|
|
Post by bigdobber on Mar 16, 2009 6:36:09 GMT -5
I was glad to see Bob Knight endorsing the doubling of the field in the NCAA to eliminate the annual debate on BCS versus Mid Major versus Small Conference. I thought the A10 did well with 3 picks and was very glad to see The Big East trimmed back to 7. Jay Bilas is so oriented towards the Big East and ACC he is hard to listen to. I am not a Dick Vitale fan but was nice to hear him point out that the larger conferences generally will not schedule a decent program from a small or mid major program. We really get no one to come to Olean and yet are expected to put together a tough OOC conference. I think that Temple's formula under John Chaney is the way to go. Take it on the road and at least get recognized for a strong SOS. Possibly could get some TV exposure. Would also make you tougher once conference play starts. Everyone needs to face facts. With 3 picks yearly for the NCAA, you need to do omething to stand out from the pack. Rhode Island's always winning 20+ games and going to th NIT. Duquesne has scheduled up and they are seeing results in conference and I think will be an NCAA program soon if Everhardt stays. As an aside, I don't think there is a bigger under achieving program than Notre Dame. I would not be surprised to see the MIke Brey era end shortly. We should move on from Syracuse. They have moved on from us for years. Too many other programs we could play that would benefit us. I would rather meet Syracuse in the first round of an NCAA game and play them on a neutral site. Hopefully, under Schmidt that can happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by njbona02 on Mar 16, 2009 8:52:02 GMT -5
I do not like doubling the field. It would be too big and then it gets a little ridiculous. Every year the debate comes down to about 5 teams that people thought should have gotten in. So why would you double the field? Because of 5 or 6 teams we are going to go to 128 teams? I think the tournament is fine and this debate goes on for a week and then the games start and everyone enjoys it.
|
|
|
|
Post by triple302 on Mar 16, 2009 10:32:26 GMT -5
I don't like the idea either. I know there are teams that should have a shot to get in. St Marys and Creighton probably should have got in while in my opinion Arizona had no business being put in the tourney. But lets be realistic here, what teams that could win the whole thing are being left out? All expanding the field would do is water down first round games and over saturate an already exciting month. Thursday to Sunday for those 3 weekends in March are already jammed full of games. Why add more games that in reality are probably meaningless. March is great. Adding games is completely unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by b4life on Mar 16, 2009 11:04:24 GMT -5
Making the tournament wouldn't mean a thing if they did that. I have heard the idea of a play in game for the 12th seed in each bracket, that might be cool. But the way I look at it, if it aint broke, don't fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by keplerjd on Mar 16, 2009 11:59:31 GMT -5
I think doubling the bracket would really take away from the prestige and honor of being selected as one of the best 65 teams in the country. Some teams get left out and they should just deal with it; this topic comes up every year when some team feels slighted, but it goes away just as fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpschmack on Mar 16, 2009 13:37:01 GMT -5
Expanding the tournament is bad. All they need to do is say you have to be OVER .500 in conference or better. That gets rid of four teams (Arizona, Minnesota, Michigan, Maryland). "Oh, but our conference is so hard" they'd whine. No one says you have to stay in that conference. Join the SWAC.
Why do the 6th place teams in these conferences get bids? We know they can't compete for a championship against the top four of their conferences. The regular season proved it.
You've got teams who went 3-7, 4-8, 3-9, 2-10 vs top 50 teams, and they get another chance, when teams that went 1-3, 2-4, 2-3, 2-5 (same win pcts) are left out.
|
|
|
|
Post by clubhouse on Mar 16, 2009 14:03:37 GMT -5
jp, your logic is flawed. Syracuse was 6th in the BE. What team that didn't make it to the dance do you feel is more deserving? I think they proved they can compete against the top four in their conference.
Just being over .500 in conference isn't going to cut it either. While you eliminate the four teams you mentioned, you add in a bunch more that were left out.
|
|
|
|
Post by mangham on Mar 16, 2009 14:04:29 GMT -5
I agree with jpschmack. If you don't go .500 in your conference, there is no way you should make the tourney.
