NCAA Tourney!

[tycat947]

I think at this point, the Big 12 looks like there are five guarantees for the tourney....OU, A&M, Baylor, Nebraska and ISU. I think that's all the invitations the conference will receive unless something drastic happens. Outside of winning the conference tourney, I think only Tech and Texas have any chance of making the field although the chances are slim. Tech probably has a good enough team but their nonconference record was not good and I don't think they have many good wins outside of conference. Texas has been so up and down and I think they'll lose against A&M in CS so I don't see how although they are hosting first and second rounds at FEC. Still don't think that is enough right now.

Don't know if the conference being so competitive will help or hurt us in our seedings. I know it should help the teams who make the tourney in being ready but it may hurt on seedings.

Really looking forward to Big 12 tourney! I think it's gonna be the best ever..maybe one of the best conference tourneys ever. I expect that OKC will do a great job on hosting, attendance record will be broken and competition in every game will be unbelievable.

Anyway, my two cents!

[labcoatguy]

You're probably right about the Big XII getting just five in. It's still too early to say with any confidence though. If Texas or Tech win their final three games, I think they could also earn a bid, although those at-large bids will be tough to come by seeing as how the Colonial league, of all leagues, is the darling this year. Having a tough league like this may mean we get every Big XII team in the NIT, but I don't think it counts for as much in the NCAA tournament.

[H2H]

We will get 6 and maybe 7.

The winner of the UT/TT game gets in for sure. I see Texas beating OSU and I see TT getting ISU. So someone is going 2-1 in the last 3. TT would be at .500 and that gets them in and if UT wins that will get them to 7-9 and with their rpi and SOS they get in.

I think the the basketball world knows how tough this league is and 7-9 will get you in.

[BearLady]

Planning Ahead

This morning I realized that I needed to do some general planning for the upcoming tourney events. It's been very hectic around the office lately, and I anticipate that continuing for a few more weeks.

Anyhow, perhaps others may be interested in key dates as well:

The tourney events get underway with the Selection Monday show on Monday, March 12 at 7pm CT.

Then first round games start that week-end on Saturday, March 17, and Sunday, March 18.

Here's a link with other details:

http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/womens/schedules

[swok34]

Anyone see this Q & A from Charlie Creme? From our very own snapping creature :p :D ;)
Which by the was, was in rare form last night in chat. Anyone missing the chats has missed some TRUE gems.

I think I understand the basic bracket stuff you explained, but one thing you did not address: Do you think a team which is less than .500 in conference play can make the Big Dance? Your comments about my beloved Big 12 teams would make it appear as if it were possible.

Jane
Mustang, Okla.

No rule exists excluding teams below .500 in conference play from making the NCAA Tournament. However, conference record is one of the pieces of information considered by the committee, and a losing mark doesn't help a team's résumé. Specifically with regard to the Big 12, I could see a scenario where a 7-9 Texas, Iowa State or Texas Tech received an at-large bid. Kansas State is going to need a big finish to get in now. That loss to Colorado was a killer, and four games below .500 doesn't cut it.

entire chat:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/columns/story?columnist=creme_charlie&id=2768010

[BenEClone]

At this point, I wouldn't count any of the middle four in or out. They are certainly among the top 64 and could yet play themselves in (or out). A quick look at the 32 conferences - who gets more than one bid? In addition to the champ - using as a rule of thumb at least .500 in conference and about 20 wins and top 50 rpi - SouthEast, Big 12, ACC get 4; Big East gets 5; Big10, PAC10, Colonial, Mountain West and A10 get 2; SunBelt gets 1.

exceptions - I put Rutgers in from the Big East with fewer than 20 wins and didn't put Army in with 20 wins (rpi 148)

That's 28 out of 32 leaving 4 slots open to argue. We might win one of those giving us a max of six teams.

[H2H]

Swok that was really me that replyed to you. :)

I'm sticking with 7......they ALL know this league from 1-12 is no joke and it will be reflected in 7 teams!

I went and looked at the 3 teams in bottom of the top 5 rpi confs. and the losses are 100-200 or stated over 200 in RPI.

#1-SEC- Bama 2, Florida 0, Ark 0

#2 Big 12- KU 1 at 106, MU 0, Kansas St 1 (to KU)

#3 ACC- Wake has 4, Miami 5, BC 3 and one to a over 200 team,

#4 Big Ten- NW has 2, Mich 3, Iowa 2

#5 Big East- Nova 5, G'Town 3, 'Cuse 6 and 4 are above 200.

