ISU At-Large Bids

[ricohill]

Since there is nothing to do on a cold winters night I wanted to take a look at ISU's 2 at-large bids they have received vs. 2008 and 2017 that did not get a bid. There is a perception (that I do kind of agree with) that mid-majors aren't getting a fair shake and ISU was screwed those two years. So I looked at top 100 rpi wins, since those are what you need to get an at-large. This doesn't include anything past MVC tournament each year.

1984 - 36 RPI - ISU played 29 games and 13 of those were against top 100 competition (44.8% of games against top tier teams).
-3-3 against top 50 - 5-2 against 51-100 = 8-5 record against all top 100 teams = 65% winning percentage.
3-0 at home, 4-3 away, and 1-2 in neutral site games.

1985 - 36 RPI ISU played 28 games and 12 against top 100 teams (42.8%).
-2-2 against top 50 - 6-2 against 51-100 = 8-4 record against top 100 teams. = 66.6% winning percentage.
4-2 home, 2-2 away, 2-0 neutral

2008 - 33 RPI ISU played 33 games and 10 against top 100 teams. (30%)
-2-5 against top 50 - 3-0 against 51-100 = 5-5 = 50%
3-1 at home, 2-1 away, 0-3 neutral.

2017 - 33 RPI ISU played 33 games and 6 against top 100 teams (18.1%)
1-2 against 1--50 and 1-2 against 51-100 -= 2-4 record against top 100 = 33.3% winning percentage
2-0 at home, 0-2 away, 0-2 neutral

It is really interesting how much stronger the resume's were of the 84 and 85 teams that got bids. When you put it in perspective those teams played so many more top 100 teams and won a significantly higher percentage against those teams. Won home, away, and neutral site games. Really in perspective the 2017 had the weakest resume of all the at-large teams. It kind of knocks down the myth that Muller is playing a very tough schedule. This season there is a very good chance we don't even play a top 50 team. My point being if you want an at-large bid you have to beat good teams and ISU in 2017 didn't beat enough to get in.

 

[bb fan]

The NCAA tourney world changed drastically in 2006.

 

[gobirds72]

The NCAA tourney world changed drastically in 2006.

Yeah, the changes force you to win! What a crazy concept! They could have a red, white and blue division! And have participation champions! We have the talent on our schedule...just need to win!

 

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

The NCAA tourney world changed drastically in 2006.

Yeah, the changes force you to win! What a crazy concept! They could have a red, white and blue division! And have participation champions! We have the talent on our schedule...just need to win!

:text-+1:

 

[The Beak]

The NCAA tourney world changed drastically in 2006.

Yeah, the changes force you to win! What a crazy concept! They could have a red, white and blue division! And have participation champions! We have the talent on our schedule...just need to win!

:text-+1:

Dude talking to himself.

 

[Birdswin]

The Valley was much stronger back in the 80's with several teams consistently in the Top 20 (now Top 25) - more opportunities to play "stronger" teams. Also, recruiting was different - did not have near the influence of AAU coaches and agents.

 

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

Yeah, the changes force you to win! What a crazy concept! They could have a red, white and blue division! And have participation champions! We have the talent on our schedule...just need to win!

:text-+1:

Dude talking to himself.

Believe or not I'm not the only one with a differing viewpoint. Just the most vocal.

 

[RedbirdSoxFan]

ESPN changed College Basketball when it started back in the early 80’s and it promoted what is now the Power 5 conferences. All the top high school players wanted to be on TV so they chose to go to those schools. The Power 5 conferences were now starting to get the money from ESPN which also helped both legally, and illegally in recruiting the top players. Schools like Tulsa, Wichita St, Illinois St, DePaul found it more difficult to recruit the top players. And now TV & the Power 5 conference pretty much has control over NCAA basketball.

 

[Phantom]

Reasoning for it is simple. As mentioned above, the MVC was a great league with some national powers in those days. Every game was big. In 2008 we probably would've snuck in if we didn't get absolutely nuked by Drake in the title game. Probably the same in 2017 too. However, in both 2008 and 2017, we did not have enough quality wins and that was compounded by more than one bad loss. I don't think we got snubbed in '17. I said it in January of that year that we'd have to win in STL to get in. Had we not gotten destroyed by WSU twice...then maybe. But otherwise, we simply didn't do enough to get in.

