[Cracked Sidewalks] Should Sub-.500 Teams Get At-Large Bids?

[brewcity77]

Seth Davis stirred up controversy this week when he asserted teams with conference records below .500 should not be eligible for the NCAA Tournament. If you aren't a subscriber to The Athletic, first of all, you should be. It's a great site. But the gist was if you have a losing conference record, including conference tournament games, you don't go to the tourney. This would eliminate virtually all teams that go below .500 in league play & half of the teams that reach .500.

Continued: http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2019/02/should-sub-500-teams-get-at-large-bids.html

[CTWarrior]

Personally, I like the idea.  You're not going to leave anyone out who will be missed and hopefully you give another mid-major or two a chance.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Completely disagree with the premise.  Why punish tougher conferences in favor of weaker ones?  In leagues with unbalanced schedules, teams would benefit from playing a weaker schedule rather than a stronger one.  A very arbitrary rule.

[BrewCity83]

Completely disagree with the premise.  Why punish tougher conferences in favor of weaker ones?  In leagues with unbalanced schedules, teams would benefit from playing a weaker schedule rather than a stronger one.  A very arbitrary rule.

I agree this could be a valid cutoff for leagues that have balanced schedules, but for leagues with unbalanced schedules, there should be some exceptions available.  If that part of it can be addressed, I like it. 

[brewcity77]

Completely disagree with the premise.  Why punish tougher conferences in favor of weaker ones?  In leagues with unbalanced schedules, teams would benefit from playing a weaker schedule rather than a stronger one.  A very arbitrary rule.

How is it a punishment to say you should win games to qualify for a chance to play for the title? High major schools already have advantages built in. They have greater resources, larger recruiting footprints, more television access, the entire system is weighted in their favor.

The small schools would have the same requirement to have a winning conference record. No one gets punished, it just levels the playing field.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Completely disagree with the premise.  Why punish tougher conferences in favor of weaker ones?  In leagues with unbalanced schedules, teams would benefit from playing a weaker schedule rather than a stronger one.  A very arbitrary rule.

I don't like the rule either.  But this year (selfishly/mainly because we are nowhere near the bubble) I'd rather see teams like Belmont, Lipscomb, Murray State, UNC Greensboro, and San Francisco get those last couple spots over a 6-12 Oklahoma, or 6-12 Indiana, or 6-12 Nebraska.

[Marcus92]

If anything, this would make things easier for the top at-large teams -- because they'd be facing weaker opposition in the early rounds of the NCAA tournament.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

If anything, this would make things easier for the top at-large teams -- because they'd be facing weaker opposition in the early rounds of the NCAA tournament.

Meh. If it made any difference, it would these teams duking it out against eachother in Dayton, and whichever 5 or 6 seed is lucky enough to play a tired UNC Greensboro or whoever in the first round instead of a battle tested Indiana team that has proven it can beat top 10 teams multiple times. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

In general, I am in favor of more top mid and low majors getting at larges over middling high majors.

I'm not a fan of an absolute rule like this.

[oldwarrior81]

a quick look back at the past 40 years of the tourney; I found 26 teams that finished 2 games under 500 in conference advanced past the round of 64.  Eight of those made the Sweet 16.
I thought those numbers would be higher.

Virginia in '84 being the only to reach the Final Four (losing in OT to Houston in the semis).   Finished 6-8 in the ACC and losing in the first round of the ACC tourney.  They got a 7-seed and won four games in the NCAA's.

Anyone remember Othell Wilson averaging about 25 a game in the tourney.

[MarquetteDano]

I agree this could be a valid cutoff for leagues that have balanced schedules, but for leagues with unbalanced schedules, there should be some exceptions available.  If that part of it can be addressed, I like it.

Agreed. Overall a good idea but unbalanced  schedules makes it unfair.  I like the idea of giving the little guy a chance as all of the advantages go to the top 7-8 conferences.

But imagine a year where one ACC team plays a relatively easy schedule and the other the most difficult. Not fair to the harder schedule team.

