Long post - but bear with me.
Joe Lunardi of ESPN has all three teams solidly in the field. However, as of last night, Jerry Palm of CollegeRPI.com, is insisting Utah State will not make the tournament. Earlier in the week, he didn’t even have them on his bubble.
On Seth Davis’ show on CBS College Sports on Tuesday night, Palm said “I really don’t see a lot of hope for Utah State. I see them as kind of a homecourt hero. If the tournament was in Logan, I wouldn’t want to play Utah State, but anywhere else, I would take them. Regarding UTEP, Palm had them in the field but said “they are really on shaky ground.” He also pointed out CAL’s lack of wins against high-rated RPI opponents but said he thought they had the best chance of these three.
Earlier in the show in his “Starting Five” segment Davis said “once again it appears the Aggies will not get an at-large bid because of their weak non-conference schedule.” He went on to argue that Stew Morrill should take his team on the road early in the season to play power teams, even if it meant not getting return games, which Morrill refuses to do at the present time.
On another segment in the show, Davis reviewed the bubble teams with three guests, including Jim O’Connell – national college basketball writer for the Associated Press, Gary Parrish of CBS Sports.com, and Mike DeCourcy, the college basketball writer from The Sporting News. Not a single one even had Utah State on the bubble.
Utah State, UTEP and CAL all have good arguments. They may all get in for one important reason - conference ranking.
I believe RPI still matters. Not as much as it did before 2006, when the weighted RPI was introduced. But it is still a factor, particularly in looking at conferences. It might be unofficial, but where I think it really matters is conference ranking. We discussed this to some degree a few weeks ago.
The best example is 2006 – the most controversial selection Sunday in the past decade. So much so that at least one committee member gave ESPN’s Andy Katz a “not-for-attribution” interview to defend the committee’s picks. He specifically talked about conference ranking.
Despite its non-conference resume looking very similar to UTEP and Utah State, I think Cal will get into the tournament because it won the regular season of the 8th RPI ranked conference. CUSA is the 11th rated league, just behind the WAC, which is rated 10th.
I think there might be more of a willingness on the part of the committee to reward what are considered power conferences with at least two bids if there are deserving teams on the bubble. If not, the Committee will be lumping those leagues in with the Southland and the SWAC. It could happen, but I don’t think so.
UTEP and Utah State will likely make this field, as well. It’s also why, even if Washington had lost to CAL in the PAC 10 finals, it would almost certainly have made the field anyway.
The 8th rated league has put multiple teams in the field every year since 2006. The ninth rated league has put multiple teams in every year with the exception of 2009 with the MVC was a one-bid league. It would have put two teams in the tournament if Creighton (with an RPI of 33 going in) had not lost to Illinois State by 24 points (73-49) in the MVC tournament semis.
There has only been one time since 2006 that the 10th and 11th rated leagues have received multiple bids – the CAA in 2006. But that’s also the only year that either one of conferences in those slots had a second team ranked in the top 40 in the RPI.
There is also one more thing worth pointing out. Once again, the Missouri Valley is the 9th rated conference. It will almost certainly be a one-bid league with Northern Iowa winning the tournament. But if Utah State, UTEP, and Cal all make the field, keep something in mind.
Wichita State is sitting out there at 25-9 with an RPI of 47. It lost the bracketbuster to Utah State and then an MVC game to Bradley. Had the Shockers beaten Bradley, they might have been able to sneak into this field. And they wouldn’t have been in the bubble discussion, either.
|
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by DFWDawg
