GW Hoops

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



3/06/2023 3:52 pm  #1


The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

The top of the A10 is down this year, after a poor OOC showing, but there's a bigger systemic issue ongoing.

The "Quad 1-4" criteria change, which so heavily and transparently by design favors the Power 5s, has wiped out non Power 5 bids across the country.

Lunardi's bracket has 38 total bids going to the Power 5/Big East

Here's the full extent of the at large invites outside of that:

American:  1
MWC:  2
WCC: 1
Everyone else:  0

He has Utah State NET 21 OUT and Wisconsin 78 IN

Is that really the March Madness fans want?  Tournament used to sell Cinderella.  

Not just removing teams from the field, the seeding too. Someone mentioned Drake.   in 2008 Drake was a 5 seed, VCU if they win the A10 Tourney this year is getting a 12 seed as is Drake.  

How much has the landscape for at large bids changed?  When VCU made their deep run, they got an at large bid as an 11 loss CAA.   A 4th place CAA team, with 11 losses, got an at large bid in 2011.  Imagine that in 2023.

There are 15 A10 teams, 14 of them are not making the Dance, that's probably the new norm.   Unless somehow the league becomes the WCC with 2 programs towering over the league, in which case 1 at large bid perhaps


 

Last edited by The Dude (3/06/2023 4:09 pm)

 

3/06/2023 5:29 pm  #2


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Dude, this is my opinion and may not reflect others. 

I don't like picking on other posters, recognize that variety is often helpful, and enjoy reading others' posts (usually) as much as occasionally posting myself, but when you start multiple threads in a short span, this board starts becoming very tiring and cumbersome.  I've got a more than full-time job and a family.  Can we let discussion run its course on a few topics before starting new threads on every issue that pops into your head.  I'm trying to rid myself of my own ADD, but you're not making it any easier.   Thank you.

 

3/06/2023 6:56 pm  #3


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

CBS/Turner pays the NCAA nearly a billion dollars a year for the rights to broadcast a tournament built around Cinderella, but more and more each day, the NCAA is built around the Power 5 and BIG EAST. And, when there's $1.8 million over six years paid to conferences (and funneled in some breakdown to the team playing and the rest of their conference) for each game played (not even won) in the Tournament, you better believe that those Power 5 ADs are going to do whatever it takes to keep the money in house.

What's worst about the system built the way it is is that schools like GW, with its smaller venues, lower ticket sales, smaller sales in licensed merchandise and sponsorships, cheap TV deal, and a modest donor base, NEED those tournament shares to stay solvent or make investments in men's basketball or any of its other sports. The rich are going to get richer and the rest of us are going to need to accept the reality that the resource gap in Division I is becoming too big to warrant staying in. 

 

3/06/2023 7:04 pm  #4


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Merrick wrote:

Dude, this is my opinion and may not reflect others. 

I don't like picking on other posters, recognize that variety is often helpful, and enjoy reading others' posts (usually) as much as occasionally posting myself, but when you start multiple threads in a short span, this board starts becoming very tiring and cumbersome.  I've got a more than full-time job and a family.  Can we let discussion run its course on a few topics before starting new threads on every issue that pops into your head.  I'm trying to rid myself of my own ADD, but you're not making it any easier.   Thank you.

Well stated Merrick.  Far more diplomatic than myself but the sentiment is very much the same.  All of the new threads, all of the same points made again and again, the redundancy that can only be explained as a way to antagonize others.....it's all way too much.  I'd encourage others to make their views known either publicly or in private to Barry if you feel similarly.

 

3/06/2023 7:30 pm  #5


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

creeksandzeeks wrote:

CBS/Turner pays the NCAA nearly a billion dollars a year for the rights to broadcast a tournament built around Cinderella, but more and more each day, the NCAA is built around the Power 5 and BIG EAST. And, when there's $1.8 million over six years paid to conferences (and funneled in some breakdown to the team playing and the rest of their conference) for each game played (not even won) in the Tournament, you better believe that those Power 5 ADs are going to do whatever it takes to keep the money in house.