[labcoatguy]

Last year the Big XII was no joke either, with 9 teams finishing 7-9 or better and with a low RPI of 78 (Nebraska), but the committee deemed only 4 from our hallowed conference worthy of the NCAA tournament. Although it was absolutely rubbish that only 4 got in (we owned the NIT, though), it still shows that others may not look upon our conference as the best in the land from top to bottom, choosing only to see the teams with the best records and best RPI regardless of conference affiliation.

[walkaway]

Historically the Committee disses Big XII teams -- the league isn't well-thought-of among the "powers", who remain in thrall to the ACC/SEC and spare a thought for other leagues from time to time IMNVHO. There is no doubt in my mind that it's a matter of exposure, and so long as no Big XII school is on the out-of-conference schedule of at *least* three teams from the SEC/ACC every year for four or five years running, and *beats* those teams, the disrespect for the league will go on unabated. It's not fair; it just "is what it is." The Committee is not enamoured of the Pac10, Mountain West, or Big 10(11), either; the Committee is awash in its emotional attachment to Duke, UNC, and UCONN. In the old SWC days, it wasn't uncommon to do better, statistically, in the NC2As than the schools do now in the bigger league; but the SWC is gone and forgotten, is it not?

Personally I see a solution nobody will like -- get every school in the Big XII to have a home-and-home with any three of the following: LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, Maryland, Florida, NC-State, UNC, Penn, Duke and/or UCONN for at least three years, and preferably five years, running; to make it even better, every Big XII team in those series should win the majority of those games. Let Stanford and Hawaii fend for themselves for awhile; don't go to the tourneys overseas -- seriously, don't go, because the "darlings" don't play in those tourneys -- and concentrate on playing to win against the so-called high-value opponents. Goestenkors thinks it's ridiculous for her team to have two bouts with Duke, Maryland and UNC in one season? Let her play three seasons in the Big XII South, and then she can whine and I'll feel bad for her. The OU/KSU/TTU/TAMU/UT rotation is as tough as anything in the nation, year-in year-out. No, there aren't a ton of 6'7'' Allison Bales players in the Big XII; so what? The ACC and SEC don't have the Paris twins. Or Abi Olajuwon. Or Alesha Robertson. Or Morenike Atunrase, A'Quonesia Franklin, Jenna Plumley, Leah Rush, Brittaney Raven, Earnisha Bailey or Earnesia Williams, let alone Kelly Kohn, Jelena Spiric, Jasmina Ilic, Claire Coggins, Eetisha Riddle, and their teammates to contend with, either. The ACC's RPI feeds off itself in a kind of incestuous reverberation? This -- or a major realignment of schools in conferences nationwide -- may be the sole solution. Right now everything is weighted towards a select handful of schools, mostly in the ACC and SEC, and the only way to overcome that is to schedule those giants at our houses -- and kill 'em on our floors.

After last year, with this year looking worse, I don't expect Tech to get a bid unless they win out from here, and they may not then. I have said from the beginning that they needed to be a 20-win team to play in March. Others have gently poo-poohed my thinking on this, but despite my heart's desire, I don't see Tech getting asked. And since they turned down the NIT last year they may not get a chance there either. (Yes, I know the situation is different). But -- I think, realistically, you can stick a fork in our post-season chances UNLESS we win out and make the Big XII tournament finals -- and I'd feel better if we won the tournament, too.

[H2H]

Last year the Big 12 was #4 in overall RPI we are #2 this year and I don't see us giving that up. That will be the difference from last year.

[YCN]

I think at this point, the Big 12 looks like there are five guarantees for the tourney....OU, A&M, Baylor, Nebraska and ISU. I think that's all the invitations the conference will receive unless something drastic happens.I agree, those five appear to have done enough already to be in the NCAA's, barring total collapse. I don't see that happening for any of those teams.


You're probably right about the Big XII getting just five in.I'll be very surpised if the Big 12 DOESN'T get at least 7 bids this year.


We will get 6 and maybe 7.

The winner of the UT/TT game gets in for sure. I see Texas beating OSU and I see TT getting ISU. So someone is going 2-1 in the last 3. TT would be at .500 and that gets them in and if UT wins that will get them to 7-9 and with their rpi and SOS they get in.

