NCAA Tournament At-Large Bids (68-Team Era)

[Blue KevIL]

With the calendar turning to March, my attention always turns to the NCAA Tournament.

The past few days, I have been looking at the At-Large Bids that were extended during the 68-Team Era (2011 through 2016).
I have found some interesting trends that I'd like to share with the Board and hear your thoughts.

In 2011-13, 37 At-Large Bids were awarded and in 2014-16, 36 At-Large Bids were awarded.
The "Power-6" conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Big East, Pac-10/12 & SEC) received the following:

2011: 30 of 37 (ACC - 3, Big Ten - 6, Big XII - 4, Old Big East - 10, Pac-10 - 3, SEC - 4)
2012: 26 of 37 (ACC - 4, Big Ten - 5, Big XII - 5, Old Big East - 8, Pac-12 - 1, SEC - 3)
2013: 26 of 37 (ACC - 3, Big Ten - 6, Big XII - 4, Old Big East - 7, Pac-12 - 4, SEC - 2)
2014: 26 of 36 (ACC - 5, Big Ten - 5, Big XII - 6, New Big East - 3, Pac-12 - 5, SEC - 2)
2015: 29 of 36 (ACC - 5, Big Ten - 6, Big XII - 6, New Big East - 5, Pac-12 - 3, SEC - 4)
2016: 30 of 36 (ACC - 6, Big Ten - 6, Big XII - 6, New Big East - 4, Pac-12 - 6, SEC - 2)
In total, 167 of 219 (76.3%)


So, most of the At-Large Bids go to these conferences (I know, I know: "Thanks, Captain Obvious!")

What I found interesting is how each conference was represented:
Power-6 At-Large Tourney Teams having a .500 or better Conference Record

ACC: 26 of 26
Big Ten: 32 of 34
Big XII: 28 of 31
Big East: 36 of 37
Pac-10/12: 22 of 22
SEC: 17 of 17
Overall: 161 of 167 (96.4%) At-Large Bids from the Power-6-conferences had a .500 or better Conference Record.


This seems to indicate that Power-6-teams need to be .500 or better in conference play to get a bid.
Well, this appears only to be true for some of the Power-6-conferences.

Virtually all of the Power-6-teams with losing conference records do not get an At-Large Bid: 170 of 176 teams did not.

However, 224 Power-6-teams had a .500 or better record and just 161 of them received a bid (71.9%).
I was very surprised to see the split-by-conference of the .500 or better teams that were left out:

ACC: 26 of 38 (68.4%) -- note 2015 Syracuse (likely out?) & 2016 Louisville (likely in?) were excluded from these numbers because of post-season bans
Big Ten: 32 of 35 (91.4%)
Big XII: 28 of 31 (90.3%)
Big East: 36 of 40 (90.0%) -- note 2013 Connecticut (likely in?) was excluded from these numbers because of post-season ban
Pac-10/12: 22 of 39 (56.4%)
SEC: 17 of 41 (41.5%)


What do the DBR Board readers make of these splits?

Non-conference scheduling?
Are the ACC, PAC-12 & SEC top heavy?
Do the Big Ten/XII/East Conferences have more parity?

[HokieEngineer]

With the calendar turning to March, my attention always turns to the NCAA Tournament.

The "Power-6" conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, Big East, Pac-10/12 & SEC) received the following:

2011: 30 of 37 (ACC - 3, Big Ten - 6, Big XII - 4, Old Big East - 10, Pac-10 - 3, SEC - 4)



What do the DBR Board readers make of these splits?

Non-conference scheduling?
Are the ACC, PAC-12 & SEC top heavy?
Do the Big Ten/XII/East Conferences have more parity?


I'm familiar with one of the 0.500+ ACC teams that did not make it in: the 2011 Virginia Tech team. In my opinion, that bubble team was undone by several factors:

it didn't win a "big" game out of conference
the tournament selection committee's reliance on RPI made two losses to an OK but not great Boston College team look worse than they were
the committee chose to take objectively (at least according to the Dance Card) less deserving teams from the ACC (Clemson and FSU)
the league office did not play up the team's case in the media


The Dance Card suggests that N.C. State and Miami were snubbed in subsequent years. I don't know the circumstances there, but I don't remember anyone from the league office going on TV and advocating for them. And yet we see other conference commissioners doing that. It may not help, but it almost certainly would not hurt.