What's worst about the system built the way it is is that schools like GW, with its smaller venues, lower ticket sales, smaller sales in licensed merchandise and sponsorships, cheap TV deal, and a modest donor base, NEED those tournament shares to stay solvent or make investments in men's basketball or any of its other sports. . 

Could not agree more unfortunately, they sell Cinderella but they've jammed in the Power 5s for the $$$- what is gauling is the silence from the media types about this.  Dickie V of all people has made some noise on occassion none of the "bracketologists" seem to mind though and they follow this for a living.

So as GW fans, and this will really bite us when we're good again, it isn't so much that the A10 is so down (somewhat this year, yes) as much as that selection criteria changed.  

Just 10 years ago 24-7 VCU with similar computer #s  would be right there if not in better shape than the 17-14 Power 5s, but despite what Lunardi claime last week, he doesn't even have them on the ,bubble this year.

Here's our seed history in the NCAA Tourney:

12
10
11
9
11 
12  (auto bid)
8
11 (auto bid)
9

Would any of these GW team given this new "criteria" even get an at large bid?  Would The 2006 team?  Did that team have any "Quad 1 wins?"  maybe one, the Maryland win???  Our 1993 Sweet 16 team, would never get an at large bid today, not a chance right???  Those wins really laid the foundation for the program, and surely VCU and Mason's deeper runs did the same for them.

There are 300 or so non Power 5 teams, looks like this year there's going to be 4 selected for an at large (maybe less)

Just to put some of the "A10 bids" into context.   

Wouldn't a few more 2011 VCUs be preferable to the very last few 18-15 Power 5s?


 

     Thread Starter
 

3/06/2023 8:26 pm  #6


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

If our league is being thrown to the side I probably will stop watching the NCAA tourney. Better things to do with my time if I have no interest  anymore in the teams involved.  March Madness will just become something to skip in the future. Others may feel the same way.

 

3/06/2023 9:45 pm  #7


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

The party ended in 2014 when the A-10 got six at large bids, the most in college basketball. The "power" schools noticed and got very upset about it, and it's been a steady decline ever since.

 

3/06/2023 11:16 pm  #8


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Alum '04 wrote:

The party ended in 2014 when the A-10 got six at large bids, the most in college basketball. The "power" schools noticed and got very upset about it, and it's been a steady decline ever since.

 
Minor correction - 5 at large bids, 6 total. And yes Coach K went berserk and called out the NCAA for giving us 5 at-large slots.  Which was awesome when Duke became the (then) first ever #2 seed to lose to a #15 (Mercer). And since God is merciful, he placed GW in Raleigh also, so we could witness the Duke-Mercer tilt amd “cheer” Coach K off the court.

 

3/07/2023 7:35 am  #9


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Alum '04 wrote:

The party ended in 2014 when the A-10 got six at large bids, the most in college basketball. The "power" schools noticed and got very upset about it, and it's been a steady decline ever since.

(Net and RPI are certainly a factor, but the other is conference expansion and increased conference schedule.)

Let's not forget the sack cloth-and-ashes wailing from the big boys when the MVC got 5. But, yes your overall point is well taken. And I hope all posters understand the move to expand the field to say 96 will not favor the Non-Power 5.
Initially maybe, but the football schools will leverage their power to vacuum up the extra money and the units. I could also see the first round of 96 being on-campus or otherwise treated as second class.

Because its always about the money it is a shame they will risk 64/68.  Its perfect from a ratings stand point.
The best mid-majors clear out the Power 5 chafe and the aircraft carriers  make it to the regional finals and beyond.
Like all non-power 5 fans I'd love all conference champs not being in the First 4 and leaving that from the last at-large bids.

 

 

3/07/2023 7:56 am  #10


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Get ready for the talking heads to explain away College of Charleston if they happen to lose in the conference tournament tonight.  CofC is 30-3 but has a KenPom of 73 with 0 Q1 and 3 Q2 wins.  They beat Richmond, Davidson, and Va Tech this year.  Only OOC loss was to UNC on the road.

Meanwhile, Rothstein is out there saying this about Michigan.  

"If you're good enough to go to Illinois and you're good enough to go to Indiana and go to overtime, you're good enough to play in the NCAA Tournament. Gotta beat Rutgers."

