The road to 2 NCAA bids

[Milanmiracle]

We need to challenge ourselves more in the non-con get our numbers up. Have teams that have 2-3 Q1 and 5-6 total Q1 Q2 wins to play each other and make this league depth count for something! That's the answer! That's the way forward!

That is also impossible. The Power 5 don't want multiple teams from the Valley. They changed the rules to make it impossible.

The OHIO VALLEY got two teams into the dance last year. The SOCON will likely get two if ETSU loses in the final. UNI was probably in if they made the final. Don't tell me it's impossible. That's defeatist and by the OVC example alone patently false. If you believe that you're doing exactly what the P5 wants you to do. Accept their arbitrary BS standards and move on. Like I said Do what you have to do. Uneven trades buy games but GET THOSE GAMES. Then WIN THEM. And the Committee has no choice but to let us in.

The NET has changed scheduling requirements and there is even less reason for major conferences to schedule mid majors, especially anyone who can beat them. The first part of the formula is the team value index, and second is offensive/defensive efficiency.

You mentioned the OVC getting two bids last year and Belmont getting an at large. There was an article that stated Belmont knew how to schedule for the NET, AND how to play the statistics game. Like I said before, the computer isn’t taking into account you shot 35% against Kansas and 65% against SE North West State University, they just calculate the team shooting percentage at 50%. So as an example, IU has 31 games scheduled, 20 of which are Big Ten games, 1 ACC challenge, and one Hoosier Classic against either Notre Dame or Butler. That leaves 9 total games in the out of conference schedule. Some of those games need to be stat padders to increase your offensive and defensive efficiency. If you want more proof, go take a good look at Belmont’s in 18-19 schedule and see who they beat. Hardly anyone. They only PLAYED 2 power 5 teams and beat a bad UCLA team. That’s it.

Schedule “better” sounds great, schedule smarter is the reality.

[VUGrad1314]

Belmont had 3 Q1 wins if I recall correctly. Those still matter. You still need them. Belmont wouldn't have gotten anywhere without that Lipscomb sweep. Yes they were lucky but still it means that you need to get the Q1 games however you can.

[Milanmiracle]

Belmont had 3 Q1 wins if I recall correctly. Those still matter. You still need them. Belmont wouldn't have gotten anywhere without that Lipscomb sweep. Yes they were lucky but still it means that you need to get the Q1 games however you can.

You do recall correctly. Good memory. Lipscomb (NET 49) twice and Murray State (NET 44) once. That definitely factored. UCLA (NET 120) should have been their best win but they were terrible.

Schedule those same teams this year? Lipscomb has a NET of 257, and Murray State has a NET of 139. UCLA would be the best win this year at 79.

[VUGrad1314]

Right they got lucky but you can generally have a sense of what mids in regional leagues will be good teams (especially in certain leagues) it's easier to get the games if you know where to look. Elite mids need to start banding together in the name of securing those last few bids for themselves. Not everyone will make it sure but more of us might. And that should be the goal. Because trying to do this ourselves isn't working and we're having less success. It's game theory. Sometimes working together even as rivals leads to better outcomes.

[Blers42]

Belmont had 3 Q1 wins if I recall correctly. Those still matter. You still need them. Belmont wouldn't have gotten anywhere without that Lipscomb sweep. Yes they were lucky but still it means that you need to get the Q1 games however you can.

You do recall correctly. Good memory. Lipscomb (NET 49) twice and Murray State (NET 44) once. That definitely factored. UCLA (NET 120) should have been their best win but they were terrible.

Schedule those same teams this year? Lipscomb has a NET of 257, and Murray State has a NET of 139. UCLA would be the best win this year at 79.

It was pure luck, what the hell do you think coaches are doing vugrad? Trying to create shitty schedules? It’s their job, they understand the importance of having a schedule that leads to an at large bid. The reality is nobody wants to play a decent mid-major program, there’s absolutely no incentive for big time schools. Porter has publicly acknowledged this plenty of times in regards to Loyola, nobody wants to play us. I’m just confused how you’re acting like every coach and athletic department in the valley doesn’t already know this.

[VUGrad1314]

Belmont had 3 Q1 wins if I recall correctly. Those still matter. You still need them. Belmont wouldn't have gotten anywhere without that Lipscomb sweep. Yes they were lucky but still it means that you need to get the Q1 games however you can.

You do recall correctly. Good memory. Lipscomb (NET 49) twice and Murray State (NET 44) once. That definitely factored. UCLA (NET 120) should have been their best win but they were terrible.

