Jay Bilas Blog for Today

[Mecha_Bulldog]

I don't have ESPN Insider, and after reading the free introduction to their insider blog, I have no desire to subscribe to it either. This drivel from Jay Bilas (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3225609&name=bilas_jay&univLogin02=stateChanged&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3225609%26name%3dbila s_jay%26univLogin02%3dstateChanged) is one of the most mind-numbingly stupid things I've ever read:

It's starting already … we've now begun to simply count wins against the RPI rated teams as the best evidence of how good a team is. Are we not smarter than that? The RPI is unnecessary and past its prime. If you actually watch all of these teams play (and the committee says it is doing that), then why do we need the RPI? It presents a certain perception, and that perception is not always correct. I believe that the selection of teams has become formulaic, and I'm not crazy about it. If you think that Team A is better than Team B, then Team A should go into the field first. You don't need to count wins against RPI Top 100 or RPI top 50 competition. The only objective participants in the NCAA Tournament are the automatic qualifiers (the teams that win their conference titles). Everyone else is in a beauty contest. But, based upon RPI numbers, we are all assuming that Drake is in the field -- barring a collapse. But, if Purdue has played the same schedule as Drake and was 16-1, do you think anyone would be saying that the Boilermakers would be in? I doubt it. I think we would be questioning the schedule and whether Purdue had beaten anyone. Watch Drake play, and decide whether the Bulldogs are among the best 34 teams after the automatic qualifiers. That is plenty good enough. I think we need a new measure, and we need to get away from the RPI. It doesn't work, and it never did. It is a crutch, and we can do better without it.

First of all, Drake was 16-1 about a week and a half ago. They're now 19-1. Second, if Purdue were 19-1 with Drake's schedule, no one would doubt they'd be in the tournament. The only question would be how high of a seed would they get. That's what a few people like Lunardi are debating with Drake.

In fact, we already have a team like Hypothetical Purdue that's a big conference school with a great record but no great wins. It's named Indiana. The Hoosiers are 17-3. Their three losses are to the best teams they've played. Their best win is over Illinois St. Has anyone really said that Indiana doesn't belong in the tournament?

I can't imagine anyone but the most BCS-biased observer would say we should abandon computer rankings in favor of just watching teams play to determine who the best teams are. We need an objective way to compare teams from different conferences who may not have any common opponents. Otherwise we let our biases kick in and give a team a ton of credit for beating a name team like Illinois, and not much credit for beating a smaller name team like Illinois State.

BTW, in this week's ESPN Power Rankings, Jay Bilas was the only one of 14 voters to have no non-BCS programs except for Memphis in his top 16.

[Hein72]

Watching teams to decide who should be in the tourney? That seems very subjective to me. First of all if you see Butler play vs Wright St. least year in the Horizon Tournament and had watched Florida St. play at Duke about a month earlier that would have meant that FSU should have been in before Butler. To me this seems as if he was just trying to take a shot at Drake. If Purdue or any other BCS team (Northwestern even) were 19-1 there would be no doubt they would be in the tourney baring collapse.

[DawgieStyle]

Watching teams to decide who should be in the tourney? That seems very subjective to me. First of all if you see Butler play vs Wright St. least year in the Horizon Tournament and had watched Florida St. play at Duke about a month earlier that would have meant that FSU should have been in before Butler. To me this seems as if he was just trying to take a shot at Drake. If Purdue or any other BCS team (Northwestern even) were 19-1 there would be no doubt they would be in the tourney baring collapse.

Bilas takes an extreme point of view on this to prove a point. I wonder if he truly feels this way or is doing just that, trying to bring the arguement back the other way and make a point: his point is this:

The RPI is only one tool to select teams. While a good one, it shouldn't be the only tool used to determine who is and isn't selected to the NCAA tourney. Other factors must be considered, such as Strength of schedule, where the games were played, How the games were won and lost (not found in RPI), consistency through the season, and last but not least, the visual eye test Bilas goes over board on.

It's a combination of all those factors, and Bilas, in my opinoin has written an extreme point of view to draw attention to other factors than just RPI.

The RPI, again, good tool, but only one of many they should use.

[tBU]

Digger did the " visual eye test" in his assesment of BU when he watched them against SIU in the tourney finals a few years back. His thoughts were BU was brutal.