Mind you, Michigan was not good enough to actually beat Illinois or Indiana, but apparently the standard is just playing two scheduled conference road games and passing the eye test.

Last edited by GW0509 (3/07/2023 8:06 am)

 

3/07/2023 9:18 am  #11


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

0509 it’s a great example of the chokehold the P5 have at the beginning and the end of seasons. Michigan gets to schedule high profile, marquee matchups against fellow blue bloods where losses are excusable (London Showcase, Legends Classic, Jumpman, ACC/Big 10) and then a few games against low level teams where wins are easy in their OOC.

Michigan ends up with an OOC SOS of 11, and it moves up to an overall SOS rank of 2 after conference play (per WarrenNolan.com).

I don’t know what Kelsey’s scheduling philosophy was going in, but let’s assume he tried to play the best teams who would play CofC. Who of the P5 elite would? What’s the benefit? So he gets stuck with an OOC SOS of 140 which slides down to 169 after conference play.

Now watch as we tsk tsk his scheduling as they head to the NIT in the event of a loss. It’s all rigged, and all the credit in the world to these programs who fight like hell to break through anyway.

Last edited by creeksandzeeks (3/07/2023 12:23 pm)

 

3/07/2023 10:08 am  #12


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Talk about a problem that the NCAA has no real interest in solving.  What's changed is that in 2013-14, the A10 produced a string of upsets against P5/BE teams.  The better team's metrics became elevated as a result and then, unless conference play ended in a huge disappointment,  the A10 schools had done enough to receive their at-large bids. GW's 12-2 OOC record that season included wins over Miami, Creighton, Rutgers, Maryland and Georgia.  Three of those wins were on neutral courts and two were at home (Rutgers, Georgia).  The two losses were on a neutral court to Marquette and a road loss at Kansas State.

Unless something drastically changes, GW will likely never again play an OOC schedule along these lines.  The combination of fewer OOC games due to expanded comnference schedules among these major conferences and too many challenging, committed OOC games is to blame.  When a P5/BE team plays in its designated conference vs conference challenge game, its holiday tournament, and its 1-2 additional made for tv games, this may leave around 5 open spots on the schedule.  If Kansas is already playing in the State Farm Champions Classic, three times at Atlantis, in the B12/BE Battle, a geographic rival in Missouri, and a made for tv game against Indiana, why would you bother scheduling any team from the A10?  It just isn't necessary.

The NCAA does not care whether a midmajor made every attempt to play a more challenging schedule or actively sought to avoid playing a difficult one.  Mike Rhoades, VCU's head coach, recently commented that Jimmy Martelli, who is actively involved in scheduling for VCU,  has a ton of notes on all of the teams he tried to schedule games against who turned them down.  Not at all difficult to believe.  Unfairly, all the committee cares about is that VCU did not play too tough an OOC schedule.  This in part explains why there's discussion that they may not receive an at large if they fail to win in Brooklyn (a complete joke) or that they will be a 12 seed if they do win (I would not be too thrilled if I was the 5 and saw VCU was my first opponent).

As for the NCAA, let's use the Charleston-Wisconsin example.  I'm not sure that anyone with even a half-objective mind feels that Wisconsin deserves to go dancing ahead of Charleston.  Wisconsin has some solid wins but January 3rd was the last time the team had won two games in a row. (You read that correctly.)   Even if Charlston's schedule is a complete joke, there's no getting around 30-3.  (This is one of the more overlooked aspects of analyzing teams.  You may play in a small conference and have an easy schedule but there needs to be more to be said for going out and winning all of those games you're supposed to win.  This is basketball.  Teams have an off night here and there.  Key players get into foul trouble.  Injuries can be a factor.  There are lots of reasons why "better" teams lose games.)

And yet, Wisconsin is a national brand while Charlston is not.  Wisconsin fans will travel and buy up those tickets in far greater numbers than Charlston.  More eyeballs in Wisconsin and among their much larger alum base will be watching games on tv compared to what Charlston can bring to the table.  As far as CBS/Turner and the NCAA  are concerned, they would want the Badgers every time over the CoC.  If you're still skeptical, look up the tv ratings for when George Mason, VCU, Butler, and Loyola all reached the Final 4 and compare this to when the national brands are fighting it out on that last Saturday.  The only thing more certain than this country loving Cinderella stories in this tournament is that they want those stories to end prior to the Final 4.  I'll agree that this sounds counterintuitive, but this has been evident throughout the years.