I think the the basketball world knows how tough this league is and 7-9 will get you in.I don't think you can predict particular outcomes for games this year, that much has been proven when week after week teams that "aren't supposed to win" beat teams that were favored. The winner of the UT/TT game is NOT assured of a bid, but both teams are clearly in the mix. And I wouldn't even begin to guarantee that Texas will beat OSU or Tech beat ISU. I do agree that 7-9 MAY get you in, but the key is what supporting evidence you can provide to the selection committee that makes you more worthy than another team, possibly one with a better conference and/or overall record.


At this point, I wouldn't count any of the middle four in or out. They are certainly among the top 64 and could yet play themselves in (or out). A quick look at the 32 conferences - who gets more than one bid? In addition to the champ - using as a rule of thumb at least .500 in conference and about 20 wins and top 50 rpi - SouthEast, Big 12, ACC get 4; Big East gets 5; Big10, PAC10, Colonial, Mountain West and A10 get 2; SunBelt gets 1.

exceptions - I put Rutgers in from the Big East with fewer than 20 wins and didn't put Army in with 20 wins (rpi 148)

That's 28 out of 32 leaving 4 slots open to argue. We might win one of those giving us a max of six teams.There are no rules of thumb regarding total wins or conference record. Teams have gotten at-large invites into the NCAA tournament with 16 wins, and at 4 games below .500 in conference play. Those are only things that the committee considers, but they aren't at the top of their criteria. Just two years ago Gonzaga was 27-3 overall, unbeaten in regular season conference games, had an RPI of 48, and didn't get in. Last year Missouri had 6 conference losses and was 21-9 overall; had only one win all year over a team in the top 25 OR top 50; and lost to a team outside the RPI top 100. And they got invited. And promptly lost in the first round.


Although it was absolutely rubbish that only 4 got in (we owned the NIT, though), it still shows that others may not look upon our conference as the best in the land from top to bottom, choosing only to see the teams with the best records and best RPI regardless of conference affiliation.Best record has something to do with it, but it isn't one of the top criteria. A good RPI and evidence that you have the capability of beating at-large tournament teams, a strong and competitive conference; those things matter more than absolute W-L records.


Historically the Committee disses Big XII teams -- the league isn't well-thought-of among the "powers", who remain in thrall to the ACC/SEC and spare a thought for other leagues from time to time IMNVHO. There is no doubt in my mind that it's a matter of exposure, and so long as no Big XII school is on the out-of-conference schedule of at *least* three teams from the SEC/ACC every year for four or five years running, and *beats* those teams, the disrespect for the league will go on unabated. It's not fair; it just "is what it is." The Committee is not enamoured of the Pac10, Mountain West, or Big 10(11), either; the Committee is awash in its emotional attachment to Duke, UNC, and UCONN.I've left out much of what is in your post, walkaway, but I think you have a number of things wrong in your perception about several things.

Historically the selection committee puts the teams that they believe are most deserving into the tournament. There is no discernable conference bias that I can see. OTOH, the polls are definitely predisposed to favoring some conferences and teams over others, but the selection committee doesn't use the polls - they aren't even allowed into the deliberation room. The committee consists of professionals from a bunch of conferences, there's no singular enamorment to any of them.

The Big 12 didn't play a strong non-conference schedule as a group this year, and that seems to be a long-term trend. The issues involved in this are myriad, but there's no doubt that if the Big 12 teams all made a commitment to play at least one high-profile opponent in non-conference play, and to bring the number of walkover opponents down to an absolute minimum, that the Big 12 quite possibly would challenge for the best conference RPI in a lot of years. Yet even with a weaker non-conference schedule this year, the Big 12 ranks second behind only the SEC this year - and by only about two-thirds of ONE PERCENT. That's a negligible margin.

Some of the reasons for our less than stellar schedules may include: travel costs, refusal of high profile teams to play Big 12 teams (for whatever reason), coaches' and administrators' fears that additional non-conference losses may keep their teams out of the NCAA tournament AND/OR cost them their jobs, etc.

All the Big 12 has to do to get respect is earn it. We've earned some respect by how competitive our conference has been this year, but you earn much more in the postseason, specifically the NCAA tournament. Last year the Big 12 had two teams reach the third round, and that's it.

Look at the RPI's in the Big 12 from 1-12 by RPI rank from this year and last:

Baylor 9, Oklahoma 5
Oklahoma 15, Baylor 10
Texas A&M 27, Texas A&M 28
Nebraska 29, Kansas State 52
Texas 30, Texas 55
Iowa State 34, Texas Tech 63
Texas Tech 38, Missouri 64
Missouri 45, Iowa State 73
Kansas State 58, Nebraska 78
Oklahoma State 72, Kansas 107
Colorado 91, Colorado 203
Kansas 122, Oklahoma State 224

That's an amazing contrast. The average team RPI ranking in the Big 12 was 80.2 last year. This year the average is 47.5. Frankly, I think the Big 12 was lucky to get 4 bids last year.

