Drake 28-2?

[Bulldog4life24]

Drake has a Strength of Schedule of 249. Last year Indiana State was left out with a SOS of 108.

You can’t cherry pick stats. The entire picture has to be looked at, where you see that Drake’s resume metrics are very strong (WAB is an excellent predictor). Also the bubble is currently very weak.

I don’t understand the doom and gloom house some folks want to live in. ISUb should have been in, but there’s a lot of reasons why that didn’t happen (including a historic level of bid stealers). That doesn’t mean the same thing will occur again, the next year. Drake’s current body of work and its current team sheet are not the same as ISUb

[tribecalledquest]

Drake has a Strength of Schedule of 249. Last year Indiana State was left out with a SOS of 108.

You can’t cherry pick stats. The entire picture has to be looked at, where you see that Drake’s resume metrics are very strong (WAB is an excellent predictor). Also the bubble is currently very weak.

I don’t understand the doom and gloom house some folks want to live in. ISUb should have been in, but there’s a lot of reasons why that didn’t happen (including a historic level of bid stealers). That doesn’t mean the same thing will occur again, the next year. Drake’s current body of work and its current team sheet are not the same as ISUb

Right but that doesn't fit the "P5 schools and the committee are out to f*** everyone, all the time"

[siudawgs]

Drake has a Strength of Schedule of 249. Last year Indiana State was left out with a SOS of 108.

You can’t cherry pick stats. The entire picture has to be looked at, where you see that Drake’s resume metrics are very strong (WAB is an excellent predictor). Also the bubble is currently very weak.

I don’t understand the doom and gloom house some folks want to live in. ISUb should have been in, but there’s a lot of reasons why that didn’t happen (including a historic level of bid stealers). That doesn’t mean the same thing will occur again, the next year. Drake’s current body of work and its current team sheet are not the same as ISUb

Right but that doesn't fit the "P5 schools and the committee are out to f*** everyone, all the time"

Tribe, you’re a smart guy, but for the life of me I can’t understand your pushback on the widely accepted notion that midmajors are increasingly being marginalized, when it comes to at-large opportunities and otherwise. It’s very clearly happening and even most power conference leaders acknowledge they are looking to cut our schools out of the pie.

Just a contrarian or … ?

[tribecalledquest]

Tribe, you’re a smart guy, but for the life of me I can’t understand your pushback on the widely accepted notion that midmajors are increasingly being marginalized, when it comes to at-large opportunities and otherwise. It’s very clearly happening and even most power conference leaders acknowledge they are looking to cut our schools out of the pie.

Just a contrarian or … ?

Widely accepted by who? I want to know who makes this decision. The Bradley AD was the committee chair a few years recently. Was he in on the conspiracy? Was he out to screw the Valley?

Just wanting something to be true and saying it doesn't make it true. How does the committee - made up of representatives from all levels of D1 - decide to come together and stick it to non P5's? How would this process work?

[siudawgs]

Tribe, you’re a smart guy, but for the life of me I can’t understand your pushback on the widely accepted notion that midmajors are increasingly being marginalized, when it comes to at-large opportunities and otherwise. It’s very clearly happening and even most power conference leaders acknowledge they are looking to cut our schools out of the pie.

Just a contrarian or … ?

Widely accepted by who? I want to know who makes this decision. The Bradley AD was the committee chair a few years recently. Was he in on the conspiracy? Was he out to screw the Valley?

Just wanting something to be true and saying it doesn't make it true. How does the committee - made up of representatives from all levels of D1 - decide to come together and stick it to non P5's? How would this process work?

Do you not have a TV? You can’t go 48 hours without analysts, administrators, etc., stating the obvious about the changing landscape. SIU’s AD this week just gave an interview decrying how leagues like the Valley are being marginalized in the college sports landscape.

The committee is operating in an environment where they count Q1 wins as the go-to metric, evaluate schedules with fewer than ever neutral court opportunities for mids against power leagues and the raiding of midmajor all-league teams by the big boys. It's not so much a "conspiracy" as operational realities and incentive structures that are increasingly stacked in the power leagues' favor.

It’s OK to acknowledge the obvious that this sport is increasingly catering to the TV league behomeths.

[siudawgs]

Here is a link to the aforementioned interview BTW with SIU AD Tim Leonard for those who might be interested: https://www.wsiu.org/siu/2025-02-09/the ... -athletics

The part most applicable to this discussion is probably the latter 10 minutes or so.

[Bulldog4life24]

Drake has a Strength of Schedule of 249. Last year Indiana State was left out with a SOS of 108.

You can’t cherry pick stats. The entire picture has to be looked at, where you see that Drake’s resume metrics are very strong (WAB is an excellent predictor). Also the bubble is currently very weak.

I don’t understand the doom and gloom house some folks want to live in. ISUb should have been in, but there’s a lot of reasons why that didn’t happen (including a historic level of bid stealers). That doesn’t mean the same thing will occur again, the next year. Drake’s current body of work and its current team sheet are not the same as ISUb

Right but that doesn't fit the "P5 schools and the committee are out to f*** everyone, all the time"

I appreciate your sarcasm! I do think the P5 is out to f*** everyone all the time, but I don't think the committee is, for all the reason's you've posted below.

[tribecalledquest]

I appreciate your sarcasm! I do think the P5 is out to f*** everyone all the time, but I don't think the committee is, for all the reason's you've posted below.

I get that and agree. The P5's have no use for non-P5's. I get it and understand it. I don't have to like it but they look out for themselves. But as you mention - the committee is something different.

[tribecalledquest]

Tribe, you’re a smart guy, but for the life of me I can’t understand your pushback on the widely accepted notion that midmajors are increasingly being marginalized, when it comes to at-large opportunities and otherwise. It’s very clearly happening and even most power conference leaders acknowledge they are looking to cut our schools out of the pie.

Just a contrarian or … ?

Widely accepted by who? I want to know who makes this decision. The Bradley AD was the committee chair a few years recently. Was he in on the conspiracy? Was he out to screw the Valley?

Just wanting something to be true and saying it doesn't make it true. How does the committee - made up of representatives from all levels of D1 - decide to come together and stick it to non P5's? How would this process work?

Do you not have a TV? You can’t go 48 hours without analysts, administrators, etc., stating the obvious about the changing landscape. SIU’s AD this week just gave an interview decrying how leagues like the Valley are being marginalized in the college sports landscape.

The committee is operating in an environment where they count Q1 wins as the go-to metric, evaluate schedules with fewer than ever neutral court opportunities for mids against power leagues and the raiding of midmajor all-league teams by the big boys. It's not so much a "conspiracy" as operational realities and incentive structures that are increasingly stacked in the power leagues' favor.

It’s OK to acknowledge the obvious that this sport is increasingly catering to the TV league behomeths.

But nothing has changed. The P5 schools have always gotten more bids. The numbers fluctuate a bit year to year, but the math on non P5's getting in hasn't changed in decades.

[siudawgs]

@Tribe,
Nothing has changed? You genuinely think Drake's chances are as good for an at-large this year as, say if this were 10-20 years ago?

You don't think the emphasis on counting "Quad 1 and 2" wins hurts mid-majors' resumes as opposed to when they were using RPIs?

You think SIU getting five at-larges in a six-year span like in the 2000s could reasonably be expected to happen for a Valley program in this climate?

And the recent normalizing of power conference programs getting bids when they're .500 or even below in league play isn't a problem for midmajor at-large candidates?

I'm too lazy to look up the trendline percentage of at-larges going to non-power conference teams but if it hasn't gone down over the past 5-10 years compared to the first 20 years of this century, I would be pretty stunned.