 2 (32%), 3 have lost in the Sweet 16 (9%) and one team has gone to the Elite 8, one other to the Final Four.

Of the BCS conference schools, 71 at large bids have been given out. 21 have gone out in Round 1 (29%), 21 in Round 2 (29%), 13 have made it to the Sweet 16 (18%), 8 in the Elite 8 (11%), 3 went to the Final Four, 2 made it to the National title game and two won an NCAA Championship.

With these numbers, the argument could be made that the last at large spots should actually be given to teams from the BCS conferences. I would have never thought that.

Numbers are fun.

In the 2005 tournament, there were 7 first round games that pitted at large BCS teams vs. at large non-BCS teams. 5 of these games were won by the non-BCS team.

Nevada def. Texas
Wisconsin-Mil. def Alabama
UAB def. LSU
Pacific def. Pitt.
Wisconsin def. UNI
N.C. State def. Charlotte
Cincinnati def. Iowa

Only Wisconsin-Mil. won their second round game, but the other 4 teams all lost to 1, 2, or 3 seed. Using these numbers I think you could argue that Non-BCS teams deserve the 'last' at large bids.

(I know stats from only one year don't show the whole picture, but I don't have time right now to do 2004)

[Newsbreaker]

I see your point Milo, but I don't think that's the proper way to decide who deserves what. Match-ups, travel arangements, so many other factors play into who wins and loses an NCAA game. Also, I wouldn't exactly put Cincinnati in the "non-major" area...they don't play in a major conference, but like Gonzaga, they are certainly major basketball teams. Iowa isn't near the program the Bearcats normally are.

The tough part is figuring out this...is a 2nd or 3rd place mid-major team really better or worse then a fifth or sixth place Major Conference team. My guess is that it's about a 50/50 proposition. Do the fans enjoy seeing cinderella, ie, the midmajors take down a bigboy? Yes. Does that mean that we should stock the tournament full of borderline midmajor teams? No.

[MiloCat]

I know its not a perfect way to do it. My point was mainly you can make numbers say whatever you want them to. I agree about cincinnati, I just used them where tcondon had them.

I don't really care what conferences the last at large teams come from, as long as they are the most deserving. Do I think that is always the case? No, but I don't do nearly as much research as the selection committee. They definitely have a tough job.

[UNI MadCat]

Hmm... i look at the poll and say the reason its 64/36 has nothing to do with people really caring about the mid-majors but more that they love the 1st Round games on that Thur-Fri and love to see upsets. People watch this tournament b/c its fun to see those types of games.

Just a thought...

[Newsbreaker]

Hmm... i look at the poll and say the reason its 64/36 has nothing to do with people really caring about the mid-majors but more that they love the 1st Round games on that Thur-Fri and love to see upsets. People watch this tournament b/c its fun to see those types of games.

Just a thought...

There is a LOT to be said about that. Also, one thing to keep in mind here folks:

Let's assume we get 4 teams in this year, and I think we should. We win 2 of those games, somebody plays into the Sweet 16.

Then let's assume we don't take steps backwards as a league next year (I find it hard to believe we won't, but let's play this game) and are in similar position in a year, where 5 suddenly becomes actually realistic. Again, we win 2 or 3 of them, another team or two into the Sweet 16.

At that point, the only thing keeping us from being a "major" conference is producing Final Four calibar teams (to me, to be considered a major conference, you must have at least one Final Four contender per year on a consistent basis.)

If we go 2 or 3 years in a row with 5 teams in, we're "major" even with a Final Four. At that point, we have a strong league, with "major" facilities (we will complete that picture next year) and probably start getting major media coverage....we will also become the very people we're currently arguing against.

All I'm saying, is be careful what you wish for, you never know when you'll be forced to be honest about it.