This year P5 conferences had 27 at large bids. That left 10 for everyone else. 6 of those went to the Big East. The last four distributed amongst the other conferences. Going to be hard for the WAV to ever get more than one team in the NCAA tournament.

Every time a WAC or other mid major school knocks of a P5, its a case for more mid major bids.

Admittedly, I don't follow March Madness very closely, outside of my school's interest. How have the P5 schools done this year? Maybe that is telling (?)

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

(03-24-2017 12:40 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  Every time a WAC or other mid major school knocks of a P5, its a case for more mid major bids.

Admittedly, I don't follow March Madness very closely, outside of my school's interest. How have the P5 schools done this year? Maybe that is telling (?)

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

The entire sweet 16 was high majors besides Gonzaga. So that says something

(03-24-2017 02:09 PM)SeattleVandals Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:40 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  Every time a WAC or other mid major school knocks of a P5, its a case for more mid major bids.

Admittedly, I don't follow March Madness very closely, outside of my school's interest. How have the P5 schools done this year? Maybe that is telling (?)

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

The entire sweet 16 was high majors besides Gonzaga. So that says something

I mean part of that is how royally screwed some mid-majors got with the seeding and I think the Big East is a mid-major conference, so that would add two more. Not to mention Wisconsin was way under seeded, and Villanova likely would have beat a true 8 seed.

(03-24-2017 02:26 PM)ThunderDan49 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:09 PM)SeattleVandals Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:40 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  Every time a WAC or other mid major school knocks of a P5, its a case for more mid major bids.

Admittedly, I don't follow March Madness very closely, outside of my school's interest. How have the P5 schools done this year? Maybe that is telling (?)

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

The entire sweet 16 was high majors besides Gonzaga. So that says something

I mean part of that is how royally screwed some mid-majors got with the seeding and I think the Big East is a mid-major conference, so that would add two more. Not to mention Wisconsin was way under seeded, and Villanova likely would have beat a true 8 seed.

Do you mean the Big East is a major (not a mid-major)?
That's how I feel anyway, in basketball they're a major.

(03-24-2017 02:46 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:26 PM)ThunderDan49 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:09 PM)SeattleVandals Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:40 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  Every time a WAC or other mid major school knocks of a P5, its a case for more mid major bids.

Admittedly, I don't follow March Madness very closely, outside of my school's interest. How have the P5 schools done this year? Maybe that is telling (?)

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

The entire sweet 16 was high majors besides Gonzaga. So that says something

I mean part of that is how royally screwed some mid-majors got with the seeding and I think the Big East is a mid-major conference, so that would add two more. Not to mention Wisconsin was way under seeded, and Villanova likely would have beat a true 8 seed.

Do you mean the Big East is a major (not a mid-major)?
That's how I feel anyway, in basketball they're a major.

I mean I still think your typical power 5 of the ACC, SEC, PAC-12, B1G, and BIG 12. So that's why I still view the Big East as a non P5 and a mid-major.

Ah, ok.

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

(03-24-2017 07:13 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

Yeah the ACC had 9 bids and they only had one team remaining after the first weekend. The problem is the selection committee uses BPI and RPI to determine who gets at-large bids and how teams are seeded, but high-majors don't want to play good mid-majors because the coaches know if they lose to a mid-major it'll likely cost them their job. Then the committee holds it against them because league play brings down mid-major's BPI and RPI. Illinois State's head coach even said in an interview that high-majors turned down playing them when they called to ask about playing. Hell even U of A's coach was afraid of playing at GCU next season in Phoenix, despite the fact that we would be losing DeWayne. Coaches at high-majors also know that league play will do enough to keep their RPI and BPI high enough to get an at-large bid.

(03-24-2017 07:13 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

Correct.

A top 25 Murray St team with a lottery pick and 25 game winning streak snapped on an OVC title buzzer beater by Belmont was left out a few years ago. Last year, Monmouth beat a slew of P5 teams on the road and was left out. We all know about Saint Mary's. This year, a top 33 RPI 17-1 MVC team that lost in the title game was left out. A 30 win Middle Tennessee (that stomped 15 loss, 9 seed Vanderbilt by 23) would've been left out (behind all at-large teams on S-curve).

Until changes are made to the selection process, there's no hope for midmajors without a previous national reputation.