Bilas used to be good but he's been drinking the BCS water and working with Digger much to long!
|
|
|
|
Post by tomangelone on Mar 16, 2009 14:22:07 GMT -5
I don't like setting standards on teams' records for automatic bids. If you win your conference tourney, you're in. However, the one thing I've always thought would work would be having four play-in games. That way, you'd have the eight bottom automatic teams (SWAC, MEAC schools, etc.) playing their way into 16 seeds in four regions. That would surely open up a few slots for at-large teams.
|
|
jdez
New Member
Posts: 11 
|
Post by jdez on Mar 16, 2009 16:08:59 GMT -5
Just being over .500 in conference isn't going to cut it either. While you eliminate the four teams you mentioned, you add in a bunch more that were left out. i don't see how this adds teams, jp is using a .500 conference record as a minimum to get in, but he is not saying a .500 conference record from a BCS conference GETS you it. |
|
|
|
Post by clubhouse on Mar 16, 2009 21:26:36 GMT -5
And I didn't say it had to be a BCS conference.
|
|
jdez
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by jdez on Mar 16, 2009 22:44:06 GMT -5
And I didn't say it had to be a BCS conference. ok, but, in fact, he did not say a .500 record from any conference gets you in either (but, the conversation is about teams with sub.-.500 conference records being in the tourny, and those teams come from only BCS conferences). all he said was a sub-.500 record kept you out, and that would result in 4 teams in this years tourny being left out. ** i may be miss reading your original post as i read it to say that by eliminating the sub.500 record teams, you somehow add other BCS teams that finished in the mid/low part of their conference ** that, therefore, would open 4 spots for teams like St. Marys, URI, etc. i still dont see how that adds teams that were left out. furhter, his logic is not flawed as SU has an over .500 record in the BE. |
|
|
|
Post by jpschmack on Mar 16, 2009 23:13:02 GMT -5
Allow me to clarify... I meant you have to go above .500 in conference to get in. I'd include conference tournaments WINS (not losses) to get you over .500. If you go 9-9 in the Big Ten, you have to win your first conference tourney game to be eligible. Not automatically take any major over .500 in conference.
Any team who wins their conference tournament should get in (and all conferences should invite everyone; that's the beauty of March). So a team that shows up 12-17 to the conference tournament still has a shot.
By "sixth place," I obviously didn't mean the Big East. The Big East should get 7-8 bids every year and I have no problem with their 7th place team going. In separate conferences, they'd have 12 candidates. But someone has to lose those 288 Big East games (That's a big number. Look at the MWC, they have 144 Conference losses to absorb, which is why Utah/BYU always have ridiculously high RPIs).
Like I said, the biggest problem we face in the A-10 is that now that the NCAA expanded the regular season schedule, it's affecting RPIs; and devaluing OUR conference games. A 17-12 Big Ten team was left out when they went 9-9 in conference. Now that same team is 19-12, their RPI is 10 spots higher, and they get in. Observe:
These are OOC records of Big Ten teams which finished .500 in conference:
2009: 13-1 in OOC, #42 RPI, Dance (187 OOC SOS)
2009: 11-3 in OOC, #47 RPI, Dance (47 OOC SOS)
2008: no .500 teams
2007: 10-2 in OOC, #54 RPI OUT (102 OOC SOS)
2006: 10-2 in OOC, #47 RPI OUT (147 OOC SOS)
2005: 9-3 in OOC, #51 RPI OUT (122 OOC SOS)
Those two extra wins they can schedule are the difference between them having a RPI in the 40s or an RPI in the 50s. Then they have 4 more games vs Top 50 opponents. They're bumping down A-10/MVC/MWC/etc teams from the 40s to the 50s, and making our records vs the Top 50 look unworthy.
We used to get 3-5 top 50 games IN CONFERENCE. Now we're getting 2-3.
|
|
|
|
Post by presstowin on Mar 17, 2009 13:01:31 GMT -5
The mid-majors are being slowly phased out of the tourney sad to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonas03 on Mar 17, 2009 15:32:58 GMT -5
I think it's fine the way it is. If anything go back to just 64 teams to make it only 33 at-larges....look at that, Arizona is out of the Tournament and I haven't heard too many complaints about any other team.
|
|