[MarquetteDano]

Maybe a hybrid to this... only allow a max two teams per year with losing records? That way the committee still picks the best of them but gives the little guy a chance?

[CTWarrior]

Maybe a hybrid ro this... only allow a max two teams per year with losing records? That way the committee still picks the best of them but gives the little guy a chance?

That's actually a good compromise and a good idea.  Does anybody know how many of these type tems get to the tournament in the average year?

[MUDPT]

Pomeroy on his pod this week and talked about it. He’s not a fan, as confeerences would just game the system. For instance, big ten could leave the last 2 games open and then schedule some lousy teams for the middle guys to play to boost their record above .500.

[brewcity77]

If you take the conference tournaments out of it and strictly go by regular season conference records, no team that had a sub-.500 regular season conference record advanced out of the first weekend.

I'm curious, which if any 8-10 or comparable teams of the past decade were so deserving that the tournament would've been lessened by their exclusion?

[oldwarrior81]

That's actually a good compromise and a good idea.  Does anybody know how many of these type tems get to the tournament in the average year?

A total of 29 teams since 1997.  minimum 2 games under in regular conf play.

Although their were 5 last year.  (Syracuse, Alabama, Arizona St, Oklahoma Texas). 
Syracuse (combined 9-11) winning 3, advanced out of the play-in-game to the Sweet 16. 
Alabama (combined 10-11) the highest seed as a 9, knocking off Va Tech.

Combined tourney record of past 22 years: 18-29

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

How is it a punishment to say you should win games to qualify for a chance to play for the title? High major schools already have advantages built in. They have greater resources, larger recruiting footprints, more television access, the entire system is weighted in their favor.

The small schools would have the same requirement to have a winning conference record. No one gets punished, it just levels the playing field.

Looks like you are assuming teams such as Belmont and Lipscomb would benefit.  To clarify,  my point is that the ACC and B1G are punished for being strong this year, while the Pac 12 and AAC might be the ones benefiting.   Is that fair?

Plus, you open a huge Pandora box of fluky stuff.  I'll give two examples.

1) Big East Team A vs B

A) 11-2 vs a good non-conference schedule,  9-9 in BE,  4th seed in BET where they lose 1st game.

B)  9-4 vs poor non-conference schedule,  9-9 BE, 5th seed BET, win quarterfinal game, lose in semis.

Team A has the better resume by far but is eliminated by arbitrary rule.  Team B remains under consideration for a bid.


2) Big East 6 seed vs 7 seed

Same as above, except 6 seed now loses quarterfinal to strong 3 seed.  The 7 seed beats 10, loses to 2 seed.  Once again,  the superior team is out and the inferior team remains under consideration.

[brewcity77]

The conference tournament aspect was my least favorite part of Seth's suggestion, but I would be in favor of teams that finish below .500 in league play being exempt from at-large selection.

If you can't at least win half your conference games, the odds that you are going to win 6 games in March is pretty slim, and as the numbers show, even advancing out of the first weekend is unlikely. If that means winning records in other high majors, so be it, but it at least opens the door for the mid-majors that are actually winning games.

Besides, if you are 8-10 in league play and you're really that good of a team, go win your conference tournament. The autobid is still there, just like it is for every other team in the country.

I don't care where they make the cutoff, I used Seth's article as the reference because it was the kickoff for the discussion point. But I would be heavily in favor of saying no to teams that are 8-10, 9-11, 7-11, 7-9, whatever it comes out to. If you can't get to .500 in league, you haven't earned the right to play for the national championship.

[MDMU04]

I don’t mind it, but I don’t think it will change anything of significance.

You’ll probably wind up with a few more 2nd place teams from mid major conferences as bracket fillers, but they won’t contend for the title any more than a 8-10 team from a major conference would.

It’ll just wind up being those mid major conference teams that lose in the first two rounds instead of crappy ones from the major conferences.

[1SE]

Just go back to 64 teams...

[brewcity77]

Just go back to 64 teams...

