2 Bid Valley

[64NIT]

Two bids for the Valley, no matter how good the teams might be, i.e., Bradley and Drake, is something of a pipe dream or wishful thinking (maybe both). The "big guys" run the Dance and determine who gets invited (outside of the automatic qualifiers). There is no such thing as a level playing field. It's not fair, but get used to it. What will people say if both Bradley and Drake lose in the MVC tourney and another team gets the automatic qualifier spot in the Dance?

[Tommy]

Two bids for the Valley, no matter how good the teams might be, i.e., Bradley and Drake, is something of a pipe dream or wishful thinking (maybe both). The "big guys" run the Dance and determine who gets invited (outside of the automatic qualifiers). There is no such thing as a level playing field. It's not fair, but get used to it. What will people say if both Bradley and Drake lose in the MVC tourney and another team gets the automatic qualifier spot in the Dance?

True story. And we all know that if we get the auto-bid, we'll be playing Michigan State. Amiright!

[Stryker]

Looking at the field of 68 teams last year (2023-24), 36 of the teams had double-digit losses, and many of those were middle of the pack teams from the Power Conferences who got at-large bids. The Power conferences and the NCAA have cooked up the NET formula which heavily favors those teams, even with mediocre records that there are so few at-large bids available for mid-majors.

Last year, Indiana State, with a record of 28-6 was one of the NCAA's First Four Out. Their NET of 29 was, by far, the lowest of any team left out. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_N...all_tournament #Tournament_procedure

In fact, their NET was better than a bunch of teams that received at-large bids, like Virginia (NET 54), Northwestern (NET 53), Texas A&M (NET 45), Washington State (NET 44), TCU (NET 42), Colorado State (NET 36), Clemson (NET 35), Nevada (NET 34), Nebraska (NET 33), Miss. State (NET 31), and Texas (NET 30). So when their NET formula doesn't give the NCAA what they want, they invent new criteria.
At-large bids went to multiple schools who didn't have winning conference records, and even to schools with losing conference records like Mississippi State (8-10 in the SEC and 9th place).

And one other factor... sometimes bubble teams' fate will be dependent on how many "bid-stealers", who are otherwise unworthy of an at-large bid, get auto-bids by upsetting the favorites in conference tournaments. Indiana State was set to get an at-large bid last year, but lost out to a couple such "bid stealers on the final week of conference tournaments.

ISUb's losses to SIU and ISU were not as big of factors as you think last year. As you pointed out, there were plenty of other teams that got at-large bids with worse NET scores and plenty of losses, some of them even bad losses. The difference is that those teams you listed that got at-large bids last year also had some Q1 wins. Meaning they "proved" to the committee that they were in fact good enough to compete with other good teams.

ISUb lost to Alabama, Michigan State, and Drake twice last year. That is why they were snubbed. ISUb did not beat a good team last year. This is now a requirement to go dancing no matter what. If they had beaten either Alabama or MSU they would have been in. If they had not lost twice to Drake I think they would have been in. It is basically the same situation BU is in this year. No chance of beating a good team. So even if we win out, a win over Drake at least once more is the only additional resume builder we have.

I know it sucks the dance works this way now, but that is just how it is.

[Tommy]

This quad 1 discussion comes up every year, so here are some facts: the PC's have devised a system whereby their weak little brothers get 10+ attempts at winning a quad 1 game while the little sister mid-majors (other than perennial powerhouses like Gonzaga) get at best 1 or 2, and often times, those are just by luck. So just because a Big 10 team gets 2 quad 1 wins, but is 2-8 overall against them, and a team like BU may go 0-1 or 0-2 when both have a good chance of being road games, is the Big 10 team better or more deserving?

Well, we'll never know, because BU will never get the opportunity presented to the weaker PC teams. If I were a betting man, I'd say given an increase in opportunity, we'd find a way to pull off a Quad 1 win or two, but sadly we'll never know because the NCAA won't let that happen unless we somehow manage to become the next dominant mid-major, like Gonzaga.

Does anyone really want to see the 7th, 8th, sometimes lower seed from a conference in the end of year tournament? I don't. Nobody will disagree that the Big 10, SEC, and other PC's are tougher than the mid-major conferences (how could we? They've changed the rules with the NIL and transfer portal to make it all but impossible to compete), but the fact is, an end of year tournament should be pitting the best of all the conferences against each other and the criteria should be how they finished within those conferences. Half the fun of the tournament is rooting for the underdogs, isn't it? If the regular season doesn't mean anything and all we care about are quad 1 wins, then how else can it end other than stacked with PC schools and the rest of the conferences hoping to win their own season end conference tournaments? Does this seem like a fair and just system?

