True it could hurt teams that are in better conferences but he purpose of the 50% was to better the chance of mid majors to get in. RPI will still be counted also with the champs of the conference tournament. So there could be a chance of that Oregon team getting in over the #5 team or #4 team. this year there was a 3 way tie for the 5th spot and 1 of them USC was out because of a post season ban. The purpose of this rule would be to stop the idea of since there from a tough conference so they have to be in.
In anything the RPI and SOS will have more of a weight on those borderline schools. It would make schools to decide to play schools like Houston Baptist or Seattle instead of schools like carver Bible college or hope invitational.
I for one am against more mid-majors getting in. I'm for qualified teams getting in, regardless of conference of existing media bias. But I'm against "affirmative action" for mid-majors. I can't argue about the 8 Big East teams getting in this year. I do think they were over-seeded, especially compared to other conferences like the A10 (Temple should have been a 3, but instead is a 5...has to play a 12 in Cornell, that should have been a 10). Teams will be moved up or down a single seed to make the brackets work.
I think that the selection criteria needs to be more automated. The RPI system can be tweaked to favor road wins vs home wins and to even better incorporate wins vs top 25, 50, 100 RPI schools.
I just dont' like a situation where a power conference team could be penalized for being in a power conference. I don't want them to be favored with the current bias, but wouldn't want the reverse put in place. If anything, the mid-majors should drop their conference tourneys ala the Ivy, so that the best team in the year is given the autobid. That way a team like Cornell, a great team, won't be left out because they didn't play anyone tough in a given year.
Quinn, you have to understand that the reason "mid-majors" are really getting "screwed" is just a simple mathematical formula and not necessarily "quality of play"
For example, Dayton's been left out twice in three years. Now, the reason they are left out is because of RPIs in the 25-55 range and the perceived inferiority of the A-10 to BCS conferences.
But if that was true, then you'd think Dayton wouldn't be very good against BCS teams. They are just dominating bad teams.
Well, they are 5-2 in the last five years against RANKED Big East teams. Their last 18 games vs current Big East teams (including DePaul when they were an NCAA team, not when they are 0-16 DePaul) is 10-8. The idea that UD couldn't compete with the Big East is absurd.
Yet, .500 in the Big East gets you an RPI in the 20s... based solely on the math of the SOS portion of the RPI and how it relates to conferences.
SOS snowballs as teams play each other. When the Big East, which features 12 quality programs and four bad teams; plays 18 conference games, all their RPI/SOS goes up because they're all 20-12 teams.
When the A-10 plays, they have 7 good teams, but the RPI/SOS goes down when the bottom 7 teams play.
We're letting teams into the tournament based on "Who's got the fewest horrible teams in their conference" and not an apples-to-apples measurement.
If it was "affirmative action" then you're starting from "a non-BCS school is inferior and undeserving." But you're assuming that from a flawed measure which doesn't rate teams on quality at all.