Long gone are the committees of 2011/2012 that did an outstanding, fair job. After 4 midmajor Final Four's in 4 years (2010-2013), the system's been overhauled for selection and seeding.

(03-24-2017 07:54 PM)ThunderDan49 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:13 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

Yeah the ACC had 9 bids and they only had one team remaining after the first weekend. The problem is the selection committee uses BPI and RPI to determine who gets at-large bids and how teams are seeded, but high-majors don't want to play good mid-majors because the coaches know if they lose to a mid-major it'll likely cost them their job. Then the committee holds it against them because league play brings down mid-major's BPI and RPI. Illinois State's head coach even said in an interview that high-majors turned down playing them when they called to ask about playing. Hell even U of A's coach was afraid of playing at GCU next season in Phoenix, despite the fact that we would be losing DeWayne. Coaches at high-majors also know that league play will do enough to keep their RPI and BPI high enough to get an at-large bid.

Oh, the committee's even quit using RPI because midmajor bubbles are whipping p5 bubbles in that category. We have seen 21-35 RPI midmajors excluded while last year every top 54 RPI P6 was included. Even a 72 RPI made it. Heck this year's first team out was 87 RPI Syracuse who went 2-11 away from the Carrier Dome and had a losing record against RPI top 200. The committee ranked that ahead of 33 RPI Illinois State. And considering 30 win 31 RPI Middle Tennessee was placed behind every at-large team on the S-Curve, the committee may have pegged Syracuse above them too.

The irony being that RPI is 75% SOS-dependent which is inherently advantageous for a P5, yet we see a P5 placed ahead of 1 midmajor (and probably 2) 50-55 RPI spots ahead of them.

That's where we jumped the shark and the committee officially crossed the line into self-parody.

I think the committee did a bad job this year and it will probably continue. No doubt the Big East is a power conference. P6 for hoops. Illinois St not getting in was bullcrap. I would have put them in over Kansas St and Vandy. K St finished below .500 in B12 and Vandy was barely above .500 overall. The committee always talks about good wins for P6 bubble teams, but only talks about bad losses for the others.

Also, they paired VCU vs St Marys and Dayton vs Wichita St. Total BS. Wichita and MTSU were way underseeded. As long as we keep watching, why would they do things differently?

(03-24-2017 03:18 PM)ThunderDan49 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:46 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:26 PM)ThunderDan49 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 02:09 PM)SeattleVandals Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:40 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  Every time a WAC or other mid major school knocks of a P5, its a case for more mid major bids.

Admittedly, I don't follow March Madness very closely, outside of my school's interest. How have the P5 schools done this year? Maybe that is telling (?)

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

The entire sweet 16 was high majors besides Gonzaga. So that says something

I mean part of that is how royally screwed some mid-majors got with the seeding and I think the Big East is a mid-major conference, so that would add two more. Not to mention Wisconsin was way under seeded, and Villanova likely would have beat a true 8 seed.

Do you mean the Big East is a major (not a mid-major)?
That's how I feel anyway, in basketball they're a major.

I mean I still think your typical power 5 of the ACC, SEC, PAC-12, B1G, and BIG 12. So that's why I still view the Big East as a non P5 and a mid-major.

I really dont see how a conference that got 7/10 schools into the tournament, the overall #1 seed, and the defending national champion is mid major. Calling Villanova and Georgetown mid majors is insulting. The quality of basketball there isnt mid major. The Big East is a high major conference. Power5 is more of a football term. In basketball, its really a Power6 or high major

(03-24-2017 07:13 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

It is not the "financial might of the P5." It is not the "rigging of the at-large Dance bids." It comes down to scheduling. If you are a mid-major school and the conference over-all is weak or mediocre, then you have to play a good non-conference schedule and win a game or two. P5 schools and the Big East have the advantage of tougher conference schedules.

Illinois State failed because the MVC had lot of weak and mediocre schools in the conference. They went 17-1 in conference, which on paper looks good. They had an impressive conference home win over Wichita State, but they also loss to Wichita State by 41 on the road and 20 in the conference tournament. Their best non-conference win was New Mexico, with a record of 17-14 and an RPI of 87. Even with an RPI of 33, it was border line for an at-large bid.