My opinion is that the NCAA tournament should be a tournament of champions. The seasons and end of year tournaments are played to determine just that. If you don't win one of those two things, then you had your opportunity to show you were the best in the nation and failed as you already lost to your own conference teams, so why do you deserve another shot at what we call a 'NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP'?

I'm mostly talking to myself as none of this matters. This is the system we're stuck with and the NCAA will continue to adjust the rules if the mid-majors ever find a way to get more team into the tournament. We are destined for a two league system in the future and we all know it and can see it coming. I hope I'm wrong as I often am as this would really be a hit to smaller schools and their programs.

[tomahawk chop]

This quad 1 discussion comes up every year, so here are some facts: the PC's have devised a system whereby their weak little brothers get 10+ attempts at winning a quad 1 game while the little sister mid-majors (other than perennial powerhouses like Gonzaga) get at best 1 or 2, and often times, those are just by luck. So just because a Big 10 team gets 2 quad 1 wins, but is 2-8 overall against them, and a team like BU may go 0-1 or 0-2 when both have a good chance of being road games, is the Big 10 team better or more deserving?

Well, we'll never know, because BU will never get the opportunity presented to the weaker PC teams. If I were a betting man, I'd say given an increase in opportunity, we'd find a way to pull off a Quad 1 win or two, but sadly we'll never know because the NCAA won't let that happen unless we somehow manage to become the next dominant mid-major, like Gonzaga.

Does anyone really want to see the 7th, 8th, sometimes lower seed from a conference in the end of year tournament? I don't. Nobody will disagree that the Big 10, SEC, and other PC's are tougher than the mid-major conferences (how could we? They've changed the rules with the NIL and transfer portal to make it all but impossible to compete), but the fact is, an end of year tournament should be pitting the best of all the conferences against each other and the criteria should be how they finished within those conferences. Half the fun of the tournament is rooting for the underdogs, isn't it? If the regular season doesn't mean anything and all we care about are quad 1 wins, then how else can it end other than stacked with PC schools and the rest of the conferences hoping to win their own season end conference tournaments? Does this seem like a fair and just system?

My opinion is that the NCAA tournament should be a tournament of champions. The seasons and end of year tournaments are played to determine just that. If you don't win one of those two things, then you had your opportunity to show you were the best in the nation and failed as you already lost to your own conference teams, so why do you deserve another shot at what we call a 'NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP'?

I'm mostly talking to myself as none of this matters. This is the system we're stuck with and the NCAA will continue to adjust the rules if the mid-majors ever find a way to get more team into the tournament. We are destined for a two league system in the future and we all know it and can see it coming. I hope I'm wrong as I often am as this would really be a hit to smaller schools and their programs.

You made a lot of good points, I think it is a travesty to put teams that lose half of their conference games in this Tour. The quad thing was developed by the P-5 schools in order to get them more chances to get most of the money that comes from winning games in the big tour.
It is bad enough they are now controlling it yet now they have ruined the NIT by inviting teams that have losing records. It is obvious to me that almost all of the P-5 schools do not want to play in the NIT so they ruined that prestigious tour.

[BUfan17]

ISUb's losses to SIU and ISU were not as big of factors as you think last year. As you pointed out, there were plenty of other teams that got at-large bids with worse NET scores and plenty of losses, some of them even bad losses. The difference is that those teams you listed that got at-large bids last year also had some Q1 wins. Meaning they "proved" to the committee that they were in fact good enough to compete with other good teams.

ISUb lost to Alabama, Michigan State, and Drake twice last year. That is why they were snubbed. ISUb did not beat a good team last year. This is now a requirement to go dancing no matter what. If they had beaten either Alabama or MSU they would have been in. If they had not lost twice to Drake I think they would have been in. It is basically the same situation BU is in this year. No chance of beating a good team. So even if we win out, a win over Drake at least once more is the only additional resume builder we have.

I know it sucks the dance works this way now, but that is just how it is.

That just isn't true. Direct from the NCAA website:

The number of Quadrant 1 wins and Quadrant 3/4 losses will be incredibly important when it comes time for NCAA tournament selection and seeding.