I would accept the concept of fewer than 7 teams invited this year. But with so many teams ranked so highly (9 in the RPI top 58, 8 in the top 45), losing to another team may damage your chances, but it enhances someone else's in the process. Losing to Colorado, Kansas or Oklahoma State would be the most damaging, but everyone strives to win down the stretch, and losing to any of the other teams is merely a setback, not a fatal blow.

Texas Tech is 15-12 with an RPI of 38, and likely needs to win two of three with a conference tournament win, or one of three with at least two conference tournament wins. It will not be lost that many of Tech's losses were close games to teams that will be invited to the NCAA tournament. Get 18 wins, and they are in.

Texas is 16-11 with an impressive RPI of 30 (and SOS of 8). But they've been struggling mightily down the stretch, winning only 3 of their last 10. They are in a similar situation to Tech, but going 6-10 in conference play could get them in with two conference tournament wins - or it might not. To ensure a berth, they need to finish 7-9 in conference play and advance to the conference quarterfinals. They have 2 top 25 wins and 5 top 50 wins overall. Those are credentials, but they have to heat up before the season is over, else welcome to the WNIT.

Kansas State is on the critical list. Even winning out might not get them into the tournament with 20 or 21 wins. Win out into the conference semi's and they should be in. I don't think it's going to happen.

Oklahoma State needs to win 2 of 3, and then beat somebody decent in the Big 12 tournament to have a chance. Anything better than that, and their chances improve greatly.

Missouri, the strange, semi-dormant team of so many weeks, has to win out in Big 12 play (including winning at Oklahoma) to have a chance, unless they make a run into the the Big 12 semis and win 2 of 3. Then, they will still have only a chance. But they have more hope than KSU does, because they just beat Nebraska at their house.

BTW, Charlie Creme at ESPN likes to downplay the effect of RPI rank upon chances for selection, but there's no doubt that it's a significant indicator of relative worth. If historical trends are a clue, being in the RPI top 30, or even top 40, is a VERY strong indicator that you will be invited, providing that you aren't more than 4 games below .500 in conference play and have a winning overall record. It's not a guarantee, but same week that Creme dismissed the RPI as just a tool, his own tournament selections included 40 teams that were currently ranked in the top 40 of the RPI. That's exactly 100%.

[H2H]

YCN- totally agree with you...I was just doing my early predictions on a couple games, you are correct that anything can happen and has happened this year.

I would disagree with you on this- Kansas State, CU, MU and KU have only one chance of the NCAA dance....win the Big 12 Tourney..PERIOD!!!

OSU needs to 2 out of the last 3 in the league or you can add them to the list above.

[sybarite]

That is far too many words for me to read without receiving at least some sort of certificate.

There is no reason to think that the Big Twelve would receive more than five offers due to image, except for one thing. It is very difficult to look at the middle tier teams in other conferences and try to justify why they should even be in the NIT.

[DblT81]

Great work YCN.


I seem to recall something odd about Virginia's participation in the NCAA tournament on more than one occasion. They have gotten in with some sort of odd record thing to the exclusion of almost all other teams in NCAA history.

Does anyone remember what it is? Losing conference record? Less than 18 wins?

[tx4OU]

That is far too many words for me to read without receiving at least some sort of certificate.


:D Ok, that made me laugh.

[dem]

I've checked over the records since 1999-2000 of the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC, and Big East.

The worst conference record that made it into the NCAA tournament during that period was 6-8. That was in the SEC and the ACC, several different times, with corresponding RPI's of 16, 17, 24, 28, 30, and 32. That same 6-8 record did NOT make it in with RPI's of 22 (same year as 17 made it), 60, and 115.

Worst in the Big 12 to make it was 7-9, with RPI's of 26 and 45. That same record did NOT make it with RPI's of 58, 65, 74, and 104.

No teams in the Big 10 or Big East made it in with a losing conference record.

No teams with winning conference records from the SEC or ACC missed the tournament during this period. Only two did from the Big 12 (9-7, RPI 63 and RPI 87), and several did from the Big 10 (9-7 with 52, 58, 66) and Big East (9-7 with 35, 45, 57, 67, 78, 87, and 10-6 (!) with 54 and 79).

