More evidence of NCAA bias against midmajors

[tornado]

In the Women's NCAA Tournament seeding...

Drake has an RPI of 20 - and yet they were given a 10-seed in the 64 team tournament!
Miami - just one spot above Drake at RPI of 19 got a 4-seed
Florida State & Kentucky - the next two teams higher in the RPI at 21 & 22 - got 5 & 6 seeds

Texas who had a 28 RPI was given a 4-seed while UCF who had a RPI of 15 was given a 12 seed !!

really odd - but almost every school from one of the classic "Power 5" conferences got seeded FAVORABLY given their RPI
and every school from other conferences & midmajors was seeded unfavorably.

Buffalo - RPI of 25 - got a 10-seed
James Madison had an RPI of 36 and got snubbed while (get this) Tennessee with a RPI of 60 - got an at large bid and an 11-seed and Auburn with an RPI of 50 got a 10-seed.

just sayin'....

[Go_Braves]

In the Women's NCAA Tournament seeding...

Drake has an RPI of 20 - and yet they were given a 10-seed in the 64 team tournament!
Miami - just one spot above Drake at RPI of 19 got a 4-seed
Florida State & Kentucky - the next two teams higher in the RPI at 21 & 22 - got 5 & 6 seeds

Texas who had a 28 RPI was given a 4-seed while UCF who had a RPI of 15 was given a 12 seed !!

really odd - but almost every school from one of the classic "Power 5" conferences got seeded FAVORABLY given their RPI
and every school from other conferences & midmajors was seeded unfavorably.

Buffalo - RPI of 25 - got a 10-seed
James Madison had an RPI of 36 and got snubbed while (get this) Tennessee with a RPI of 60 - got an at large bid and an 11-seed and Auburn with an RPI of 50 got a 10-seed.

just sayin'....

Weeks "after the 2019 NCAA Tournament is over" - and maybe this May - and maybe even after Bradley's May 2019 graduation - when the Bradley staff is having a after the semester breather - I would be interested if anyone could approach Bradley's Athletic Director Chris Reynolds and ask his view on all of this. Dr. Reynolds is on the NCAA Tournament selection committee. In addition to the obvious bias that you are sharing Tornado - also share how the "NET score" is skewed in favor of the Power 5 (or is it Power 6) conferences. I would really enjoy learning his view points and if Dr. Reynolds can share or not that the NCAA is at least aware of this favoritism. Thank you.

[Da Coach]

The NET ended up not really making much difference over the RPI. In the end, the selection committee used the NET when they opted to, and ignored it when it helped one of their Power 6 teams. For example, St. John's got in as an at-large with a NET of 73, while Mid-major power UNC-Greensboro (28-6) was excluded with a NET of 60, and their 6 losses were road games at LSU (NET 14), at Kentucky (NET 6), at Furman (NET 41), and 3 losses to Wofford (NET 13).
Other mid-majors who were screwed- Lipscomb (NET 49), Furman (NET 41) and Toledo (NET 62) who all went 25-7 and Hofstra (26-8, NET 76).

Probably the biggest factor favoring the Power conference teams is that the NET, like the RPI, heavily weights the quality and strength of a team's opponents (Strength of Schedule) along with some other new metrics, and the Power conferences automatically get 20-25 games a year against the other teams in their conference and other Power Conferences. A team like Bradley is lucky to get 1 or 2 of those types of teams on their schedule in a season, and they are always on the home court of the Power conference team, thus making it extremely rare that they might win.
Many of the big conferences are increasing the number of conference games to take advantage of this NET factor that strongly weights the strength of opponents, and guarantees each team they will get ~half those games at home. Also, many of those top conferences are trying to dissuade teams from playing in pre-conference tournaments and other games on neutral courts.

[tornado]

well, Dr. Reynolds has said he obviously cannot talk about the actual specifics of the Selection Committee and he doesn't
have a thing to do with the Women's NCAA. Then, of course, nothing anyone actually says about the process can really be believed
since I suspect they really don't want anyone to know how all the Power Conference teams get in and all the midmajors don't.

