Rpi and Iowa

[ScoutRefugee]

If there were 4-5 teams tied at 12-6 (e.g. top 7 teams in the conference are 12-6 or better), I could see Iowa being left out.

If Iowa were clearly the #3 or #4 team at 12-6, it's unlikely they'd be skipped over.
12-6 would be a high-bar for this team, as there are easily 5 more games we will be heavy underdogs in.

11-7 and anything lower than 5th place (or a tie where we'd be 6th or 7th) and we're probably out.

B10 should easily get 5-6 teams into the tournament in any given year.

It also depends on how many small confs end up with their tournament champ not being the same as their conf champ. I can recall several instances where MVC would get 2 or even 3 teams in rather than just the auto bid/conf tourney champ. Keeps the 6th and 7th bid away from some of the P5 confs.

 

[Joes Place]

It also depends on how many small confs end up with their tournament champ not being the same as their conf champ. I can recall several instances where MVC would get 2 or even 3 teams in rather than just the auto bid/conf tourney champ. Keeps the 6th and 7th bid away from some of the P5 confs.

I'm actually all for this; P5 conferences should really be limited to their top 1/3 teams, and take a harder look at the smaller mid majors and give them a chance. If you cannot get more than a game above 0.500 in your conference, it should be harder to get into the tournament.

Thus, an 11-team B1G should initially look at only 4 teams; a 14 team B1G can get 5. Add more if there aren't any major upsets on the smaller conferences, but let those teams from the smaller leagues get in if they have solid records, but maybe were upset victims in their conferences.

Letting half the league for any conference in is too much like the NBA playoffs.....

 

[srams21]

3rd or 4th place in a power conference gets you in; I'd love to see someone cite an example of a top 3/4 team from the BT, ACC, Big East, Conf USA, etc that was left out in the past decade or so.

Washington won the PAC 12 in 2012 going 14-4 in conference and didn't make the tournament. They ended up in the NIT.

I will generally agree though that by going 12-6 or better in a large conference generally gets you in the tourney. It's hard to find examples of teams going 12-6 or better and not having top 60 RPI rankings because in getting to 12 conference wins, you are essentially beating good teams and thus improving your RPI.

 

[Joes Place]

Washington won the PAC 12 in 2012 going 14-4 in conference and didn't make the tournament. They ended up in the NIT.

Damn! Did not know that.

Only 'justification' that year (apparently) was that the Pac10 was 10th overall in conference RPI, and behind 3 mid-major conferences. They only sent 2 teams to NCAAs that year; 4 to NIT.

Despite the weak conference RPI, that's just messed up, IMO.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

That's crazy. I'm not sure I knew that either.

 

[srams21]

Damn! Did not know that.

Only 'justification' that year (apparently) was that the Pac10 was 10th overall in conference RPI, and behind 3 mid-major conferences. They only sent 2 teams to NCAAs that year; 4 to NIT.

Despite the weak conference RPI, that's just messed up, IMO.

Yep. The PAC 12 was down that year but it's still crazy to think they won a major conference and missed the tournament.

That team was pretty talented, too. They had CJ Wilcox and Terrance Ross who were both sophomores (Both were first round picks) and freshman Tony Wroten who also became a first round pick.

They were a young team that struggled early going 7-5 in non conference. They didn't beat a single top 100 team in non conference and had a couple bad losses. So, because the PAC was down, even though they won the league they weren't able to pick up enough quality wins.