SMC was easily in because they schedule well and their four losses consisted of three losses to Gonzaga and a loss to UTA with an RPI of 40. UTA didn't get in despite winning the Sun Belt because they had some bad losses in conference, losing twice to Texas State, including by 21 in the Sun Belt Conference Tournament semi-finals.

The WAC currently has a conference RPI ranking of 15 out of the 32 D1 conferences, with two schools of the eight WAC schools in the top 60 (CSUB at #54 & NMSU at #55). GCU could land in the RPI top 100 next season and some improvement from the other schools could easily get the WAC a 2nd bid in the future.

(03-25-2017 01:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:13 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

It is not the "financial might of the P5." It is not the "rigging of the at-large Dance bids." It comes down to scheduling. If you are a mid-major school and the conference over-all is weak or mediocre, then you have to play a good non-conference schedule and win a game or two. P5 schools and the Big East have the advantage of tougher conference schedules.

Illinois State failed because the MVC had lot of weak and mediocre schools in the conference. They went 17-1 in conference, which on paper looks good. They had an impressive conference home win over Wichita State, but they also loss to Wichita State by 41 on the road and 20 in the conference tournament. Their best non-conference win was New Mexico, with a record of 17-14 and an RPI of 87. Even with an RPI of 33, it was border line for an at-large bid.

SMC was easily in because they schedule well and their four losses consisted of three losses to Gonzaga and a loss to UTA with an RPI of 40. UTA didn't get in despite winning the Sun Belt because they had some bad losses in conference, losing twice to Texas State, including by 21 in the Sun Belt Conference Tournament semi-finals.

The WAC currently has a conference RPI ranking of 15 out of the 32 D1 conferences, with two schools of the eight WAC schools in the top 60 (CSUB at #54 & NMSU at #55). GCU could land in the RPI top 100 next season and some improvement from the other schools could easily get the WAC a 2nd bid in the future.

But at the same time, it isn't like Illinois State didn't try to schedule tougher teams, the tougher teams said no because they knew that their conference slate was already tough enough to get them in with their RPI. Illinois State basically got screwed due to the fact that tougher teams wouldn't schedule them. That's why RPI is dumb as hell.

(03-25-2017 03:14 PM)ThunderDan49 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 01:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:13 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

It is not the "financial might of the P5." It is not the "rigging of the at-large Dance bids." It comes down to scheduling. If you are a mid-major school and the conference over-all is weak or mediocre, then you have to play a good non-conference schedule and win a game or two. P5 schools and the Big East have the advantage of tougher conference schedules.

Illinois State failed because the MVC had lot of weak and mediocre schools in the conference. They went 17-1 in conference, which on paper looks good. They had an impressive conference home win over Wichita State, but they also loss to Wichita State by 41 on the road and 20 in the conference tournament. Their best non-conference win was New Mexico, with a record of 17-14 and an RPI of 87. Even with an RPI of 33, it was border line for an at-large bid.

SMC was easily in because they schedule well and their four losses consisted of three losses to Gonzaga and a loss to UTA with an RPI of 40. UTA didn't get in despite winning the Sun Belt because they had some bad losses in conference, losing twice to Texas State, including by 21 in the Sun Belt Conference Tournament semi-finals.

The WAC currently has a conference RPI ranking of 15 out of the 32 D1 conferences, with two schools of the eight WAC schools in the top 60 (CSUB at #54 & NMSU at #55). GCU could land in the RPI top 100 next season and some improvement from the other schools could easily get the WAC a 2nd bid in the future.

But at the same time, it isn't like Illinois State didn't try to schedule tougher teams, the tougher teams said no because they knew that their conference slate was already tough enough to get them in with their RPI. Illinois State basically got screwed due to the fact that tougher teams wouldn't schedule them. That's why RPI is dumb as hell.

We're seeing the same scheduling excuse for hoops as we've seen in the past to keep the G5 (or whatever they were called back then) out of the old BCS system. Same logic to give more at-large bids to the big boys, which results in more payouts in their pockets (TV execs probably don't have an issue with this which is another part of the equation). When it is all boiled down it is just the big boys throwing their weight around and running roughshod on the this new era of D1 athletics.

Well why don't all the strong mid majors schedule themselves?

(03-25-2017 03:14 PM)ThunderDan49 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 01:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:13 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

It is not the "financial might of the P5." It is not the "rigging of the at-large Dance bids." It comes down to scheduling. If you are a mid-major school and the conference over-all is weak or mediocre, then you have to play a good non-conference schedule and win a game or two. P5 schools and the Big East have the advantage of tougher conference schedules.