 

[ChiRedbirdfan]

Follow the money! The financial success/disparity between the various conferences is the biggest driver of change over time. The annual disparity (revenue) is getting so large and the resource gap (facilities and ability to buy/take good coaches away) so great that it is nearly impossible to compete. There are many individual P5 athletic departments that now bring in more revenue then the MVC athletic departments combined revenue. The scary thing is that there seems to be no end in sight in the ever widening financial/resource disparity.

 

[ricohill]

The one thing that stood out to me looking back at the schedules from the 3 NCAA Tournament teams was Donewald's willingness to go on the road and play tough competition in their non-conference schedule.

Played at Illinois, DePaul, Pittsburgh (Top 100 team the year they played), Indiana, Providence (Top 100). Plus, a couple top 100 teams in Holiday Classic Tournaments at Neutral sites. ISU might not be able to get those specific teams, but I would guarantee they could play similar competition.

I don't have the time to post it now, but 2006 is mentioned as the turning point for mid-majors. Just glancing at it, those teams played tough non-conference competition and won games. That led to having a large group of top 50 teams. Which led to a ton of top 50 and 100 wins.

I'm more convinced than ever the mid-majors are hurting themselves by refusing to go play tough teams. The argument that if they won't come to play us or we won't play them isn't going to help the situation. If you are in the MVC and all the teams are bad like they are this season, you have to go out and play elite teams wherever you can play them.

 

[SgtHulka]

The one thing that stood out to me looking back at the schedules from the 3 NCAA Tournament teams was Donewald's willingness to go on the road and play tough competition in their non-conference schedule.

Played at Illinois, DePaul, Pittsburgh (Top 100 team the year they played), Indiana, Providence (Top 100). Plus, a couple top 100 teams in Holiday Classic Tournaments at Neutral sites. ISU might not be able to get those specific teams, but I would guarantee they could play similar competition.

I don't have the time to post it now, but 2006 is mentioned as the turning point for mid-majors. Just glancing at it, those teams played tough non-conference competition and won games. That led to having a large group of top 50 teams. Which led to a ton of top 50 and 100 wins.

I'm more convinced than ever the mid-majors are hurting themselves by refusing to go play tough teams. The argument that if they won't come to play us or we won't play them isn't going to help the situation. If you are in the MVC and all the teams are bad like they are this season, you have to go out and play elite teams wherever you can play them.

Also, in the early Donewald years we were an independent so scheduling also differed in that the non con was our entire schedule

 

[Phantom]

I don't know the exact number but there were a lot of mid majors in the '06 tourney. The Valley put FOUR teams in, two of which went to the Sweet 16. That was also the year George Mason went to the Final 4. The Committee has been trying to prevent such heresy ever since. That's why when mids go on runs in the tourney, it just feels a little sweeter.

 

[ricohill]

What I found interesting is looking at 2006 MVC vs.2017 and now is the simple fact that MVC teams don't beat top 100 teams.

Non-conference vs. Top 100

2006 Non-Conference (30 games total)
1-50 the league was 6-7 (46% winning %) - 51-100 the league was 9-8 (52%) = 15-15 record = 50%

2017 Non-Conference (31 games total)
1-50 the league was 1-16 (5%) - 51-100 the league was 4-10 (28.5%) = 16.1% vs. top 100 teams

2018-19 Current (18 games)
vs 1-50 the league is 0-5 (0%) - 51-100 the league is 4-9 (30.7%) = 22.2% vs. top 100 teams

 

[bb fan]

Winning and being a great team has mattered less and less since 2006. Being a P5 has become everything since 2006. That was the last year of true parity, and giving all programs a shot based on how good the teams are. And to those who say the Valley is not as good, the league's two final fours came since 2006. The Valley has one 12 straight first round games. Many of those wins against the ever increasing middling undeserving P5 teams that have been getting those at-large bids.

The success of the non P5's in 2006 sent a huge message to the P5's, big media and big money. They stopped making it about how actually good, and deserving the teams are. And make it all about us (the P5's).

