Yea, this absolute bias against mid-majors completely showed with the selection of UAB and VCU, two ridiculous selections that made little sense at the time.
T said:
all the talking heads and even the Selection Committee Chairman when he's on TV 24/7 in March -- change their criteria to suit whatever appeals to them
and their needs to get the more "lucrative teams" into the dance....(interpreted - BCS schools)
Yes, they change the criteria, but not to actively screw over mid-majors and make money. In fact, I'm glad they change the criteria every once in awhile, because it shows their willingness for progression and to find a better way to select teams. Now a few of the changes in itself are bad, but they're not making changes to actively screw over a whole section of teams. This much I believe.
T said:
-then when several mid-majors (Butler, Bradley, etc..) started getting RPI's in the 30's, they had the gall to claim we somehow "broke the code" and figured a cheating method to beat the RPI!!
SO -- they wanted to abandon the very formula, the RPI, that was THEIR invention to try to keep the mid-majors out...and wanted a new system...
So they used an obscure, subjective call on how they played down the stretch or in "key games" thus Missouri State & Barry Hinson got screwed a few times...
No, what happened was around that time, news went public about the NCAA's version of the RPI that gave extra weight to road wins and home losses, and the mid majors suddenly were propped up by it. Once the power conference schools caught on to the new formula, it because tougher for the Bradleys of the world to consistently be in the top 50 or so. This whole phenomenon about the RPI being less irrelevant coincided with the RPI formula changes becoming public and everyone realizing the numbers were different than before. That it coincided with the mid major boom in 2006 may or may not have been coincidental.
-then came the "eye test", which they devised because it requires no explanation or defense - they simply decide who they want and claim their eye's can see it and justify it -
The eye test was the smartest thing they ever done. Numbers are important, especially when they tell us something that we don't know or think, but the eye test has been the most critical thing they've ever done. They need a system of checks and balances against the numbers and by watching the teams, they get a much better sense of who they are and what they look like.
The eye test, when used wrongly, is a bad thing. The eye test the committee uses, however, IS correct. They see games from everywhere and anywhere, not just the big boys. And this is all documented. They have schedules and they see all sorts of teams.
T, you're much too cynical. You're probably right in that if the NCAA ever wanted to be actively biased against mid-majors, they could hide behind the system and do it. I, however, haven't seen any overwhelming evidence that they have.
And the selection committee itself is not biased, period. Incompetent, maybe, (well, probably). But I've seen their brackets for years and there is no real pattern of them being harsh towards mid majors. There have been isolated incidents, as I call them, but no pattern. And even if the NCAA is biased, the selection committee itself isn't. You really think an AD of a random small-conference team on the committee would actively be biased for the high majors? You're far too paranoid of the system today.
Now on a completely separate tangent, you list the following things and argue that these were biased against mid-majors:
-we all remember when the rule was just win your conference or be a runnerup in a major conference - this is why BU was left out a few times in the late 50's and early 60's
Ok, so are you arguing that this rule was biased against mid-majors? Because that's what it sounds like, but if you step back, you'll realize this was MORE biased against the high-majors, because the top conferences only got one team in a year (although it's probably the case that Bradley was high-major back then)
-then came conference tournaments and they used those to keep all but one team from any smaller conference out -
so............just like they did to Bradley in 1982 - if you lose your conference tourney - you are out...
Don't blame the selection committee for that - conference tournaments were the device of the individual conferences, each of who were greedy and sacrified tournament equity for a quick buck.
-then they went with the rankings as long as they could jimmy the rankings to keep smaller schools out
Ok, maybe they did, maybe they didn't, don't know enough about pre-RPI rankings to really know. Of course, everyone knows the polls have always been a sham.
-then when the expanded tourney meant a whole lot more teams getting in - in order to get more runnerups from the big conferences in they added the criteria of looking at who you played and what their schedule was like - which morphed into a SOS...that way - obviously - all the BCS conference teams played way more BCS opponents than the mid-majors did..
You're acting like SoS is some meaningless number or something.
The bottom line is that you can always convince yourself you're getting screwed, but there's no actual consistent evidence that mid-majors are being actively persecuted against here. Even in 2006, when people cried foul about Missouri St missing and BCS teams making it....the committee made two horrific selections: Air Force and Utah St, from two different mid major conferences, two teams that absolutely should not have been in. I don't see anyone mention how the mid majors caught a break there. Just that MSU got screwed.
