I have a little database which I use to keep track of the bubble teams. Right now, I have 56 teams as in the tournament, 34 from the majors and then 22 one-bid conferences. However, the bubble database, which has 24 teams from the major conferences, also includes 14 teams (from 10 conferences) that might merit consideration should they lose their conference tourney.

First, let's get rid of the term "mid-major" as it is currently used. It's not accurate. The "high majors" are the BCS football conferences, and they hog most of the bids, 25 by my last count, and that's counting Oregon and Alabama as bubble teams, when they are probably in. The "mid-majors" are conferences which get some respect, but aren't the top conferences: the Atlantic-10, C-USA, and the Mountain West. They almost always get multiple bids, but usually less than the high majors. Then there are the "low majors," conferences which usually send one or two teams, but can't count on at-large bid: the MAC, Missouri Valley, Horizon, and the WAC. The mid-majors are having a good year, they have 9 teams probably in, and three bubble teams.

Come this time of year, the last few teams in really comes down to a philosophical difference. Who would you rather include: the barely above .500 team in one of the high-major conferences, the low RPI of a mid-major, or the nearly undefeated in conference play of a low-major? Personally, I'd rather see Southern Illinois make it than NC State, but let's check out some sample resumes:

NC State 15-9 (8-5) RPI: 61
2-8 on the road
1-5 vs. RPI top 50
#159 in non-conference RPI

I'm picking on the Wolfpack here, but there's just absolutely no reason to justify State getting an at-large bid, even with their conference record. In the schedule they could control, they have an RPI of 159, which is downright terrible. However, most high-majors have profiles more like the next team

Indiana 16-10 (6-7) RPI: 38
2-8 on the road
5-1 on neutral courts
4-6 vs. RPI top 50
#18 non-conference RPI

And here's the real problem. Indiana has real positives, they played a brutal schedule, and did real well. OK, they can't win on the road, but they do great on neutral courts. And they've proven they play even with the best teams in the country. You mean to tell me a team like Indiana should stay home so Weber State can get an at-large bid?

Mid-major bubble teams have resumes like this:

DePaul 14-9 (6-6) RPI: 42
3-6 on the road
2-7 vs. RPI top 50
#32 non-conference RPI

That's right, .500 in Conference-USA. And they are a real bubble team. This is the kind of thing that makes fans of low major schools sick. Do you honestly believe Butler couldn't go 6-6 in C-USA? But check out this next one.

UNLV 17-8 (6-5) RPI: 41
5-4 on the road
2-6 vs. RPI top 50
#47 non-conference RPI

The road record is good, and UNLV didn't schedule patsies, but how on earth do they have an RPI of 41? Seriously, how? The Mountain West ain't exactly the ACC, and their conference RPI is 44. For going 6-5 in a second-rate conference. Holy Cross is 11-1 in conference play, and they have an in-conference RPI of 100. Creighton is 13-2 in the Valley, a pretty tough conference not light years behind the MWC, and their conference RPI is 78.

Without even checking out conference leaders, let's look at one of the soon-to-be most scrutinized teams

Southern Illinois 19-5 (13-2) RPI: 53
7-5 on the road
0-1 vs. RPI top 50
#59 non-conference RPI

USI has a serious problem called Creighton. While most low-major teams have the #1 seed in their conference tourney, and can fairly claim to be the best team, the Salukis are clearly the #2 dog in conference (actually, the #1 dog, they trail a blue jay). And they've only had one game against the RPI top 50, a loss to Creighton. While Butler and Creighton may be able to survive a conference tourney tumble, USI is squarely on the bubble.

But does this make sense? Let's look at how the three groups of teams did in the tourney in the last 10 years. What I did was take the 9-12 seeds, slot them in a hiogh, mid, or low major category, and see how they did. This sees which group does better in the Big Dance, giving those last at-large births to the NC State's or the USI's of the world.

The results? Well, the first five years, it was pretty dismal for the low majors, only once winning three games, usually winning one and bombing out. The high majors got over half of the bids each year, but never posted a winning record (tough to do with 9-12 seeds). The true mid-majors just keep truning along, getting about five of those bids every year, and winning their fair share.

No one group performed better than the others over the 10 years, and there didn't appear to be any bias to the picks. However, things get interesting in the last five years. Check out these results:

Last 10 years
High 38-57
Mid 22-45
Low 33-58

Pretty similar, right? Everyone's playing at pretty much the same rate. but break it into five year chunks...

Last Five
High 15-21
Mid 12-26
Low 26-33

Previous Five
High 23-36
Mid 10-19
Low 7-25

So five years ago, the high majors were cleary superior. It made sense to take the ACC #5 over the MAC #2. But over the past five years, the entire landscape has changed. The low majors are now excelling as low seeds, while the high and mid majors are remaining about the same. This tells us one thing:

The low majors are catching up. It took 20 years, but parity has reached college basketball. Give the lower conferences more bids.