Buy/Sell- losing conference record should eliminate a trip to the Dance
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
And not because it has anything to do with us. If you put in a rule like that, you'd essentially be eliminating teams like Ole Miss, or Arkansas last year, and replacing them with UAB or Houston. The goal is to get the best 34 at large teams out there. If that includes someone who had a losing record in their conference, then so be it. I'd rather have the best 34 than eliminate someone in favor of some small conference team that was able to compile an 11-5 record against a pitiful conference.
I agree with you in principle, but I think that there would come a time when a team that went .500 from a lesser conference got in over a team with a 8-10 record in the Big East or Pac-10 even though everyone was in agreeance that the latter should go but couldn't because of this rule.
do you include the conference tourney?
Because last year Arkansas was 7-9 in SEC play, but after the tourney, they were 10-10 against SEC competition.
I still disagree with the point, mainly because conference record is already factored into the selection decision. No need to enforce something like that on the committee when they already take it into account.
Because last year Arkansas was 7-9 in SEC play, but after the tourney, they were 10-10 against SEC competition.
I still disagree with the point, mainly because conference record is already factored into the selection decision. No need to enforce something like that on the committee when they already take it into account.
Although i think you have to include the conference tournament in the analysis. I think an 8-8 team that goes 1 and out in the conference tournament should be denied a bid. But Arkansas finished 7-9 in the SEC last year, but i believe they went 3-1 in Atlanta. That gets them to 10-10 in the league and should've made them eligible for selection.
BFB
BFB
in the country out of conference. Then plays maybe in teh ACC, knocks off Duke, UNC, etc. Has an RPI of 15, yet a losing conference record. It's possible. They should get in.
G
Goat Holder
Guest
Because everything is so subjective. Teams from different conferences play different teams. Same thing that goes on in football.
Again, I don't think a rule is needed for this because conference record is already taken into consideration by the committee. If they ignored it, then maybe a rule would be needed to level things out, but they already penalize you for having a losing conference record. If you don't absolutely tear it up on the rest of your schedule or make a really great run in your conference tourney, you won't get in with a losing conference record. Then again, if you do tear it up in non-conference play and you do make a run in your conference tourney, those things would not need to be discounted just because of a losing conference record.
This is almost like requiring all teams to have an overall winning record: most teams that don't have a winning record in the conference already eliminated themselves from contention. The few teams that this would apply to every year are only in consideration because they did <span style="font-style: italic;">something</span> out of conference--if they did nothing OOC, then a losing conference record already seals their fate.
If you ever did implement this rule, next you'd have rules for what happens when a player is injured and out a few games during the conference--does that loss on the road against Suckteam really count without their star player?; what about being out b/c of academic issues?; just suspended for a generic violation of team rules?; etc, etc.
Leave it to people who have all the facts and (one assumes) can apply common sense, to select among a few teams that left the question open in the first place. You don't have to make a rule for every little thing in advance.
If you ever did implement this rule, next you'd have rules for what happens when a player is injured and out a few games during the conference--does that loss on the road against Suckteam really count without their star player?; what about being out b/c of academic issues?; just suspended for a generic violation of team rules?; etc, etc.
Leave it to people who have all the facts and (one assumes) can apply common sense, to select among a few teams that left the question open in the first place. You don't have to make a rule for every little thing in advance.
is that this is basically the same thing as if you wanted to say that you needed to make a rule where fewer than 20 wins should disqualify you, or if you wanted to make a rule where an RPI below 55 should disqualify you, or fewer than 2 Top 50 wins should disqualify you, or more than 4 losses outside the Top 100 should diqualify you.
All of these things are considered by the committee already, and doing really well in one category can make up for not doing well in another. And it should be that way. It's not all about how you do in conference play, just as it's not all about RPI, and just as it's not all about how you do against the Top 50. No reason to make a minimum rule for something that already is considered as a black mark for your resume.