It will be very difficult to get an at-large with multiple Quad 3/4 losses without multiple Quad 1 wins to make up for them (both of which are tough for a mid major due to the scheduling). That loss to Illinois state was a Quad 4 loss and SIU was Quad 3 loss. I believe last year Indiana State had only had one Quad 1 win, which those Quad 3/4 losses negated. Indiana State was almost a lock until they picked up that Quad 4 loss. That 100% put them on the bubble which combine that with a high number of bid stealers and they got bumped out.

I know everyone talks about it but NET rankings don't directly correlate to the NCAA tournament selection, it is only for classifying the Quadrants.

[BradleyBiz]

It's interesting to look at NET rankings between two mid-majors: Bradley and Saint Mary's.

Rank	Team	Conference	Overall	Road	Neutral		Q1 record	Q2 record	Q3 record	Q4 record
63	Bradley	MVC	17-3	5-1	3-1		0-0	4-3	6-0	7-0
23	Saint Mary's	WCC	17-3	5-0	2-2		0-0	5-3	4-0	8-0

SOS favors SMC but it's not crazy. Obviously they will have a few potential Q1 wins with two games against Gonzaga, @Santa Clara, @ORSt, and @USF. Our only potential Q1 win can come at Drake right now. But to look at those profiles at this point in time, I don't see 40 spots difference.

[Da Coach]

It's interesting to look at NET rankings between two mid-majors: Bradley and Saint Mary's.

Rank	Team	Conference	Overall	Road	Neutral		Q1 record	Q2 record	Q3 record	Q4 record
63	Bradley	MVC	17-3	5-1	3-1		0-0	4-3	6-0	7-0
23	Saint Mary's	WCC	17-3	5-0	2-2		0-0	5-3	4-0	8-0

SOS favors SMC but it's not crazy. Obviously they will have a few potential Q1 wins with two games against Gonzaga, @Santa Clara, @ORSt, and @USF. Our only potential Q1 win can come at Drake right now. But to look at those profiles at this point in time, I don't see 40 spots difference.

BradleyBiz is correct. As of now, Bradley has not played a Quadrant 1 game. The only potential Quad 1 game left on our schedule will be the road game at Drake. And even that would be in jeopardy if they lose a game or two and their NET moves higher than 75 (Drake's NET is currently 66 today). It is very unlikely that any other MVC team will be able to improve their NET rank enough to get to into Quad 1 territory by the end of the regular season.

What qualifies a Quadrant 1, 2, 3 or 4 game?.... Here is the definition from the NCAA website - https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...0and%20seeding.

"The quality of wins and losses will be organized based on game location and the opponent's NET ranking. based on game location and the opponent's NET ranking.

• Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
• Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
• Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
• Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

The number of Quadrant 1 wins and Quadrant 3/4 losses will be incredibly important when it comes time for NCAA tournament selection and seeding."

[LittleBrave]

And one other factor... sometimes bubble teams' fate will be dependent on how many "bid-stealers", who are otherwise unworthy of an at-large bid, get auto-bids by upsetting the favorites in conference tournaments. Indiana State was set to get an at-large bid last year, but lost out to a couple such "bid stealers on the final week of conference tournaments.

A really good point here DC - and I forgot about that. I really think they were the last 1 or 2 teams left out and those upsets for Auto-bids hurt their chances.

[LittleBrave]

Does anyone really want to see the 7th, 8th, sometimes lower seed from a conference in the end of year tournament? I don't.

I'm mostly talking to myself as none of this matters.

HECK NAH, Tommy!!! Heck. NAH!!

Fwiw, when you talk to yourself, Tommy, people listen! (But I don't know if they listen when you actually talk TO them. LOL)

[Tommy]

HECK NAH, Tommy!!! Heck. NAH!!

Fwiw, when you talk to yourself, Tommy, people listen! (But I don't know if they listen when you actually talk TO them. LOL)

haha, true dat, LB!

[ollienanyes]

I guess an "at large" bid is not a worry now, is it?

[LongTimeFan]

Hardly. BU needs to concentrate righting the ship and making the adjustments needed to be competitive the rest of the season. Can Bradley make the adjustments needed?

[BUSongwriter]

With Drake moving today to 20-2, and with BU's at-large chances all but vanished, the "two-bid league" discussion in my opinion narrows down to Drake only dropping one more Valley game and losing in the finals of the MVC tourney, hopefully to Bradley. That would give the Bulldogs a record of 29-4 and -- regardless of Quad 1 and NET crap -- make them hard to keep out of the dance.