Off topic: Texas Southern/Johnny Jones

[GMG_Dallas]

23 minutes ago, NorthTexasWeLove said:

No, I'm with it. Still keep the conference AQ for all. But the at-large bid has to be tagged with meaningful data, specifically for the "bigger" conferences. 20+ reg season wins and above .500 conference record. That tag can be put on everyone. We know a "mid-major" isn't getting in on that criteria, they have to exceed that in its current format. But by placing those minimum standards for all, the 27 win Toledo team that just lost the MAC final won't get left out for a 20-13 Arkansas team that went 8-10 in league play. 

Right. I don't know what the right formula is but I know the power conferences are once again favored way too much. 10 years ago, you'd get around 10 midmajor at large bids. Now you get maybe 6? It's nonsense. All this because of perceived conference strength. UNT wouldn't be in the bubble conversation with UNC's season. Remove the names, and decide who should be in based on actual metrics.

[greenminer]

How about a European approach to this?

If you're a program sitting on your ass, enjoying AL bids while hovering around 0.500 in your conference year after year, you'll get your 3rd (arbitrary) bid but then get demoted into a lower league.  MMs that have been snubbed after 25+ wins get consideration to take your spot.   Extra emphasis provided to the  25+ win program you refused to schedule the last 3 years because you didn't care for the risk.

Edited March 12, 2023 by greenminer

[greenminer]

3 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

I feel like Perry could do that if permitted but McCasland wants a slower pace. Watch UAB play and the amount of "bad" shots Walker takes is astounding. 30 feet out, double teamed, doesn't matter, he clearly has the green light to take whatever shot he wants whenever he wants. That wouldn't fly with McCasland.

TP is a generational shooter.  I don't see him as fast, regardless of what system he's in.  Well, fast enough to sometimes wiggle his way towards the basket, but he's not fast enough to do it consistently.  He does have a great step back, but I don't see him as a great shot creator.  Seemed to really struggle at times because he doesn't have that aspect to his game.

[greenminer]

3 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

I feel like Perry could do that if permitted but McCasland wants a slower pace. Watch UAB play and the amount of "bad" shots Walker takes is astounding. 30 feet out, double teamed, doesn't matter, he clearly has the green light to take whatever shot he wants whenever he wants. That wouldn't fly with McCasland.

Side note: I think Gaines takes really awful shots sometimes.  He's got a beautiful game, and I get this "i'm all world" vibe from him.  arrogant?  Can't explain it, but it manifests itself in some really bold attempts.  Sometimes an attempt is a SC T10 dunk, sometimes it's a FG attempt at the worst place and time.

Maybe someone who's more bball savvy than me can tell me I'm right or wrong.

[greenminer]

I don't think "supposed to reflect an entire season" is the best way to frame this.  Not strictly.  Nearly every bracketologist to a T will tell you it's supposed to be the best 68 teams, regardless of conference.  The season, however, is so long that you often have cases where a team is playing at a completely different level in one half compared to the other.  Or a big run by a single team in the conference tournament.

They come up with all these metrics to try and have the best, most accurate view possible of the quality of ball play, ranked top to bottom regardless of conference affiliation.  Season long performance comes into play, but they (we!) need this committee to have the human element.  To look at the remaining at-large slots and say, "who do we think is playing the best ball right now."  The selection process gets hairy when you find that sweet spot of 5-10 teams that include 0.500 records from the top conferences, and 25+ win Mid Majors that lost heart breakers in their conference tournaments.  They are very often next to each other in the metrics and rankings, and the committee will then give the edge to the teams that have more quality wins.

This is the tough life that we have as mid majors, when you are a 25+ win team and quality opponents are extremely hard to get on the schedule.

[GMG_Dallas]

@greenmineryeah I get it's supposed to be the best 68 teams. If that's the case, follow the season-long metrics that tell you who the best teams are. They developed the NET for a reason. Follow it.

About Gaines, I love his talent but he needs better coaching. A question was posed on here a couple weeks ago asking which player from another team would you choose to have right now if you could pick anybody. I was between him and one of the UAB bigs. With better coaching, Gaines would be an all-conference player. Gaines was one of the top combo guards in his class and ultimately chose LSU over Houston, Alabama, and others. He's one of the many examples we can point to when critizing Andy Kennedy and UAB underachieving. They have all this talent running wild on the court with little direction. Better coaching would have that group absolutely dominating CUSA.

With TP's shot creating ability, I know he's not as quick as Walker but he has an incredibly fast shot release. The thing is Walker pulls the trigger as soon as he has an inch of space. It's how he gets so many foul calls. It's also how he went 6/20 yesterday. I still wouldn't be mad with TP jacking up more shots. Run him off a screen to get an open 3 like they do Walker.