All of these things are considered by the committee already, and doing really well in one category can make up for not doing well in another. And it should be that way. It's not all about how you do in conference play, just as it's not all about RPI, and just as it's not all about how you do against the Top 50. No reason to make a minimum rule for something that already is considered as a black mark for your resume.
One game below .500 is acceptable, two games is not, and conference tournaments should play a factor.
Ole Miss is a perfect example of a team that I think deserves to get in over a team like UAB. They are 7-9. Let's say they beat Georgia and UK and lose to us in the semifinals. They are 9-10 with six wins vs. Top 50 teams, with wions over Florida and Arkansas. I think UM should get the nod over both Florida and Arkansas, especially if they go further in the tournament.
Ole Miss 2008 reminds me of MState 2001. We entered the tournament on the bubble - won two games to get to the semifinals and lost in OT to Arkansas. Obviously we did not get in, but we would have if we would have won that semifinal. Ole Miss may have to do the same, but I don't see how the committee could leave them out if they win two and Florida and Arkansas don't make it to Saturday.</p>
Ole Miss is a perfect example of a team that I think deserves to get in over a team like UAB. They are 7-9. Let's say they beat Georgia and UK and lose to us in the semifinals. They are 9-10 with six wins vs. Top 50 teams, with wions over Florida and Arkansas. I think UM should get the nod over both Florida and Arkansas, especially if they go further in the tournament.
Ole Miss 2008 reminds me of MState 2001. We entered the tournament on the bubble - won two games to get to the semifinals and lost in OT to Arkansas. Obviously we did not get in, but we would have if we would have won that semifinal. Ole Miss may have to do the same, but I don't see how the committee could leave them out if they win two and Florida and Arkansas don't make it to Saturday.</p>
we need to do something to keep teams from playing a tough out of conference schedule and this rule would do that. Who needs UT v. Mem., UNC v. UCLA, Big Ten/SEC challenge type match-ups during the regular season? Conf. schedule plus 10 patsies for all!
All Bruiser said was that Ole Miss should get in over UAB and Houston. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be in.
You would have to agree with that. Otherwise all that crowing about Arkansas making it last year would be a bit comprimising.
Uncle Leo said:
</p>
Thank you. I was thinking of the same thing. The BCS was flawed in that it didn't take into account all the possibilities when the formula was created. Hence they've gone back to tweak it every year. What if the BCS had created a rule where 2 losses disqualified you from the national title game? Then you'd have watched Ohio State roll over Kansas in the title game.
No reason to create a rule about something that's already taken into consideration. If they were only using RPI, and letting the RPI dictate the selection solely, then I'd see a need to add some rules like no losing conference record, or require a certain number of Top 50 wins, etc.
But they take those factors into account. If you do poorly in one, you already get punished by the committee, and you have to make it up by doing well in other areas.
while I do enjoy watching Weems and Beverly play, I dont give a bakers <17> about UPig. Last years comments were in response to the boards obsession with "thriving"...the irony of them keeping us out of the Dance teaches you that one reaps what one sews
If the field did not include 64 teams and was more like 32 (or 48 with the top 16 having a bye) then I would say yes. I will use OM as an example since we are in that boat this year, but I don't feel my answer is biased because of it. OM had a bad run in the middle but is playing good ball right now. We have some youngsters that are maturing and playing well. I understand what you are saying, but OM is a team that has had several last-second losses, including a 2-point loss to TN. We have split games with every team in our division (except - unfortunately - Auburn). I think OM is a much better team than some of the smaller ones that would otherwise make it. I agree with your argument, because if you can't even be in the top half of your conference, why should you be given a shot at the national championship? MSU and OM have pretty similar records. The flip side of your argument is that our losses are to tougher teams. MSU's losses are to lesser-opponent non-conference teams. I personally feel like the best 64 should go, regardless of reaching a 0.500 conference mark, but your point is a very good one.</p>
Latest posts
-
Ole Miss fans having a hard time thread- Latest: SchrodingersDawg
-
-
Get unlimited access today.