sportstalent
Well-Known Member
Okay here is my final take on this RPI stuff.
I will admit that I love seeing the mid-majors in the NCAA tournament, if you have rooted against Geroge Mason, Butler and VCU in the Final Four then I have a problem because they weren't playing Iowa. Those teams are what is great about March Madness, not how many Power Conference teams get in or get "shafted" because it is the ultimate David vs. Goliath.
What really is wrong with MTSU getting in the NCAA tournament? Nothing, absolutely nothing. People complain that they didn't go out and play this or that and teams like Iowa did. That is the whole point, if you want to use the same criteria for say Iowa and MTSU, what criteria do you use? What can you use to really compare them, the eye ball test...fail because that favors a major conference team?
These other indexes that are used tend to favor the major conference teams as well, I am not saying they aren't valid, but when you want to talk about the different ones, the RPI just may be the best metric because it really doesn't favor any specific team, but schools have figured out how to work the system. Why? It is quite simple really, look at how many major conference teams have not been snubbed prior to them changing the way they operate. Keep in mind there was a 16-14 Florida State team that got in the tournament one year and a team like Manhattan was left out, but was put in the next year and went to the Sweet 16, FSU got a dream match-up in the first round, won and lost in the second round.
In all honesty, the bubble was so weak this year and the Power Six conferences outside of the Big East and Big Ten were down. There is absolutely no good way to compare teams, but each committee does it a little different. When it came down to this committee, they made it easy on themselves by going with the RPI and road wins to judge teams and again, it is a year they can as there were a lot of teams that got in simply because they have a weak conference and were able to pile up some wins.
I find it funny that the "experts" point to Iowa's conference slate, but answer me this...what other "bubble" team had a harder conference slate? What other "bubble" team played a No. 1, 2 and two 4 seeds in their own conference?
I am not advocating Iowa got the shaft, they had all the opportunities to get in, they unlike the MTSU's of the world had their chance to prove themselves in one or two games that they trickled down their leg. I have no issues with mid-majors who have a ton of wins, but make one slip and still get the at-large berth. Maybe they go out and lose, but I like seeing the little guys play, hoping one makes a run like Butler, VCU and George Mason, but making that final step and winning, it is just the purest basketball fan in me.
If changes are made to the RPI and it begins to favor the power teams it will cause the tournament to lose some of its magic as VCU would not have made the NCAA tournament the year they made their Final Four run and people were just infuriated saying they should not have made it. Those same people were just ecstatic when they made their run, typical media folks.
I enjoy the integrity of the NCAA tournament, once all the crying is over it gets settled on the floor.
I will admit that I love seeing the mid-majors in the NCAA tournament, if you have rooted against Geroge Mason, Butler and VCU in the Final Four then I have a problem because they weren't playing Iowa. Those teams are what is great about March Madness, not how many Power Conference teams get in or get "shafted" because it is the ultimate David vs. Goliath.
What really is wrong with MTSU getting in the NCAA tournament? Nothing, absolutely nothing. People complain that they didn't go out and play this or that and teams like Iowa did. That is the whole point, if you want to use the same criteria for say Iowa and MTSU, what criteria do you use? What can you use to really compare them, the eye ball test...fail because that favors a major conference team?
These other indexes that are used tend to favor the major conference teams as well, I am not saying they aren't valid, but when you want to talk about the different ones, the RPI just may be the best metric because it really doesn't favor any specific team, but schools have figured out how to work the system. Why? It is quite simple really, look at how many major conference teams have not been snubbed prior to them changing the way they operate. Keep in mind there was a 16-14 Florida State team that got in the tournament one year and a team like Manhattan was left out, but was put in the next year and went to the Sweet 16, FSU got a dream match-up in the first round, won and lost in the second round.
In all honesty, the bubble was so weak this year and the Power Six conferences outside of the Big East and Big Ten were down. There is absolutely no good way to compare teams, but each committee does it a little different. When it came down to this committee, they made it easy on themselves by going with the RPI and road wins to judge teams and again, it is a year they can as there were a lot of teams that got in simply because they have a weak conference and were able to pile up some wins.
I find it funny that the "experts" point to Iowa's conference slate, but answer me this...what other "bubble" team had a harder conference slate? What other "bubble" team played a No. 1, 2 and two 4 seeds in their own conference?
I am not advocating Iowa got the shaft, they had all the opportunities to get in, they unlike the MTSU's of the world had their chance to prove themselves in one or two games that they trickled down their leg. I have no issues with mid-majors who have a ton of wins, but make one slip and still get the at-large berth. Maybe they go out and lose, but I like seeing the little guys play, hoping one makes a run like Butler, VCU and George Mason, but making that final step and winning, it is just the purest basketball fan in me.
If changes are made to the RPI and it begins to favor the power teams it will cause the tournament to lose some of its magic as VCU would not have made the NCAA tournament the year they made their Final Four run and people were just infuriated saying they should not have made it. Those same people were just ecstatic when they made their run, typical media folks.
I enjoy the integrity of the NCAA tournament, once all the crying is over it gets settled on the floor.
