This one is for the clowns who say 10-8 is iffy for the tourney...

[bilsu]

We are 5-5 and play South Florida, Georgetown, Uconn and Seton Hall on the road. We play St.John's, Cincinnati at home. Tougher games we have to win to get a bid, since they are our main competors for the 9th bid and we play them at the Bradley Center. A loss to either one of them, puts them ahead of us for the 9th bid. While they may not necessarily be a bad loss RPI wise, they will be a bad loss for our NCAA chances. Seton Hall and Providence are dangerous, but we have to beat them, if we want a chance at the NCAA. Win all four home games and we are at 9 wins. We need a road victory to get to 10. A loss to South Florida makes it very unlikely we get to 10 wins and would be a stong indication to me that we will not get 9 wins as I do not see us winning all four home games, if we cannot beat South Florida.  

[mug644]

In a normal year, I think what I said before would be accurate. But as this bubble gets softer and softer, and the ACC, SEC, PAC-10, and even Big Ten start to look weaker and weaker, I've definitely changed my opinion. 11 will definitely be enough. I'd even say 10 would make us a lock. What gets me is that I'm starting to think that 9 might be more than enough. The field is so bad, 8-10 might get us in. I doubt it because of the lack of a solid non-con or road win, but it wouldn't surprise me if an 8-10 Big East team (maybe if Georgetown went 8-10) did get in.

Our conference is pretty much a lock for 10 bids, and I'm expecting 11. I wish it was a statement of how good the Big East is, but I think it's more an indictment of how bad the rest of the nation is.

If we go 8-10, that will likely mean a bad loss, and given the probable hesitancy of the Committee to put 10 or 11 BEast teams in, I don't see any team with an 8-10 conference record getting in, unless something special happens in the conference tournament. Especially without any decent out of conference victories.

[brewcity77]

If we go 8-10, that will likely mean a bad loss, and given the probable hesitancy of the Committee to put 10 or 11 BEast teams in, I don't see any team with an 8-10 conference record getting in, unless something special happens in the conference tournament. Especially without any decent out of conference victories.

And as I stated, I doubt 8-10 would get us in. But that doesn't mean other teams couldn't do it.

UConn is currently 6-4. They only have two home games left against unranked opponents (us and Providence) and have road games against teams that are ranked, battling for seeding, or battling to get in. But if they go 8-10, especially if they win a tourney game or two, I think they still get in. They may even still be ranked.

Georgetown's recent winning streak all but assures them of at least 9 BEast wins, but the only non-tourney competing team they have left is USF. What if that's their only Big East win from here on out? 8-10 with their monstrous RPI (likely top 15 even if they collapse) and numerous good wins would probably mean they get in with the soft bubble.

How about West Virginia? Currently 6-5 in Big East play, they only play two more unranked opponents. 6 of their last 7 games are against team ranked in the top 15 in the country. Right now they are pretty much a lock. While their seed would drop, I still think they could get in if they fell to 8-10. Again, their RPI is simply too strong to leave out.

Even St. John's might be able to do it, though the UCLA loss probably hurt their odds of 8-10 being enough quite a bit. But what if their remaining wins are over DePaul, USF, and a top ten team in UConn, Pitt, or 'Nova? Add in their wins over Duke, Georgetown, Notre Dame, and West Virginia and you have a compelling case. Do their bad losses offset their chances? Maybe, but with a soft bubble, they could still squeak in, especially with a win or two in the conference tourney.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I cannot wait for the day of the 96 team field   

[Marquette84]

Wait ... what?
A team sitting at 14-9, ranked #26 by Pomeroy with the 35th most difficult schedule in the country (28th per RPI), playing in the nation's top-ranked conference and with wins over three top 25 teams usually "isn't even in the mix?"
That's an odd one. Ranks right up there with suggesting that MU might win 9+ conference games and finish 11th in the Big East.

Once again you demonstrate your amazing knack for stating true, but irrelevant, facts.
 
You are trying really hard to avoid accepting what is a very simple point:

A team currently sitting tied with two other teams for 9th/10th/11th in the Big East usually isn't in the mix for an NCAA bid at all, no less as an 8th seed.

Note that I didn't say "A team ranked 26th in Pomeroy usually isn't in the mix. . . " or "A team with the #35 SOS usually isn't in the mix . . . "

If you want to argue that point, then please find me the season in which the 9th, 10th or 11th place BE team landed an 8th or better seed in the tournament.  

[Marquette84]

Who cares about other years? Irrelevant. Saying that more than 20 of the at large teams (is it 25, 30, or maybe ALL 37?) that will make it are "sneaking in" is wrong and silly.

Well that was my whole point, Lenny.  If we had the exact same performance in any prior season, there is no way we'd be talking about an NCAA bid right now.   In other words, we sneak in with a 9th, 10th or 11th place finish when in any normal season we don't get consideration.

If you didn't care about other seasons, why did you respond?  My point is that usually (i.e. in every previous season since we've been in the BE) a team in our position isn't even receiving consideration, no less for an 8 seed.

If you disagree with me, nothing builds your case like facts.  Tell me what year the conference DID have a 9th 10th or 11th place team in the tourney.  I don't think we had one, but if we did, I'll acknowledge the error.

Until then, I'm not sure what your point is.  Its almost like you're arguing for agrument's sake.  

My recommendation is that you just acknowledge the point--most years we wouldn't be considered, but we picked a very good year to potentially finish 9th, 10th or 11th.  Its the first time a team that far down in the conference standings stands a chance at the tourney.


 

[brewcity77]

Well that was my whole point, Lenny.  If we had the exact same performance in any prior season, there is no way we'd be talking about an NCAA bid right now.   In other words, we sneak in with a 9th, 10th or 11th place finish when in any normal season we don't get consideration.

If you didn't care about other seasons, why did you respond?  My point is that usually (i.e. in every previous season since we've been in the BE) a team in our position isn't even receiving consideration, no less for an 8 seed.

If you disagree with me, nothing builds your case like facts.  Tell me what year the conference DID have a 9th 10th or 11th place team in the tourney.  I don't think we had one, but if we did, I'll acknowledge the error.

Until then, I'm not sure what your point is.  Its almost like you're arguing for agrument's sake.  

My recommendation is that you just acknowledge the point--most years we wouldn't be considered, but we picked a very good year to potentially finish 9th, 10th or 11th.  Its the first time a team that far down in the conference standings stands a chance at the tourney.

