Big Dance Bracket
- Thread starter ISU FAN 1
- Start date
bawhale88 said:
I agree 100%. This is a rule I've been wanting to put in place for years. I think it makes conference play all the more important and is a good way to give Mid-Majors a fair shake. It also eliminates having to watch crap teams hit the floor and play crap games.
Hamdonger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 6,509
Hard to stomach sub-.500 conf teams getting in.
I concur about Trae Young. GREAT player with as good a human being for a coach in Lon Kruger. Trae will be the biggest individual ratings-getter for The Tourney. That's why they're in...and you know what, I get it. You cannot look at Oklahoma and say otherwise. Kenny Mossman, my apologies.
The only thing consistent about Oklahoma is that they won at home, and lost on the road. Last 2 months been in steady decline. Saw a quote from a selection committee member and he said the biggest criteria for teams on the bubble was SOS, record on the road, and late season play. Hmmn...
Hate it for the teams that had worthy years but aren't dancing. Boy, we just can't relate to that feeling, can we?? :roll: :roll:
I concur about Trae Young. GREAT player with as good a human being for a coach in Lon Kruger. Trae will be the biggest individual ratings-getter for The Tourney. That's why they're in...and you know what, I get it. You cannot look at Oklahoma and say otherwise. Kenny Mossman, my apologies.
The only thing consistent about Oklahoma is that they won at home, and lost on the road. Last 2 months been in steady decline. Saw a quote from a selection committee member and he said the biggest criteria for teams on the bubble was SOS, record on the road, and late season play. Hmmn...
Hate it for the teams that had worthy years but aren't dancing. Boy, we just can't relate to that feeling, can we?? :roll: :roll:
crazzymark
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
- Messages
- 1,903
As I said on another post the other day......most of you including me would not be happy about some of the teams with sub .500 conference records getting into the dance....
Jsnhbe1Birds
New member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
- Messages
- 4,044
The committee wasn't leaving out Young or Porter Jr. Also, even P6 teams that missed out are calling for expanding the tournament. NOBODY is happy with the quadrant system. Except Syracuse. They managed to squeak in again.
Jsnhbe1Birds
New member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
- Messages
- 4,044
cubird said:
I'm not sure what their quadrant 1 scenario was but it doesn't matter because if it was good the committee would go on down the list and reference top 25 wins and if that doesn't fit the narrative they'll point to RPI and so on.
Jsnhbe1Birds said:
Agreed. Young was the only reason Oklahoma made it into the tourney. The selection committee is all kinds of a sham, as OU is sitting at a 10 seed meaning they were comfortably in the tourney despite going 2-8 in their last ten and not winning a road game in 2018. As Chuck pointed out on the selection show, they must have been a 1 seed before to be that bad down the stretch and still get a 10 seed.
Metamoron said:But if they do start this rule, then the big conferences would just manage their unbalanced schedule to make sure their best teams shouldn’t be under 500. Some teams in Big 10 may play Rutgers 4 times!!DWRedbird said:
If that's the way they want to do it, that's fine, but it also hurts them in all the other BS metrics they've created, and hurt them come actual selection time as finishing at least .500 in the league wouldn't guarantee getting you in, it would only make you eligible for an at large birth.
If the rule were in place this year, Syracuse/Oklahoma/Arizona State/Texas/Alabama would not be playing this year. But, those are the 5 reasons right there that this rule will never be in place, unfortunately.
I made a suggestion on how to "fix" the tournament in another thread, but though I would bring it over here and see what people thought. It's a little dated with the teams, but you get the point.
One thing I think that should be done to reform the tournament selection is to have the regular season conference champion and the tournament champion both get automatic bids. Otherwise, why should non-P6 play the regular season at all? Why not just go straight to the conference tournaments?
My thought is that in all conferences the regular season champion gets an auto bid, as well as the tournament champion. If the regular season champion and the conference tournament champion happen to be the same team (usually in Non-p5) then that vacant spot from that conference goes into the "at-large" pool. We would start seeing more conference representation in the big dance.
For example, last year's MVC Tournament Championship between No.1 ILST and No.2 WSU, Since ILST lost but won the regular season title, they would be in the tournament with a worse seed than WSU. If ISU would have one, their seed would have improved and the conferences other spot goes into the "at-large pool." That is not to say Wichita wouldn't or couldn't still get an at-large, but that is when the committee has their precious opportunity to put a P6 school in.
