+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: BYU's AD must be proud (/thread-731340.html)
Pages: 1 2
BYU's AD must be proud - CougarRed - 03-18-2015 04:04 AM
After scratching and clawing to get BYU one of the last four bids over arguably more deserving teams, BYU craps the bed against a mediocre Ole Miss squad.
Well done, Tom Holmoe. Now, rotate off the committee forever please.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - The Cutter of Bish - 03-18-2015 05:42 AM
Looking at the RPI, folks might think Ole Miss had more to prove. Good to know BYU really didn't belong. Surely if you beat Gonzaga in Spokane you must qualify for the championship, though!
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - He1nousOne - 03-18-2015 08:15 AM
(03-18-2015 05:42 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: Looking at the RPI, folks might think Ole Miss had more to prove. Good to know BYU really didn't belong. Surely if you beat Gonzaga in Spokane you must qualify for the championship, though!
And some people think this is Gonzaga's year too.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - ken d - 03-18-2015 09:36 AM
Did Mr. Holmoe miss his free throws in the clutch? Or is there something else he did wrong?
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - f1do - 03-18-2015 10:58 AM
Who are these arguably more deserving teams? Everyone who was last-4-in or first-4-out has flaws or they wouldn't be in that situation.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - Wedge - 03-18-2015 11:02 AM
The theory here is that losing in the first round proves you didn't belong in the tournament.
So, when a #3 or 4 seed loses in the first round on Thursday or Friday, we will all agree that they had no business being in the tournament. Right?
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - blunderbuss - 03-18-2015 11:05 AM
Why are there 68 teams now anyway? I know it's been a few years but it seems kind of stupid. What's more stupid is the play in teams aren't playing for a 16 seed. Playing for an 11 seed seems arbitrary to me.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - HuskyU - 03-18-2015 11:09 AM
Second year in a row that BYU looked like a questionable at-large pick. Second year in a row that they lose their opening game. Three-peat in the works?
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - NotANewbie - 03-18-2015 11:16 AM
(03-18-2015 11:05 AM)blunderbuss Wrote: Why are there 68 teams now anyway? I know it's been a few years but it seems kind of stupid. What's more stupid is the play in teams aren't playing for a 16 seed. Playing for an 11 seed seems arbitrary to me.
If you look at the brackets, most of the seeds below 11 are auto qualifiers from conferences without the RPI of those playing in.
The 11th seed playins are on the margin of at large bids; the 16th seed playins are on the margin of autobids.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - f1do - 03-18-2015 11:31 AM
They lost the game by 4 points so its not like it was a blowout or something to demonstrate they didn't belong. They just didn't get it done this year. Last year's loss was worse (by 19 in the first round as a #10 seed) but they won 4 games in their previous 3 appearances (2010, 2011, 2012).
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - Wedge - 03-18-2015 11:32 AM
(03-18-2015 11:05 AM)blunderbuss Wrote: Why are there 68 teams now anyway? I know it's been a few years but it seems kind of stupid. What's more stupid is the play in teams aren't playing for a 16 seed. Playing for an 11 seed seems arbitrary to me.
It is arbitrary. It's that way because, when the NCAA first proposed the idea of expanding the tournament and having these four play-in games, the low-major conferences complained that the champs of eight of those leagues would have to play their way into the field of 64. The compromise was that only the four lowest-rated autobid teams (lowest-rated by the committee, of course, not necessarily by RPI or any published ratings system) would be in the play-in games, and the other four play-in teams would be the four lowest-rated at-large teams.
As many of us have said here this week, they ought to just dump the play-in games and go back to a 64-team tournament.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - ODUChm - 03-18-2015 11:44 AM
(03-18-2015 11:31 AM)f1do Wrote: They lost the game by 4 points so its not like it was a blowout or something to demonstrate they didn't belong. They just didn't get it done this year. Last year's loss was worse (by 19 in the first round as a #10 seed) but they won 4 games in their previous 3 appearances (2010, 2011, 2012).
In anny tournament that is one and done, the results can not be interpreted as saying a team did or dint belong
If the NCAA had selected 0-27 Grambling state as their #1 over all seed and they went on a 6 game winning streak, does that mean they belonged in the field? Or just made the most of the opportunity?
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - bullitt_60 - 03-18-2015 11:59 AM
Isn't lobbying for his teams his job?
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - ecuacc4ever - 03-18-2015 12:02 PM
(03-18-2015 04:04 AM)CougarRed Wrote: After scratching and clawing to get BYU one of the last four bids over arguably more deserving teams, BYU craps the bed against a mediocre Ole Miss squad.