I disagree with this completely. No, you wouldn't be in, but it's early February. If you're in 9th, 10th, or 11th in the Big East in early February, you're still in the mix in any season, because all you need to do is win 2-3 in a row and you're up to 6th, 7th, or 8th. Our conference sends 8 a year. No, you wouldn't be a lock, but with a month to play, anyone who's around .500 in the Big East is definitely still "in the mix". If you're saying the same thing on Selection Sunday, it's a different story, but we're only a week into February.

[Lennys Tap]

Well that was my whole point, Lenny.  If we had the exact same performance in any prior season, there is no way we'd be talking about an NCAA bid right now.   In other words, we sneak in with a 9th, 10th or 11th place finish when in any normal season we don't get consideration.

If you didn't care about other seasons, why did you respond?  My point is that usually (i.e. in every previous season since we've been in the BE) a team in our position isn't even receiving consideration, no less for an 8 seed.

If you disagree with me, nothing builds your case like facts.  Tell me what year the conference DID have a 9th 10th or 11th place team in the tourney.  I don't think we had one, but if we did, I'll acknowledge the error.

Until then, I'm not sure what your point is.  Its almost like you're arguing for agrument's sake.  

My recommendation is that you just acknowledge the point--most years we wouldn't be considered, but we picked a very good year to potentially finish 9th, 10th or 11th.  Its the first time a team that far down in the conference standings stands a chance at the tourney.


 

Once more, and only once more. There will be 37 at large teams selected for THIS year's tournament. An 8 seed equates to being between the 14th and 17th at large team selected. Saying that the 14th, 15th, 16th or 17th team selected out of 37 "sneaks in" is patently, 100% false and inaccurate, regardless of whether that team is the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th or even 11th place team in a conference.

[Pakuni]

Once again you demonstrate your amazing knack for stating true, but irrelevant, facts.
 
You are trying really hard to avoid accepting what is a very simple point:

A team currently sitting tied with two other teams for 9th/10th/11th in the Big East usually isn't in the mix for an NCAA bid at all, no less as an 8th seed.

Note that I didn't say "A team ranked 26th in Pomeroy usually isn't in the mix. . . " or "A team with the #35 SOS usually isn't in the mix . . . "

If you want to argue that point, then please find me the season in which the 9th, 10th or 11th place BE team landed an 8th or better seed in the tournament.

You just keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole of illogic and nonsense.
To say that a team tied for ninth in the Big East (and 10th and 11th, in your world) isn't "even in the mix" in the first week of February is patently absurd. The conference sends eight teams most years, but the ninth place team isn't in the mix on Feb. 7? Remind me, what place was MU in on Feb. 7, 2010?

Equally absurd is your contention that factors like RPI rating, Pomeroy rating, SOS, etc. are "irrelevant." You stated that a team "with our credentials isn't even in the mix". Well  ... those are our credentials. They're every bit - and probably more - important credentials that where the team sits in the standings. You've chosen to focus solely on MU's place in the conference standings because it's the only way you can come close to justifying your argument. But we know that even that doesn't work because the ninth place team in a conference that sends eight to the tournament is never out of the mix in February.
At this point you're simply holding fast to a completely false position and I see no point in continuing to prove you wrong.

[Marquette84]

Once more, and only once more. There will be 37 at large teams selected for THIS year's tournament. An 8 seed equates to being between the 14th and 17th at large team selected. Saying that the 14th, 15th, 16th or 17th team selected out of 37 "sneaks in" is patently, 100% false and inaccurate, regardless of whether that team is the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th or even 11th place team in a conference.

Once again, you're making a completely different point, and for some reason feel you need to continue to alter the argument simply to make your "100% false and inaccurate" charge.

My observation compares us over a period of years.  I've made that clear in three or four different posts.  You continue to reply with an argument about only "THIS" year.

That's fine--you can make that point if you want.  The problem is that you keep repeating it as if its some kind of response to my comment.

I'm not sure whether you actually grasp the fact that I'm making a different argument (comparing this year to prior years), or whether you're simply trying to be argumentative.

As I said, if we had the exact same performance in any prior season, there is no way we'd be talking about an NCAA bid right now. In other words, we sneak in with a 9th, 10th or 11th place finish when in any normal season we don't get consideration. We picked a good year to potentially finish 9th-11th.  This is shaping up to be a strange year--in any other season we've experienced, we wouldn't even be considered a bubble team, no less an 8th seed.  

Now, can you comment on what I actually wrote?  Or are you going to change it again to make a 100% false and inaccurate attack?

I disagree with this completely. No, you wouldn't be in, but it's early February. If you're in 9th, 10th, or 11th in the Big East in early February, you're still in the mix in any season, because all you need to do is win 2-3 in a row and you're up to 6th, 7th, or 8th. Our conference sends 8 a year. No, you wouldn't be a lock, but with a month to play, anyone who's around .500 in the Big East is definitely still "in the mix". If you're saying the same thing on Selection Sunday, it's a different story, but we're only a week into February.

If you're in 9th, maybe. 10th and 11th? No. Typically those teams aren't in the mix even in February.  

There is also one big flaw in your reasoning.  You said:
"because all you need to do is win 2-3 in a row and you're up to 6th, 7th, or 8th."

That's not all you need to do--you also need the teams in 6th, 7th, and 8th to lose a few games.  

If we win 2-3 in a row, but UConn, Georgetown and West Virgina do the same, we're still behind them in the same place in the standings.

[NavinRJohnson]

If we win 2-3 in a row, but UConn, Georgetown and West Virgina do the same, we're still behind them in the same place in the standings.

Behind them in the standings, sure, but no way you stay in the same place. What about the 8-12 losses those 4 teams just hung on other BE teams? If you are in 9-11th place and you win three in a row, you most assuredly are going to move up in the standings. It would be almost impossible not to.

[willie warrior]

Still much speculation for this year in this thread. What I find amazing is that many are saying that even at 9-9 we get in. If that happens. I will surely take it.

But what does that say about the strength of college basketball this year? Is it down, or has it just become much more balanced this year?

[wildbill sb]

Once again, you're making a completely different point, and for some reason feel you need to continue to alter the argument simply to make your "100% false and inaccurate" charge.

My observation compares us over a period of years.  I've made that clear in three or four different posts.  You continue to reply with an argument about only "THIS" year.

That's fine--you can make that point if you want.  The problem is that you keep repeating it as if its some kind of response to my comment.

I'm not sure whether you actually grasp the fact that I'm making a different argument (comparing this year to prior years), or whether you're simply trying to be argumentative.

