Post by reindeerfan on Mar 2, 2014 13:41:01 GMT -5
I wonder how many people think the maac is definitely a one bid league this year. Do Iona, Canisius, quinnipiac or Manhatten deserve any consideration for an at large bid?
Just watched Manhattan beat Canisius. While I don't expect an at-large bid, I would have to say the top three teams (Iona, Manhattan and Canisius) are one of the strongest 123 mid major lineups in the country. The rest of the MAAC is pretty weak which doesn't say much for us and won't help with the NCAA selection committee.
I think this league will almost always be a one bid league. If Iona did not have the highest scoring team in the country in 2012, I don't think they get in. It would take the right combination of pre season hype, pretty much running the table on OOC schedule and a top two conference finish to merit even a consideration in my opinion.
What were the circumstances of the Manhattan bid when they got selected?
Post by reindeerfan on Mar 2, 2014 20:38:03 GMT -5
NH - I think Manhatten only had 3 losses in the regular season that year. They had 25 wins. SPU had a senior laden team that beat them in the Maac finals in overtime by only 2 points. I believe Manhattan justified the at large selection by beating number 4 Oklahoma in the first round. The Jaspers were top 10 in the nation in scoring defense and field goal percentage defense. I think offensively they were top 25 in field goal percentage at around 49%. They were worthy of an at large.
Last season, Manhattan and Iona met in Springfield in the MAAC tournament title game, as the Nos. 6 and 4 seeds, respectively. This year, they are the top two teams in the league followed by newcomer Quinnipiac trailing regular season champion Iona by two games.
The MAAC got two bids in the 2012 NCAA Tournament with Loyola (Md.) getting the automati while Iona was slotted as a No. 13 seed in First Four game against BYU.
Manhattan head coach Steve Masiello, who was one win away from the NCAA tournament last season, believes his league deserves multiple bids in 2014.
“This is not a one-bid league,” he said in the post game press conference. “A seventh-place team in a BCS conference is better than these three? I don’t buy it.
“These four teams at the top of the MAAC, you put them in a 13/4 game, that four seed is in trouble,” he continued....
Ok I would say this is some criteria to make the NCAA at large in no particular order:
Pre season hype ( high major transfer, winning a game in py NCAA's,NIT semi appearance previous year etc)
Winning almost all of your OOC games with at least one won against top 50 rpi
Finishing first in conference standings
Being in the top 5 of some national statistical category(scoring, rebounding, 3 pt shooting etc) something that gives the team a character to make a matchup interesting
Very difficult to do. Would have been interesting what would have happened if those Siena teams had not won the conference tournament
Post by reindeerfan on Mar 2, 2014 21:01:46 GMT -5
Usually we only get an at large bid when one team has a great regular season (25 wins and a few wins versus a BCS conference) and that team is upset in the Maac tourney. In my view there will be no at large this season because Manhattan and Iona fail the test of having enough wins.
Last Edit: Mar 2, 2014 21:02:38 GMT -5 by reindeerfan
Usually we only get an at large bid when one team has a great regular season (25 wins and a few wins versus a BCS conference) and that team is upset in the Maac tourney. In my view there will be no at large this season because Manhattan and Iona fail the test of having enough wins.
Today, Iona (along with every other regular season conference champion) was put on the alphabetical listing of teams being considered for an at-large NCAA bid as explained in this excerpt from Ted Miller's espn.com article on a day in the life of Jamie Zaninovich, West Coast Conference commisioner, a member of the NCAA selection committee:
...So what does happen inside a committee meeting? On Wednesday, the committee members submit an initial ballot via a computer program with the names of all eligible 339 Division I college basketball teams on it. In the first column, they vote "In" for as many as 36 teams. Those teams, in the committee member's estimation, should get an at-large berth, regardless of what happens in the conference tournaments. In the second column, they vote for teams that should be "under consideration" for an at-large berth, with no minimum or maximum restrictions. A team that gets all but two "In" votes gets a berth. A team that receives three or more "under consideration" or "In" votes gets put on the "under consideration" board, listed in alphabetical order, along with teams that won their regular-season conference titles. In ballpark terms, that typically means 22-27 teams are "In" for 36 at-large spots, with additional at-large spots opening as those "In" teams win their conference tournaments. So the average starting point for discussion is over roughly nine to 14 slots open for at-large teams. Then, of course, the fun starts. A working list of the top eight teams is pulled from the "under consideration" board, and committee members rank each in a series of votes, with the top four eventually getting into the field. Before the votes to list and rank teams occur, of course, there is discussion, with "team sheets" being put before the committee members to allow them to compare teams' credentials, head-to-head...
This is Zaninovich's third year on the selection committee and I found some of his comments on what the selection committee looks at or ignores quite interesting. However, I have to agree that Iona probably didn't accomplish enough out of conference to merit a bid this year.