[greenminer]

7 hours ago, GMG_Dallas said:

@greenmineryeah I get it's supposed to be the best 68 teams. If that's the case, follow the season-long metrics that tell you who the best teams are. They developed the NET for a reason. Follow it.

Appreciate it.  I know what the NET is.  I cannot get past the idea that a season average - which is what the NET is - might not give an accurate depiction of how a team is playing RIGHT NOW.  Which means it does not tell you who the 68 best teams are RIGHT NOW.  That could be the last 3 days.  The last 2 weeks.

I get the feeling that you already acknowledge that, and believe that season long metrics should take 100% priority over what's happened recently.  But, IMO, if the committee does that, then it could definitely compromise the pursuit If the best 68 teams RIGHT NOW.

Edited March 12, 2023 by greenminer

[CMJ]

11 minutes ago, greenminer said:

Appreciate it.  I know what the NET is.  I cannot get past the idea that a season average - which is what the NET is - might not give an accurate depiction of how a team is playing RIGHT NOW.  Which means it does not tell you who the 68 best teams are RIGHT NOW.  That could be the last 3 days.  The last 2 weeks.

I get the feeling that you already acknowledge that, and believe that season long metrics should take 100% priority over what's happened recently.  But, IMO, if the committee does that, then it could definitely compromise the pursuit If the best 68 teams RIGHT NOW.

I'm not sure they're as interested in finding that any more.  Record over the last ten games used to be a metric they looked at the gauge who might be best right now, but that was dropped several years ago.

[greenminer]

11 minutes ago, CMJ said:

I'm not sure they're as interested in finding that any more.  Record over the last ten games used to be a metric they looked at the gauge who might be best right now, but that was dropped several years ago.

I could be walking a wrong path then. Does does not having the metric mean they are not going to consider it at all?

[CMJ]

5 minutes ago, greenminer said:

I could be walking a wrong path then. Does does not having the metric mean they are not going to consider it at all?

I think they're looking for most deserving, which to me implies over the course of the season.  Best can mean hottest right now.

[GMG_Dallas]

1 hour ago, greenminer said:

Appreciate it.  I know what the NET is.  I cannot get past the idea that a season average - which is what the NET is - might not give an accurate depiction of how a team is playing RIGHT NOW.  Which means it does not tell you who the 68 best teams are RIGHT NOW.  That could be the last 3 days.  The last 2 weeks.

I get the feeling that you already acknowledge that, and believe that season long metrics should take 100% priority over what's happened recently.  But, IMO, if the committee does that, then it could definitely compromise the pursuit If the best 68 teams RIGHT NOW.

There's metrics for that.

 

While it's not an official metrics, it uses efficiency stats and other similar criteria that KenPom uses. All of this could be quantified if the powers wanted to.

Anyways, like @CMJsaid, they don't really look at recent performance anymore. It's "most deserving" over the course of the season unless you get hot for 3-4 days and win your conference tournament. Then the season doesn't matter anymore for approximately 26 conferences.

[MCMLXXX]

On 3/11/2023 at 11:07 AM, Wag Tag said:

If needed I would bring him back in a heartbeat!

That bus has sailed.

No turning back.

[Arkstfan]

Been meaning to drop in to specifically find this thread to see, if Jones was getting the warm wishes he earned from his stint. Glad to see that be the case.

Now as to the question of autobids. I've got two reasons why they should happen.

One, if you are having a Division championship AQ's matter. They protect against big name bias. I have zero heartburn over the SWAC tournament champ getting in over Oklahoma State the apparent first out. Cowboys were 18-15, had a losing record in the Big 12. Lost at home to Southern Illinois, third in the Mo Valley, lost neutral site to UCF who was 7th in AAC. Went 6-12 vs teams in the top quarter of Division I and lost 6 of their last 8. Yeah Ok State would beat Texas Southern but neither likely to make to make round of 32 either. I'd rather see a fluke run AQ like Texas Southern than see 7th place Big 12 with all those resources and so little to show for it this year.

Reason two. Everyone who wants to draw a line puts their conference on the good side of the line. No reason for the wealthy five to not draw the line at five, or feel generous and put the Big East in.

If you meet the qualifications for Division I in a sport that can reasonably support an all comers tournament, let every league in.

That said, I remain an advocate for tightening the membership criteria for Division I. Look at FBS, you have to award 200 scholarships and sponsor 16 sports. Meanwhile for a school like TAMU-CC could just sponsor 14 sports without football and award 107.6 scholarships and comply with Division I standards by awarding 54 total scholarships.

I have a serious problem with 54 many of those split, being adequate to compete in Division I. At minimum it should be 90% of allowed aid for the sports sponsored which in my example would be 96.9 and really ought to be 100 scholarships awarded. The 50% limit for 14 means that there are Division II programs (where the minimum is 10 sports) that are awarding more scholarships than Division I schools and that is with football capped at 36. Men's Track has same limit as Division I as do men's tennis and volleyball a few less common women's sports have equal limits. A Division I volleyball program awarding 50% in women's volleyball is at 6 and Division II giving all allowed aid is at 8.

