Is The Missouri Valley A 2-Bid League?

[Birdfan2018]

Friday Big games to Indiana State:

Washington State over Colorado
North Carolina State over Virginia
Kentucky over Texas A&M
Tennessee over Mississippi State
Colorado State over New Mexico
Florida Atlantic over North Texas

[MissouriValleyUnite]

Indiana St on the right side of NET, KenPom, BPI, KPI, Torvik, & SOR.

https://x.com/ryanhammer09/status/17686 ... 80641?s=20

[TylerDurden]

Indiana St on the right side of NET, KenPom, BPI, KPI, Torvik, & SOR.

https://x.com/ryanhammer09/status/17686 ... 80641?s=20

You also have to look beyond those numbers. Indiana State's problem is that they don't have enough good wins to stack up against their fellow bubble dwellers. All of these teams have flaws, but they all have better top-end wins - and that's going to be the justification, whether we like it or not.

Texas A&M has wins over Iowa State, Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee...I know they recently lost five straight (then won four straight), but they're going to get in.

Providence has wins over Wisconsin, Marquette, Creighton x2.

St. John's is pretty weak, but they still beat Utah, Providence, Creighton, and Seton Hall.

The computers love Indiana State. We all know they're fantastic. They don't have marquee wins. The best we can hope for is the First Four.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

"Top-end wins" are a function of access to opportunity. Especially at home.
 
The metrics are the best, most unbiased tools out there. They neutralize for all those differences in marquee wins, schedule strength, etc. When the metrics across the board - unanimously for the Big 6 metrics - all agree a team should be in, it's arrogant for humans to say we know better than all the metrics. They have a much better track record and objectivity than humans do.

Teams with exactly Indiana State's combo of 1 Q1 win, top-40 NET (28), top-50 resume avg (40), 40%+ winning% in Q1+2 (50%)? 4-for-4 in making the tournament:

[BCPanther]

Indiana St on the right side of NET, KenPom, BPI, KPI, Torvik, & SOR.

https://x.com/ryanhammer09/status/17686 ... 80641?s=20

You also have to look beyond those numbers. Indiana State's problem is that they don't have enough good wins to stack up against their fellow bubble dwellers. All of these teams have flaws, but they all have better top-end wins - and that's going to be the justification, whether we like it or not.

Texas A&M has wins over Iowa State, Kentucky, Florida, Tennessee...I know they recently lost five straight (then won four straight), but they're going to get in.

Providence has wins over Wisconsin, Marquette, Creighton x2.

St. John's is pretty weak, but they still beat Utah, Providence, Creighton, and Seton Hall.

The computers love Indiana State. We all know they're fantastic. They don't have marquee wins. The best we can hope for is the First Four.

Agreed. Unfortunately.

They REALLY needed either P5 game and didn't get it and the Illinois State loss settling into Q4 really hurts.

I hate it and all the points about access and opportunity are spot on but this is the system and we have to adapt. You can't play the 312th OOC schedule and then complain about not getting in when your league only offers you 6 or 8 Q1/2 opportunities. EVERYBODY has to get into the Top 150 non-con schedules so that league games present those opportunities and at home.

[tribecalledquest]

The Valley is less aggressive in looking for and getting games the Mountain West and WCC get - for example. Now, those two leagues are open to playing each other and that helps.

I know I'm a broken record - but we are fooling ourselves if we think MVC coaches REALLY want hard schedules. I'm not sure many of them even think about an at large bid when putting the schedule together. It's way down the list of their concerns.

Forget the P6 leagues. Why will the Mountain West get way more bids than the MVC again this year?

There has to be the will and the resources spent to get better schedules. It is possible.

[BCPanther]

The Valley is less aggressive in looking for and getting games the Mountain West and WCC get - for example. Now, those two leagues are open to playing each other and that helps.

I know I'm a broken record - but we are fooling ourselves if we think MVC coaches REALLY want hard schedules. I'm not sure many of them even think about an at large bid when putting the schedule together. It's way down the list of their concerns.

Forget the P6 leagues. Why will the Mountain West get way more bids than the MVC again this year?

There has to be the will and the resources spent to get better schedules. It is possible.

You have to be willing to go on the road. You have to be willing to take uncomfortable games.

There's one coach in the league that does it and then everybody bitches about being .500ish in the non-con and then doing well in the league.

We'd be so much better off if everybody did that.

[tribecalledquest]

You have to be willing to go on the road. You have to be willing to take uncomfortable games.

We'd be so much better off if everybody did that.

It's easier to complain about the P6 teams and the system screwing you than it is to be a bit uncomfortable in scheduling.

[ReZyNeZy]

The MVC should certainly be a 2-bid league. In terms of RPI and TV ratings, they are 9th behind the P-6, MW, and A-10. Once PAC-12 dies, MW will most likely ascend to a Power conference in place of the PAC-12. That leaves only the A-10 better than the Valley in terms of Mid-Major conference rankings (again, these stats are according to RPI and ratings).

[ColonialBulldog]

The Valley is less aggressive in looking for and getting games the Mountain West and WCC get - for example. Now, those two leagues are open to playing each other and that helps.

I know I'm a broken record - but we are fooling ourselves if we think MVC coaches REALLY want hard schedules. I'm not sure many of them even think about an at large bid when putting the schedule together. It's way down the list of their concerns.

Forget the P6 leagues. Why will the Mountain West get way more bids than the MVC again this year?

There has to be the will and the resources spent to get better schedules. It is possible.

You have to be willing to go on the road. You have to be willing to take uncomfortable games.

There's one coach in the league that does it and then everybody bitches about being .500ish in the non-con and then doing well in the league.

We'd be so much better off if everybody did that.

UNI got into a good tournament. That's probably more by luck and relationships. It has nothing to do with willing to go on the road and willingness to take uncomfortable games. Choosing to go to UNT or USF isn't exactly moving the needle for the committee.

The reality is that these road/uncomfortable games that the MWC is taking have a lot to do with geography. The Big 10, ACC, and Big 12 have a gag order on scheduling MVC, A10, and MWC teams for one off games. The only time those games are scheduled are if the team is expected to be 250+ in NET or if there's an MTE. (See Illinois-Valpo). The Pac 12 does not have the same type of mandate and regularly schedules WCC and MWC teams.