For the Big 12, 8-8 records got in with 12 and 46, but did not with 52, 61, 71, and 78.

Up until last year, I was convinced that the Committee would never exclude a team with a sub-20 RPI. That was until Western Kentucky was left out with an RPI of 17. I don't suppose that would happen with a power conference, but who knows.

For the Big 12, I think 8-8 with a sub-40 RPI makes it in but this year, I wouldn't count on 7-9 getting in without a sub-30 RPI and maybe not even then.

[tycat947]

I think Texas has to go 2-1 in remaining games and win at least one in tourney to get invite. This is very doable but the Horns have been very sporadic recently and it's no guarantee. I know UT beat Purdue, OU and A&M, but do they have a significant road victory? Tech has less margin of error and maybe the UT-Tech winner this weekend gets the nod. I can't remember Tech's nonconference schedule but I don't remember them having any really significant wins. UCLA was kinda borderline but they've really stunk up the year so, just as OU, it doesn't count much in terms of quality win to me. Anything can happen and if UT, Tech, OSU, KSU or MU get on a five game or longer winning streak to end the season, of course, their chances rise dramatically but chances of that happening are really low.

It's too bad that CU probably won't get an NIT bid because of their overall losing record (they really had a bad stretch right before conference season began) because they would really deserve based on their level of play in Big 12 conference.

I still think that the Big 12 has five guaranteed (as guaranteed as you can be!) and at most six. Not saying they aren't deserving just saying that the committee will only invite six.

[dem]

I seem to recall something odd about Virginia's participation in the NCAA tournament on more than one occasion. They have gotten in with some sort of odd record thing to the exclusion of almost all other teams in NCAA history.

Does anyone remember what it is? Losing conference record? Less than 18 wins?

Here's the recent history with Virginia:

2005-2006: OUT, RPI 42, 18-11, 5-9
2004-2005: IN, RPI 15, 20-10, 8-6
2003-2004: OUT, RPI 73, 13-16, 6-10
2002-2003: IN, RPI 39, 16-13, 9-7
2001-2002: IN, RPI 33, 17-12, 9-7
2000-2001: IN, RPI 34, 18-13, 8-8
1999-2000: IN, RPI 25, 23-8, 13-3

So, they're one of the few teams to get in with only 16 wins, but they had a winning conference record and an RPI of 39 at the same time. Not really much of an anomaly.

[DblT81]

Dem thanks for looking that up. That was it, I guess, I remember looking last year and there were very few times a team got an at large NCAA bid with less than 18 wins and Virginia did it twice in the last 5 years.

It was about this time last year that I was trying to check every angle to see how it could happen for Tech.

This year my attititude is that Tech must win every game from now on. The terrible game at home against KSU put them in that situation. So if they want to play in the NCAA tournament, they must play better to get there or they can't have it. They've had some bad breaks during this season but they've also had the chance to do better in some games and they've dropped the ball...

Tech = win you're in. Don't win = Woe Not In Tournament

[ChipperF1]

This is a weird feeling, not sweating every RPI point, but I'm nervous because my lasses still face two teams that are sweating those point. Right now, I see 4 Big 12 teams in the tournament at this tournament. Iowa State is very strong, but if they don't get win #20, that could hurt.

Texas Tech needs 5 wins to make the case open-shut. They don't have enough wins now, but could get them. 20 wins could be the key that unlocks the door, 18 or 19 because of the marks against them makes it a judgment call.

Oklahoma State needs maybe even 21 wins to get their ticket, due to RPI concerns the make up of teams they have beaten. The good thing is, they do have some teams that can get a shot at to help boost them up.

Texas strength is they've played some people and beaten them, the problem is that when they have lost, they've looked bad doing it. Losing to Kansas means they'll need make power climb all the way to Oklahoma City. They took a credibility hit that may not show as deep in the spreadsheets but it plays on the mind of the committee.

Kansas State -- dying. The Gipson injury will factor into committee's decision and they could be deemed noncompetitive unless they show otherwise.

Missouri -- dying Beating Nebraska may have extended their chances, but they need to win the rest of the regular conference slate and then make sure they have a need for a change of clothes in Oklahoma City.

This year's conference tournament may have more passion that it ever had. A lot of teams have a lot to play for and they all have to meet.