Schedule those same teams this year? Lipscomb has a NET of 257, and Murray State has a NET of 139. UCLA would be the best win this year at 79.

It was pure luck, what the hell do you think coaches are doing vugrad? Trying to create shitty schedules? It’s their job, they understand the importance of having a schedule that leads to an at large bid. The reality is nobody wants to play a decent mid-major program, there’s absolutely no incentive for big time schools. Porter has publicly acknowledged this plenty of times in regards to Loyola, nobody wants to play us. I’m just confused how you’re acting like every coach and athletic department in the valley doesn’t already know this.

Then why aren't the top mids in various leagues working together to take the fight to the high majors? And you don't think they'd take a nice Q2 buy game if we offered them one? You don't think they'd take several games against a quality mid major program in exchange for a road game they'll never have to play because they can just buy it out? I feel like a lot of programs don't try hard enough and that if they truly wanted to make garnering at large bids a priority they could do it. This isn't just a Valley problem it's a problem for all mid majors. Creative problems require creative solutions or they require a willingness to swallow our pride and beat the high majors at their own game by beating them on their own floor on terms that they set. We across the top mid major leagues just need to try a little harder. I really believe that.

[VUGrad1314]

Anyway here's something that's bugged me for a long time:

8 and 7 seeds beat 1 and 2 seeds In the Conference Tournament: A Tale of 2 Conferences:

Big 10: "This just shows the depth of this conference and the unimaginable grind these teams go through night in and night out. A testament to why they're getting 126789 teams in the tournament this year."

MVC: "Ha! UNI and Loyola lost to Drake and Valpo! I told you this conference sucks! The top of this conference have been such fraudulent paper tigers all year. They're lucky they at least have the auto bid."

Tell me, what makes these situations so different? Why can't we be considered for the good strong deep league that we are and get a little love from the committee? We're just like the Big 10 in that we are deep and cannibalize each other so what gives? Asking for a friend.

[BCPanther]

UNI DID schedule games with teams that were supposed to be at the top of other Mid conferences. (Old Dominion, Marshall, at Grand Canyon) but unlike Belmont getting every conceivable break last year, those three teams s*** the bed to varying degrees.

UNI isn't getting in. We're going to get the pat on the head of an NIT one seed. Maybe we'll get to New York.

UNI is still in really good shape going forward but it's hard not to think the younger group would have really benefitted from the experience of an NCAA Tournament.

[stable genius]

Its not happening, everyone on my Twitter likes to bring up Belmont 2019 as a comp because they had similar metrics and got in. It was a completely different bubble last year. Least year the NET did a pretty good job of what it was designed to do, wipe out mid majors so the rich can stay rich. There were very few mid majors in that 30-50 range for them to consider, and some that were there like Lipscomb were easy to disregard because they did not have competative Q1/2 wins or at least win percentage. I believe that the committee threw Belmont a bone to avoid it being a bad look (Belmont's solid track record probably didn't hurt).

Not going to happen for UNI this year, thanks to yesterday's performance they got passed by Richmond, Utah State, ETSU. The committee is only willing to let a certain number of mids in and maybe yesterday UNI had a chance at that, but today, no.

[Milanmiracle]

Anyway here's something that's bugged me for a long time:

8 and 7 seeds beat 1 and 2 seeds In the Conference Tournament: A Tale of 2 Conferences:

Big 10: "This just shows the depth of this conference and the unimaginable grind these teams go through night in and night out. A testament to why they're getting 126789 teams in the tournament this year."

MVC: "Ha! UNI and Loyola lost to Drake and Valpo! I told you this conference sucks! The top of this conference have been such fraudulent paper tigers all year. They're lucky they at least have the auto bid."

Tell me, what makes these situations so different? Why can't we be considered for the good strong deep league that we are and get a little love from the committee? We're just like the Big 10 in that we are deep and cannibalize each other so what gives? Asking for a friend.

Seriously??? What makes these situations so different? My eyes.

Secondly, as an example, Valpo’s out of conference record was what, 9-6? The best win? Toledo (NET 134)???

The Big Ten played a much much better out of conference schedule, actually beat power 5 teams and then had to play twenty power 5 games in a row. Yea, that’s comparable to the MVC.

Purdue played 25 games against Power 5/Big East teams and 6 other games, one of which was VCU. The other 5? Chicago State, Jacksonville State, Ohio, Central Michigan and Green Bay. None of them are exactly mid major powerhouses, but again they do allow you to pad your NET stats.

Point being, your out of conference success determines the difference in how the conference is perceived.