SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-31-23 03:43 AM - Post#355403
When the field of 64 was announced this year, I checked KenPom to see who was the highest ranking mid-major to be snubbed. That was North Texas, ranked 42 or so at the time, way above the likes of N.C.State that was invited. Their great sin was losing a game to Florida Atlantic, now in the Final Four. North Texas just won the NIT to little notice or acclaim.
If a team as clearly superior as UNT can’t get an at-large bid, then there is no chance of the IL getting a second bid ever, despite the hype we were bombarded with when the IL tournament was sold.
|
sparman
PhD Student
Posts: 1347
Reg: 12-08-04
|
The two-bid fantasy
03-31-23 08:31 AM - Post#355407
In response to SRP
I have been saying this forever as a general observation, but it's always better to have this specific data.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32833
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-31-23 09:03 AM - Post#355408
In response to sparman
I don't think that ever was the League's justification for it--just some of the opinions here. The League's justification was because the players and coaches wanted it and that it would provide a great Gathering of the Clan each Spring. Of course, that was contingent on the tournament being played at the Palestra or somewhere comparable. Indeed, there appeared to be social events planned until the pandemic, but unless I missed something, the tournaments at Harvard and Princeton had little of that--Harvard had a social reception room for those who purchased tickets and if there was one this time, I wasn't notified nor saw it.
I'll say this, however--the Ivies appear to have gotten the team best able to compete in to the NCAAs using the Tournament, so on that basis, it's been a success.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4911
Reg: 02-04-06
|
03-31-23 11:41 PM - Post#355459
In response to palestra38
UNT coach moving on to Texas Tech, so at least he’s benefiting.
|
iogyhufi
Masters Student
Posts: 681
Age: 27
Reg: 10-10-17
|
04-01-23 12:18 AM - Post#355460
In response to SRP
I think the way a second bid happens for a mid-major conference pretty much needs to be "one team is utterly dominant, but trips in the league tournament." CUSA committed the mortal sin of having too many good teams, so UNT couldn't accumulate enough wins to get over the hump.
The committee is really hidebound when it comes to these things, caring more about things like "number of Quad 1 wins" and less about things like "winning percentage in Quad 1 games" or "NET ranking." If you can't get Quad 1 wins, perhaps because you don't get 20 bites at the apple like a mediocre high-major, the only way you can compensate is by not losing a ton so that the committee gets seduced by your low number of losses.
|
Go Green
PhD Student
Posts: 1149
Age: 52
Reg: 04-22-10
|
The two-bid fantasy
04-03-23 02:06 PM - Post#355525
In response to palestra38
The League's justification was because the players and coaches wanted it and that it would provide a great Gathering of the Clan each Spring.
Not to mention Yale getting completely shut out of post-season play in 2015.
(Yes, I know that wasn't part of the league's talking points when it announced the creation of the ILT. But when Yale gets angry, changes happen.)
Edited by Go Green on 04-03-23 02:07 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