[Bob_Ballew]

I say we have to go out and earn the respect that we all crave. Baylor did it two years ago. We may not have gotten the amount of respect we feel is deserved, but I think ANY Big XII team could take out several of the conference champs in the various leagues. We're still a young conference and I think we have made great strides. We just need to tune out some of the biased media and show them what this conference is really all about. I like being the underdog sometimes. I do remember beating (3) Three Number One Seeds to get the championship. Along with it came some strong recruits and there are many of the top recruits currently considering Baylor as a result of the 2005 run. I think with the coaches in this league, we will be considered a power conference very soon. :D

[vickie1ok]

I think the problem is the Big 12 is not top heavy like the ACC or SEC but from top to bottom, they are probably the best.

[tycat947]

Vickie, I think you're right! But it's not probably but definitely! No other conference can even begin to argue about it!

[YCN]

Through 2005, there were 41 teams that had been selected to the NCAA tournament with at-large bids that had won fewer than 18 games.

I've found one team that was 3 games under .500 in conference play that was invited, but I've barely started looking. (Georgia in 1993: 4-7, 21-13)

The point is, there is no hard-and-fast rule for how many conference wins are required, and one team got an at-large bid with a 14-14 overall record (Monmouth in 1983!). I can visualize situations where a team could be 4 under in conference play and still be worthy of a bid, although the circumstances would be exceptional.

[vickie1ok]

Vickie, I think you're right! But it's not probably but definitely! No other conference can even begin to argue about it!

That's why it's hard to predict the last stretch run. We know who the higher ranked teams are but that doesn't mean they will win. KU is in the cellar but beat TU in Austin. OSU has made an incredible comeback from last year. And on, and on. I just hope come tourney time, the selection committee will recognize that.

[swok34]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/bracketology

According to Creme:

Texas A & M #4 seed
Oklahoma #4 seed
Baylor #5 seed
Nebraska #7 seed
Iowa State #11 seed
Texas #11 seed

LAST FOUR OUT
Auburn
West Virginia
Texas Tech
New Mexico

NEXT FOUR OUT
TCU
Southern California
Virginia Tech
Kansas State

BIDS BY CONFERENCE
Big East (7)
Big 12 (6)
SEC (6)
ACC (6)
Pac-10 (4)
Colonial (4)
Big Ten (3)
Atlantic 10 (3)
Mid-American (2)
Sun Belt (2)

A new bracket is also due out today from Jerry Palm (he's putting out a new one every Tuesday)

[H2H]

I'll take Texas Tech over GT (they have one good win over MD on 46 FT's so they should have won) or FSU (lost to a 207 RPI San Fran and has beat a bad UVA team twice for their so called quality wins and beat GT, please) :TTU: anyday, any court.

[YCN]

Creme has Montana as a #9 seed while Iowa State is a #11.

Iowa State is 19-7 with the #34 RPI, 60 SOS, one loss outside the top 100 (142 Pepperdine), three top 50 wins, and has played 15 top 100 opponents.

Montana is 24-2 with the #45 RPI, 217 SOS, one loss outside the top 100 (160 Weber State), no top 50 wins, and has played 21 teams outside the top 100. None of the teams that they've beaten has won a game against a top 50 team, although one team they lost to has: Weber State split two games with Montana for the only top 50 win for the entire Big Sky Conference (the Big 12 has 50 of them)

In addition to that, Montana is getting the 27th and 28th most votes in the polls, and close to being ranked. Guess Creme isn't the only one drinking the koolaid. I wonder how many of those poll voters have even seen Montana play?

[H2H]

I'll take an #11 over an 8 or 9 any day as a coach. There is no #3 in the the country that would want to see Ia. St. or Texas as a 2nd rd. game, you would be pissed as a 3 is you got that draw.

[sybarite]

The Big East has seven? Other than Connecticut and Rutgers, who? I guess that Louisville has been ranked all year, which has been a joke based on their schedule. DePaul has collapsed with a short bench. Pittsburgh did beat Marquette early, in Pitt. Marquette is probably a legitimate entry. DePaul, Louisville, Notre Dame, and Pitt couldn't finish in the top seven in the Big Twelve. The conference is a joke this year. They have hardly any wins over even decent non-conference opposition.

[YCN]

I'll take an #11 over an 8 or 9 any day as a coach. There is no #3 in the the country that would want to see Ia. St. or Texas as a 2nd rd. game, you would be pissed as a 3 is you got that draw.
If you are a coach, you want that 11 seed if your only reason for being in tournament is to get to the third round.

