Pariwise rankings on the morning of 3/14/15

[spwood]

I don't post to the Div I board often, but I follow the sport pretty closely. For the first time this year, I am losing my faith in the Pairwise ranking system as I watched St. Cloud State get closer to being in the tournament. I was happy to see them hit .500 last night while still holding down the #16 place in the Pairwise. I'd hate to see a sub .500 make the field as an at-large. Has it ever happened before? Has it ever come close?

 

[Superfly100]

Re: Pariwise rankings on the morning of 3/14/15

They will not get an at large bid if their record is sub .500.

 

[SJHovey]

They will not get an at large bid if their record is sub .500.

If only everyone referred to that rule by a common name, say "the Wisconsin rule" or something, we'd all remember the last sub-.500 team to get an at-large bid.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Pariwise rankings on the morning of 3/14/15

If they are below .500 it won't matter where they are in the pairwise, there will be no invitation to the NCAA tournament. It's called the Wisconsin Rule after the Badgers qualified despite a losing record. Henceforth all at large teams must have a .500 record or better.

We are discussing this and many more topics in the pairwise thread. Come join the fun!
http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?111651-The-2015-Pairwise-Bracketology-and-History-Thread&p

 

[spwood]

Re: Pariwise rankings on the morning of 3/14/15

If they are below .500 it won't matter where they are in the pairwise, there will be no invitation to the NCAA tournament. It's called the Wisconsin Rule after the Badgers qualified despite a losing record. Henceforth all at large teams must have a .500 record or better.

We are discussing this and many more topics in the pairwise thread. Come join the fun!
http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?111651-The-2015-Pairwise-Bracketology-and-History-Thread&p

Thanks for the heads-up and I'm doing my catch-up reading now!