As I said, if we had the exact same performance in any prior season, there is no way we'd be talking about an NCAA bid right now. In other words, we sneak in with a 9th, 10th or 11th place finish when in any normal season we don't get consideration. We picked a good year to potentially finish 9th-11th.  This is shaping up to be a strange year--in any other season we've experienced, we wouldn't even be considered a bubble team, no less an 8th seed.  

Now, can you comment on what I actually wrote?  Or are you going to change it again to make a 100% false and inaccurate attack?

If you're in 9th, maybe. 10th and 11th? No. Typically those teams aren't in the mix even in February.  

There is also one big flaw in your reasoning.  You said:
"because all you need to do is win 2-3 in a row and you're up to 6th, 7th, or 8th."

That's not all you need to do--you also need the teams in 6th, 7th, and 8th to lose a few games.  

If we win 2-3 in a row, but UConn, Georgetown and West Virgina do the same, we're still behind them in the same place in the standings.

Who needs Chicos and Ners.  Civility, gentlemen, civility.  Please.

[bilsu]

Still much speculation for this year in this thread. What I find amazing is that many are saying that even at 9-9 we get in. If that happens. I will surely take it.

But what does that say about the strength of college basketball this year? Is it down, or has it just become much more balanced this year?

What it is saying is that the Big East relative to the other conferences is stronger. Given the Big East non-conference record it would be hard to argue otherwise. The Big East would have a good chance to get 9 bids this year, if the NCAA had not expanded. With the 3 extra teams nine bids are a lock with a potential for 10. 10 bids leaves out one of MU, St John's & Cincy. 9 bids leaves out two of them. It is as simple as that. Of course West Virgina could lose enough to fall out of the equation, but expect the 9 best conference record teams to get a bid. 10 will come, if the 10th team can get a conference tournament run.

[Marquette84]

You just keep digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole of illogic and nonsense.

I made a simple observation (and obviously factually correct) that usually the 9th, 10th or 11th place team in the Big East doesn't even make the tournament, no less qualify for an 8th seed.  If we are one of those teams, we would be very very lucky that this is the year we wound up with that finish.

Can you give a simple agree or disagree on this?  

Or are you going to continue down the road of putting up a straw men and misrepresent the observation for whatever personal animosity you seem to have?

To say that a team tied for ninth in the Big East (and 10th and 11th, in your world) isn't "even in the mix" in the first week of February is patently absurd. The conference sends eight teams most years, but the ninth place team isn't in the mix on Feb. 7? Remind me, what place was MU in on Feb. 7, 2010?

The 9th place team has never been in the tournament, no less as an 8 or 9 seed.

I guess your straw man on this is that we MIGHT move up.  Well, of course, if we move up in the standings we'll get more consideration.

Of course my point was what happens if we don't finish higher than 9th. The fact that we're even getting consideration for being IN the tournament no less as an 8 seed is an anomaly, wouldn't you agree?

Equally absurd is your contention that factors like RPI rating, Pomeroy rating, SOS, etc. are "irrelevant." You stated that a team "with our credentials isn't even in the mix". Well  ... those are our credentials. They're every bit - and probably more - important credentials that where the team sits in the standings.

And its absurd for you to think that our rankings aren't highly dependent on what other teams are doing.  

Do you think that if those other teams in the B10, ACC, SEC, P10, etc. were having their normal years we would still be ranked 26th?  

You've chosen to focus solely on MU's place in the conference standings because it's the only way you can come close to justifying your argument.

Really?   Solely on MU's place in the conference?  

Did you actually read what I said?

You'll find that I incorporated an observation about "the perfect storm of rapidly deteriorating performance across the B12, B10, Pac 10, ACC and SEC; coupled an unusual lack of quality teams in the Horizon, A10, CUSA, MWC, or MVC that might otherwise step up."  

Was that comment "solely" about MU's place in the conference?  Of course it wasn't.  

But you already knew that.

But we know that even that doesn't work because the ninth place team in a conference that sends eight to the tournament is never out of the mix in February.

But we know that in every prior year, the 9th place team in the Big East has always been out of the mix come March.

At this point you're simply holding fast to a completely false position and I see no point in continuing to prove you wrong.

Of course you see no point in continuing.  I'm actually calling you on your misrepresentations and straw men.

You don't like that.  

You don't want to comment on the simple comment tht I actually made. You'd rather create a straw man to set up some smarmy and condescending retort.

[NavinRJohnson]

You are trying really hard to avoid accepting what is a very simple point:

A team currently sitting tied with two other teams for 9th/10th/11th in the Big East usually isn't in the mix for an NCAA bid at all, no less as an 8th seed.

Your words, not anyone else's, so please stop accusing others of straw men or changed arguments, because the only one changing arguments, is you (as usual). You didn't say at the end of the season, you said currently, as in mid-February. Thus, your argument is ridiculous.

[Marquette84]

Who needs Chicos and Ners.  Civility, gentlemen, civility.  Please.

Take it up with Lenny & Pakuni.  They're the ones who are inventing straw men in order to throw around insults like "absurd," "nonsense," and "patently 100% false".

Even after I've clarified three or four times they can't seem to bring themselves to agree with (or provide a proper counter argument to) a simple observation that if we finish 9th (or even 10th or 11th) we're likely to get a bid this year--something that no 9th to 11th place Big East team has ever received in the past.  And a bid for a potential 9th place finish is enabled by weakness across most major conferences.

[Lennys Tap]

Once again, you're making a completely different point, and for some reason feel you need to continue to alter the argument simply to make your "100% false and inaccurate" charge.

My observation compares us over a period of years.  I've made that clear in three or four different posts.  You continue to reply with an argument about only "THIS" year.

That's fine--you can make that point if you want.  The problem is that you keep repeating it as if its some kind of response to my comment.

I'm not sure whether you actually grasp the fact that I'm making a different argument (comparing this year to prior years), or whether you're simply trying to be argumentative.

As I said, if we had the exact same performance in any prior season, there is no way we'd be talking about an NCAA bid right now. In other words, we sneak in with a 9th, 10th or 11th place finish when in any normal season we don't get consideration. We picked a good year to potentially finish 9th-11th.  This is shaping up to be a strange year--in any other season we've experienced, we wouldn't even be considered a bubble team, no less an 8th seed.  

Now, can you comment on what I actually wrote?  Or are you going to change it again to make a 100% false and inaccurate attack?

I altered nothing. Your statement was "In other words, it looks like we may SNEAK into the NCAAs (and get a reasonably high seed) as the 10th or 11th place Big East team"

This was the only part of your statement that I took issue with, because it is by its very nature contradictory. 8th seeds by simple definition do not sneak in.

