stever20 wrote:xusandy wrote:If Stever's main point is just the statistical one -- that relative to a 14+ team league, and given the current NCAA Men's bball tournament invitation criteria, a strong 10 team league is likely to get either (1) fewer top seeds, but a higher percentage of its teams into the tourney, or (2) proportionately more top seeds, but a lower percentage of its teams into the tourney at all, then, over the long run, I actually think I agree with STEVER -- but I'm not sure if this is simply a statistical probability, or if there's a behavioral component too (it's easier to win a 10 team league than a 14 team league, so more teams are willing to go for it.)
But if his point is that that this seeding thing is somehow bad for us, then I disagree. In fact, I'd rather see us get more teams into the dance, even if that means getting fewer top seeds. Gives me more teams to root for in more games.
My main point is the statistical one, although I would argue that having fewer teams in, but those teams being higher seeded(especially avoiding the dreaded 7-10 lines) is a lot more condusive for NCAA tourney success. While sure, you can catch a flash in the pan(a la Xavier last year)- the odds aren't anywhere near as good for that. Too often when you have a lot of teams in that 7-10 range, you are playing a de facto road game in rd 2. See Providence in 2016 playing in Raleigh vs UNC. The bigger conferences don't have to choose either or. they get the 5-6 teams with at least 11 conference wins, but then they also have like the last 2 years in the ACC with 10 teams finishing at 9-9 or better. So they get both the top seeds and a lot of lottery balls. A great combo.
Now the question I have is will we start to see the invitation criteria start to change back to how it used to be- where you would have teams like what was it 16-14 Georgia that one year making the tourney. I think there is a possibility of that happening. But I think even with that, SOS is going to matter more and more. Teams are goign to have to challenge themselves OOC more than they have.
This is a silly, nonsensical debate that has no basis in actual fact. As per usual Stever likes to formulate an argument that puts the BE in a bad light and then he searches for data to support his argument. He moves the goalposts and tries to mask his bias but his data doesn't hold up. He talks about "the bigger conferences" then just presents info on the ACC, which is the unquestioned top conference in college hoops. Case in point: for all the flaws of the BE round robin as is being presented, let's look at how it has affected bids vs another "top conference" the B1G10 the past 2 years.
1).Bids
BE 12 bids / 20 teams = 60% of league
B1G 14 bids / 30 teams = 47%
2). Top 4 Seeds
BE = 4 or 20% of league overall & 33% of all BE bids
B1G = 2 or 7% of league & 14% of all B1G bids
3). "Dreaded 7-10 line" (as Stever puts it)
BE = 4 or 20% of league & 33% of all conf bids
B1G = 6 or 20% of league & 43% of all conf bids
So the B1G has had less top 4 seeds, more seeds in the dreaded 7-10 range and less bids overall. But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument Stever.
I think what it often comes down to is that the bigger conferences have 14, 15 teams and we have 10. So, yes there is an opportunity for more teams to get in and get seeded higher. But when you normalize the data for the conference size the data doesn't hold up. And the ACC is simply loaded so comparing the BE to them is ridiculous.
That is all. Good try though.
Cue: "here's the thing" in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....