Scholarship table
True enough. However, I note that you're framing this in terms of playing the Bonnies, not winning a tournament championship. My point is that there is nothing special about winning the championship of one of these tournaments with respect to making the NCAA tournament or your seed. Consider it this way: the impact is neither more nor less than it would be had we faced the same team as an ordinary non-conference game.
ANd we just added 3 nice non-con games with the tourney play. 2-1 there is gonna look pretty good. Beat Kstate and Wisky and lose to UCLA and we're still in REALLY good shape after noncon. Beat UCLA...and baby, now you've got a stew going.
We're in good shape if we win one of those three games and don't falter against JSU or NIU. That would give us four quality non-conference wins, three away from home.If we win those two road games and end non-conference at 9-2 we are in fantastic shape.
9-2 and winning 10+ in conference (if the Big East keeps it up) would give us a shot at a bid. Feels more realistic seeing how Georgetown, DePaul, Creighton, and Butler look so far.
9-2 and 10-8 is a bid, IMO. It'd put us ahead of the teams with cupcake non con schedules like IU assuming a similar conference performance.
This is simply not true, because winning the championship brings with it an additional 1-2 high-major wins and takes place on a neutral court which changes how the game is regarded in the metrics.I get that you've painted yourself into a bit of a corner on this one, but there's a reason I used an 85 tournament sample size and discussed the 25% selection rate difference between the winners and losers of these games, because both are highly statistically significant. I know that trying to disprove anything I say seems to be a hobby of yours, but it's not a very effective strategy when you're debating with math.As noted by others and myself in the original article, winning doesn't guarantee inclusion, but it greatly increases your probability of getting in. Losing doesn't eliminate a team, but it comparably greatly reduces your probability of getting in. At the end of the year, teams that win MTEs will miss out, teams that are runners-up will get in, and teams that don't make the final will have a wide range of results.Over the course of those 5 years, 67 high major teams took home titles on this MTE list and earned 53 NCAA bids. The other 308 high majors during that span earned 133 NCAA bids in the same span. I know which group I would rather be in.
while teams like Wake Forest or Boston College or DePaul don't participate as regularly.
If you want to disprove the thesis, do the research rather than randomly making an unsupported assertion and pretending it's valid with no evidence. I'll even help you get started. Wake, BC, and DePaul participated in 13 exempt tournaments over that span, an average of 4.3 per year, so damn near every year for every team you erroneously claim "don't participate as regularly."If you want to complete the research for all 75 high majors, go ahead. Otherwise, knock it off with your weak attempts and incorrect, unfounded assertions.
So....86% is indeed less than 100%--which is consistent with what I claimed. I'm not sure what your objection is here. There are 350 D1 teams. Some are invited every year--some are invited less frequently, some almost never get invited. What is the basis of your objection to this?
Next, looking at your 85 data points (the individual MTE champions):4 times the MTE championship didn't matter because the team earned an automatic bid (and furthermore, 2 of those the teams -- Bradley and Weber State -- wouldn't have qualified without the auto-bid. The other two had a strong body of work and would have qualified anyway)
25 times the MTE championship didn't matter because the team didn't make the NCAA tournament at all!
45 times teams the MTE championship didn't matter because the winner was strong enough to make the NCAA tournament regardless of their MTE participation.
That leaves just 11 out of 85 data points where the teams that MTE championship arguably helped the team earn an NCAA bid. Therefore, I believe you overstated the impact of winning an MTE championship on making an NCAA tournament.
Sunday morning, St Bonaventure was not a lock to play in the NCAA tournament. Even now they aren't a lock. They could end up a 3, 6, 10, or out completely. If your argument is that them earning a 3 or 6 proves MTEs are meaningless, that's simply inaccurate because the numbers show them to be predictive of what's to come. You argument of "they're good enough anyway" isn't something that will be known for months, however the results of MTEs will be known this week and give us a reliable indicator of who will hear their name on Selection Sunday.You can't even safely say that top-10 teams or eventual 1-seed results aren't predictive because teams like Illinois seem intent on proving they didn't deserve those rankings and might be more NIT than lock.
In November 2018, did you know that unranked Texas Tech would "be strong enough" regardless of their MTE result because they eventually earned a 3-seed? Of course not. Every year there are teams in the protected seed lines that prove to be strong enough by March, but they were often showing that strength in November which is why this is statistically significant even for teams that eventually earn high seeds.
And I believe you once again missed the point. Do the research or provide your completely accurate bracket for March now, otherwise you're just wasting time.