Maryland in George Mason not?

Parrish said "Unfortunately for George Mason (19-8, 11-5), a team with five CAA losses probably won't earn an at-large bid." Hmmm. UMD (17-10, 7-5) has five ACC losses, but will? Let's check out their non-conference schedules (this includes early season tournaments). UMD had 14 home games, one on the road. How can that be? GMU 5 at home, 7 on the road as of next weekend. Let's check records versus similar opponents: vs. Hampton and N'Eastern (both teams are 1-0), GMU plays at N'Eastern again in final game; vs. VCU (UMD 0-1, GMU 1-0); vs. Delaware (UMD 1-0, GMU 1-1); vs. Ohio (UMD 0-1, GMU plays @ Ohio this weekend). Right now the RPIs are UMD 77(even w/ a road win over a top 5 team), GMU 54. I hope Parrish re-examines these stats again when it's all said and done. This is one OF MANY examples of middle-of-the-road large BCS schools being given deference based on the fact they must play top 10 schools and schedule the bulk of their non-conf schedule at home. Lousy NCAA policy. 

So the question:

How can we fairly compare mid-majors and BCS schools?

Maryland struggled in the preseason but have gotten their acts together. Meanwhile George Mason has lost five conference games in the CAA. Give me a break. Five losses in a conference like that should not only pop your bubble but drop kick you out of the conversation.

Having a fair comparison and competing fairly are 2 different things. 

The problem with the system is that it seems major conference teams get rewarded more because of the conference schedule.  But the fact is that there is just more opportunities in conference for teams from major conferences than non-major ones.  Mid-majors will continue to miss out because they simply don't have the opportunities, so they are forced to make hay in November/December unlike major conference teams. 

As far as fairly comparing teams, this cannot be done with any consensus.  The eye-test as it is referred seems to be the best way to know about a team, but the committee members obviously cannot be expected to sit and watch thousands of hours of film from every team.  The rpi works to an extent, but there are many cases where it doesn't.

I agree, the comparison of the ACC and Maryland's 5 ACC losses cannot be compared to George Mason.

Say what you will about the ACC being down, but in reality, this year in the ACC is as balanced as ever.

Maryland being in over anyone at this point is a bit dubious, but it holds. Being blown out at Miami, fellow ACC bubble boy, doesnt help. On the other hand, George Mason competes in the CAA and has 5 conference losses already. How ANYONE can compare the CAA and ACC and try and rationalize them as somehow being equal in stature or strength without then laughing at themselves is odd. Winning at Chapel Hill sorry to say carries more weight than beating Kansas State on a neutral floor. And Mason beating that vastly overachieving UNC squad 2 years ago or VCU scoring an upset over a weak Duke team last year all of a sudden legitimizes CAA as a major conference? Be real. Legitimacy of a team or conference comes over years, decades even. I want the little guys to succeed, but lets not resort to comparing apples and oranges.

It seems that Maryland's win over UNC counts for approx +5 wins and -3 losses in most prognosticator's eyes.  Seriously if you excluded that one game would MD even be on the bubble?  Why is Maryland safely in and Ohio not even mentioned on the bubble?  OU has a higher RPI (by 10 spots even) and a head-to-head win over the Terps.  If MD doesn't win out the regular season and loses somewhere in the ACC tourney, I don't see how MD (with losses to American, Missouri, VCU, Ohio, etc) possibly has the non-conference heft to get an at-large bid with 13 losses.

The advantage BCS schools have over the mid-majors is the larger number of chances to score a marquee win.  If you play 10 or 12 games vs top opponents with 1/2 of them at home, you're bound to catch 1 or 2 opponents on a completely off night.  So the saying goes . . . even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then.  Look at who the probable #1 and #2 seeds have lost to this year - the list includes Wake, Missouri, Seton Hall, OK St, Ariz St, Temple, Miami-FL - all products not necessarily of the victor being the team that would win 8 times out of 10 but they caught the favorite on a good night.

I believe there has to be a way to objectively determine who should be in and who should be out based on statisical comparrisons and that "formula" should be "SET in STONE".

I know it would have to be very complicated....including home vs away vs neutral, recent vs early season, conference vs non-conference, weighting by RPI (or whatever)...etc...etc...etc...

A team should KNOW from one week to the next where they stand and what they need to do...or have other teams do...for them to make the field of 65.  It can't be that complicated.  I'm so sick of everyone trying to compare apples to oranges to peaches and trying to determine which tastes the sweetest.  It's rediculous....