But a team should be an 8 because it's one of the best 32 teams in the field, not as punishment for not being one. There's a reason that a 1 plays an 8, a 2 plays a 7, a 3 plays a 6, and a 4 plays a 5 in the second round: because higher seeds are SUPPOSED to have a more favorable road to the second weekend. If a team that should be a 12 seed is made an 8 instead, it only increases the advantage of the higher seed.

Personally, if I want to win the tournament, I want that #1 seed as the second game of the weekend, either in the second round or regional final, because they can't just game plan for one team for that round. When you give team that good several days to prepare to play one team in the opening game of the weekend, it only enhances their advantage.

So give me that 2-3, or 7-8-9-10 seed. I'll gladly take it.

[H2H]

I understand what you are saying. I just made my comment on the bracket that is projected.

I guess I shouldn't have said 'any day' it depend on how my team is playing. If we are firing on aspects of our game, give me a 1 seed in my 2nd rd. and let's try for an upset. But if we were so so, I would rather have that 3 seed and hope that NCAA tourney got them going to make a little run.

But if you were the coach of ASU or GW and saw Ia. St. or Texas in rd. 2 you wouldn't be a very happy camper!

[YCN]

But if you were the coach of ASU or GW and saw Ia. St. or Texas in rd. 2 you wouldn't be a very happy camper!
Very true! :)

[Bball Girl]

I think the Big 12 doesn't always get the respect because of our recent success or lack there of in the NCAAs. Until we get 3 or 4 teams in the Elite 8 - we're not going to be compared to the SEC or ACC favorably. It isn't enough to get the seeding (we've had that), we've got to finish. I agree with Zo - Baylor finished, OU finished by getting to the NC game, Texas got to the Final 4..but too often we've not made it as far as our seeding...KSU comes to mind. Heck Tech was seeded #1, lost to Notre Dame at home in Lubbock :(

Last year was not exactly an impressive performance in the NCAAs for the Big 12. We had 4 teams (did I miss anyone) and 2 lost in the 1st round. 2 got as far as the Sweet 16 but both lost - one of them should have gotten into the Elite 8.

Missouri lost the first round to Va Tech
Oklahoma lost Stanford in the Sweet 16
Texas A&M lost in the first round to #11 seed TCU
Baylor lost in the Sweet 16 to the eventual champs Maryland

The ACC had 3 teams in the Final 4
The SEC had 1 team in the Final 4, 2 teams in the Elite 8

We'll get more respect when we win in the NCAAs and have 3 or 4 or more teams in the Sweet 16. We've done it before - we had OU, CU and Tech all in the Sweet 16 all in the same region.

At the same time...I'm not quite ready to worry about the NCAAs. I want to see what Tech does against TAMU and Texas and then I'll worry (or not).

[YCN]

I think the Big 12 doesn't always get the respect because of our recent success or lack there of in the NCAAs. Until we get 3 or 4 teams in the Elite 8 - we're not going to be compared to the SEC or ACC favorably. It isn't enough to get the seeding (we've had that), we've got to finish. I agree with Zo - Baylor finished, OU finished by getting to the NC game, Texas got to the Final 4..but too often we've not made it as far as our seeding...KSU comes to mind. Heck Tech was seeded #1, lost to Notre Dame at home in Lubbock :(

Last year was not exactly an impressive performance in the NCAAs for the Big 12. We had 4 teams (did I miss anyone) and 2 lost in the 1st round. 2 got as far as the Sweet 16 but both lost - one of them should have gotten into the Elite 8.

Missouri lost the first round to Va Tech
Oklahoma lost Stanford in the Sweet 16
Texas A&M lost in the first round to #11 seed TCU
Baylor lost in the Sweet 16 to the eventual champs Maryland

The ACC had 3 teams in the Final 4
The SEC had 1 team in the Final 4, 2 teams in the Elite 8

We'll get more respect when we win in the NCAAs and have 3 or 4 or more teams in the Sweet 16. We've done it before - we had OU, CU and Tech all in the Sweet 16 all in the same region.

At the same time...I'm not quite ready to worry about the NCAAs. I want to see what Tech does against TAMU and Texas and then I'll worry (or not).
There were five Big 12 teams in the Sweet Sixteen in 2002, and I won't forget how I felt that the brackets were horribly gerrymandered that year. With 7 Big 12 teams in the tournament, there was one (Kansas State) in the Mideast Regional, one (Iowa State) in the Midwest Regional, two (Texas and Baylor) in the East Regional, and three (Oklahoma, Colorado, Texas Tech) in the West Regional.

