5 A-10 teams in the dance?

[powerofX]

Most respect I've seen for the A10 in a long time. Temple a 3. X actually in as a 12. Plus UD, Richmond, and Rhode Island. The notes do say that by the end of the year there will not be 5 teams though because we will beat each other up and won't get respect for losing to tough teams in conference.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_glockner/12/28/glockner.bracket.watch/index.html

All-in-all, pretty good ink for the league...the #4 RPI league!

[jcubspoe]

I don't see anyway we can get 5 in. Only FOUR non BCS schools got an at large last year....X and UD were two of them. I can see us getting 3 in again, maybe 4.

[powerofX]

I don't see anyway we can get 5 in. Only FOUR non BCS schools got an at large last year....X and UD were two of them. I can see us getting 3 in again, maybe 4.

I agree. I think it will be Temple, UD, and whomever finishes best from X, URI, and Richmond. Its just nice to see the good press though.

[SixFig]

Guaranteed 3. But 5 could emerge.

[XU '11]

I think it could happen if a team that would not have otherwise been an at large wins the A10 tourney. Temple, Dayton, Xavier, and Richmond are in good shape for ALB's provided a good conference record. Then a team like Rhode Island or Charlotte could definitely sneak in and win the A10 tourney, especially since it is no longer 4 games in 4 days for the 5-12 seeds.

[SlimKibbles]

The way A-10 teams tend to beat the crap out of each other during conference play, I worry about them getting more than two every season, depending on who we're talking about. The one difference compared to recent years is I don't remember the league having this high of an overall RPI prior to conference play. I know it's been in the Top 10 (was it even #6 prior to conference play last season?) I would hope that people voting look at the league as a whole and see it's pretty damn good, which means a 10-6 or 9-7 record, depending on who you lost to and how you did OOC, ain't all that bad.

[AdamtheFlyer]

5 teams worthy of an NCAA bid is certainly doable, but I'd be shocked if it happened. The committee simply won't let it happen, despite their talk of not looking at conference affiliation. One of the many reasons why the NCAA tourney committee really isn't all that different than the BCS. They take the teams they want to take, like Arizona last year, then decide which criteria mattered that year based on what teams they chose. It's convenient, you can't ever go against yourself that way.

[SixFig]

What is the perfect system for both football and basketball? How do you eliminate human (voters, selection committee) bias while not totally basing the results on computers (BCS, RPI)?

With due respect to Hamlet...THAT IS THE QUESTION

[X-band '01]

5 teams worthy of an NCAA bid is certainly doable, but I'd be shocked if it happened. The committee simply won't let it happen, despite their talk of not looking at conference affiliation. One of the many reasons why the NCAA tourney committee really isn't all that different than the BCS. They take the teams they want to take, like Arizona last year, then decide which criteria mattered that year based on what teams they chose. It's convenient, you can't ever go against yourself that way.

With all due respect to Arizona, they did make the Sweet 16 last season. Can you say with any certainty that any other bubble team that made the NIT would have pulled the same feat?

[waggy]

Just because Arizona maybe got hot at the right time, and/or had favorable match ups in the tourney allowing them to advance, doesn't mean they deserved a bid based upon their resume. The last 4 in, or last 8 in, or even the last 16 maybe, aren't going to determine the national champ. All those invitational bid are about money.

Assuming the A10 finishes the OOC season reasonably strong, you have to believe that the four teams that earn byes in the conference tourney are in good shape for an at-large. The question would be whether a team that doesn't earn a bye can do enough in AC, combined with the rest of their resume to make an at-large case.

[xubrew]

What is the perfect system for both football and basketball? How do you eliminate human (voters, selection committee) bias while not totally basing the results on computers (BCS, RPI)?

With due respect to Hamlet...THAT IS THE QUESTION

the only ways to do this are to have a 340+ game season where all the teams play each other, and then select the teams based off of winning percentage. that's virtually impossible.

another way would be to eliminate the at-large bids altogether and just take the conference champions. i don't think too many would be keen on that idea either.

i believe the best way to do it is the way that it's currently done.



5 teams worthy of an NCAA bid is certainly doable, but I'd be shocked if it happened. The committee simply won't let it happen, despite their talk of not looking at conference affiliation. One of the many reasons why the NCAA tourney committee really isn't all that different than the BCS. They take the teams they want to take, like Arizona last year, then decide which criteria mattered that year based on what teams they chose. It's convenient, you can't ever go against yourself that way.

i really think this paranoia is somewhat about selection committee conspiracy is very overplayed. as of now, there are five non-bcs conferences that have collectively won 60% of their games. last year there were only two.

also last year, there were ten teams from bcs conferences that finished .500 or better and did not get a bid. there were four teams who won ten conference games that did not get a bid. that's the most ever in either category. auburn won the sec west and didn't get in despite the fact that mike slive was the committee chairman. if they were going to be biased in anyone's favor, it would have been auburn. one could just as easily (and just as nonsensically) take those facts and make an argument that they're biased against the bcs conferences for leaving teams out that managed ten conference wins and finished first in the division.

only four non-bcs teams received at-larges, but one can safely conclude that memphis, gonzaga, siena and possibly even utah state were all in a position to get an at-large if they needed it based on the seeding they got. it's just that they ended up winning the automatic bids. other than san diego state, i really don't think there were any non-bcs teams with a really strong case. i thought sdsu should have been in instead of arizona, and still feel that way, but arizona did beat sdsu rather handily during the season. they also had more big wins, so it wasn't as if arizona didn't have a case. they did.

this year, there are way more teams from outside the major conferences that are having big years. if they keep going like they have been and don't fall apart in conference, i'm almost certain we'll see more non-bcs teams in position to receive at-larges. last year there just really weren't any good teams. that had more to do with why there were fewer bids than any perceived biased on the committee's part. if there aren't more bids this year, then the conspiracy theorists can complain.

[Xman95]

Just because Arizona maybe got hot at the right time, and/or had favorable match ups in the tourney allowing them to advance, doesn't mean they deserved a bid based upon their resume.

Agreed 100%. What you do in the tournament is not the same as whether you deserve to be there in the first place.

[GoMuskies]

They've got to give all these bids to someone. The Pac-10 certainly won't be claiming many of them.