Not knowing the league his eye test was flawed.

Later BU proved that as we all remember by knocking off not only ONE but TWO higher seeded BCS teams.

I agree the RPI isn't the be all end all but as the other poster pointed out its ONE tool that can be used in conjunction with many other tools and factors.

[Mecha_Bulldog]

Bilas takes an extreme point of view on this to prove a point. I wonder if he truly feels this way or is doing just that, trying to bring the arguement back the other way and make a point: his point is this:

The RPI is only one tool to select teams. While a good one, it shouldn't be the only tool used to determine who is and isn't selected to the NCAA tourney. Other factors must be considered, such as Strength of schedule, where the games were played, How the games were won and lost (not found in RPI), consistency through the season, and last but not least, the visual eye test Bilas goes over board on.

It's a combination of all those factors, and Bilas, in my opinoin has written an extreme point of view to draw attention to other factors than just RPI.

The RPI, again, good tool, but only one of many they should use.

But Bilas never says any of that. He says "(The rpi) doesn't work, and it never did. It is a crutch, and we can do better without it." It doesn't sound like Bilas wants people to rely more on the eye test; it sounds like he wants people to rely solely on the eye test. That is as asinine an argument as saying people should rely solely on rpi. The day we abandon all objective rankings in favor of the eye test is the day we ruin college basketball.

[D Fast]

What do you expect from the Kirk Herbstreit of basketball.

Look he only voted for BCS teams in his power 16 yet again this week.

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/powerranking?season=2008&week=13&pollId=1&show=first

I don't care what he thinks, the the games on the court do the talking, IF and when he is wrong. That A hole better man up and admit he was WRONG but he won't and we all know that.

[DawgieStyle]

But Bilas never says any of that. He says "(The rpi) doesn't work, and it never did. It is a crutch, and we can do better without it." It doesn't sound like Bilas wants people to rely more on the eye test; it sounds like he wants people to rely solely on the eye test. That is as asinine an argument as saying people should rely solely on rpi. The day we abandon all objective rankings in favor of the eye test is the day we ruin college basketball.

I don't disagree, we can't abandon the RPI. My point was the Bilas, as you correctly pointed out, went way extreme in his comments to make his point very clear. I find it hard to believe that Bilas would truly like to get rid of the RPI, if he does, that's sad. I still think he is trying to drive the thought process of others simply to focus more on other things, than simply the RPI, and that in all reality he doesn't want to abandon the RPI, but to bring other factors up to the level of the RPI.

But as you said, he didn't say any of that...I just am interpreting what the media likes to do some times with extreme points of view.

[D Fast]

That's what's wrong w/ the media anymore, some can't just say what needs to be said. They try and twist and bend things in odd ways.

[Nyghtewynd]

Wasn't the point of the RPI to get away from the "eye test"? Because guys like Bilas only watch power-conference basketball and have no way to identify who's better than anyone else outside of them?

[XSaluki]

The RPI rewards road teams and teams that play tough schedules. If the 'eye test great' teams would play above 200 rpi teams in the non-conf then, they would be fine. The RPI helps promote a certain behavior; play road games, play the best schedule possible.

[D Fast]

I guess he forgot to read this from the NCAA. (One of many tools) So he want's to remove a tool and add one already in use? I don't understand his logic.

http://www.ncaamarchmadness2008.com/mens/rpi.aspx

[XSaluki]

I guess he forgot to read this from the NCAA. (One of many tools) So he want's to remove a tool and add one already in use? I don't understand his logic.

http://www.ncaamarchmadness2008.com/mens/rpi.aspx

Correct. If only the RPI was used, then MSU would have been in 2 more tourneys over the past few years.

[D Fast]

Correct. If only the RPI was used, then MSU would have been in 2 more tourneys over the past few years.

Yep. I think Jay has lost his mind.

[Bulldogfanny]

I love the conflict within the Eastern Sports Promotion Network. Currently Drake is the lead picture with the new Bracketology yet Jay, Digger and a few others (not Dickey V lately though) continue to disrespect anyone not associated with the SEC, ACC, Big East, Twelve, or Tens. I think they d this just to piss the rest of the contry off.

[Aegyptus]

What happened to Jay? I thought we were starting to convince him? Guess not.

RPI helps BCS teams = RPI Good.

RPI hurts BCS teams = RPI Bad.

