that mike decourcy column is garbage.
he says that k-state's .500 record is the definition of 'average.' if k-state had played an average schedule, he'd have a point. instead, k-state has played the seventh hardest schedule in the country, played five top-100 level teams away from home, and are on the doorstep of finishing .500 in one of the hardest leagues in ncaa history (the Big 12 ranks 4th hardest in the KenPom era, a span of 14 years).
if k-state had played a wooly non-con schedule (11 home games, none on the road), they'd have 20 wins and would be a lock for the tourney in the mind of decourcy. decourcy and every moron writer i read seems to suggest that winning 20 games is the magic number "because history suggests," etc., etc.
history is irrelevant, for a couple reasons:
1. the tourney field expanded to 68 teams only four years ago. that leaves the door open for four marginal teams that for 25 years never would have had a chance (if you go back through history, you would have seen plenty of teams with 17 or 18 wins receive an at-large).
2. we have gotten much better at evaluating the quality of teams. back in the day, win-loss records ruled the day rather than many of the criteria that the committee uses presently. power conference teams with 20 wins used to be considered sure things. if you had 20 wins and 10 league wins, you were virtually guaranteed (remember how confident huggins was in his lone season at k-state?) that's not the case anymore. because ...
3. the committee has made it clear that schedule matters. in response to this, teams are beginning to schedule more aggressively in the non-con. more games against quality teams. more games on the road. more semi-neutral games. more non-league tourneys in places like maui or vegas or florida or puerto rico.
the end result is that the 20-win season is harder to attain. not impossible, but undoubtedly harder. this is especially true if you compete in a historically difficult conference that includes six teams more or less in the top 25.
k-state has been favored in 16 games; they've been underdogs in 14.
i'm obviously fine if k-state doesn't get in (what do i care?). if other teams end up being more deserving, then good for them. but if k-state wins three more games and gets left out or isn't considered...simply because their resume doesn't conform to arbitrary historical criteria...then that would be pretty stupid.
