Just trying to put some objective criteria into a system that is brutally flawed currently. (Although, many will argue that the media loves the flaws so they can generate so much content about the flaws - just look at all the OU, ASU, etc. discussion.)

 

Even with an unbalanced schedule where you play UVa, Duke and UNC 2x and Pitt and GaTech only 1x, do you really belong in the tournament if you are UNDER .500 in your league? Show me a team that truly "belongs" / "belonged" in the tournament that was UNDER .500 in conference.

 

Also, knowing this requirement in advance would expand the "bubble" into FEB and late JAN and make conference games more exciting. ("X team is 3 under .500 going into their last 7 conference games. In order to be postseason eligible, they'll need to go 5-2 on those games.")

 

But does the team that didn't play UVA, Duke and UNC and barely hits .500 deserve to get in over the team that did and fell just short?

Let's say NC State goes undefeated out of conference and has 2 top 20 wins out of conference but because they had the tougher Conf draw they are 8-10 or 7-9 in conference...they'd deserve a shot, right?

 

We can play out scenarios all day :lol2: and I agree teams should be over .500, but I also think it shouldn't be a hard fast rule. Sometimes a team under .500 in conference deserves to get in.

First thing that needs done is caping each conference with 5 entries max.

First thing that needs done is caping each conference with 5 entries max.

 

That sounds like a good idea if you want to drastically water down the field of 68.

but I also think it shouldn't be a hard fast rule. Sometimes a team under .500 in conference deserves to get in.

 

That's where we disagree (which is fine and healthy). Given the awful job the committee has proven it will do, I want as many reasonable "guardrails" on them as possible.

 

As to when a team under .500 in conference DESERVES to be in, let me know when it happens and I will re-think.

That's where we disagree (which is fine and healthy). Given the awful job the committee has proven it will do, I want as many reasonable "guardrails" on them as possible.

 

As to when a team under .500 in conference DESERVES to be in, let me know when it happens and I will re-think.

 

How about Notre Dame or Oklahoma St. this season? DESERVES is comparative to others that are in the tournament, not just in a vacuum.

How about Notre Dame or Oklahoma St. this season? DESERVES is comparative to others that are in the tournament, not just in a vacuum.

 

I'm looking more for a "wow, they got hosed" example rather than a "they probably don't deserve to be in, but they're as good or better than these other hacks they let in."

 

Although the ND example warrants consideration. Say ND played great in non-conference (they didn't - losses v. Ball St. and @ IU), then Colson got hurt right at the beginning of conference play and they struggled, then Colson returned at the end of conference play and they returned to their prior great form over a few games, including the tournament, but still ended up at 8-10 or 7-9. Maybe that would be worth an exception to the hard rule.

 

For me, I like the certainty and knowing what you have to do to even be considered. I also like some objective criteria limiting the pool of teams the Committee can screw up with!!!