Again, I changed NOTHING. I quoted your misstatement verbatim and merely pointed out its absurdity. Argue all the other points you want to argue with others but don't bring me into it. 

[Marquette84]

Your words, not anyone else's, so please stop accusing others of straw men or changed arguments, because the only one changing arguments, is you (as usual). You didn't say at the end of the season, you said currently, as in mid-February. Thus, your argument is ridiculous.

Congratulations.  I've made the core argument seven times in this thread.  In six of them, I stated the argument in terms of a potential 9th/10th/11th finish. 

You managed to find one time I mistakenly used the word "currently"--the straw man that Lenny and Pakuni keep putting out there.

Please forgive me for mistakenly repeating Pakuni's and Lenny's straw man as my argument.




"As I said, if we had the exact same performance in any prior season, there is no way we'd be talking about an NCAA bid right now. In other words, we sneak in with a 9th, 10th or 11th place finish when in any normal season we don't get consideration. We picked a good year to potentially finish 9th-11th.  This is shaping up to be a strange year--in any other season we've experienced, we wouldn't even be considered a bubble team, no less an 8th seed."

"My recommendation is that you just acknowledge the point--most years we wouldn't be considered, but we picked a very good year to potentially finish 9th, 10th or 11th.  Its the first time a team that far down in the conference standings stands a chance at the tourney."


"My recommendation is that you just acknowledge the point--most years we wouldn't be considered, but we picked a very good year to potentially finish 9th, 10th or 11th.  Its the first time a team that far down in the conference standings stands a chance at the tourney."

"In other words, it looks like we may sneak into the NCAA (and get a reasonably high seed) as the 10th or 11th place Big East team based on a perfect storm of rapidly deteriorating performance across the B12, B10, Pac 10, ACC and SEC; coupled an unusual lack of quality teams in the Horizon, A10, CUSA, MWC, or MVC that might otherwise step up."

"Most would agree that finishing 10th or 11th in the Big East is not normally a lock for an 8 seed.
Hence the "sneak in with a relatively high seed" comment.
If you disagree, can you tell me when a 10th or 11th place team in the BE has even MADE the tournament?"

"I think its absurd to think that in any normal convergence of events that we'd be even talking about making the tournament, no less an 8 or 9 seed, with no quality non-conference wins and what could be a 10th or 11th place finish." 


   


 

[Marquette84]

I altered nothing. Your statement was "In other words, it looks like we may SNEAK into the NCAAs (and get a reasonably high seed) as the 10th or 11th place Big East team"

This was the only part of your statement that I took issue with, because it is by its very nature contradictory. 8th seeds by simple definition do not sneak in.

Again, I changed NOTHING. I quoted your misstatement verbatim and merely pointed out its absurdity. Argue all the other points you want to argue with others but don't bring me into it. 

And I responded with this:

"Most would agree that finishing 10th or 11th in the Big East is not normally a lock for an 8 seed.
Hence the "sneak in with a relatively high seed" comment.
If you disagree, can you tell me when a 10th or 11th place team in the BE has even MADE the tournament?"

I would think that would have been sufficient for you to understand my underlying point.  I would have expected you to respond with something like:

"Ok, I understand now--that makes sense. I would have used a different word, but I agree with you that a 9th place or worse team normally doesn't make it into the tournament."


Instead, you tried to change the argument:
"Who cares about other years? Irrelevant.Who cares about other years? Irrelevant. Saying that more than 20 of the at large teams (is it 25, 30, or maybe ALL 37?) that will make it are "sneaking in" is wrong and silly."

I called you on it.  Do you even understand the change of argument?

I was comparing 9th place THIS year to 9th place OTHER years, and you changed that comparison to compare 9th place this year to other possible teams this year.   

So yeah, you certainly did change the argument.  I never made an argument about the 20 other at large teams. 

I made a comment about the 9th/10th/11th place Big East team THIS year compared to every other year.

[Lennys Tap]

And I responded with this:

"Most would agree that finishing 10th or 11th in the Big East is not normally a lock for an 8 seed.
Hence the "sneak in with a relatively high seed" comment.
If you disagree, can you tell me when a 10th or 11th place team in the BE has even MADE the tournament?"

I would think that would have been sufficient for you to understand my underlying point.  I would have expected you to respond with something like:

"Ok, I understand now--that makes sense. I would have used a different word, but I agree with you that a 9th place or worse team normally doesn't make it into the tournament."


Instead, you tried to change the argument:
"Who cares about other years? Irrelevant.Who cares about other years? Irrelevant. Saying that more than 20 of the at large teams (is it 25, 30, or maybe ALL 37?) that will make it are "sneaking in" is wrong and silly."

I called you on it.  Do you even understand the change of argument?

I was comparing 9th place THIS year to 9th place OTHER years, and you changed that comparison to compare 9th place this year to other possible teams this year.   

So yeah, you certainly did change the argument.  I never made an argument about the 20 other at large teams. 

I made a comment about the 9th/10th/11th place Big East team THIS year compared to every other year.

I have repeated myself 4 times. Rather than just admitting your obvious misstatement you want to "qualify" your misstatement and then argue about something else. Sorry, not interested.

[brewcity77]

I made a simple observation (and obviously factually correct) that usually the 9th, 10th or 11th place team in the Big East doesn't even make the tournament, no less qualify for an 8th seed.  If we are one of those teams, we would be very very lucky that this is the year we wound up with that finish.

Can you give a simple agree or disagree on this?

Sure. Disagree. The simple truth is that the tournament is changing and the landscape of college basketball is changing. The increased number of bids is going to benefit someone, and it benefits the Big East because of the quality across the board. I believe as a conference, we have the second best non-con winning percentage while playing against the #2 RPI (top is the SWAC). So of the major conferences, we play against the best, and we do the best against them.

It's been debated in the past that the Big East might get 9 or 10 bids. Looking around the country, even without the extra bids, this would be the year that our conference would do it in a field of 64 or 65. When you stack up the RPIs, which are a huge factor, and the overall records, it just favors the Big East. We are currently projected to have an RPI of 60, which would be 11th best in the Big East. But looking at the other power conferences, here are how many teams are projected to have a better RPI by conference than Marquette:

ACC: 4
Big Ten: 5
Big 12: 6
PAC-10: 3
SEC: 5

Now granted, 60 is usually a bubble number, but it's far from unheard of for a 60 RPI team to get into the Big Dance. And consider this, at projected RPI 44, St. John's is the next worst RPI in the conference. In a "normal" year (even though 68 IS the new normal) people would be talking about the Big East getting 10 bids based on 10 teams in the top 44 of the RPI. This year, they're talking 11. That's just the way the game goes. If the field were at 96, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Of course my point was what happens if we don't finish higher than 9th. The fact that we're even getting consideration for being IN the tournament no less as an 8 seed is an anomaly, wouldn't you agree?

