Non-BE Games of Interest, February 2015...

[stever20]

Gonzaga came back from at least 15 down to beat St Mary's 70-60. Really hurts St Mary's chances of getting an at large spot. And keeps Gonzaga alive for a #1 seed.

[Bill Marsh]

Except X has 4 top 25 wins.

18-14 record teams generally speaking do not get into the tourney- no matter the rest of the resume.

That's because 18-14 teams don't usually have "the rest of the resume." It's an unusual occurrence but it does happen.

[stever20]

Except X has 4 top 25 wins.

18-14 record teams generally speaking do not get into the tourney- no matter the rest of the resume.

That's because 18-14 teams don't usually have "the rest of the resume." It's an unusual occurrence but it does happen.

It's not happened because the committee's views have changed. They used to let 17-15 teams make the tourney- but no more....

One thing that will be interesting to see- this is the most F5/BE tilted season that I can remember in years. It's possible the WCC only gets Gonzaga, MWC only gets 2, A10 only gets 2, MVC only gets 2, and AAC only gets 3. It'll be interesting to see how that impacts seedings and also if the committee looks past the records of the F5/BE maybe a smidge more than normal as a result of that.

[BEX]

Am I missing something or do we play Butler again? We're 18-10 with 3 games left.

[Bill Marsh]

18-14 record teams generally speaking do not get into the tourney- no matter the rest of the resume.

That's because 18-14 teams don't usually have "the rest of the resume." It's an unusual occurrence but it does happen.

It's not happened because the committee's views have changed. They used to let 17-15 teams make the tourney- but no more....

Steve, why do you keep saying this when I already posted the list with 9 teams with very similar records who have made the tournament in the past 7 years? Yes, no one with exactly an 18-14 made the tournament in that period, but there were a number of teams on the list who were 19-14 or 18-13, i.e. only the slightest bit different. If you have some basis for your claim that "the committees views have changed", please link it.

The "committee's views" change every year because some members change every year and there is a turnover in committee chairs. There are also different priorities that are established. But the general approach remains the same, i.e. to find the 36 at-large teams who have established the highest level of performance throughout the season. If that's an 18-14 team, or a 19-14 team, or an 18-13 team, then that's who they'll take. I can't ever remember a single committee member being quoted as saying that a team was rejected because they didn't meet a magic number in win/loss record.

[Bill Marsh]

Am I missing something or do we play Butler again? We're 18-10 with 3 games left.

I think he's counting those 3 as losses + a loss in the first round of the BE tournament.

[RDinNY]

This helped me fall asleep last night. Smarter people than me can make it throught the article.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men ... basketball

[stever20]

They may not say it but...
14 loss teams-
2011- Marquette, Penn St, Tennessee, USC, Mich St
2008- Arizona
2005- NC State
So last 10 years only 7 14 loss teams have made the tourney. With 5 in one outlier committee...

18 win teams
2008- Oregon, Kentucky
2007- Stanford
2006- Indiana, Seton Hall
2005- UCLA, Stanford
so last 10 years only 7 18 win teams have made the tourney.

Committee members may not come out and directly say it, but their actions have shown that if you have only 18 wins or 14 losses, it's extremely rare to make the tourney- and NEVER both.

I think committee members ask, if you are one of the 36 best at large teams, why in the hell are you only 18-14?

[Bill Marsh]

They may not say it but...
14 loss teams-
2011- Marquette, Penn St, Tennessee, USC, Mich St
2008- Arizona
2005- NC State
So last 10 years only 7 14 loss teams have made the tourney. With 5 in one outlier committee...

18 win teams
2008- Oregon, Kentucky
2007- Stanford
2006- Indiana, Seton Hall
2005- UCLA, Stanford
so last 10 years only 7 18 win teams have made the tourney.

Committee members may not come out and directly say it, but their actions have shown that if you have only 18 wins or 14 losses, it's extremely rare to make the tourney- and NEVER both.

I think committee members ask, if you are one of the 36 best at large teams, why in the hell are you only 18-14?

Kind of an obvious answer: because you compete in one of the top 2 conferences in the country and because overall you have the 14th toughest schedule. Do you really think that the committee is going to bump a team with a top 30 RPI who played one of the toughest schedules in the country? Nope. They bump teams like that when they play weak schedules.

As for it being rare, it's been done on average once a year. That's not rare; it's common.

Meanwhile, you've been promoting Tulsa as a legitimate candidate. Don't you think the committee might ask about them, why the hell are you only 8-7 vs teams whose RPI is not 200 +? And, how the hell did you lose to Southeast Oklahoma State? At home?

By your logic, the committee prefers teams with pretty numbers which have been accomplished by padding their schedules with inferior competition. Everything they've said and done indicates just the opposite.

[stever20]

Big bubble win today- Oregon upset Utah. Oregon now 20-8 and with a signature win now over Utah. 3 road games to end the season Cal/Stanford/Oregon St. Pick up 2 wins and they may be lock city.