Pretty simple really. These guys are all BCS sellouts. They are more interested in paying the bills than analyzing college basketball.

[IndyTreeFan]

One of these days, one of us (so-called mid-majors) is going to take the next step and win the National Championship. (Geez, I hope that is an MVC team) And yeah, it might be a fluke (albeit a six-game fluke), but I cannot wait to see how these guys go off on that.

And after this little dream happens, the push to go I-A and I-AA in basketball will be huge...

Funny thing is, the mid-majors and low-majors haven't yet figured out that they outnumber the BCS leagues in the annual voting at the NCAA convention...:chair:

[DawgieStyle]

the push to go I-A and I-AA in basketball will be huge...

This will never happen. The NCAA and media may give them more exposure, money, and everything else, but they are also not stupid enough to ignore the reason college basektball is so popular. Mainly the NCAA tournament, and how the mid major's and little guys provide the upsets and excitement so many fans crave and tune in for.

College ball is popular because each fan base feels in any given season that it could be their year to surprise and go farther, and be cinderalla.

The NCAA knows this, as does the media. The larger they can pump up the BCS leagues as Bilas does for example, the harder they fall in the NCAA tournament creating that ever popular upset and excitement that truly drives the money of NCAA college basketball and the tournament.

There is a distinct reason why they want to keep the gap of mid majors and BCS clear. It creates money for the NCAA tournament. If that becomes muddled, then you no longer have cinderella crashing the party.

[smsandmsuson]

This will never happen. The NCAA and media may give them more exposure, money, and everything else, but they are also not stupid enough to ignore the reason college basektball is so popular. Mainly the NCAA tournament, and how the mid major's and little guys provide the upsets and excitement so many fans crave and tune in for.

College ball is popular because each fan base feels in any given season that it could be their year to surprise and go farther, and be cinderalla.

The NCAA knows this, as does the media. The larger they can pump up the BCS leagues as Bilas does for example, the harder they fall in the NCAA tournament creating that ever popular upset and excitement that truly drives the money of NCAA college basketball and the tournament.

There is a distinct reason why they want to keep the gap of mid majors and BCS clear. It creates money for the NCAA tournament. If that becomes muddled, then you no longer have cinderella crashing the party.

You are right in the fact that they wont totally ignore them but they are doing their best. How many mid majors got paired up last year? How was the drop off compared to past years?

[WuDrWu]

Hi, I'm Jay Bilas. I went to Duke so I am smart. Please do not confuse me with the facts. I want to make certain that all my boys get in the dance and that I never have to watch a midmajor so make all the decisions subjective.


Why in the world would we rely upon actual results to define who is good and who isn't?



This "speak" gets more disgusting every year.

[MVC Fan]

What happened to Jay? I thought we were starting to convince him? Guess not.

RPI helps BCS teams = RPI Good.

RPI hurts BCS teams = RPI Bad.

Pretty simple really. These guys are all BCS sellouts. They are more interested in paying the bills than analyzing college basketball.

Jay needs to see Drake play. When he sees teams play, he's more impressed w/them...see Gonzaga, SIU in recent yrs. Until then, he belittles them.

Ask Bilas this: if a Big 10 team, say, Purdue, was 19-1 w/a #8 RPI, would he even be looking at their record against top 50, top 100, SOS, etc.? Of course not. They'd be talking about that team as a possible nat'l title contender.

You're exactly right about the RPI. When it favored the BCS teams, it was ok. Now that they (correctly) adjusted it to figure in one of the most logical thoughts of all time-that road wins are tougher to obtain than home wins-now the RPI spits out a few more results they don't like and suddenly it's more important to use the 'eye test'. Which is a crock, because while the RPI & all its stats aren't perfect, it's a heck of a lot less biased than the eye test.

[upsaluki]

Bilas is way off with this crap, but he is probably one of the few major personalities that objectively looks at non-BCS teams.

[Purple&Orange]

Remember that this is the same guy who goes on and on about the inequality of "good wins" when a major beats a mid-major. It isn't fair because the BCS schools don't get the same credit the little guy does. Drake lost to St. Mary's, a team that was ranked at one point this season. At least they didn't lose to Wofford at home like the vaunted Boilermakers he referenced in his article. If you doubt any school in this league, regardless of recent history and results, for starting 10-0, you have problems. According to the Sagarin ratings, Drake has a better schedule (110) than Purdue (159) to this point.