Each win and loss should have it's own independent weight based the rank of the team both AT THE TIME of the game....and at the end of the season.  Margin of victory/loss should be taken into account as well.  There are DOZENS of various factors and statistics that could be used to create the "Magic Formula" and that should be applied objectively to all teams.

Selection Weekend would take all of a couple seconds of processing time using an Excel file....and everyone would have already known the results because it could be applied on the fly...as games are won and lost....all season.

George Mason would KNOW going into the final game in theri tourney that they can lose....but only by 9 points (example) and still get into the tourney.  They can lose by up to 16 points but only if Butler wins by less than 12...etc...etc...etc..

I say take ALL the guess work out....set a process in place that takes human judgement out of it all together.

steakneggs- I'm certainly not suggesting that the Colonial is as good of a conference as the ACC, but quality teams from mid-majors can certainly compete with ACC teams.  Last year everyone in America was spouting off about how deep the ACC was, and they got 7 teams in the big dance.  When they were matched up with a mid-major, though, they were mostly in deep sh@#.  

Maryland def. Davidson and lost to Butler

VTech lost to S. Illinois

Virginia def. Albany

UNC def. E. Kentucky- 16 seed

Duke lost to VCU

Georgia Tech lost to UNLV

That equates to a 3-4 record vs. mid-majors (that's being generous, since nobody is really arguing that E. Kentucky is a mid-major)  This shows how well mid-majors perform when they are given a realistic chance ON A NEUTRAL COURT.  And yes, I think last year is relevant.

On a side not....I had a friend (from Europe... ;) ) that suggested overlaying conferences with a "tier" system like they use in Soccer.

With ~340 teams you'd have 13 tiers with 26 teams each.  At the end of each season...the top two teams in each tier move up and the bottom two teams in each tier move down.

Each season would be made up of 25 "in-tier" games + 3 "position" games.  The position games are like an end of the season tourney....  1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc...if 2 beats 1...they become the new 1.  In the next round 1v26(from the tier above), 2v3, 4v5, etc.., round 3 reverts to 1v2, 3v4, etc.... The theory is that a team could move up as much as 3 spots from where they ended the regular season if they won 3 games in a row.  #26 would play #25 and beat them...they are then #25 and play #24 and beat them...they are then 24 and play #23 and beat them...so they end at #23.  It becomes sticky for the #1 overall...because they would only play 2 games...1v2, none (while 2 plays 3), then 1v2...which could potentially result in a team having to defend the #1 overall spot twice against the same team.

Once the season is over...there would be two major tournaments with tier 1 and 2 teams in the Championship Tourney and tiers 3 and 4 in the secondary tournament. Seeds would be based on final tier ranking and ultimately a national champion would be crowned.  That would result in a total of 104 teams in post season play...in two different tourneys.

A team would have to be consistent from one year to the next in order to have a chance....no one year wonders making it to the final four....the best you can hope to move up is one tier a year.  If you were #1 or two in your tier....you would move up to the next tier...if you were then #1 of two in that tier the next year...you could move up to the next tier....etc..etc...until you made it to the top tier.

If Duke has a couple bad years in a row....it could find itself playing against Northern Iowa the next year.  SIU strings together a couple winning years and they'd be in the thick of the fight in tier 1.  Stay competative with your tier....or get demoted to the next tier down.

Why would Ohio necessarily be ahead of Maryland on RPI and those other factors? The reason they should be ahead is because of winning head to head against the Terrapins. Thats it. All this RPI stuff is overblown. Dont hate because Maryland successfully competes in the ACC and talking heads justifiably give benefit of the doubt to stronger conferences. Fine then. Ohio has five, count them, five (5) losses in the MAC conference. All of a sudden, ur not going to hold that against them? What is their nonconference heft besides beating my alma mater, if u want to go there? When did MAC become this powerhouse in college hoops? When the MAC equals the ACC in Final Four appearances (40) and national championships (10) then we can talk about this. Thats why all this talk about giving the 'little guy' respect is complete nonsense. Its all overblown nowadays. The big boys in college basketball have gotten to where they are cause they earned it. Not cause they constantly whined about being shortchanged. Its not the Terrapins fault they compete in the ACC. Now, if u can somehow justify MAC being a tougher conference than ACC (or Big East or whatever), Id like to hear it.

And this is the opinion of someone who does NOT think Maryland is safely in the bracket. They are way too frustrating to watch. Teams like Syracuse should be ahead of them.