Pretty sure I addressed this. No, the 9th team has never made it, but when you look at the comparative strength of the Big East, this is the year that the 9th team almost certainly would. It is a testament to the weakening field across the nation, but over the past 5-6 years it seems every year the bubble gets softer and softer. With that in mind, it's no longer an anomaly, but a trend.

"As I said, if we had the exact same performance in any prior season, there is no way we'd be talking about an NCAA bid right now. In other words, we sneak in with a 9th, 10th or 11th place finish when in any normal season we don't get consideration. We picked a good year to potentially finish 9th-11th.  This is shaping up to be a strange year--in any other season we've experienced, we wouldn't even be considered a bubble team, no less an 8th seed."

It's a bit contradictory to talk about right now, then say you only mean at the end of the season. If we're in 9th right now, we'd be talking about a possible bid. Looking at our relatively soft schedule (by Big East standards) we'd be talking about it regardless. We have known all year that the first half of the schedule was going to be the tough part. We weathered it and sit at .500. Now we have a chance to make hay. In any prior season, we'd still be talking about it if we were at .500 and the worst of our schedule was behind us.

"In other words, it looks like we may sneak into the NCAA (and get a reasonably high seed) as the 10th or 11th place Big East team based on a perfect storm of rapidly deteriorating performance across the B12, B10, Pac 10, ACC and SEC; coupled an unusual lack of quality teams in the Horizon, A10, CUSA, MWC, or MVC that might otherwise step up."

"Most would agree that finishing 10th or 11th in the Big East is not normally a lock for an 8 seed.
Hence the "sneak in with a relatively high seed" comment.
If you disagree, can you tell me when a 10th or 11th place team in the BE has even MADE the tournament?"

"I think its absurd to think that in any normal convergence of events that we'd be even talking about making the tournament, no less an 8 or 9 seed, with no quality non-conference wins and what could be a 10th or 11th place finish."

For the past few years, people have been talking about the possibility of 10 bids from one conference. And the increasing strength of the Big East is what's driven that argument. No, in the past, 9th, 10th, or 11th hasn't been good enough, but it's often been good enough to get on the bubble. And at some point, it seemed almost inevitable that the Big East was going to break that record and send 9 or 10 teams. I think that in many other years, this year's Big East would have been able to do that. The conference is simply too strong. Yes, the diminishing strength of the rest of the country has helped, as has the lack of mid-majors, but the simple truth is that this is the best Big East we've seen. There are 5 teams that could call themselves title contenders. Probably another 3 that have a real shot of making the Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight. And 3 more that at least have the credentials to be sniffing the field in any given year.

This is probably the best regular season conference in history. The non-con record and SOS bears that out. So I think it's safe to say that in this year or any other, the Big East would be threatening for 10 bids. And in this year, we're looking at possibly 11. The 11th is really the only anomaly.

[Marquette84]

Sure. Disagree. The simple truth is that the tournament is changing and the landscape of college basketball is changing. The increased number of bids is going to benefit someone, and it benefits the Big East because of the quality across the board. I believe as a conference, we have the second best non-con winning percentage while playing against the #2 RPI (top is the SWAC). So of the major conferences, we play against the best, and we do the best against them.

It's been debated in the past that the Big East might get 9 or 10 bids. Looking around the country, even without the extra bids, this would be the year that our conference would do it in a field of 64 or 65. When you stack up the RPIs, which are a huge factor, and the overall records, it just favors the Big East. We are currently projected to have an RPI of 60, which would be 11th best in the Big East. But looking at the other power conferences, here are how many teams are projected to have a better RPI by conference than Marquette:

ACC: 4
Big Ten: 5
Big 12: 6
PAC-10: 3
SEC: 5

Now granted, 60 is usually a bubble number, but it's far from unheard of for a 60 RPI team to get into the Big Dance. And consider this, at projected RPI 44, St. John's is the next worst RPI in the conference. In a "normal" year (even though 68 IS the new normal) people would be talking about the Big East getting 10 bids based on 10 teams in the top 44 of the RPI. This year, they're talking 11. That's just the way the game goes. If the field were at 96, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Pretty sure I addressed this. No, the 9th team has never made it, but when you look at the comparative strength of the Big East, this is the year that the 9th team almost certainly would. It is a testament to the weakening field across the nation, but over the past 5-6 years it seems every year the bubble gets softer and softer. With that in mind, it's no longer an anomaly, but a trend.

It's a bit contradictory to talk about right now, then say you only mean at the end of the season. If we're in 9th right now, we'd be talking about a possible bid. Looking at our relatively soft schedule (by Big East standards) we'd be talking about it regardless. We have known all year that the first half of the schedule was going to be the tough part. We weathered it and sit at .500. Now we have a chance to make hay. In any prior season, we'd still be talking about it if we were at .500 and the worst of our schedule was behind us.

For the past few years, people have been talking about the possibility of 10 bids from one conference. And the increasing strength of the Big East is what's driven that argument. No, in the past, 9th, 10th, or 11th hasn't been good enough, but it's often been good enough to get on the bubble. And at some point, it seemed almost inevitable that the Big East was going to break that record and send 9 or 10 teams. I think that in many other years, this year's Big East would have been able to do that. The conference is simply too strong. Yes, the diminishing strength of the rest of the country has helped, as has the lack of mid-majors, but the simple truth is that this is the best Big East we've seen. There are 5 teams that could call themselves title contenders. Probably another 3 that have a real shot of making the Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight. And 3 more that at least have the credentials to be sniffing the field in any given year.

This is probably the best regular season conference in history. The non-con record and SOS bears that out. So I think it's safe to say that in this year or any other, the Big East would be threatening for 10 bids. And in this year, we're looking at possibly 11. The 11th is really the only anomaly.

First, thank you for a thoughtful post.  We may not agree, but you've put forth a proposition that lends itself to some interesting discussions.

I think the core of the difference comes in the assumption that the Big East is stronger this year as opposed to other teams in general being weaker.

