Mid Major Bubble Teams

I have the same issue with mid majors in college basketball as I do in college football. How can you accurately judge a team that plays against a lower caliber of competition for most of the season. Hands down, the day to day grind of playing in a big six league is far more difficult than playing in a mid major. The question is, how many more losses does that equate to?

I'm not saying that some of these schools can't compete, because Memphis has proved that during the last fews years. But how well would a school like UCLA or Wake Forest do if they got to spend half their conference games resting their stars? I see the same thing in college football. When a team like Boise State only has 1 BCS caliber team on their schedule, it is a lot easier to make it through the season. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

All I know, is that Siena kicked Vanderbilt's rear end by 20 last year in the NCAAs, and they have all 5 starters back.  And they lost at Pitt by 12 and at Kansas by 7.  So they can compete.  There's a reason the first two days of the NCAA tournament is among the most fun days in sports... and news flash... it's not because of a 18-11 (8-8) team from a power conference.

Stop beating up my Terps.  We've proven this YEAR we can hang with the bigger teams (example, NC). Just not Duke at home. 

Meh.  The Terps already have a thread.  

Oh, and they can't hang with Morgan State, either.

As a Vanderbilt alum, I just wanted to let you know that I hate you.  

In all seriousness,  the "mid-majors" are very hit or miss.  Siena embarresed my 'Dores last year, but then lost to a mediocre 'Nova.  It's one of those situations where, if you were to play that game 10 times, I'd bet Vandy wins 8.  But there is absolutely no doubt that Siena wanted it more, and was more pumped to be there.  This seems to happen a lot with the mid-majors, heck, Belmont almost beat Duke last year.  But for every mid-major that pulls a big upset, there are 3 or 4 who don't. 

So the real question becomes, for the at-large bids, do we want to reward the "best" teams, e.g., the teams that are on the bubble with high RPIs and SOS and are most likely in a BCS conference, or do we want to take a chance on a mid-major and hope for exciting basketball.  It seems to me that the at-large teams used to be swayed toward the former choice, but in recent years have moved to the latter.  

Ultimately, I'm not really sure it matters.  In terms of winning the tourney, there's usually only 5 to 10 teams with a legit shot anyway.  

P.S.  Maryland is under 500 in the ACC, and does NOT belong in the tourney.  

I love it when we beat Creighton. The scoreboard. Let me show it to you. haahaa!
Wichita State has to play in the "play in" game Thursday night to even GET to their conference tourney. Suckage.

I have to admit, this year I don't give a rats Ptooey who's playing who or where because I will be watching all Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games poolside at The Mirage in Sin City with 6 buddies from college. 

But being in the heart of Big East country, I sometimes question the wisdom of their schoolyard brawling style of play since it often leads to foul trouble in NCAA tourney games, as the BE refs fully embrace the "No Blood, No Foul" rule.

Back to OP: There seems to be more of a movement to level the playing field with the RPI rankings, but SOS usually ends up hurting Mid-majors, while I think unduly rewarding middle to bottom feeders of Major conferences.  But I have to believe with 25 wins, Creighton will snag an at-large.  Christ, I think Siena was a 13 seed last year (NewLeaf can verify).

Or a George Mason to make it to the Final 4, or a Davidson to make it to the Elite 8... etc., etc....