Better and more realistic to expand to 72. Add a second site to the Tuesday/Wednesday games. I'd say Omaha. 8 games, 2 nights, all at large teams. The last 16 in have to play their way to the main games. Makes Tuesday & Wednesday legit part of the tournament, insures all the autobid winners actually play on Thursday/Friday, better games & ratings the first nights, & make an easier path for the top seeds, it's win-win.

[Mr. Nielsen]

One thing football fan says about college basketball is that the regular season does not matter. Well, having to win in league play to avoid a losing league record does make the regular season matter.

[bilsu]

Completely disagree with the premise.  Why punish tougher conferences in favor of weaker ones?  In leagues with unbalanced schedules, teams would benefit from playing a weaker schedule rather than a stronger one.  A very arbitrary rule.

Why, because unsuccessful teams are getting in, just because they are losing to a lot of tough teams. You can be .500 in your league by beating only the weaker teams. The only exceptions to this rule in my mind, would be a team that got back a significant player that was missing for several of their losses or a team that is playing really well at the end. Xavier and St. John's are currently tied at 8-8. St. John's has the better overall record and has some better wins. Xavier has won five straight league games and just beat St. John's. Right now St. John's is in and Xavier is not. The system is flawed when it does put extra weight on the last half of the conference season.

[Herman Cain]

My biggest grievance is that the way the system is designed, the non conference schedule carries disproportionate weighting. The NCAA claims all games are weighted equally.  Xavier this year is an example , they were a younger team intermixed with a group of graduate transfers and a new coach. It took them a while to get their footings. Now they are playing well, but will have a hard time getting in the tournament absent a BET win.  The games they lost in the Thanksgiving tournament really hurt their cause. Conversely , Butler wins a couple non conference and they continue to hang in as bubble team.

I would not be in favor of restricting below 500 conference teams from tournament .  We want the best teams in the tournament . The auto bids every league gets benefit the low and mid majors. If a mid major loses their conference tournament, they can still get in as an at large if their resume warrants it. It makes for great TV when a Loyola or UMBC makes it deep in the tournament. The key is to get the teams like that deserve to be in the tournament a berth.

[Carl]

I think this proposition has some parallels to the college football playoff argument to expand to an 8 team playoff.  Right now the complaint revolves around arguing who is the 4th vs 5th best team in the country.  Fans of expansion would rather argue over who is the 8th vs 9th best team.  I believe the premise of the article claimed that there are really only around 7-8 sub .500 conf. record teams even on the bubble most years, and 3 or 4 make it in at the max.  No one would have too much sympathy for a sub .500 conference team.

Would college basketball fans really be that disgruntled if those few teams lost their invites in favor of either a mid-major with few losses, or a high major in perceived down conference?  The BE could potentially be a benefactor of that rule this year. 

I have always thought that non-conference performance already holds too much weight in how a conference is perceived, and therefore how many bids they get and their seeding.  BE (underrated) and Big 10 (overrated) are this years example.  I'm not saying the BE is great this year, but do we deserve 3 or 4 bids, the PAC12 maybe only 1 or 2, while the entire Big 10 gets in just because of a hot November?  How much are wins over Nebraska and Indiana really worth these days?  Quite a bit apparently, because they got off to fast starts.  I have no problem with increasing the value of conference performance.

[1SE]

Better and more realistic to expand to 72. Add a second site to the Tuesday/Wednesday games. I'd say Omaha. 8 games, 2 nights, all at large teams. The last 16 in have to play their way to the main games. Makes Tuesday & Wednesday legit part of the tournament, insures all the autobid winners actually play on Thursday/Friday, better games & ratings the first nights, & make an easier path for the top seeds, it's win-win.

So 6 sub .500 teams can get in instead of 2?

Or I've got an even better idea, why not just expand to 320, 4 regions of 80 teams. Bottom 32 teams in each region play for the last 16 seeds to make four regions of 64. Adds just one extra weekend - you can get rid of conference tourneys because basically everyone plays in this.   