[freshmanjs]

I'm familiar with one of the 0.500+ ACC teams that did not make it in: the 2011 Virginia Tech team. In my opinion, that bubble team was undone by several factors:

it didn't win a "big" game out of conference
the tournament selection committee's reliance on RPI made two losses to an OK but not great Boston College team look worse than they were
the committee chose to take objectively (at least according to the Dance Card) less deserving teams from the ACC (Clemson and FSU)
the league office did not play up the team's case in the media


The Dance Card suggests that N.C. State and Miami were snubbed in subsequent years. I don't know the circumstances there, but I don't remember anyone from the league office going on TV and advocating for them. And yet we see other conference commissioners doing that. It may not help, but it almost certainly would not hurt.

I don't understand your second bullet. The RPI does not consider which teams you beat or which teams you lost to.

[HokieEngineer]

I don't understand your second bullet. The RPI does not consider which teams you beat or which teams you lost to.

Correct--but the selection committee does. As a result the two losses to BC (with a +100 RPI) were considered a "bad" losses. (By Pomeroy, BC was a top-70 team. Still not great, but better.)

[Troublemaker]

However, 224 Power-6-teams had a .500 or better record and just 161 of them received a bid (71.9%).
I was very surprised to see the split-by-conference of the .500 or better teams that were left out:

ACC: 26 of 38 (68.4%) -- note 2015 Syracuse (likely out?) & 2016 Louisville (likely in?) were excluded from these numbers because of post-season bans
Big Ten: 32 of 35 (91.4%)
Big XII: 28 of 31 (90.3%)
Big East: 36 of 40 (90.0%) -- note 2013 Connecticut (likely in?) was excluded from these numbers because of post-season ban
Pac-10/12: 22 of 39 (56.4%)
SEC: 17 of 41 (41.5%)


What do the DBR Board readers make of these splits?

Non-conference scheduling?
Are the ACC, PAC-12 & SEC top heavy?
Do the Big Ten/XII/East Conferences have more parity?



Great stuff, Blue Kevil.

I have no clue about the ACC. With the SEC and Pac-10, I'm not surprised. Those conferences often don't have the conference strength such that one of its members earning a .500 or better record virtually automatically means it has enough quality wins to make the tournament, provided its non-conference wasn't a mess.

But I am surprised about the ACC. I would guess some ACC programs have depended TOO much on the ACC's strength to carry it to the tourney, have scheduled garbage in the non-conference, and have been punished for it by the committee. But that's just a complete guess.

[Troublemaker]

I'm familiar with one of the 0.500+ ACC teams that did not make it in: the 2011 Virginia Tech team. In my opinion, that bubble team was undone by several factors:

it didn't win a "big" game out of conference
the tournament selection committee's reliance on RPI made two losses to an OK but not great Boston College team look worse than they were
the committee chose to take objectively (at least according to the Dance Card) less deserving teams from the ACC (Clemson and FSU)
the league office did not play up the team's case in the media


The Dance Card suggests that N.C. State and Miami were snubbed in subsequent years. I don't know the circumstances there, but I don't remember anyone from the league office going on TV and advocating for them. And yet we see other conference commissioners doing that. It may not help, but it almost certainly would not hurt.

You know, I thought of Seth Greenberg right away.

I wonder -- of the 12 ACC teams that finished .500 or better that missed the tourney -- how many were Seth Greenberg teams?

I bet he owns a quarter of them at least.

Blue Kevil - any help?

Edit: No, wait -- that's probably not possible since Blue Kevil was only looking at 2011-2016, and Seth was fired very early in that period.

[Blue KevIL]

You know, I thought of Seth Greenberg right away.

I wonder -- of the 12 ACC teams that finished .500 or better that missed the tourney -- how many were Seth Greenberg teams?

I bet he owns a quarter of them at least.

Blue Kevil - any help?

Edit: No, wait -- that's probably not possible since Blue Kevil was only looking at 2011-2016, and Seth was fired very early in that period.

Here are the the ACC teams that missed:



Year
Team
Conf W
Conf L
Conf %

Non-C W
Non-C L
Non-C %

Selection SUN W
Selection SUN L
Selection SUN %


2011
Virginia Tech
9
7
.5625

12
4
.7500

21
11
.6563


2011
Boston College
9
7
.5625

11
5
.6875

20
12
.6250


2012
Miami
9
7
.5625

10
5
.6667

19
12
.6129


2012
Clemson
8
8
.5000

8
7
.5333

16
15
.5161


2013
Virginia
11
7
.6111

10
4
.7143

21
11
.6563


2013
Florida St.
9
9
.5000

9
6
.6000

18
15
.5455


2014
Clemson
10
8
.5556

10
4
.7143

20
12
.6250


2014
Florida St.
9
9
.5000

10
4
.7143

19
13
.5938


2014
Maryland
9
9
.5000

8
6
.5714

17
15
.5313


2015
Miami
10
8
.5556

11
4
.7333

21
12
.6364


2016
Virginia Tech
10
8
.5556

9
6
.6000

19
14
.5758


2016
Clemson
10
8
.5556

7
6
.5385

17
14
.5484



A couple things stand out here:

Between 1985 & 2010 (64/65-Team Era), only 6 teams received At-Large Bids with 14 or more total losses on Selection Sunday.
From 2011-2016, that number increased by 5 more teams (surprisingly, all in 2011).
Conclusion: Don't have 14 or more total losses on Selection Sunday
With, the 14-loss rule established, the following 15-loss teams could be excluded: 2012 Clemson, 2013 Florida State & 2014 Maryland.
These 14-loss teams put their tourney chances in doubt: 2016 Virginia Tech & 2016 Clemson.



Between 1985 & 2010 (64/65-Team Era), only 11 teams received At-Large Bids with 16 or fewer total wins on Selection Sunday.
From 2011-2016, that number did not increase by any more teams -- the last time someone got in with 16 wins: 2001 Georgia.
Conclusion: Don't have 16 or more fewer losses on Selection Sunday
With, the 16-win rule established, the following 16-win teams could be excluded: again 2012 Clemson.
These 17-win teams put their tourney chances in jeopardy: again 2014 Maryland & again 2016 Clemson.


So, 5 of the 12 ACC teams on this list can be dropped because of the 16-win & 14-loss rules.
That leaves these 7:

2011 Virginia Tech -- tough miss with a 21-11 record
2011 Boston College -- nearly as tough of a miss with a 20-12 record
2012 Miami -- a 19-12 record
2013 Virginia -- tough miss with a 21-11 record
2014 Clemson -- another tough miss with a 20-12 record
2014 Florida State -- a 19-13 record
2015 Miami -- tough miss with a 21-12 record


In 2011, 7 of the Power-6-teams with a .500 or better conference record did not make the tourney.
The breakdown of misses: ACC - 2 of 5, Big Ten - 0 of 6, Big XII - 1 of 5, Old Big East - 0 of 10, Pac-10 - 2 of 5, SEC - 2 of 6
You could conclude that Virginia Tech (21-11) & Boston College (20-12) were victims of the 2011 Big East love-fest.

In 2012, 10 of the Power-6-teams with a .500 or better conference record did not make the tourney.
The breakdown of misses: ACC - 2 of 6, Big Ten - 0 of 5, Big XII - 0 of 5, Old Big East - 0 of 7, Pac-12 - 5 of 6, SEC - 3 of 6
One Big East team with a losing conference record received an At-Large Bid in 2012: Connecticut 20-13.
The omission of Miami (19-12) doesn't seem to be too egregious in this season.

In 2013, 16 of the Power-6-teams with a .500 or better conference record did not make the tourney.
The breakdown of misses: ACC - 2 of 5, Big Ten - 1 of 5, Big XII - 1 of 5, Old Big East - 1 of 8, Pac-12 - 4 of 8, SEC - 6 of 8
Two Big Ten teams with losing conference records received At-Large Bids in 2013: Illinois 22-12 & Minnesota 20-12.
The "snub" of Virginia (21-11) would have to be reviewed further.

In 2014, 13 of the Power-6-teams with a .500 or better conference record did not make the tourney.
The breakdown of misses: ACC - 3 of 8, Big Ten - 0 of 5, Big XII - 1 of 6, New Big East - 2 of 5, Pac-12 - 3 of 8, SEC - 5 of 7
One Big XII team with a losing conference record received an At-Large Bid in 2014: Oklahoma State 21-12.
The omission of Clemson (20-12) & Florida State (19-13) don't seem to be too egregious in this season.

In 2015, 6 of the Power-6-teams with a .500 or better conference record did not make the tourney.
The breakdown of misses: ACC - 1 of 6, Big Ten - 1 of 7, Big XII - 0 of 4, New Big East - 0 of 5, Pac-12 - 2 of 5, SEC - 2 of 6
Two Big XII teams with losing conference records received At-Large Bids in 2015: Texas 20-13 & Oklahoma State 18-13 (one Ok St W was Non-D1).
The omission of Miami (21-12) seems to be a big snub relative to these Big XII teams.

[WakeDevil]

Georgia made it one year with a 16-14 record because all but two of its games were against top 100 teams. That's what I remember.

[Blue KevIL]

Georgia made it one year with a 16-14 record because all but two of its games were against top 100 teams. That's what I remember.

You are correct. The Bulldogs made it with a record of 16-14 in 2001.