That meant there were five Big 12 teams in the East-West half of the bracket, and two in the Mideast-Midwest half. Oklahoma (27-3) was the #2 overall seed in the tournament, while Vanderbilt was #3, yet Oklahoma was sent to Boise along with 2 other Big 12 teams, while Vandy played along with #2 Tennessee in Ames. I hated the injustice of that. Oklahoma was better than either team and the higher seed, yet the SEC team got the preferential treatment. Oklahoma had been in the Sweet Sixteen both of the previous two years, and was the seedings favorite to play UConn in the championship game. But the West was the Big 12 wipeout regional, although it was downright ugly to put three Big 12 teams there. Colorado knocked out Stanford while OU was given the unpleasant regional semifinal task of knocking Tech out. Then OU topped CU to get to the Final Four, clubbed Duke in the semis, then lost a very good game in the Final to UConn, who finished 39-0.

Five of seven Big 12 teams matched or exceeded their overall tournament seedings that year, and at the end of the year all seven of them were ranked in the top 17 of both polls.

We could see another finish like that as soon as next year. Or maybe even better.

[dem]

For the Big 12, 8-8 records got in with 12 and 46, but did not with 52, 61, 71, and 78...For the Big 12, I think 8-8 with a sub-40 RPI makes it in but this year, I wouldn't count on 7-9 getting in without a sub-30 RPI and maybe not even then.

The Des Moines Register claimed that "In the last 10 seasons, every team that has won 20 games and finished at least 8-8 in the Big 12 has been selected to the NCAA Tournament." However, In 2002-2003, Baylor was 8-8 and 20-10 but did not receive an at-large bid. Their RPI was 61.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070220/SPORTS02060102/702200416/1003/SPORTS

[YCN]

The Des Moines Register claimed that "In the last 10 seasons, every team that has won 20 games and finished at least 8-8 in the Big 12 has been selected to the NCAA Tournament." However, In 2002-2003, Baylor was 8-8 and 20-10 but did not receive an at-large bid. Their RPI was 61.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070220/SPORTS02060102/702200416/1003/SPORTS
There was much discussion that year on Hoopscoop about whether or not Baylor would get a bid, or whether they deserved to get one.

17 of Baylor's 20 wins were against teams ranked outside the RPI top 100. They did have one very good win at home, beating RPI #5 Texas Tech in overtime. However, they immediately polluted that win by losing to #147 Oklahoma State in their next game. They were only 5-5 in their last 10, and their other two top 100 wins were at 66 UCLA and 87 Missouri at home, in the first Big 12 game of their season.

I think the general consensus here was that regardless of whether or not we thought Baylor was good enough to get a bid, that their chances were in serious jeopardy because of the shallow nature of their credentials. I don't think very many were shocked when their name wasn't called, although Baylor was certainly upset. Baylor hasn't had such a weak non-conference schedule since, however, and has made the NCAA's each of the last three years, and will certainly be invited again this year.

Washington may have been the only team invited with a weaker SOS than Baylor that year, but they were 22-7 with a 13-5 record in the Pac-10, 6-4 in their last 10 games, had two top 25 wins and an RPI of 46. All were factors in their favor over Baylor. Their SOS was 100 to Baylor's 97.

Also, Baylor ended up 24-11 in 2003, losing in the WNIT final to Auburn by a single point. That run helped launch them on their continuing run of NCAA success.

[dem]

I think the Committee might actually have done them a favor by keeping them out that year. It pretty much stopped Kim's practice of playing an all-cupcake-all-the-time preconference schedule (since they were obviously being punished for it), and perhaps helped them to up the intensity in a way that fueled their rise.


The pattern for the last eight years has been clear in that if your RPI is over 40 you're a bit worried; over 50, deeply concerned; over 60, in critical jeopardy; and over 70, dead in the water. Palm has Iowa State with a "projected" RPI of 45 so I am definitely worried, even though they sit at a very nice 28 right now.

[tx4OU]

Remember also, the selection committee ways heavily on the games in February. When there are teams sitting on the bubble, they look at how teams have performed coming down the stretch, so it's better to be peaking at the end of the season than having quality wins scattered at the beginning of the season (although the latter is important to just be eligible for bubble consideration)

[dem]

That's absolutely right. The best time to get "quality" wins is in the conference tournament. You can really get smacked by the Committee if you have a bad tournament.