To make that comparision, I'd like to compare the three teams that if the season ended today would be 9th, 10th and 11th (MU, St. Johns and Cincinnati).  Lets compare those teams to the teams that were left out of prior tournaments:

--St. Johns, which did beat Duke, but also has two very bad losses to Fordham and St. Boneventure, plus losses to St. Marys, and UCLA.  
--Cincinnati, which has a non-conference record with zero quality wins (but no losses) and zero wins to a team in the top half of the Big east standings.
--MU, with no quality non-conference wins, and some decent conference wins over WVU, Notre Dame and Syracuse.

Now compare to the teams that have been left out over the years:

• 2006 Cincinnati.  .500 record, 8th place.  Non-conference win over top 25 LSU.  Decent conference win over MU, and top 25 win over WVU.  No bid.
• 2007 Syracuse.  10-6 in conference play, 5th place. no quality non-conference wins, win over a top 10 team (Georgetown) and another conference top 25 win ( Marquette).  Not in.
• 2007 West Virginia. 8th place, 9-7 in conference play.  Quality nonconference win over a top 5 team (UCLA), but no other quality non-conference wins.  Decent conference record (9-7).  Not in.
• 2008 Syracuse.  No quality non-conference wins.  .500 in league play, wins over top 10 Georgetown and top 25 MU.  
• 2009 Providence. 10-8 record, 8th place.  No quality non-conference wins.  Quality top 5 win over Pitt.
• 2010 Seton Hall. .500 record, Tie for 9th place.  No quality non-conference wins.  Decent conference wins over Pitt and Louisville.   No bid.
• 2010 South Florida. .500 record, tie for 9th place.  No quality non-conference wins.  Decent conference wins over Pitt and Georgetown (and MU).

When I compare our body of work to the 7 teams above that did NOT make the tournament, I can't say that we have a better resume in each of those seasons.    

Therefore, I don't believe that we're getting consideration for more teams in this year's tournament because our league is stronger. I think its because there is a 68 team field to fill, and a general weakness has resulted in not enough teams to fill it.

[brewcity77]

First, thank you for a thoughtful post.  We may not agree, but you've put forth a proposition that lends itself to some interesting discussions.

I think the core of the difference comes in the assumption that the Big East is stronger this year as opposed to other teams in general being weaker.

To make that comparision, I'd like to compare the three teams that if the season ended today would be 9th, 10th and 11th (MU, St. Johns and Cincinnati).  Lets compare those teams to the teams that were left out of prior tournaments:

--St. Johns, which did beat Duke, but also has two very bad losses to Fordham and St. Boneventure, plus losses to St. Marys, and UCLA.  
--Cincinnati, which has a non-conference record with zero quality wins (but no losses) and zero wins to a team in the top half of the Big east standings.
--MU, with no quality non-conference wins, and some decent conference wins over WVU, Notre Dame and Syracuse.

Now compare to the teams that have been left out over the years:

• 2006 Cincinnati.  .500 record, 8th place.  Non-conference win over top 25 LSU.  Decent conference win over MU, and top 25 win over WVU.  No bid.
• 2007 Syracuse.  10-6 in conference play, 5th place. no quality non-conference wins, win over a top 10 team (Georgetown) and another conference top 25 win ( Marquette).  Not in.
• 2007 West Virginia. 8th place, 9-7 in conference play.  Quality nonconference win over a top 5 team (UCLA), but no other quality non-conference wins.  Decent conference record (9-7).  Not in.
• 2008 Syracuse.  No quality non-conference wins.  .500 in league play, wins over top 10 Georgetown and top 25 MU.  
• 2009 Providence. 10-8 record, 8th place.  No quality non-conference wins.  Quality top 5 win over Pitt.
• 2010 Seton Hall. .500 record, Tie for 9th place.  No quality non-conference wins.  Decent conference wins over Pitt and Louisville.   No bid.
• 2010 South Florida. .500 record, tie for 9th place.  No quality non-conference wins.  Decent conference wins over Pitt and Georgetown (and MU).

When I compare our body of work to the 7 teams above that did NOT make the tournament, I can't say that we have a better resume in each of those seasons.    

Therefore, I don't believe that we're getting consideration for more teams in this year's tournament because our league is stronger. I think its because there is a 68 team field to fill, and a general weakness has resulted in not enough teams to fill it.

A beastly comparison to make. I'm going to go a bit more in-depth on each team, starting with the most recent. Because the season isn't finished, I'm going to use kenpom.com for final season predictions. Bear in mind that this year's team won't include Big East tourney figures, which could easily skew things for/against them.

2011 Marquette

Record: 19-12 (10-8)
RPI: 61
Strength of Schedule: 33
Quality Wins: West Virginia, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Cincinnati
Bad Losses: None

2011 Cincinnati

Record: 23-8 (10-8)
RPI: 41
Strength of Schedule: 76
Quality Wins: Xavier, St. John's, Louisville, UConn, Georgetown (kenpom predictions)
Bad Losses: None

2011 St. John's

Record: 16-14 (8-10)
RPI: 44
Strength of Schedule: 5
Quality Wins: West Virginia, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Duke
Bad Losses: St. Bonaventure, Fordham

2010 South Florida

Record: 20-12 (9-9)
RPI: 75
Strength of Schedule: 45
Quality Wins: Pittsburgh, Georgetown
Bad Losses: Central Michigan

2010 Seton Hall

Record: 19-12 (9-9)
RPI: 65
Strength of Schedule: 61
Quality Wins: Pittsburgh, Notre Dame
Bad Losses: None

2009 Providence

Record: 19-13 (10-8)
RPI: 72
Strength of Schedule: 50
Quality Wins: Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Bad Losses: Northeastern

2008 Syracuse

Record: 19-13 (9-9)
RPI: 55
Strength of Schedule: 29
Quality Wins: Georgetown, Marquette
Bad Losses: Cincinnati, South Florida

2007 West Virginia

Record: 22-9 (9-7)
RPI: 57
Strength of Schedule: 73
Quality Wins: Villanova, UCLA
Bad Losses: Cincinnati

2007 Syracuse

Record: 22-10 (10-6)
RPI: 50
Strength of Schedule: 66
Quality Wins: Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette
Bad Losses: St. John's, Wichita State

2006 Cincinnati

Record: 19-12 (8-8)
RPI: 40
Strength of Schedule: 10
Quality Wins: LSU, Marquette, Louisville, West Virginia
Bad Losses: Dayton

Okay...boy, that was some work

Now to compare. Looking at our resume, a few things stick out. A very good SOS, double-digit conference wins, 4 quality wins, no bad losses. Based on that criteria, we easily beat out both 2010 South Florida and Seton Hall, 2009 Providence, 2008 Syracuse (slightly worse in RPI/SOS, much better in wins/losses), and 2007 West Virginia. I think that 2007 Syracuse is close, but two bad losses offset by only three quality wins is tough to put them over us. The only team here that I think is pretty much equal to our credentials is 2006 Cincinnati, with a good RPI, excellent SOS, and a very nice quality win/bad loss ratio. But at the end of the day, our credentials would have put us in during many of these years while others were left out.