 

[ricohill]

I do agree it has become more difficult to get an at-large bid. However, I do think it's tough to say the league is worthy of multiple teams when you only win 16% of your games against other at-large contenders. If you aren't beating top 50 or top 100 teams, why would the committee give you a bid when you prove over the course of a season you can't beat them?

I get that it is a team by team argument on selection Sunday, but if the league can't raise it's level and beat those teams then the whole league suffers. It also means you have to find a way to play top 50 teams to make up for playing lower tier teams in the MVC.

 

[bb fan]

Rico, I don't think anybody that has been involved in the selection metrics or process since 2006 has any clue, or would care about the stats you are submitting. And they don't care about the numbers I posted -- ACTUAL RESULTS.

As long as we are not a P5, it is gonna take moving heaven and earth, or maybe an act of congress to get an at-large. It has almost nothing to do with the actual strength of the team.

Good for Bradley, and 3 other MVC teams that they were decent in 2006. Actually a great case could have been made for Missouri State that year as well. Because timing is everything, that ended up being the last season there was any parity and fairness in the selection process. Timing and breaks mean a lot, two factors we never seem to have.

 

[RedbirdSoxFan]

Rico, I don't think anybody that has been involved in the selection metrics or process since 2006 has any clue, or would care about the stats you are submitting. And they don't care about the numbers I posted -- ACTUAL RESULTS.

As long as we are not a P5, it is gonna take moving heaven and earth, or maybe an act of congress to get an at-large. It has almost nothing to do with the actual strength of the team.

Good for Bradley, and 3 other MVC teams that they were decent in 2006. Actually a great case could have been made for Missouri State that year as well. Because timing is everything, that ended up being the last season there was any parity and fairness in the selection process. Timing and breaks mean a lot, two factors we never seem to have.

Four schools getting in the tournament in 2006 was fixed by the committee in the same way the FCS fixed what happened in Frisco in 2015.

 

[BTbird]

What I found interesting is looking at 2006 MVC vs.2017 and now is the simple fact that MVC teams don't beat top 100 teams.

Non-conference vs. Top 100

2006 Non-Conference (30 games total)
1-50 the league was 6-7 (46% winning %) - 51-100 the league was 9-8 (52%) = 15-15 record = 50%

2017 Non-Conference (31 games total)
1-50 the league was 1-16 (5%) - 51-100 the league was 4-10 (28.5%) = 16.1% vs. top 100 teams

2018-19 Current (18 games)
vs 1-50 the league is 0-5 (0%) - 51-100 the league is 4-9 (30.7%) = 22.2% vs. top 100 teams

Just curious, does the site you are getting these stats from break out if the MVC team was playing at home/away/neutral. One argument against wins against top 50 and top 100 teams is that we don't often get a chance to play them in our own gym.

Also, how is it counting the teams within the MVC? eg. in 2017, is the 1 win against a top 50 team us beating Wichita?

 

[ricohill]

What I found interesting is looking at 2006 MVC vs.2017 and now is the simple fact that MVC teams don't beat top 100 teams.

Non-conference vs. Top 100

2006 Non-Conference (30 games total)
1-50 the league was 6-7 (46% winning %) - 51-100 the league was 9-8 (52%) = 15-15 record = 50%

2017 Non-Conference (31 games total)
1-50 the league was 1-16 (5%) - 51-100 the league was 4-10 (28.5%) = 16.1% vs. top 100 teams

2018-19 Current (18 games)
vs 1-50 the league is 0-5 (0%) - 51-100 the league is 4-9 (30.7%) = 22.2% vs. top 100 teams

Just curious, does the site you are getting these stats from break out if the MVC team was playing at home/away/neutral. One argument against wins against top 50 and top 100 teams is that we don't often get a chance to play them in our own gym.

Also, how is it counting the teams within the MVC? eg. in 2017, is the 1 win against a top 50 team us beating Wichita?

These are all non-conference. It's the NCAA RPI website. It breaks it down, but would have to do some work to get that info.

The one top 50 win in 2017 was Indiana State over Butler.