Illinois State failed because the MVC had lot of weak and mediocre schools in the conference. They went 17-1 in conference, which on paper looks good. They had an impressive conference home win over Wichita State, but they also loss to Wichita State by 41 on the road and 20 in the conference tournament. Their best non-conference win was New Mexico, with a record of 17-14 and an RPI of 87. Even with an RPI of 33, it was border line for an at-large bid.

SMC was easily in because they schedule well and their four losses consisted of three losses to Gonzaga and a loss to UTA with an RPI of 40. UTA didn't get in despite winning the Sun Belt because they had some bad losses in conference, losing twice to Texas State, including by 21 in the Sun Belt Conference Tournament semi-finals.

The WAC currently has a conference RPI ranking of 15 out of the 32 D1 conferences, with two schools of the eight WAC schools in the top 60 (CSUB at #54 & NMSU at #55). GCU could land in the RPI top 100 next season and some improvement from the other schools could easily get the WAC a 2nd bid in the future.

But at the same time, it isn't like Illinois State didn't try to schedule tougher teams, the tougher teams said no because they knew that their conference slate was already tough enough to get them in with their RPI. Illinois State basically got screwed due to the fact that tougher teams wouldn't schedule them. That's why RPI is dumb as hell.

That is the excuse the head coach tried to use. If Gonzaga and Wichita State can each schedule five non-conference P5 schools this season, then Illinois State should be able to get more than one. That does not seem like a valid excuse. Losing to Murray State and Tulsa in non-conference play did not help either.

Its hard to argue with the committee. 32 of 36 at-large went to the P6. They had 26 of the 32 round, 15 of the sweet 16, and 7 of the elite 8. Gonzaga is the monster of the mid-majors, and they were seriously considered for the New Big East when it formed. Not only that the higher seeds have been winning for the most part. We are at the elite 8 and 3 of 4 #1 seeds are left, 2 of the #2 seeds were left, and 1 of the #4 seeds. P6 Xavier and South Carolina were the "low seed" survivors.

I break the mid-majors into two groups, upper and lower. This year that would be the 2 WCC, 3 A10, 2 AAC, plus Nevada. Wichita State and Middle Tennessee of the single bid MWC, MVC, and CUSA. These were all seeded #12 or higher. These 10 schools went 6-4 in the first round (3-2 against P6, 2 were eliminated against each other), 1-5 in the second round. They beat three P6 teams, but Cincinnati was a higher seed, while Rhode Island and Middle Tennessee were mild upsets. These schools all lost to P6 in the 2nd round, gone by the weekend, except Gonzaga.

The bottom 20 schools, were all single bid conferences. Two got wins against other lower mids in the first four. 17 lost in the first round to P6, and the other lost to Gonzaga. If you add Nevada (MWC), and Wichita State (MVC), as one bid conference teams, they went 0-21 against P6.

Frankly if you dropped the bottom 20 conferences, eliminating the first four, the Tournament would not have changed much, just Providence and Wake Forest would have been 12 seeds. The 1-4 seeds would have had first day byes, and they all won anyway against all the 13-16 seeds (which says the committee got those right). You have the same tournament but just 8 games in stead of 16 of Thursday and Friday.

IMO the gap has opened up so much that the bottom 20 conferences, who also had 9 AQ bids in the NIT, and 2 at-large. Throw in UNC Asheville who was the first excluded along with Ohio State from the NIT, and that would give you a nice 32 team Tournament. These schools would be playing for a real NCAA National Championship, albeit like the FCS. It's better these days to be in the NIT (the 11 schools have gone 8-10 with Bakersfield in the final four), than to go 0-18 in the first round of the NCAA. Win you conference and you get be warmup round one for a Major, nothing more. It's been that way for a few years now, and getting worse.

The NIT would be fine by grabbing the 4 P6 schools with wining records left out, and adding the 7 upper mids who had RPI up to 100 (well 103). You'd probably have almost the same final four, except Bakersfield. So no harm here.

