NCAA tourney

[CaliRdBrd]

Saw this on Twitter...

“Big 10 could get 11-12 teams in NCAA tournament. Why? 50% of ALL non-conf games were buy games. That's more than any other conference. They won over 90+% of those buy games. Then played 20 games as a conference versus each other to protect their collective NET”

Talk amongst yourselves...

 

[Hrtnfldhse]

They will get 10 max Purdue and Minnesota will not get in unless they win the B10 tourney

 

[DaveBird10]

This is why the B1G went to 20 game conference season. They can have 10 non-conference games and 8 of those be buy games or so and then go to conference season where you'll get multiple chances vs teams in the quad 1 or quad 2 games. In the end that's what kills mvc teams bc how many chances in conference does UNI get now? Where as B1G teams double that and then get an at-large bid. As we've learned in the past mid majors are getting less and less at large bids and this year will not be any different.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[DWRedbird]

They will get 10 max Purdue and Minnesota will not get in unless they win the B10 tourney

I would personally agree with this, and I've been hearing a lot of Analysts during games saying something similar. A lot of them have said there is no way B10 gets 11-12, and I hear a lot of them finally settle on 9-10. I would guess another of the P5 conferences ends up taking a couple of the bids they think is coming their way.

 

[birdlife]

it would not surprise me one bit to see the committee deviate "slightly" from the NET in order to include a team like MN or Purdue in the tourney as an at-large. then next year we will see a new metric they say they will use. i bet it'll be called the NET+.

 

[91Bird]

It's sounding like if Purdue can stay a game or two above .500 they'll get in the tournament. What a joke. I'll be rooting for teams like Dayton, San Diego State, etc to make some noise come March.

 

[redbirdfan04]

it would not surprise me one bit to see the committee deviate "slightly" from the NET in order to include a team like MN or Purdue in the tourney as an at-large. then next year we will see a new metric they say they will use. i bet it'll be called the NET+.

:text-+1:

 

[DoubleDeuce]

Saw this on Twitter...

“Big 10 could get 11-12 teams in NCAA tournament. Why? 50% of ALL non-conf games were buy games. That's more than any other conference. They won over 90+% of those buy games. Then played 20 games as a conference versus each other to protect their collective NET”

Talk amongst yourselves...

That tweet is from Mark Adams, a great voice for the mid-majors. The NET rating seems to ensure the field/bubble is already decided before January.

 

[gobirds85]

Saw this on Twitter...

“Big 10 could get 11-12 teams in NCAA tournament. Why? 50% of ALL non-conf games were buy games. That's more than any other conference. They won over 90+% of those buy games. Then played 20 games as a conference versus each other to protect their collective NET”

Talk amongst yourselves...

That tweet is from Mark Adams, a great voice for the mid-majors. The NET rating seems to ensure the field/bubble is already decided before January.

And the NET is slanted towards the Power conferences so they can go deeper in their standings to get non-deserving teams in. That is why the RPI went RIP.

The NIT will soon be the tourney for the non-power schools.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

it would not surprise me one bit to see the committee deviate "slightly" from the NET in order to include a team like MN or Purdue in the tourney as an at-large. then next year we will see a new metric they say they will use. i bet it'll be called the NET+.

The selection committee will find reasons to tweak the bids as they see fit. One of their favorite methods is to use SOS....even though it's already a major part of every metric they use. As a final line of defense there is always the ol' subjective "eye test" which is thrown around as if it were fact when graded by they elite basketball minds on TV and internet. These are the bubble tiebreakers that quality mid majors will never overcome since they do not get the chance to prove themselves on the court. Scheduling opportunities for mid majors will only improve when the selection committee stops assuming middling power conference teams are better/more deserving of tourney bids and start giving the nod to mid major bubble teams. The job of the selection committee is to select the best teams, not to send messages or drive behavior...but changing their assumptions/biases can certainly help create a scheduling incentive that will provide more meaningful head to head (or common opponent) scenarios between bubble teams regardless of conference affiliation.

 

[BirdsEyeView]

it would not surprise me one bit to see the committee deviate "slightly" from the NET in order to include a team like MN or Purdue in the tourney as an at-large. then next year we will see a new metric they say they will use. i bet it'll be called the NET+.

They would not need to deviate from the NET to include Purdue. They are a strong #32 in the NET right now (ahead of UNI by 5 spots)

 

[Hamdonger]

I watched, in person, Purdue destroy Virginia in December. They looked like world-beaters. How in the holy hound dog they've lost 13 games is a total flippin mystery. They're certainly good enough to be in the tourney, but do you reward a PeePee5 who has demonstrated that kind of maddening inconsistency, with a sub.500 conf record?? Even as good as the Big 10 is this year??

I don't believe you should. Keep The Dance magical. Let the Cinderellas do da cha cha.

 

[chuckie1980]

All of our Redbird bickering is really based on the NCAA new policies. I believe most of Muller major issues stem from the backflips he has had to deal with as a new Div1 coach. Illinois State and the MVC are NOT in the NCAA Div 1 any longer.

Reading through this thread...the Big10 wants a bunch of cheap easy teams to beat so they can rake in the tourney dollars at the end.