 

3/07/2023 1:18 pm  #13


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

GW0509 wrote:

Get ready for the talking heads to explain away College of Charleston if they happen to lose in the conference tournament tonight.  CofC is 30-3 but has a KenPom of 73 with 0 Q1 and 3 Q2 wins.  They beat Richmond, Davidson, and Va Tech this year.  Only OOC loss was to UNC on the road.

Meanwhile, Rothstein is out there saying this about Michigan.  

"If you're good enough to go to Illinois and you're good enough to go to Indiana and go to overtime, you're good enough to play in the NCAA Tournament. Gotta beat Rutgers."

Mind you, Michigan was not good enough to actually beat Illinois or Indiana, but apparently the standard is just playing two scheduled conference road games and passing the eye test.

Hilarious and sadly the new reality

That's so on point, you crystalized the issue perfectly

This time of year I watch (the otherwise excellent) CBS show he's on and not one person has ever raised the issue or even suggested 30-3 teams should be chosen over 17-15 Power 5s

Reminder Michigan lost at home to #330 Central Michigan.  How'd they look eye test wise there Rothstein!?  Palpable buzz!?

How does that stack up against Charleston's one OOC loss North Carolina on the road!

Most important to us, pretty confident every GW at large bid would be removed under this new criteria. Not enough Quad 1 wins! Only 2-1 in 2006!  Some .500 SEC school team was 4-13!

     Thread Starter
 

3/07/2023 1:41 pm  #14


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Just bring a lawsuit against NCAA and have all the judges come from non Big schools.

 

3/07/2023 3:32 pm  #15


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Merrick,

Like you, most of us have jobs. Even if I wasn't still working, and I had no other life, I don't think I could post 2500 times in 2 years (or however long this site has been in existence!)

 

3/07/2023 4:25 pm  #16


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

No 30 win team has ever been left out, so we shall see if Lunardi's right, if they lose tonight. 

Even among us his TWO out of FOUR only non Power 5 at large bids, TWO are in his last 4 in.

Lets look at one of them

23-8.   NET #27   Quad 1  3-4.   Quad  2  8-2.   

VS his 5th seed (you can probably guess who the 5 seed is right???)

23-8    NET  #25  Quad 3-7   Quad 2  7-1

Even if you accept this rigged system, what is the possible justification for one school being last 4 in and one school being a 5 seed???

 

Last edited by The Dude (3/07/2023 4:33 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

3/07/2023 10:19 pm  #17


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Some simple math shows it is the equivalent of 1.8 post a day, EVERY day, but it seems like so many more.

 

3/08/2023 10:20 am  #18


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

The reason for this trend is pretty simple - money. The schools from the big conferences, especially the blue blood programs, have more fans to buy more tickets and watch more games. And as long as the tourney still has autobids, the networks will have their cinderellas. They don’t care if these are the best mid major teams or not. The networks want a few first round upsets, maybe one in the second round, and then only blue bloods or other major programs by the Elite 8. Schools like GW should focus on winning conference championships rather than worrying about at large bids. If we win our tournament, we are in. Its as simple as that, at least for me.

 

3/08/2023 11:37 am  #19


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

SmithCenterAlum wrote:

Some simple math shows it is the equivalent of 1.8 post a day, EVERY day, but it seems like so many more.

I know the board doesn't want to hear this, but if you factor all of the posts from his other aliases, it's a staggering number.  

 

3/08/2023 12:20 pm  #20


Re: The End of The Non Power 5 Bids?

Alum1 wrote:

Which was awesome when Duke became the (then) first ever #2 seed to lose to a #15 (Mercer). And since God is merciful, he placed GW in Raleigh also, so we could witness the Duke-Mercer tilt amd “cheer” Coach K off the court.

Very memorable afternoon at the hotel bar in Raleigh: Watching Duke lose to Mercer almost the same moment we rallied our team out of the lobby and into their bus for the ride to the arena. <chef's kiss>

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum