Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SniperSB23
|
Statistical proof of what I've said for years... quality mid-majors are a vastly better at-large selection than their middle-of-the-road major counterparts on the bubble. Over the past 5 years high majors with a double digit seed have advanced to the sweet 16 just 2 out of 19 times, whereas 7 out of 42 "quality mids" seeded 10 or higher (i.e., did or would have received an at-large) have turned the trick. The trend continues going back all 10 years of his study.
Posted by Joe Lunardi
Thank you for recognizing the quality of the Siena men's basketball team. They are an outstanding team, and I don't see how Niagara defeated them in your mock MAAC tournament. Also, the Saints should get the at-large bid over Notre Dame.
The only reason [the Fighting Irish] can still get a tourney bid is because they were ranked well in the preseason. If Siena started on level ground with Notre Dame, I don't think there would be any question of who would be in the tournament.
Siena is 21-6 and 15-1 in conference play, and that includes the fifth-toughest nonconference schedule in the nation. This was a schedule that included road games against Kansas (which it lost to by just seven and outscored by six in the second half), then-No. 3 Pittsburgh, and games in the Old Spice Classic against Tennessee and Oklahoma State. They also recently defeated Northern Iowa in a nationally televised game on BracketBusters Saturday.
So, if this mid-major can't make the big dance, who can?
Bradley Rost
Two points of clarification before we get to the heart of Bradley's question:
• The conference tournament results presented during our mock bracket exercise last weekend were random. Niagara defeating Siena had nothing to do with the relative quality of the teams. But the result forced Siena into the at-large pool.
• That demonstration led to some very heated discussion about Notre Dame (the last at-large team selected in our exercise) and Siena (the first team out of the NCAA field in our vote). As stated earlier, I was in the minority in voting for the Saints.
The real issue isn't what the ESPN mock committee did, of course, but what the actual NCAA men's basketball committee would do when presented with this classic question: a quality mid-major versus what I like to call a "middling" major. There are folks who claim that Notre Dame is better than Siena, that the Irish have superior talent and would dominate a league like the MAAC, that the Saints would be completely undone by the meat grinder of the Big East.
I would politely suggest that these are opinions -- well informed -- but still ultimately human judgments. It is more honest to assert that while the Irish might in fact dominate the MAAC, so has Siena. It is equally honest to state that while the Saints might indeed be overwhelmed in the Big East, so was Notre Dame for the better part of the season.
I prefer to deal in facts, and, thankfully, so does the real committee (at least the large majority of the time). So let us consider:
• At the time of our vote, Siena and Notre Dame had identical ASM (Adjusted Scoring Margin) figures of +8.28 ppg. This is not insignificant, as teams in that range are frequent 10-12 seeds in the NCAA tournament.
• The Irish have two more superior wins than Siena has posted (Texas and Louisville). The Irish also have at least one loss (St. John's) to a team the Saints figure to have beaten. We have to consider both ends of this spectrum.
• While the history of individual teams is not a factor in NCAA selection and seeding, an analysis of past tournaments can inform the selection process. In other words, how do these types of teams tend to perform once they make the field?
Going back 10 years, I have examined every double-digit seed from a BCS conference ("Middling Majors") and all other double-digit seeds who received/would have received at-large consideration ("Quality Mids"). The results, even to me, were a bit surprising:
Mid-Majors vs. Middling Majors
BCS Sweet 16s Non-BCS Sweet 16s
So how do mid-majors stack up with the BCS schools when both are double-digit seeds?
The table below shows the cumulative records of those teams seeded in double digits and
which ones reached the Sweet 16 or beyond.
2008 3-6 Villanova 7-9 Davidson (Elite Eight)
Western Kentucky
2007 0-5 none 2-6 none
2006 2-3 none 8-8 George Mason (Final Four)
Bradley
Wichita State
2005 2-3 NC State 4-10 Wisconsin-Milwaukee
2004 0-2 none 4-9 Nevada
2003 2-4 Auburn 4-8 Butler
2002 3-3 Missouri (Elite Eight) 9-10 Kent State (Elite Eight)
Southern Illinois
2001 2-3 Georgetown 10-11 Temple (Elite Eight)
Gonzaga
2000 2-3 Seton Hall 3-8 Gonzaga
1999 3-2 Oklahoma 9-11 Gonzaga (Elite Eight)
Miami (Ohio)
SW Missouri State
Totals 19-34 (.358) 60-90 (.400)
What do you know? Despite being unfavorably seeded by an almost three-to-one margin, the Quality Mids are winning NCAA tournament games at a far greater percentage than the Middling Majors. Let's repeat that: So-called "quality mids" are given double-digit seeds almost three times more often than comparable BCS schools, yet they win more games -- and advance further more often -- than their "middling major" counterparts.
Does this answer the question of whether Siena is better than Notre Dame this year? Of course not. It does suggest rather strongly, however, that teams that challenge themselves out of conference, or that go on the road against long odds, or that continually win games against good (even if not great) competition are more likely to compete and advance in the NCAA tournament.
As I've always said, this should be about performance, not potential. Just because a Notre Dame should be better than a Siena doesn't mean they are. And to call it insane to think otherwise is simply not supported by the evidence.