Don't be discouraged because Bilas uses his national platform against Drake. He's from the ACC where basketball is all about taking the first shot available and the only defense being played is attempting to block a shot or flying out of control into passing lanes for a steal that you can get 10% of the time. This league is misunderstood by some because of its style. Just because some teams don't light up the scoreboard the way an ACC does, doesn't mean they can't play the game.


:valley:
:aces:

[CharlieHog]

What do you expect from the Kirk Herbstreit of basketball.

Look he only voted for BCS teams in his power 16 yet again this week.

http://sports-ak.espn.go.com/ncb/powerranking?season=2008&week=13&pollId=1&show=first

I don't care what he thinks, the the games on the court do the talking, IF and when he is wrong. That A hole better man up and admit he was WRONG but he won't and we all know that.




Memphis is not a BCS team.

[DUShock]

I don't know if Charlie is technically correct or not. We are in the football conundrum once again. If Wikipedia is right then the Missouri Valley is not technically a mid-major conference: Paste from Wiki follows

The BCS conferences are the six major NCAA Division I FBS football conferences whose champions receive an automatic bid into the Bowl Championship Series every year. All of these conferences besides the Big East have strong ties to certain BCS bowls (called "affiliations"). The six conferences and their bowl affiliations are:

Atlantic Coast Conference (Orange Bowl)
Big 12 Conference (Fiesta Bowl)
Big East Conference
Big Ten Conference (Rose Bowl)
Pacific-10 Conference (Rose Bowl)
Southeastern Conference (Sugar Bowl)
There are other conferences and independent schools who can participate in BCS bowls, but they do not receive automatic bids for their champions. The Fiesta Bowl has twice taken such schools, and the Sugar Bowl once —no other bowl has been willing to.

These schools are often called "mid-major" schools. These conferences include[1]:

Conference USA
Mid-American Conference
Mountain West Conference
Sun Belt Conference
Western Athletic Conference

[edit] Usage of the term
The term is generally used in college football (the sport, of course, from which it was derived), though it is often applied to all collegiate sports. In some sports, such as college basketball or college baseball, these conferences are also called the Power Conferences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_conference

But the header at the BCS org page list Conference USA as a participant. Where is Mitch when we need him?!?!? :helpsmilie:

http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/conferences

My edit:

Go Valley!!

Go Shocks!!!!

[Keita44]

Memphis is a mid-major, but why does it matter?

I have a dream that one day, Power Conferences and Mid-Major Conferences will be judged not by the name on their jersey, but by the team they put on the court. I have a dream!

I apologize if this was offensive to anyone

[MVC Fan]

Remember that this is the same guy who goes on and on about the inequality of "good wins" when a major beats a mid-major. It isn't fair because the BCS schools don't get the same credit the little guy does. Drake lost to St. Mary's, a team that was ranked at one point this season. At least they didn't lose to Wofford at home like the vaunted Boilermakers he referenced in his article. If you doubt any school in this league, regardless of recent history and results, for starting 10-0, you have problems. According to the Sagarin ratings, Drake has a better schedule (110) than Purdue (159) to this point.

Don't be discouraged because Bilas uses his national platform against Drake. He's from the ACC where basketball is all about taking the first shot available and the only defense being played is attempting to block a shot or flying out of control into passing lanes for a steal that you can get 10% of the time. This league is misunderstood by some because of its style. Just because some teams don't light up the scoreboard the way an ACC does, doesn't mean they can't play the game.

Welcome, and good first comments. You're exactly right. Bilas (while I agree, one of the better analysts out there now and someone who does try to research most of his thoughts) is one of these ppl who has started this idea that whenever a non-BCS school beats a BCS, they get more credit when they should.

The fact is, it works the other way around more than in favor of the non BCS schools. Bilas doesn't want, say, Drake to get credit for beating Iowa & Iowa State. Yet Seton Hall has gotten a whole mess of credit lately for winning 5 straight games. Four of those five wins are against teams (So. Fla, Cincinnati, Rutgers, Providence) that aren't even close to NCAA bids right now, the 5th at home against a team (Louisville) that would be in for now but could only be a few losses from dropping out.