Having compared us rather thoroughly to all of those teams, it's much easier to glance at the other two 2011 teams and make an accurate comparison. Like it or not, that Cincy team this year has an excellent case. 23 wins, 10 in the Big East, on track for 5 quality wins, a good RPI, and despite a weak non-con schedule, the Big East gauntlet has beefed them up to a respectable SOS, especially with the work they have done/are projected to do in conference play. If the kenpom.com predictions were to pan out and they got wins over Louisville, UConn, and Georgetown in the next month, I have to think they'd make the dance, and frankly, that resume would get them in over any of the other teams on this list, 2006 Cincinnati included.

St. John's is a tougher comparison, simply because of all those losses. Their SOS is beastly, and they do have some huge wins, but the overall record and the two bad losses seem like a bit much for them to overcome. At this point, if the predictions hold, my guess is they would be on the outside looking in and would have been in the other years as well. Quite frankly, for them to get in this year (or any of those other years) they will have to outplay expectations in the next few weeks. The RPI and SOS are fine, but they'll need more than four quality wins to offset those two bad losses, and will need at least a .500 conference record. They are projected to go 2-6 in their last 8 games. I think they'll have to go at least 4-4, which gets them to a 10-8 Big East record, and would add at least one more quality win to their total. With teams like UConn and Pitt visiting MSG, they'll have their chances. If they can get a 5th quality win, I think they would be ahead of anyone on the list except maybe 2006 Cincinnati.

Looking back at those snubs, you see a lot of similar situations. Most of them have 2 or less quality wins (I'm counting any top 40 kenpom.com teams as quality), have at least 1-2 bad losses, and either their RPI or SOS is a detriment. When you look at this year's teams, Marquette and Cincinnati both have the resumes to out-do pretty much everyone you listed, and while St. John's has some work to do, it's not unthinkable that they could be there come Selection Sunday. Of course, these teams will also have their chance in the Big East tournament. I think even a first-round tourney win would be enough for Marquette and Cincy to secure their places in the Big Dance. Make that Marquette team a 20 or 21 game winner and they're in, while a 24-9 Cincinnati would have to be a lock despite their weak non-con. And if St. John's did go 4-4 and managed to add 2 or 3 wins at MSG with a "neutral" crowd, they'd have another 2-3 quality wins and be a 20-game winner. The RPI increase would put them into the mid-30s with more than enough quality wins to offset their early-season blunders, and they'd have a much better resume than any of the listed teams that missed the Big Dance in the past 5 years.

I know that this is all an inexact science, but I think that a number of previous Big East snubs look a lot better than they are when you put them under the microscope. Was 2007 Syracuse the snub of all time, or did their weak SOS and poor quality win/bad loss ratio signal the committee that they didn't belong? Should 2009 Providence have made the Dance on the basis of their 10-8 Big East record, or was their dismal RPI and death of quality wins a justifiable combination for the committee to keep them out? All I know is that when you look at the numbers above, I think that 2011 Marquette and Cincinnati have the two best resumes listed. I think they'd have made the tournament in some of these years when other teams didn't, simply because their tangible qualities are stronger than those of the teams that got "snubbed". And while they aren't there yet, playing .500 or just above basketball for the next month would probably be enough for St. John's to join them in that "better than the snubbed" category.

Based on the projections, this is the best Big East ever, and they should deservedly place 10 teams, and 11 is not at all out of the question, nor would it have been if these teams hopped a DeLorean to any of these other years.

[Marquette84]

A beastly comparison to make. I'm going to go a bit more in-depth on each team, starting with the most recent. Because the season isn't finished, I'm going to use kenpom.com for final season predictions. Bear in mind that this year's team won't include Big East tourney figures, which could easily skew things for/against them.

2011 Marquette

Record: 19-12 (10-8)
RPI: 61
Strength of Schedule: 33
Quality Wins: West Virginia, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Cincinnati
Bad Losses: None

2011 Cincinnati

Record: 23-8 (10-8)
RPI: 41
Strength of Schedule: 76
Quality Wins: Xavier, St. John's, Louisville, UConn, Georgetown (kenpom predictions)
Bad Losses: None

2011 St. John's

Record: 16-14 (8-10)
RPI: 44
Strength of Schedule: 5
Quality Wins: West Virginia, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Duke
Bad Losses: St. Bonaventure, Fordham

2010 South Florida

Record: 20-12 (9-9)
RPI: 75
Strength of Schedule: 45
Quality Wins: Pittsburgh, Georgetown
Bad Losses: Central Michigan

2010 Seton Hall

Record: 19-12 (9-9)
RPI: 65
Strength of Schedule: 61
Quality Wins: Pittsburgh, Notre Dame
Bad Losses: None

2009 Providence

Record: 19-13 (10-8)
RPI: 72
Strength of Schedule: 50
Quality Wins: Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Bad Losses: Northeastern

2008 Syracuse

Record: 19-13 (9-9)
RPI: 55
Strength of Schedule: 29
Quality Wins: Georgetown, Marquette
Bad Losses: Cincinnati, South Florida

2007 West Virginia

Record: 22-9 (9-7)
RPI: 57
Strength of Schedule: 73
Quality Wins: Villanova, UCLA
Bad Losses: Cincinnati

2007 Syracuse

Record: 22-10 (10-6)
RPI: 50
Strength of Schedule: 66
Quality Wins: Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette
Bad Losses: St. John's, Wichita State

2006 Cincinnati

Record: 19-12 (8-8)
RPI: 40
Strength of Schedule: 10
Quality Wins: LSU, Marquette, Louisville, West Virginia
Bad Losses: Dayton

Okay...boy, that was some work

Now to compare. Looking at our resume, a few things stick out. A very good SOS, double-digit conference wins, 4 quality wins, no bad losses. Based on that criteria, we easily beat out both 2010 South Florida and Seton Hall, 2009 Providence, 2008 Syracuse (slightly worse in RPI/SOS, much better in wins/losses), and 2007 West Virginia. I think that 2007 Syracuse is close, but two bad losses offset by only three quality wins is tough to put them over us. The only team here that I think is pretty much equal to our credentials is 2006 Cincinnati, with a good RPI, excellent SOS, and a very nice quality win/bad loss ratio. But at the end of the day, our credentials would have put us in during many of these years while others were left out.

