Larranaga questions CAA teams' NCAA credentials

While it should be a surprise to no one that Jim Larranaga is actively pumping up his Miami team like he did for the George Mason, it is a bit of surprise that he is questioning the CAA's NCAA tournament credentials after spending years lobbying for the conference.  Now I don't disagree with the notion that the CAA doesn't have the resume as a conference to be in the conversation for at-large bids but did Larranaga really have to speak out like this while not even being a full year removed from the mid-major conference? Here is the transcript from the Daily Press:

Question: “You've been through the are they in, are they out talk before at George Mason. Just wondering how you address it, if at all, with your players?”  

 Answer: “No, we don't talk about it at all. I would say this, having been at the mid-major level for 25 years, and I still follow that closely, this has been a year where the non-conference performance of the high majors far exceeds what the mid-majors were able to do. “There have been years — and last year was one of them — where the mid-majors’ performance was outstanding. With the expansion of the field from 65 to 68, a couple of more mid-majors were able to get in. In this particular year looking at their non-conference performance, it would appear to me that those spots should be reserved for the high majors who played a much more difficult non-conference schedule and were far more successful than any of the teams in the mid-majors. “I think you see that if you watch the BracketBuster this past weekend, a lot of the so-called quality teams, highly regarded, didn't do that well.” 

Question: “Would you be saying the same thing if you were sitting back there at George Mason at 14-2 in the CAA though?” 

Answer: “Yeah, but if you look at their non-conference strength of the schedule, it's in the 300s. That's not the resume that the committee has looked for over the years. You look for people who have really challenged themselves in the non-conference. And not only challenged themselves, but did pretty well. “If your strength of schedule is 200 and below in the non-conference, as a committee, you look at that and say, ‘Well, you know what have they proven?’ They can win games against weak opponents, but there's no weak opponents in the NCAA tournament. Those are the teams that even the automatic qualifiers from a weaker league have had to win a lot of games to put themselves in a position to win the tournament and be in the and the at-larges are basically the next 37 strongest teams. “If you look at the field overall, it's rare anybody's RPI is below 40 to 50. I think the lowest ranked RPI team to get in last year was VCU with 49. So if you look at the RPIs right now, there are not a lot of mid-major teams that have played a very strong non-conference and performed well. They might have won games, but still their strength of schedule is in the 200s, and 300s, and their RPIs are in the 100 to 150. That's not a resume for the NCAA tournament.”

What he is saying in general about the CAA is definitely true as it's not a banner year for the conference, especially non-conference schedule wise. But saying it's a down year for mid-majors as a whole just isn't true.  As writer David Teel states the top 35 of the RPI is full of mid-major programs.  Larranaga saying CAA at-large possible teams have non-conference strength of schedules in the 300s is also just not true. VCU's is 171, Drexel's is 235 and Mason's is 239, so he could have at least gotten the facts straight before sounding off on his former conference. Let's not forget that about 90% of Mason's non-conference schedule for this season was put together by him and his staff and he knows how difficult it can be to get quality teams on the slate. And saying it's rare for teams with RPIs outside of 40-50 to get at-large bids is funny when Teel points out that last season Michigan (52), Florida State (55), Clemson (57), Marquette (64), and Southern California (67) all received bids. And lastly not sure why he thinks teams with an RPI in 100-150 range are being considered for an at-large berth, no one is saying they are. That just came off as a nonsense filler statement trying to belittle the mids and speak highly of the BCS conferences.

Back in 2010 he was actively saying the tournament should be expanded to let in more mid-majors:

“I would say that if they’re going to expand, it has to be to get more of the midmajors in,” Larranaga said in a phone interview. “They just don’t get a chance to play the high-major opponents on a neutral floor.”

Of course Larranaga is going to campaign for this team but I think he could have just kept his mouth shut on the negative stuff he had to say about mid-majors and the CAA.