[bradleyfan124]

Weeks "after the 2019 NCAA Tournament is over" - and maybe this May - and maybe even after Bradley's May 2019 graduation - when the Bradley staff is having a after the semester breather - I would be interested if anyone could approach Bradley's Athletic Director Chris Reynolds and ask his view on all of this. Dr. Reynolds is on the NCAA Tournament selection committee. In addition to the obvious bias that you are sharing Tornado - also share how the "NET score" is skewed in favor of the Power 5 (or is it Power 6) conferences. I would really enjoy learning his view points and if Dr. Reynolds can share or not that the NCAA is at least aware of this favoritism. Thank you.

I totally agree with this. Lets get him on here and ask what is going on and what can be done about it

[Da Coach]

Here are examples of how the NET rankings (and the RPI before it) are tilted to the advantage of the Power 6 conferences.
Vanderbilt finished 0-18 in the SEC conference. Their record against Quadrant 1 opponents was 0-13, and against Quadrant 2 & 3 combined they were 3-10 (for comparison, Bradley's record against Quadrant 1 teams was 1-1, and they were 11-10 against Quadrants 2 & 3).
Vanderbilt's non-conference SOS was a horrible 192, and of their non-conference wins, none were against any Quadrant 1 teams, and their non-conference wins came against teams like Alcorn State (NET 347), Savannah State (NET 339), Middle Tennessee (NET 248 ), Tennessee State (NET 316), UNC-Asheville (NET 350), and Winthrop (NET 179)- and none of them were road games!
Their RPI was 216, but their NET was 155! So the NET boosted their NCAA ranking over the RPI by 61 spots!
They were one of the worst teams in Division I, and probably the absolute worst team among the Power 6 conferences, yet their NET of 155 would have ranked ahead of 7 of the 10 MVC teams.

There are a lot of similar examples. Georgia, who finished next-to-last in the SEC was 2-16 in the SEC. Their non-conference wins were against a bunch of cupcakes, and they lost 12 of their last 13 games. Their RPI was 183, yet the NET was 122- better than all 10 MVC teams and a boost of 61 spots in the new NCAA ranking.
In addition to the SEC, there were some bad teams in the Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, and ACC, yet every single team in all those conferences had NET's significantly better than any one of the 10 MVC teams!

So clearly the NET is biased even much more strongly than the RPI in favor of these Power 6 conference teams, and against mid-majors.

[Tommy]

It's hard for a mid-major to have a good NET ranking or RPI when none of the bigger programs will play us. If you are ranked according to your competition, but tougher competition doesn't want to risk losing to you, what are you supposed to do?

Let's face it, it's all about money and it'll never change unless the mid-majors take a stand and do something drastic like refusing to play in the NCAA and create their own tournament.

My solution would be all conference tournaments are the beginning of the playoffs. Only conference champs get into the tournament, and every conference gets an automatic bid. Teams are drawn out of a hat to see where they will play in the first round and let the chips fall where they may. Now that would be fun and interesting.

I know it'll never happen, so you don't have to reply to tell me that, but if I were king of the world, that's how we'd roll.

[egib52]

Here are examples of how the NET rankings (and the RPI before it) are tilted to the advantage of the Power 6 conferences.
Vanderbilt finished 0-18 in the SEC conference. Their record against Quadrant 1 opponents was 0-13, and against Quadrant 2 & 3 combined they were 3-10 (for comparison, Bradley's record against Quadrant 1 teams was 1-1, and they were 11-10 against Quadrants 2 & 3).
Vanderbilt's non-conference SOS was a horrible 192, and of their non-conference wins, none were against any Quadrant 1 teams, and their non-conference wins came against teams like Alcorn State (NET 347), Savannah State (NET 339), Middle Tennessee (NET 24, Tennessee State (NET 316), UNC-Asheville (NET 350), and Winthrop (NET 179)- and none of them were road games!
Their RPI was 216, but their NET was 155! So the NET boosted their NCAA ranking over the RPI by 61 spots!
They were one of the worst teams in Division I, and probably the absolute worst team among the Power 6 conferences, yet their NET of 155 would have ranked ahead of 7 of the 10 MVC teams.