So this year by my rule, the follow conferences would have 2 auto bids: (Regular Season, Tournament Champ)
A-Sun (Florida Gulf Coast, Lipscomb)
Big-South (UNC Asheville, Radford)
Big 10 (Michigan State, Michigan)
Horizon (Northern Kent, Wright State)
MAAC (Rider, Iona)
NEC (Wagner, LIU Brooklyn)
One Auto Bid leagues by this rule:
MVC (Loyola)
Summit (SDSU)
OVC (Murray State)
WCC (Gonzaga)
SoCon (UNC-G)
CAA (Charleston)
So these conferences extra "auto bid" would be put into the at-large pool. In a near impossible situation where every single regular season conference champ and tournament champ are different, then that is 64 spots taken and only 4 teams will get at-large berths. In another near impossible situation where every conference and tournament champ are the same there will be what there is now, 36 at-large spots up for grabs.
One thing I think that should be done to reform the tournament selection is to have the regular season conference champion and the tournament champion both get automatic bids. Otherwise, why should non-P6 play the regular season at all? Why not just go straight to the conference tournaments?
My thought is that in all conferences the regular season champion gets an auto bid, as well as the tournament champion. If the regular season champion and the conference tournament champion happen to be the same team (usually in Non-p5) then that vacant spot from that conference goes into the "at-large" pool. We would start seeing more conference representation in the big dance.
For example, last year's MVC Tournament Championship between No.1 ILST and No.2 WSU, Since ILST lost but won the regular season title, they would be in the tournament with a worse seed than WSU. If ISU would have one, their seed would have improved and the conferences other spot goes into the "at-large pool." That is not to say Wichita wouldn't or couldn't still get an at-large, but that is when the committee has their precious opportunity to put a P6 school in.
So this year by my rule, the follow conferences would have 2 auto bids: (Regular Season, Tournament Champ)
A-Sun (Florida Gulf Coast, Lipscomb)
Big-South (UNC Asheville, Radford)
Big 10 (Michigan State, Michigan)
Horizon (Northern Kent, Wright State)
MAAC (Rider, Iona)
NEC (Wagner, LIU Brooklyn)
One Auto Bid leagues by this rule:
MVC (Loyola)
Summit (SDSU)
OVC (Murray State)
WCC (Gonzaga)
SoCon (UNC-G)
CAA (Charleston)
So these conferences extra "auto bid" would be put into the at-large pool. In a near impossible situation where every single regular season conference champ and tournament champ are different, then that is 64 spots taken and only 4 teams will get at-large berths. In another near impossible situation where every conference and tournament champ are the same there will be what there is now, 36 at-large spots up for grabs.
Bird Friend
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 12,568
Dickie V. was banging the drum Saturday that you should be at least .500 in conference or no dancing. His opinion: you chose to be in the conference your in. If you can’t be better than mediocre in your conference, then you don’t deserve to be rewarded. He also stated that other than the auto-bid, teams shouldn’t be allowed to pad their resume via the conf tourney. (Alabama anyone?)
Most ironic quote of the weekend? Bilas: They’ve made this tourney idiot proof.
My immediate response: So says the proof of idiots.
My hope is that the FBI probe forces half-a-dozen big schools to vacate any of their wins this spring and the NCAA spreads those shares to the non-P conferences . . . like that’ll happen. :roll:
Most ironic quote of the weekend? Bilas: They’ve made this tourney idiot proof.
My immediate response: So says the proof of idiots.
My hope is that the FBI probe forces half-a-dozen big schools to vacate any of their wins this spring and the NCAA spreads those shares to the non-P conferences . . . like that’ll happen. :roll:
RedbirdSoxFan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2017
- Messages
- 3,816
cubird said:
Oklahoma State also won @ West Virginia (RPI 27)
Oklahoma State's worst RPI loss was to Baylor (RPI 68)
Oklahoma lossed to Iowa State (RPI 144)
Hrtnfldhse
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2018
- Messages
- 451
completely agree with padding your resume via the conference tournament. Only winning the conference tournament should be rewarded.Bird Friend said:
Jsnhbe1Birds
New member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2017
- Messages
- 4,044
I would like to see Dickie V punch Bilas right in the face. Dickie V is a P6er but he's not a homer. He loves basketball and welcomes everyone.
dpdoughbird06
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2017
- Messages
- 1,022
Topoly28 said:
Were they the only 15-loss team riding the trail blazed by Vandy last year? I'm still anxiously awaiting the first 7-11 - or even 6-12 at this point - P6 at-large who tripped over their own feet for two months, but really peeled back the onion and came on strong in their conference tourney.