SHU has a 1-5 record against the top 50, only 3-5 vs. the top 100, yet they were in the most recent Bracketology. Why? Almost solely on the fact that they beat 5 straight Big East teams, regardless of the quality of those wins individually. So again, who are the ones getting too much credit for beating mediocre BCS teams?

[Dawg_tired]

The way to shut up JB is to win against his favorites.

[Panthera Pardus]

Not to rehash, but if Purdue were 19-1 right now (regardless of schedule) people would be talking about them as a number one seed, quality of competition be damned. The truth of the matter is that Purdue has some genuinely confusing losses this year and are not a very good team that will struggle to even get sniffed at by the selection committee. I don't understand what his vendetta against Drake is, but the fact is that unless Drake completely disinigrates in its last few games, it's in, and likely as a very high seed, too.

[shocker3]

I don't know if Charlie is technically correct or not. We are in the football conundrum once again. If Wikipedia is right then the Missouri Valley is not technically a mid-major conference: Paste from Wiki follows

The BCS conferences are the six major NCAA Division I FBS football conferences whose champions receive an automatic bid into the Bowl Championship Series every year. All of these conferences besides the Big East have strong ties to certain BCS bowls (called "affiliations"). The six conferences and their bowl affiliations are:

Atlantic Coast Conference (Orange Bowl)
Big 12 Conference (Fiesta Bowl)
Big East Conference
Big Ten Conference (Rose Bowl)
Pacific-10 Conference (Rose Bowl)
Southeastern Conference (Sugar Bowl)
There are other conferences and independent schools who can participate in BCS bowls, but they do not receive automatic bids for their champions. The Fiesta Bowl has twice taken such schools, and the Sugar Bowl once —no other bowl has been willing to.

These schools are often called "mid-major" schools. These conferences include[1]:

Conference USA
Mid-American Conference
Mountain West Conference
Sun Belt Conference
Western Athletic Conference

[edit] Usage of the term
The term is generally used in college football (the sport, of course, from which it was derived), though it is often applied to all collegiate sports. In some sports, such as college basketball or college baseball, these conferences are also called the Power Conferences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_conference

But the header at the BCS org page list Conference USA as a participant. Where is Mitch when we need him?!?!? :helpsmilie:

http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/conferences

My edit:

Go Valley!!

Go Shocks!!!!


Technically all 11 conferences mentioned in this post are BCS conferences. They all have a chance to put a team into an BCS bowl, but only the top 6 conferences have an automatic BCS bid.

Wikipedia then divides these 11 conferences, with the 5 non-automatic bid BCS conferences listed as mid-majors.

[Aces1982]

Not to rehash, but if Purdue were 19-1 right now (regardless of schedule) people would be talking about them as a number one seed, quality of competition be damned. The truth of the matter is that Purdue has some genuinely confusing losses this year and are not a very good team that will struggle to even get sniffed at by the selection committee. I don't understand what his vendetta against Drake is, but the fact is that unless Drake completely disinigrates in its last few games, it's in, and likely as a very high seed, too.

hmmmm.......

[chuckywang]

This will never happen. The NCAA and media may give them more exposure, money, and everything else, but they are also not stupid enough to ignore the reason college basektball is so popular. Mainly the NCAA tournament, and how the mid major's and little guys provide the upsets and excitement so many fans crave and tune in for.

College ball is popular because each fan base feels in any given season that it could be their year to surprise and go farther, and be cinderalla.

The NCAA knows this, as does the media. The larger they can pump up the BCS leagues as Bilas does for example, the harder they fall in the NCAA tournament creating that ever popular upset and excitement that truly drives the money of NCAA college basketball and the tournament.

There is a distinct reason why they want to keep the gap of mid majors and BCS clear. It creates money for the NCAA tournament. If that becomes muddled, then you no longer have cinderella crashing the party.

Then please tell the NCAA's to not schedule Butler vs. Old Dominion first round matchups. Nobody wants to see mid majors beating other mid majors in the first round. They want to see mid majors beating powerhouses.

[Aegyptus]

It will be interesting to see what happens to Butler this year. Obviously I have a bit of a history with Butler this season, but nevertheless I still root for them as a possible future Valley member. They are at #8 in the polls. Could they get a 2 seed? Even a #3 seed? Personally, I expect them to get a #4 seed, even though they deserve higher.

Of course, it will be interesting to see what happens to Drake too.