Having compared us rather thoroughly to all of those teams, it's much easier to glance at the other two 2011 teams and make an accurate comparison. Like it or not, that Cincy team this year has an excellent case. 23 wins, 10 in the Big East, on track for 5 quality wins, a good RPI, and despite a weak non-con schedule, the Big East gauntlet has beefed them up to a respectable SOS, especially with the work they have done/are projected to do in conference play. If the kenpom.com predictions were to pan out and they got wins over Louisville, UConn, and Georgetown in the next month, I have to think they'd make the dance, and frankly, that resume would get them in over any of the other teams on this list, 2006 Cincinnati included.

St. John's is a tougher comparison, simply because of all those losses. Their SOS is beastly, and they do have some huge wins, but the overall record and the two bad losses seem like a bit much for them to overcome. At this point, if the predictions hold, my guess is they would be on the outside looking in and would have been in the other years as well. Quite frankly, for them to get in this year (or any of those other years) they will have to outplay expectations in the next few weeks. The RPI and SOS are fine, but they'll need more than four quality wins to offset those two bad losses, and will need at least a .500 conference record. They are projected to go 2-6 in their last 8 games. I think they'll have to go at least 4-4, which gets them to a 10-8 Big East record, and would add at least one more quality win to their total. With teams like UConn and Pitt visiting MSG, they'll have their chances. If they can get a 5th quality win, I think they would be ahead of anyone on the list except maybe 2006 Cincinnati.

Looking back at those snubs, you see a lot of similar situations. Most of them have 2 or less quality wins (I'm counting any top 40 kenpom.com teams as quality), have at least 1-2 bad losses, and either their RPI or SOS is a detriment. When you look at this year's teams, Marquette and Cincinnati both have the resumes to out-do pretty much everyone you listed, and while St. John's has some work to do, it's not unthinkable that they could be there come Selection Sunday. Of course, these teams will also have their chance in the Big East tournament. I think even a first-round tourney win would be enough for Marquette and Cincy to secure their places in the Big Dance. Make that Marquette team a 20 or 21 game winner and they're in, while a 24-9 Cincinnati would have to be a lock despite their weak non-con. And if St. John's did go 4-4 and managed to add 2 or 3 wins at MSG with a "neutral" crowd, they'd have another 2-3 quality wins and be a 20-game winner. The RPI increase would put them into the mid-30s with more than enough quality wins to offset their early-season blunders, and they'd have a much better resume than any of the listed teams that missed the Big Dance in the past 5 years.

I know that this is all an inexact science, but I think that a number of previous Big East snubs look a lot better than they are when you put them under the microscope. Was 2007 Syracuse the snub of all time, or did their weak SOS and poor quality win/bad loss ratio signal the committee that they didn't belong? Should 2009 Providence have made the Dance on the basis of their 10-8 Big East record, or was their dismal RPI and death of quality wins a justifiable combination for the committee to keep them out? All I know is that when you look at the numbers above, I think that 2011 Marquette and Cincinnati have the two best resumes listed. I think they'd have made the tournament in some of these years when other teams didn't, simply because their tangible qualities are stronger than those of the teams that got "snubbed". And while they aren't there yet, playing .500 or just above basketball for the next month would probably be enough for St. John's to join them in that "better than the snubbed" category.

Based on the projections, this is the best Big East ever, and they should deservedly place 10 teams, and 11 is not at all out of the question, nor would it have been if these teams hopped a DeLorean to any of these other years.

I apprecieate your work, but I question the SOS numbers you lists.  I used RealtimeRPI.com, and while the RPI numbers are close to what you list, the SOS numbers differ wildly.

Given that you base much of the argument over the superiority of the 2011 MU team on SOS, this is not an insigificant issue.

The other observation is that you put quite a bit of weight into the SOS as a standalone factor, even though it already accounts for 50% of the RPI.   For example, our projected RPI of 61 already reflects our SOS.  If our SOS ranked 60th instead of 33rd, our RPI itself would be quite a bit worse.

Next, keep in mind, these comparisons are all with teams that didn't make the tournament.  Without going through all five years, I took a couple of years as a sample.

For example, take the 2008 comparison.  You state that  "we easily beat out. . .  2008 Syracuse (slightly worse in RPI/SOS, much better in wins/losses)"

But if we include the last team in, VIllanova, and compare:

2008 Villanova (22-12, 9-9)
RPI:  43
SOS: 48

2008 Syracuse: (19-14, 10-8)
RPI:  56
SOS:  8  (Not sure where you got 29 from--Its 8 according to RealtimeRPI.com)

2011 MU:  (19-11, 10-8)  
RPI:   61
SOS:  33

I don't see that as 2011 "easily" beating Syracuse--SU has a better RPI and SOS, same number of conference wins.  The only difference is they have the two bad losses.  The question is whether the two bad losses kept Syracuse out, or whether the 56 RPI did.   If its the RPI, then our projected 61 falls well short.  

Maybe you could argue its the bad losses--but the 2011 MU team is certainly not "easily" better than Syracuse (who was out of the tournament), and is arguably a lot closer to Syracuse than Villanova (who was the last Big East team in).  

The fact that Villanova's SOS of 48 was much worse than Syracuse (8) suggests that SOS is a less  significant factor than you assume.


I'd also like to compare 2010:

Last team in:
2010 Notre Dame (23-11, 10-8)
RPI: 49
SOS: 35

2010 Seton Hall  (19-11, 9-9)
RPI: 60
SOS: 32

2011 MU (19-11, 10-8)
RPI: 61
SOS: 33

2010 South Florida:  (20-12, 9-9)
RPI:  71
SOS:  62

Here, I'll grant that we would probably be easily better than South Florida, but when you compare 2011 MU to 2010 Seton Hall (who was out) and 2010 Notre Dame (who was in), we're a lot closer to Seton Hall than we are to Notre Dame.  

I think the one thing we can agree on--if there ever was a year to finish 9th (or 10th or 11th), THIS seems to be the year to do it.  

Finally, on a purely RPI comparision, I thought it would be interesting to post the worst team in/best team out comparision

2010:  50 / 60
2009: 35 / 58
2008: 43 / 56
2007: 38 / 50
2006: 58 / 40

If the projected RPI of 61 holds true for us, we would be the worst Big East team to make the tournament since we joined (from an RPI perspective).  

In fact, our projected RPI of 61 is worse than the best team left out each prior year we've been in the league.