Not that remarkable or surprising. This has been a game orchestrated by the Power 5 to increase power. They believe they generate the dollars so they should get the lion's share of the bids. This will continue until the Power 5 decide to completely break away and form either a new division or an entirely separate association. It's coming. Can't say whether it will be 5 years or 10 but not that far away.

The bigger question is where that will leave GW and other A-10 schools. But probably like the FCS in football, there will be a championship for everyone else.

Money and power always corrupt eventually.

Under more recent criteria, several past GW at large bids might have been taken away.

How many Quad 1 wins did the 2006 team have?

Yet there have been ton of upsets in OOC.   What I realize is that the NCAA is bought and paid for by the power conferences even though the growing parity between the haves and the have nots  is being demonstrated more each year.   BC - take your meds!

It is very unlikely that the 16 teams he predicts now will hold up, he said as much.

as an example he said that Gonzaga will today be the #1 overall seed but that's very unlikely to hold, if they lose just 1 game.

St Marys (this was the St Mary vs BYU game) he said was in, but also just a loss or two and they'd drop out.

Of course this highlights the problem with the Quad system, but it also says what a better year the non Power 5s are having. we wont get 16 teams but we're not going to see just 5.  Maybe 10-11.

 

The question  I have, is if they have any intention of adjusting this new selection criteria, because as things are, most years we're going to get a crammed in the Power 5s.

The Quad system was very transparent.  We've been discussing this on the board since the advent of the Quad system.

What I would like to know is if the 2006 GW team would even get at an large bid under the current system, I'm not too sure we would.

 

American is not a power league and this is counting the American in the non power 5/BE. That should tell you how few bids are going to non power, because at least some of the American is teams you used to associate with power leagues (4 time national champ UCONN, e.g.)

What Mark Few did at Gonzaga could be done at any one of the top of the non power programs but it doesn't make the story any less remarkable or likely, it is a crazy, stunning success story that took 2 decades of small steps.  Here's a cursory overview that reads like a GW fan dream:

This season will be the 20th straight NCAA Tournament berth for Gonzaga, a startling achievement for a mid-major team out of Eastern Washington—no one’s idea of a recruiting hotbed. There isn’t really another program like Gonzaga, so consistently excellent without many of the advantages enjoyed by other traditionally great universities.The root of this success is the Zags’ longtime coach, Mark Few.

A native of Creswell, Oregon, Few joined Gonzaga’s staff as a graduate assistant in his mid-twenties and hasn’t left the team since. He spent nine years on the bench as an assistant, but for the last two decades, he’s been the team’s head coach.Yes, there have been offers from bigger programs, but Few has paid them precisely no consideration. He prefers to do things his own way, and the pressure of a big program would destroy the low-key lifestyle he enjoys as he plies his trade in the West Coast Conference.

Does the life of a mid-major exile keep Few from roping in big recruits? Perhaps. But he doesn’t care. In 2002, Sports Illustrated asked him about offers from bigger programs. His reply? “Why can't we have a top-level program right here at Gonzaga? Every year we take steps that small schools aren't supposed to be taking.”It must have seemed naive to anyone reading at the time, with the school having only made the last 4 tournaments, but nearly 20 years later, Few is still at Gonzaga, helming a program that has not missed a tournament since. How does he do it? 

INTERNATIONAL RECRUITING   For years, Few has made his name by thinking outside of the box of a traditional major program. Rather than pouring resources into recruiting from programs that are swarming with coaches from larger conferences, Gonzaga focuses on being a powerhouse international recruiter.

Last edited by The Dude (1/10/2020 10:51 pm)

Actually slightly disagree.   The quad system can be good for the non BCS leagues because it makes it harder to pile up noteworthy victories at home.

When they only used top 50 or top 100, bcs teams got more opportunities to pile up those wins at home.

Now, hearing a team ranked 70 on the road is better than beating #40 at home. Before it wasn’t.

Richmond and Rhode Island, for example, are currently 63 and 66 in the NET rankings.  Beating them away is now finally considered better than beating, say, Utah (48) or TCU (50) at home.   Losing to them away is now the exact same. 

In the past, Big12 teams could rack up top 50 wins by beating TCU at home, whereas A10 teams wouldn’t get as much credit for beating Rhody or Richmond at home.  Now those wins are the same.

I would also note that the quad system is based in stat science that shows, over time,  beating the #75 team away is harder thank beating #31 at home.   That will help the A10 because while the selection committee always paid lip service to road wins, those top 50/top 100 records were always used to squeeze us, no matter where the wins happened.  To be sure, the system is still rigged against us, but the quad system is better than what they used before

The Dude wrote:

Well, The Quad system is giving Power 5's  9 10 12 13  bites the apple and then giving a team with 3 wins in those games an edge over a team that goes 2-2, which is exactly what the NCAA was looking to do, create a format that pushed almost excuslively power 5 bids. Which is what has happened.

As the OOC turns into the conference season, you will see how Lunardi's 16 would be bids will turn to far fewer.  At the close of the OOC he had 16 non power 5/BEs teams come tourney time there will be far fewer.

Using computer models, we'd get more non power 5s which the NCAA wants to avoid, the Quad system HEAVILY weights in favor of the Power 5s.

 

But that was happening before the quad system.   When they were using top 50 and top 100 wins, without truly paying attention to where they happened, the BCS were getting more bites at the Apple but it was easier for them to get a top 50 win than a quad 1 win now. 

Look, everything benefits those leagues, mostly because of their money and ability to buy OOC wins. 

But look at your own stats on this thread. Two years ago, before the quad system, the big boys gamer the RPI (and the related top 50/100 shifting metric) to their point of 31 bids.  Last year, the first under the quad, it went down to 29. This year it’s posted to fall lower.

To answer your question, there was a period not that long ago, that the computer rankings system was putting in more non power 5s.  A lot more.

That's what the NCAA would like to avoid, there is a lot more $$$ to be made in cramming in every blue blood program every Power 5, and getting in as few Woffords as possible.

Wofford vs St Bonaventure does not get ratings, Indiana vs UCLA does.

It is a sad turn of events because so much of the popularity of the tourney was built on the cinderella stories, but the short term $$$ interest mitigate to getting those Power 5s to the dance