I just don't believe the 50% limit is consistent with the Division I philosophy statement about competing at the highest level possible.

If some schools get priced out by awarding 90% of their allowed scholarships, I have absolutely no heartburn, even if they exempt football from the requirement (as long as they play 15 sports and 14 that count).

The Ivy League problem is likely going away with their anti-trust exemption expiring and suit already filed claiming anti-trust violation for conspiring to not award athletic aid which will mean the Ivies will dominate a lot of non-revenue sports if it happens.

[Jonnyeagle]

8 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

That said, I remain an advocate for tightening the membership criteria for Division I. Look at FBS, you have to award 200 scholarships and sponsor 16 sports. Meanwhile for a school like TAMU-CC could just sponsor 14 sports without football and award 107.6 scholarships and comply with Division I standards by awarding 54 total scholarships.

Totally agree here with you but I think the NCAA is in such a mess right now it may never happen.  The main thing they have to do now is enforcement of the NIL.

[meanJewGreen]

On 3/11/2023 at 8:12 PM, CMJ said:

This was his first losing season there and he dealt with a lot of injury problems.  This was not really a 20 loss team.

 

Giving autobids to "terrible" conferences is the only reason anybody other than the top 8 leagues gets anyone in.

Not only that, but HBCU's play an absolute murderous non-con to help fund their programs- see this year's below 

What I heard too was that he's got 40-50 family and friends between Houston and Louisiana, so its a good setup for him. 

Always liked him here, but could never perform when there were expectations 

[NorthTexasWeLove]

9 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

Been meaning to drop in to specifically find this thread to see, if Jones was getting the warm wishes he earned from his stint. Glad to see that be the case.

Now as to the question of autobids. I've got two reasons why they should happen.

One, if you are having a Division championship AQ's matter. They protect against big name bias. I have zero heartburn over the SWAC tournament champ getting in over Oklahoma State the apparent first out. Cowboys were 18-15, had a losing record in the Big 12. Lost at home to Southern Illinois, third in the Mo Valley, lost neutral site to UCF who was 7th in AAC. Went 6-12 vs teams in the top quarter of Division I and lost 6 of their last 8. Yeah Ok State would beat Texas Southern but neither likely to make to make round of 32 either. I'd rather see a fluke run AQ like Texas Southern than see 7th place Big 12 with all those resources and so little to show for it this year.

Reason two. Everyone who wants to draw a line puts their conference on the good side of the line. No reason for the wealthy five to not draw the line at five, or feel generous and put the Big East in.

If you meet the qualifications for Division I in a sport that can reasonably support an all comers tournament, let every league in.

That said, I remain an advocate for tightening the membership criteria for Division I. Look at FBS, you have to award 200 scholarships and sponsor 16 sports. Meanwhile for a school like TAMU-CC could just sponsor 14 sports without football and award 107.6 scholarships and comply with Division I standards by awarding 54 total scholarships.

I have a serious problem with 54 many of those split, being adequate to compete in Division I. At minimum it should be 90% of allowed aid for the sports sponsored which in my example would be 96.9 and really ought to be 100 scholarships awarded. The 50% limit for 14 means that there are Division II programs (where the minimum is 10 sports) that are awarding more scholarships than Division I schools and that is with football capped at 36. Men's Track has same limit as Division I as do men's tennis and volleyball a few less common women's sports have equal limits. A Division I volleyball program awarding 50% in women's volleyball is at 6 and Division II giving all allowed aid is at 8.

I just don't believe the 50% limit is consistent with the Division I philosophy statement about competing at the highest level possible.

If some schools get priced out by awarding 90% of their allowed scholarships, I have absolutely no heartburn, even if they exempt football from the requirement (as long as they play 15 sports and 14 that count).

The Ivy League problem is likely going away with their anti-trust exemption expiring and suit already filed claiming anti-trust violation for conspiring to not award athletic aid which will mean the Ivies will dominate a lot of non-revenue sports if it happens.

Killing AQ's is unjust and I shouldn't have brought that up. 

Killing 'big' non-champion conference AQ's is where the beef is. It's as if the selection committee has their TV producer(s) forced quota to hit and damnit they're gonna hit it. Bonus money for the committe if they go over it. 

[El Paso Eagle]

Understand the need for the AQ for the lower leagues, or they would never get an invite. I'm not a fan of seeing a team play well for 3-4+ months and be seeded at or near the top, and then a team that can't even win half of its conference games gets hot for 3-4 days, and they get in.

