Chris Mack on Xavier's NCAA chances and BE vs A10

[Bill Marsh]

Number of bids is a horrible way to judge the overall strength of a conference. Raw number of bids has a ton to do with overall league size. The Big East beats the A10 by any reasonable statistical measure of overall strength (league RPI, league KenPom rating, etc), and it's not even close. Not to mention the head to head record this year.

Of course, perception matters and a lot of people DO care about number of bids. And that's a big reason why I have come to like the idea of expanding more.

Are you crazy? The whole point of the season is to make the NCAA tournament. GT is down this year so we change the way to determine the strength? Spin it any way you want but at the end of the day everyone talks about how many the conference sent to NCAA not how good teams 4-8 are

He has a point. Using bids focuses on only part of a conference. His comment was about OVERALL strength of a conference. In order to do that, it's necessary to factor in the strength of every team, not just those getting bids.

From the point of view of people like the three of us and everyone else who follows college bball thats true. To the general fan they will look at how many bids did the conference get because thats what the sports networks will be talking about. Think to the past few years where all you hear is how the BE is so good because of how many teams they sent. We don't hear about the teams that dont make it and go to the NIT even though they had pretty good years.

Nope.it will only matter if those A10 teams actually win some games in the tournament. If they do what the Mountain West did last year, they'll be quickly forgotten.

When the Big East got 11 bids 3 years ago, insiders were quick, to jump on them as overrated when only 2 teams got past the first weekend. All the casual fan now remembers is that the Big East won another national championship.

[stever20]

These A10 teams have actually done fairly well in the tourney. MWC hasn't even before last year...

but yeah, we'll hear more about the last teams in the tourney 1000 times over the teams that just missed the tourney. Nobody gives a rip about the NIT.

[BEAST from the East]

I love that Mack did this, especially considering his squad is first in the pecking order of BEAST Bubble teams. To a degree, his comments were more an effort to help Georgetown, SJU, Providence and Marquette than X. Love seeing a first year conference coach stick his neck our for everyone. Props to Mack.

[lolhoya]

Number of bids is a horrible way to judge the overall strength of a conference. Raw number of bids has a ton to do with overall league size. The Big East beats the A10 by any reasonable statistical measure of overall strength (league RPI, league KenPom rating, etc), and it's not even close. Not to mention the head to head record this year.

Of course, perception matters and a lot of people DO care about number of bids. And that's a big reason why I have come to like the idea of expanding more.

Are you crazy? The whole point of the season is to make the NCAA tournament. GT is down this year so we change the way to determine the strength? Spin it any way you want but at the end of the day everyone talks about how many the conference sent to NCAA not how good teams 4-8 are

Uh, did you read the second paragraph in my post? I know people talk about it and care about it. I already mentioned that.

It's still a dumb way to judge the overall strength of a conference. If number of bids is the only thing that matters, any conference could just expand to a ridiculous number of teams, get the most bids, and claim it's the best conference.

[ta111]

Number of bids is a horrible way to judge the overall strength of a conference. Raw number of bids has a ton to do with overall league size. The Big East beats the A10 by any reasonable statistical measure of overall strength (league RPI, league KenPom rating, etc), and it's not even close. Not to mention the head to head record this year.

Of course, perception matters and a lot of people DO care about number of bids. And that's a big reason why I have come to like the idea of expanding more.

Are you crazy? The whole point of the season is to make the NCAA tournament. GT is down this year so we change the way to determine the strength? Spin it any way you want but at the end of the day everyone talks about how many the conference sent to NCAA not how good teams 4-8 are

Uh, did you read the second paragraph in my post? I know people talk about it and care about it. I already mentioned that.

It's still a dumb way to judge the overall strength of a conference. If number of bids is the only thing that matters, any conference could just expand to a ridiculous number of teams, get the most bids, and claim it's the best conference.

But the A-10 hasn't expanded to a ridiculous amount of teams, and if that were the case why isn't the SEC or Pac12 getting 6-7 teams in every year? It's not the quantity, it's the quality.

[lolhoya]

I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with this. I am talking about OVERALL conference strength. Number of bids is a poor way to look at that.

Number of bids only tells you one piece of information. It tells you nothing about the distribution of teams that do make the NCAAs (what seeds to they get), and it tells you nothing about the teams that don't make the NCAAs (are they pushovers or bubble teams).

The Big East is a far better conference when you look at the WHOLE conference from top to bottom as any statistical metric will show you.

Good for the A10 that they are going to get a bunch of bids this year, and I understand that people like to look at number of bids. That's why I want the Big East to expand.

[BEwannabe]

That's why I want the Big East to expand.

And they will, it's 101 material. NBE needs to reduce A10 competition, you can't come out your first year and as things stand today get eclipsed in NCAA bids. NBE coaches are recruiting against A10 schools saying we have national tv and better conference including better tradition and the A10 recruiters can come right back and say how's that working for you. It sure looks like the A10 has the year end prizes.

[lolhoya]

Agreed. The A10 is having a better season perception wise, and a terrific season overall. I really like watching A10 games, and man would I kill to have Stan Van Gundy call Big East games.

I'm rooting for the A10. I think it's good for the Big East when basketball centric schools do well, whether or not they are in the Big East. It tempers all of the "mid major" talk and makes people realize that basketball centric leagues can work really well.

[SJHooper]

That's why I want the Big East to expand.

And they will, it's 101 material. NBE needs to reduce A10 competition, you can't come out your first year and as things stand today get eclipsed in NCAA bids. NBE coaches are recruiting against A10 schools saying we have national tv and better conference including better tradition and the A10 recruiters can come right back and say how's that working for you. It sure looks like the A10 has the year end prizes.

Congrats A-10 homer…your mid major conference had the year of its life. Next year they will go back to being irrelevant.

[GumbyDamnit!]

I think the problem here is that everyone points to a different metric as the defining one for the argument. I think you can't make these arguments in early March--I think these discussions are best debated after the tourney. If I am looking at it objectively I would consider these individually:
- overall conf RPI
- # of teams in Top 25
- # of tourney teams / % of conf teams in tourney
- # of total wins in the tourney / conf win % in tourney
- # of teams in Sweet 16 / % of teams in S16
- # of teams in FF
- Nat Champ

Not one metric stands on its own. If FL wins the NC it doesn't mean the SEC is the best conf and 6 bids does not make the A10 the best. Look at the entirety of the performance. The BE could get 3 teams in and go 6-3 in the tourney very easily and the A10 could get 6 and end up going 3-6 very easily. So who's better then? Taking an approach to argue your point with one data point is meaningless.