Anyway, when the one bid conferences are all gone by the first weekend, and 1-21 versus P6 (including some P6 teams with injured top players or otherwise a mess) it's hard to argue the committee got it wrong, or that the bottom 20 conferences are shafted. The recent history says they may pull one or two upsets in a given year, but they are gone by round 3, almost all gone in round 1. The upper mids are getting fewer and not lasting much longer, save one team it seems in any given year.

RPI alone is not good enough, you also have to look at top 50 wins and losses. The P6 have a built in advantage. But they also have the players who are NBA bound, and the top coaches (a couple exceptions out there like Marshall, Cronin, Bennett and Few), and the facilities, recruiting resources and the TV exposure.

As a result for the tournament, 38 of 75 P6 schools got in (just over 50%), and another 13 in the NIT (67% in a tournament). Frankly to have a 48 team tournament, the P group needs only 2 more conferences to get to about 100 schools. Or as it now sits 6 conferences with 72 schools to provide the other 10 (they also provided 8 of the NIT). The credits earned are massive difference as well:

P6 have 38 bid credits, plus 54 win credits (56 possible)* = 92 credits for 75 schools
Upper mids have 10 bid credits, plus 8 win credits (10 possible)* = 18 credits for 72 schools
Lower mids have 20 bid credits, plus 2 win credits = 22 credits for 204 school
* 2 credits dependent upon Gonzaga winning or losing in final four

Each credit has an aggregate value of $1.6m over 6 years

This will come to about $2m per P6 school, $400K per "upper" and $173K per "lower" mid-school

(03-25-2017 06:52 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 03:14 PM)ThunderDan49 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 01:31 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 07:13 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  No one should be surprised with this. This is FCOA and the financial might of the P5 at play. They got their FB autonomy, now they are rigging the at-large Dance bids in their favor as well. A conference like the WAC has virtually no chance at an at-large bid...hell the it took a 20 win SMC to get a bid...and even MWC is going to have a tough time getting at-large bids. This is the new norm folks.

It is not the "financial might of the P5." It is not the "rigging of the at-large Dance bids." It comes down to scheduling. If you are a mid-major school and the conference over-all is weak or mediocre, then you have to play a good non-conference schedule and win a game or two. P5 schools and the Big East have the advantage of tougher conference schedules.

Illinois State failed because the MVC had lot of weak and mediocre schools in the conference. They went 17-1 in conference, which on paper looks good. They had an impressive conference home win over Wichita State, but they also loss to Wichita State by 41 on the road and 20 in the conference tournament. Their best non-conference win was New Mexico, with a record of 17-14 and an RPI of 87. Even with an RPI of 33, it was border line for an at-large bid.

SMC was easily in because they schedule well and their four losses consisted of three losses to Gonzaga and a loss to UTA with an RPI of 40. UTA didn't get in despite winning the Sun Belt because they had some bad losses in conference, losing twice to Texas State, including by 21 in the Sun Belt Conference Tournament semi-finals.

The WAC currently has a conference RPI ranking of 15 out of the 32 D1 conferences, with two schools of the eight WAC schools in the top 60 (CSUB at #54 & NMSU at #55). GCU could land in the RPI top 100 next season and some improvement from the other schools could easily get the WAC a 2nd bid in the future.

But at the same time, it isn't like Illinois State didn't try to schedule tougher teams, the tougher teams said no because they knew that their conference slate was already tough enough to get them in with their RPI. Illinois State basically got screwed due to the fact that tougher teams wouldn't schedule them. That's why RPI is dumb as hell.

That is the excuse the head coach tried to use. If Gonzaga and Wichita State can each schedule five non-conference P5 schools this season, then Illinois State should be able to get more than one. That does not seem like a valid excuse. Losing to Murray State and Tulsa in non-conference play did not help either.

Gonzaga and Wichita St have national reputations where P5 schools know a loss to them won't be held against them. Different animal.

Illinois St called 25 teams that made the tourney. They were turned down even for buy games because coaches knew they were too experienced and good this year. Look at ISU's previous non-con's when they weren't expected to be good compared to this season's non-con when fhey were expected to be good. The level of programs scheduling ISU in preceding years would no longer schedule them this year because ISU was no longer a high probability team to beat.

Also, only 2 of ISU's 6 losses came when fully healthy. I subscribe to you are what your record says you are. However, the committee and ESPN beat every P5 injury/suspension excuse to death but not one word was said of what ISU was able to do despite hardships this season. There is a neon, blatant double standard.