I'll call it MEGA-MADNESStm the NCAA can DM me to get an address for my royalty check.

[brewcity77]

So 6 sub .500 teams can get in instead of 2?

I'd still say no sub-.500 teams. We know they aren't going back. So go forward but make Tuesday & Wednesday interesting. Does anyone care if LIU Brooklyn or Radford last year advances to play Nova? I would have preferred this:

St Mary's vs UCLA
St Bonaventure vs Notre Dame
Syracuse vs USC
Arizona State vs Baylor
Texas vs Marquette
NC State vs Utah
Florida State vs Oklahoma State
Oklahoma vs Louisville

Play those games over two nights at two sites. People will actually watch those games. It also means if Dayton is in the first four, they don't get an automatic home NCAA game (like in 2015).

This year could feature:

TCU vs Nebraska
Seton Hall vs St Mary's
Alabama vs Creighton
Minnesota vs Georgetown
Arizona State vs Murray State
UCF vs Clemson
NC State vs Furman
UNC Greensboro vs Temple

Now that's just on the basis of the respective S-curves, so teams like Nebraska, Seton Hall, etc could be replaced with teams that have .500 league records. But it would lead to more compelling games than the Norfolk State/Sam Houston State game that not even their fans want to see, after all people are always asking if you actually played in the tournament if you lose in Dayton.

[1SE]

I'd still say no sub-.500 teams. We know they aren't going back. So go forward but make Tuesday & Wednesday interesting. Does anyone care if LIU Brooklyn or Radford last year advances to play Nova? I would have preferred this:

St Mary's vs UCLA
St Bonaventure vs Notre Dame
Syracuse vs USC
Arizona State vs Baylor
Texas vs Marquette
NC State vs Utah
Florida State vs Oklahoma State
Oklahoma vs Louisville

Play those games over two nights at two sites. People will actually watch those games. It also means if Dayton is in the first four, they don't get an automatic home NCAA game (like in 2015).

This year could feature:

TCU vs Nebraska
Seton Hall vs St Mary's
Alabama vs Creighton
Minnesota vs Georgetown
Arizona State vs Murray State
UCF vs Clemson
NC State vs Furman
UNC Greensboro vs Temple

Now that's just on the basis of the respective S-curves, so teams like Nebraska, Seton Hall, etc could be replaced with teams that have .500 league records. But it would lead to more compelling games than the Norfolk State/Sam Houston State game that not even their fans want to see, after all people are always asking if you actually played in the tournament if you lose in Dayton.

Sure, but then I'm kind of serious about the 320 team tourney. Add one weekend and get virtually every team in the country in. What's one of the best thing about March Madness? The upsets and the cinderellas. With 1-64 seeds odds are every year there would be a few phenomenal upsets on the first weekend. But by the sweet 16 it would probably look pretty similar so you'd still get quality play.

Plus, even better that then champ has to win 8 games in a row instead of 6.

[damuts222]

Sure, but then I'm kind of serious about the 320 team tourney.

Cancel all classes for March! Why don't we get rid of the regular season while were at it.

The final teams that have gotten in the last few years haven't had strong arguments for their inclusion. If there was more of an argument for the teams that just miss getting in you could make the argument to expand...but not to 320! The bubble has been soft the last few years. I have no issues with the tournament where it is currently. My only gripe is that I don't particularly care for the 12 seed play-ins.

[1SE]

Cancel all classes for March! Why don't we get rid of the regular season while were at it.

The final teams that have gotten in the last few years haven't had strong arguments for their inclusion. If there was more of an argument for the teams that just miss getting in you could make the argument to expand...but not to 320! The bubble has been soft the last few years. I have no issues with the tournament where it is currently. My only gripe is that I don't particularly care for the 12 seed play-ins.

Sorry, didn't think I needed teal.

My original point was that instead of arbitrarily banning sub .500 teams we should go back to a 64 team tournament because 68 let's too many mediocre high-majors in.