[CMJ]

12 minutes ago, El Paso Eagle said:

Understand the need for the AQ for the lower leagues, or they would never get an invite. I'm not a fan of seeing a team play well for 3-4+ months and be seeded at or near the top, and then a team that can't even win half of its conference games gets hot for 3-4 days, and they get in.

Conferences can decide if they want to have a tournament or not to decide their champion.  Up until about 15-20 years ago the Pac-10 still gave its regular season champ the auto bid, as did the Ivy.  Nothing says they have to do it this way.  The leagues choose to.

[El Paso Eagle]

12 minutes ago, CMJ said:

Conferences can decide if they want to have a tournament or not to decide their champion.  Up until about 15-20 years ago the Pac-10 still gave its regular season champ the auto bid, as did the Ivy.  Nothing says they have to do it this way.  The leagues choose to.

It allows them to ensure everyone has "something" to play for later in the year. Look, I am no fan of having 7+ teams from the power leagues make it, but that's no worse than having a sub-500 team make its way in when teams winning 25+ games don't get a chance.

Another question regarding the tournaments - I wonder how many make money? How many of these conferences/schools complaining they have to play money games to survive are taking losses to play their tournaments? 

[NT80]

This is the same conflict there is in FBS football.  There is so much disparity in conferences and programs.  How do you mesh all the schools together, with fair access, into a common Basketball Tournament or Football Playoff?

[greenminer]

7 hours ago, CMJ said:

Conferences can decide if they want to have a tournament or not to decide their champion.  Up until about 15-20 years ago the Pac-10 still gave its regular season champ the auto bid, as did the Ivy.  Nothing says they have to do it this way.  The leagues choose to.

can they hold a tournament, crown a tournament champ, and give the auto bid to the regular season champ?

[CMJ]

7 minutes ago, greenminer said:

can they hold a tournament, crown a tournament champ, and give the auto bid to the regular season champ?

I mean maybe, but I think if you have a tournament the champion is the champion.

[Arkstfan]

On 3/14/2023 at 7:03 PM, greenminer said:

can they hold a tournament, crown a tournament champ, and give the auto bid to the regular season champ?

Well they could but they won't. Conference tournament only counts as one game against scheduling limits, but only if the tournament champ gets the AQ. You could still have a tournament but you'd have to count every game played against the schedule limit. 

[Arkstfan]

On 3/14/2023 at 9:46 AM, Jonnyeagle said:

Totally agree here with you but I think the NCAA is in such a mess right now it may never happen.  The main thing they have to do now is enforcement of the NIL.

Very unlikely, especially with push to 96. 

I'm going to repeat my same doomed argument about 96 that I made last time there was talk of it.

If you go to 96 outbids need to change. Each year before the season NCAA should rank each league based on three year computer average of the members actually in the league each ranked season. The top 16 conferences should be potential double bid leagues. The regular season champ is in the NCAA Tournament, if you have a conference tournament the champ has to play in it, but the team winning the conference tournament also gets an AQ if the regular season champ doesn't win. If the regular season and tournament champ are the same team, the second place regular season team gets an auto bid. That obviously doesn't mean anything to Big 12 or SEC but it can matter to WCC or Valley, etc. 

The eight conferences rated 1-8 have their regular season champ pre-assigned to a sub-regional, for example Big East champ this year would go to Albany Big 10 to Columbus or Des Moines, Pac-12 to Sacramento and so on. Fans won't know their seed, but they will know where to book travel to if they win a top 8 league regular season title. Ought to help the sometimes awful first and second round attendance.

[Arkstfan]

On 3/14/2023 at 10:02 AM, meanJewGreen said:

Not only that, but HBCU's play an absolute murderous non-con to help fund their programs- see this year's below 

What I heard too was that he's got 40-50 family and friends between Houston and Louisiana, so its a good setup for him. 

Always liked him here, but could never perform when there were expectations 

Had more than one long-time administrator at various places say the same thing about MEAC, SWAC, etc.

They say, there are easily 75-120 college presidents who would rage and argue against changes that priced them out and forced them to reclassify while they popped the champagne knowing they no longer had to dig for coins in the couch to make the athletic budget. No more subjecting players to long strings of games they can't be competitive in and conference being the only time their teams aren't out-matched.

It's not just football and basketball. Arkansas lifted it's no in-state play ban primarily because it was getting so expensive buying mid-week opponents in baseball and the only schools willing to make a long mid-week trip for a check were generally SWAC schools who clobber the Hogs power ratings. Few years ago, Arkansas women's tennis looked meh, then made a big run in the SEC Tournament. Didn't AQ and they were six Division I match wins short of eligible for at-large consideration which requires .500 against Division I. The Arkansas women's tennis team traveled to Nashville to play six matches against Tennessee State AND paid Tennessee State $15,000 to play. Hogs took all six 4-0. The selection committee was unimpressed.