My point was that it was easier for crappy conference teams because they don't have to be as good. You can't say that I'm wrong unless you can refute THAT point.
I'm fine with your statement that you don't think that matters. Ok, agree to disagree. Saying that my point is irrelevant (to you) or arguing that my point is irrelevant generally is not the same thing as saying that I am wrong.
I disagree wrt Gonzaga. They are an example of a crappy-conference team that gets into the NCAA Tournament every year (20 straight, about to be 21). Their streak proves that it is possible for a crappy-conference team to make the tournament consistently.
I'm willing to accept SOME teams getting in that are clearly not as good as the others but I think that as currently formulated there are too many of those. As I explained above, there will be ~21 auto-bids that wouldn't be good enough to get an at-large invite. That is almost 1/3 of the total. IMHO, that is too many.
Even there, I grudgingly accept that there are a bunch of crappy-conference tournament champions who won a "tallest midget" competition and there is some benefit to giving them access in terms of entertainment value. It just ticks me off when I hear people try to claim that it is biased against the little guy because it isn't. It is clearly easier for a crappy-conference team to get in than it is for a quality-conference team to get in.
I'll start with this. I wrote that last post on my phone. I didn't have the time to give it the fullest attention.
When I called it a half truth, I mean this.
As you said, a better team has a harder road. That's true. It plays tougher opponents.
But there's the other side of the coin. A small conference team winning a great proportion of its games often means nothing. The teams have no say over conference opponents. They can try to game non-conference opponents, but building those up without a national brand isn't easy. Back in the day, Memphis and Gonzaga would play each other when more traditional powers wouldn't. Everything comes down to a single-elimination tournament.
Can we at least agree that everything coming down to a three-day stretch is it's own kind of difficulty? Either that or winning 30 games?
When one set of teams gets a lot of leeway and the other doesn't, people won't like it. I don't contest that it's harder to win seven games in the Big 10 than 13 in the Patriot League. But there is a position where two more Big 10 wins count and 16 in the Pat league don't.
In aggregate, the smaller schools are favored. On an individual level, you'd rather be a team that could dance with 13 losses than head to the NIT with 3, even if the schedule is a different beast.
Overall, the structure of college sports works against small schools. This we know. And the way to get an at large berth is built on a certain resource, and small schools have relatively little access to it. They have a different brand of access. One with less margin for error and a crueler point when it is lost.
I see where you're coming from, and outside a few of the more snarly-parts generally agree. I hope you see a few of my points as somewhat solid, even if we don't fully agree.