There are a lot of similar examples. Georgia, who finished next-to-last in the SEC was 2-16 in the SEC. Their non-conference wins were against a bunch of cupcakes, and they lost 12 of their last 13 games. Their RPI was 183, yet the NET was 122- better than all 10 MVC teams and a boost of 61 spots in the new NCAA ranking.
In addition to the SEC, there were some bad teams in the Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, and ACC, yet every single team in all those conferences had NET's significantly better than any one of the 10 MVC teams!

So clearly the NET is biased even much more strongly than the RPI in favor of these Power 6 conference teams, and against mid-majors.

Guarantee several MM haters will tell you Vandy and GA would have won the Valley even though they hadn't seen one game all year. The inverse of the argument you heard about Loyola last year not having finished .500 in the P6.

[Da Coach]

Guarantee several MM haters will tell you Vandy and GA would have won the Valley even though they hadn't seen one game all year. The inverse of the argument you heard about Loyola last year not having finished .500 in the P6.

Maybe, but if Vanderbilt and Georgia were in the MVC and had to get by in a mid-major conference on a budget of a few hundred thousand dollars, versus tens of millions of dollars per year you'd quickly see them struggle to attract good talent, and fall into a middle of the pack MVC team, IMO.

The reason the Power 6 conferences want to keep all the at-large bids for themselves is not because they think those al-large teams can win the tournament, or that they need all the NCAA money. They simply don't want the money to go to mid-major teams & conferences. If the MVC was able to get 2, 3, or more bids every year, that would mean possibly tens of millions more dollars coming into the conference and getting spread around to the teams. Imagine what an MVC school like Bradley could do with millions more every year....better facilities, better recruiting, retaining great coaches, better long-term success and eventually more teams deserving of at-large bids, and the cycle would continue to bring more money into the MVC year after year. That is what the big boys want to prevent.
Heck, if the MVC teams could get millions more revenue every year, maybe they could afford to hire the high-priced coaches like Pitino, etc, who could teach us how to cheat like the big boys and move into the Top 10?

[tornado]

LOL, Missouri State was given an 11-seed in the Women's NCAA Tourney but they just knocked off 6-seed/#24 ranked DePaul!!

They are one of only 5 lower seeds to pull an upset and advance in the first round...and they are the only 11-seed (or lower) to pull it off!
Congrats Lady Bears!

[Da Coach]

Here is another blatant case of the NCAA going after a low-major school and punishing them far more severely for violations than major programs get away with. California Polytechnic University (Cal-Poly) of the Big West Conference is slammed with 2 years probation and vacating all regular season records and conference tournament records in "most of its sports programs" after an investigation concluded the school did not properly monitor its book scholarship program. The amount of money that the school allowed for student athletes to buy necessary books exceeded the scholarship limit by an average of $174.57.
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/s...ooks-violation

This came to the NCAA's attention only because Cal Poly did their own audit and self-reported the error in stipend distribution to the NCAA. The NCAA admitted they believed it was an inadvertent mistake, and that it was not intentional.

[tornado]

and Louisville got to play in the NCAA this year even tho they were caught on tape trying to buy a player for $200,000-
and that player even testified that he was given cash by Louisville as a down payment - LINK
..and all that while they were on probation after they got caught buying strippers and prostitutes for their players & recruits..

[bradleyfan124]

and Louisville got to play in the NCAA this year even tho they were caught on tape trying to buy a player for $200,000-
and that player even testified that he was given cash by Louisville as a down payment - LINK
..and all that while they were on probation after they got caught buying strippers and prostitutes for their players & recruits..

I see that and yet I don't understand why schools just sit back and let it happen. Cal-Poly should be raising holy h**l with the NCAA and thru the court system. All these schools (mid-majors) should be marching to the NCAA in Indianapolis and say enough is enough. NCAA reminds me of the Mafia. Everyone is to afraid to say anything

[Da Coach]

CBS Sports polled over 100 NCAA Division I coaches, "From head coaches at elite programs to assistants at some of the smallest Division I schools". and asked what is their biggest concern about the NCAA Tournament selection process. The overwhelming #1 answer was their concern about discrimination against mid-major programs.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/candid-coaches-what-is-your-no-1-issue-with-the-ncaa-tournament-selection-process/

I think everyone connected to mid-majors already knew that.