ISU At-Large Bids

[ricohill]

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.

I do believe strength of the team matters. Here is a breakdown of the at-large bids from the MVC from 2007 to current.

2007 SIU - 9-5 against top 50 and 4-1 vs. 51-100 = 13-6 total (68.4%)
2009 Creighton - 2-2 against top 50 and 7-3 against 51-100 = 9-5 (64.2%)
2012 WSU - 2-3 top 50 - 6-1 51-100 = 8-4 (66.6%)
2013 WSU - 3-2 top 50 - 5-3 -51-100 = 8-5 (61.5%)
2015 WSU - 2-2 top 50 - 5-2 - 51-100 = 7-5 (63.6%)
2016 WSU - 1-2 Top 50 - 3-5 51-100 = 4-7 (36.3%)

2008 ISU - 2-5 vs top 50 - 3-0 vs. 51-100 = 5-5 (50%)
2017 ISU - 1-2 vs. top 50 - 1-2 vs. 51-100 = 2-4 (33.3%)

The teams that got at-large bids from the MVC beat good teams. Other than the 2016 WSU team they won more than 60% of their games against top 100 teams.

If there is an argument for ISU in 2017 it is that Wichita got a bid on 2016 with just as weak of a resume.

I agree ISU should have gotten in the tournament in 2017 because the bubble was really weak, but I don't think it is fair to say mid-majors with losing records again the top 100 are getting cheated. Teams that win top games have been rewarded in the MVC.

 

[bb fan]

Rico, all the top 50 and 100 win crap the P5's have put into the formula is just garbage so they can rig the process, as they control all the scheduling. I think you are just being a sucker for slight of hand with the process.

The problem up to 2006 was the RPI was working for everyone. Doug Elgin, among a few others figured it out. Problem was, it was fair. So they made up new crap. And they will continue to make up new crap as needed, so we can get a handful of crappy mediocre middling P5's in there instead of deserving aspiring no P5 programs.

 

[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 9-9 (50%) = 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?

2006
Top 50
4-2 home - 2-2 away - 0-3 neutral
51-100
5-4 - home - 4-5 away (missed one game earlier) - 0-0 neutral
15 home games - 13 road games - 3 neutral

2017
Top 50
1-5 home - 0-5 road - 0-6 neutral
51-100
3-2 home - 1-4 road - 0-4 neutral
11 Home - 10 road - 10 neutral

2018
top 50
0-2 - home - 0-2 away - 0-1 neutral
51-100
2-4 home - 1-3 away - 1-1 neutral
8 home - 6 away - 3 neutral

I was in a hurry and might be 1 or 2 off, but this is pretty close.

 

[Reggie Redbird]

Rico, BB - you guys are both right.

Rico is right that MVC teams have won fewer games against top-50 and top-100 teams. Part of the problem is the decline of teams in our own conference from those levels. WSU and CU left; SIU and others have faltered since the mid-2000s. In addition, top-100 and especially top-100 teams don't want to play us.

BB is right that the selection criteria continues to change. UCF is learning this as they can win 25 straight games and still not get a chance. P5 teams that would give them marquis match-ups are now cancelling games against them. Eventually, UCF becomes like WSU or CU and gets an invite to move up. Like Utah and TCU, they will soon forget here they came from.

Even the early season tournaments have made it harder to get games against the top 25 teams as they play each other in tournaments that only include a token non-P5 team or no P5 team at all. They also schedule many low major teams to pad their win totals.

I am up for going on the road every year to play teams like Indiana, Louisville, UK, ND, Michigan, etc. However, they still have to want to host us and then we have to win some of those games, not slip up against anyone in the non-con, and then have a gaudy conference record.

Then, if we get into the tourney, we either need to have a coach who stays with us at a discount or we're back to rebuilding after that coach heads to the P5.

 

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

If you're consistently good and show you can continue to play on that level aacouple will schedule you each season. Ask Gonzaga. Ask Butler. Bottom line. Be good.

 

[CaliRdBrd]

Rico, BB - you guys are both right.

Rico is right that MVC teams have won fewer games against top-50 and top-100 teams. Part of the problem is the decline of teams in our own conference from those levels. WSU and CU left; SIU and others have faltered since the mid-2000s. In addition, top-100 and especially top-100 teams don't want to play us.

BB is right that the selection criteria continues to change. UCF is learning this as they can win 25 straight games and still not get a chance. P5 teams that would give them marquis match-ups are now cancelling games against them. Eventually, UCF becomes like WSU or CU and gets an invite to move up. Like Utah and TCU, they will soon forget here they came from.

Even the early season tournaments have made it harder to get games against the top 25 teams as they play each other in tournaments that only include a token non-P5 team or no P5 team at all. They also schedule many low major teams to pad their win totals.

I am up for going on the road every year to play teams like Indiana, Louisville, UK, ND, Michigan, etc. However, they still have to want to host us and then we have to win some of those games, not slip up against anyone in the non-con, and then have a gaudy conference record.

Then, if we get into the tourney, we either need to have a coach who stays with us at a discount or we're back to rebuilding after that coach heads to the P5.

100% agree. You have e to figure if we continue to schedule away games against P5 powerhouses, we’ll eventually win one, right? Sometimes that’s all it takes .

 

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

But Muller has to schedule them.

 

[Reggie Redbird]

But Muller has to schedule them.

It was a lot easier earlier in his tenure: UK, Louisville, Maryland, etc. (Maryland part of tourney) than now. P5s have crafted a lot of tourneys where their top teams do not play mid-majors, so that's one less avenue for more P5 chances.

The mix we had this year was solid, but we beat a down FGCU team and then BYU. Losing to Georgia meant we wouldn't have a shot at playing Clemson. Then we also got drubbed by Belmont and SDSU.

This team had a golden opportunity. They finally devised a schedule that could have helped an at-large bid with many ho,e and neutral site games. Sadly, our players didn't show up and our roster management did not leave us enough horses. Unfortunately having 2-4 scholarship guys sit out each year due to transfer or eligibility issues means any injury cripples us.