How about 9-19 Wake Forest or 10-17 Ohio State making the PT in Allen?

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/teamprofile/Ratings.aspx?tid=7040

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/teamprofile/History.aspx?tid=7028

OSU is 3-14 vs. top 100 RPI and Wake is 5-19, including being 1-15 in conference play.  1 and 15 in conference play!!  What the heck?  Let someone in that didn't just play a tough schedule, but actually won some games. 

Ohio State was 2-14 in conference.  Michigan was 3-13 in conference.  I can see getting into the PT with a 7-9 record in conference, even 6-10 if you won a CT game, but worse than that?  Should there be a win limit for PT berths?

wow... 1-15?!?!

I'm OK with a losing record making the PIT but there should be a threshold...say, nothing worse than  4 games below .500

I agree.

reinsel, I would send a ticket with a suggestion or two. Making the PIT is almost entirely based on rpi, and that brings up problems like this.

100 percent agreed. The pit berths and the prestige bump (or lack of drop) that accompanies it is a load of crap. I don't hink any team with a losing record should be in the postseason, give or take a game. 1-15 conf is garbage.

Posted by nbstowman on 3/4/2011 11:07:00 AM (view original):
100 percent agreed. The pit berths and the prestige bump (or lack of drop) that accompanies it is a load of crap. I don't hink any team with a losing record should be in the postseason, give or take a game. 1-15 conf is garbage.

I think that's an overstatement, nb. I think there are always several big conference teams with losing records that are considerably better and have better quality wins than small conference teams who haven't beaten anyone but have a few more wins.

I'm normally one to campaign for more opportunities for low/mid teams, but we still have to embrace the reality here.

I got zero issue with Miami being in the PT with a 14-15 record.  They are in a TOUGH conference and won 6 games.  That's fine.  give em 10 points to spread around and they would have been in the NT easy.  Same thing with Nebraska and Georgia Tech who were 6-10 in conference.  They belong in the PT.


I think teams that have less than say 12 wins should be out.  Even 13, but imposing a winning record requirment is a little rough.

But 9 and 10 win teams are just not postseason material. 

I had a team make the PI in Allen several seasons ago, W. Chester (PA). I was 9-20 (5-11 in conference) with a RPI of 98 after I lost in the first round of the PT. At the time I thought it was absolutely nuts, just to reward me for being in a strong Conference. There should be some sortminimum requirement for making the PT, just not sure what it should be. I don't think a winning record is the answer either though.

Yea this happens way too often. I know in D2 I've also seen some 9-19ish teams make the PIT. If a team is 13-14, 12-15 with some quality wins and they make the PIT that's one thing but these teams that are just benefitting from playing an extremely tough schedule and losing all their tough games should not be making the PIT. I think quality wins needs to be a bigger factor in making the PIT.

we better define quality wins.  Wake had 5 wins against rpi top 100.   Their opponent in the PIT, a good 22-7 Jackson State, had 4 wins against the top 100.

Posted by Iguana1 on 3/4/2011 6:41:00 PM (view original):
we better define quality wins.  Wake had 5 wins against rpi top 100.   Their opponent in the PIT, a good 22-7 Jackson State, had 4 wins against the top 100.

Iguana, usually I think your #'s are pretty flawless, but I'm not with you this time.

Jackson State not only won at UVA, but they also won by 13 at Wake Forest.

Jax State was 3-3 vs. NT teams (and one basket in the CT final from being 4-2). Wake was 1-14 vs. NT teams.

If anything, I'd normally be cheerleading for the ACC Allen, but in this case I don't think it's even close which team is more deserving and had the better season. And I don't think you can make a compelling case for any team that went 1-15 in conference to be in the postseason. Was Wake in a much tougher conference? Of course. But at some point you have to earn your way to the posteason by winning some games.

I know my last statement was an exaggeration Girt, and I realize that there are some really good teams who end up with 12 or 13 wins in a monster conference. I just have a bee in my bonnet about prestige this month.

Yeah I mean the# of wins were greater for Wake and Ohio State, but they had so many opportunities, while a Jackson State team doesn't get more than 5-6 games where they can really impress.  But they won a ton of games vs. RPI 100-200 teams, which is better than losing to good teams I think.  Especially if its going 9-1 vs. RPI 150 teams vs. going 1-9 vs. RPI 50 teams.

never said Wake deserved a bid.  Especially with only one conference win.  
Although the development of those 5 freshman in the rotation make them a better team then they were in the earlier matchup with Jackson State.    Jackson State is a solid squad with 5 seniors and 3 juniors and certainly deserves a one seed in the PIT, if not being NT worthy.

But in this case, setting some sort of minimum requirement for "quality" wins shouldn't eliminate Wake and let others in.  

What quality wins do teams seeded in front of Wake, like Bowling Green or UW-Milwaukee, have?  A home win against a #133 rated sim?

This is why winning has to matter.