Well done, Tom Holmoe. Now, rotate off the committee forever please.
I thought the AD of a school in question was not allowed to be in the discussion when his/her school's NCAA Tourney case was deliberated.
Did we miss something?
Otherwise, the AD had no say in BYU getting a dance card.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - MWC Tex - 03-18-2015 12:04 PM
(03-18-2015 12:02 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:(03-18-2015 04:04 AM)CougarRed Wrote: After scratching and clawing to get BYU one of the last four bids over arguably more deserving teams, BYU craps the bed against a mediocre Ole Miss squad.
Well done, Tom Holmoe. Now, rotate off the committee forever please.
I thought the AD of a school in question was not allowed to be in the discussion when his/her school's NCAA Tourney case was deliberated.
Did we miss something?
Otherwise, the AD had no say in BYU getting a dance card.
Utah State's Scott Barnes is buddies with BYU. I think he fought for BYU instead of CSU.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - msm96wolf - 03-18-2015 12:22 PM
(03-18-2015 12:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:(03-18-2015 12:02 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:(03-18-2015 04:04 AM)CougarRed Wrote: After scratching and clawing to get BYU one of the last four bids over arguably more deserving teams, BYU craps the bed against a mediocre Ole Miss squad.
Well done, Tom Holmoe. Now, rotate off the committee forever please.
I thought the AD of a school in question was not allowed to be in the discussion when his/her school's NCAA Tourney case was deliberated.
Did we miss something?
Otherwise, the AD had no say in BYU getting a dance card.
Utah State's Scott Barnes is buddies with BYU. I think he fought for BYU instead of CSU.
The reason it is called a Bubble team, the team is dependent on what view the committee takes. If you don't make it, it does not mean a another bubble team is less deserving. Bubble teams have made mistakes and did not do what they needed to get a lock. If Temple or CSU got in over Boise and BYU, I see no issue. Thus I see no issue for CSU and Temple being sent to the NIT. The line between 67-70 is razor thin. Teams need to do what SMU did, schedule strong for next season and perform. They went from outside bubble last year to an assured lock. The current committee is definitely taking SOS with the RPI into consideration.
I will say this, when NCSU hired Coach Gottfried he changed the scheduling philosophy to what the committee stated they wanted to see for a team to get invited. Strong away games & decent mid majors. He has gotten the Pack into 4 straight NCAA's in his four years. The only reason we got in over SMU last year was SOS. I said it last year, I would not have an issue if SMU got in over us. It was obvious one was going to be NIT top Seed or last NCAA team invited.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - Chappy - 03-18-2015 12:39 PM
(03-18-2015 11:59 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote: Isn't lobbying for his teams his job?
Yup.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - MWC Tex - 03-18-2015 12:49 PM
(03-18-2015 11:05 AM)blunderbuss Wrote: Why are there 68 teams now anyway? I know it's been a few years but it seems kind of stupid. What's more stupid is the play in teams aren't playing for a 16 seed. Playing for an 11 seed seems arbitrary to me.
Part of what started it was the creation of the MW conference and their auto-bid taking an at-large spot away.
To compensate, the tourney expanded to 65 teams with #64 & #65 having a play in game.
Just a few years ago, they were looking at 96 teams (which would wipe out the NIT). But after signing with CBS/Turner they only expanded to 68.
I think if we have a conference the goes away, 64 may an option to go back to.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - Frank the Tank - 03-18-2015 01:04 PM
(03-18-2015 12:49 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: Just a few years ago, they were looking at 96 teams (which would wipe out the NIT). But after signing with CBS/Turner they only expanded to 68.
I think if we have a conference the goes away, 64 may an option to go back to.
Playoffs that make money NEVER contract. Whatever the competitive merits might be about making the field smaller, we know that the TV networks aren't paying for less product. It's always about more, more and more. As fans, it's a waste of time to even think about the field going back to 64 even if we see more conferences get wiped out. We just have to hope that the next time that the NCAA Tournament field expands, it will be to only 70 or 72 instead of 96-plus.
RE: BYU's AD must be proud - stever20 - 03-18-2015 01:14 PM
I think we're going to see 1 of 2 changes.
1- the play-in games go to all 16 vs 16's.
2- the play-in games expand us up to 72 teams.
If they go 16 vs 16's-
61 Texas Southern
62 North Dakota St
63 Lafayette
64 Coastal Carolina
65 North Florida
66 Robert Morris
67 Manhattan
68 Hampton
Your 15 seeds then become 57-60
57 UAB
58 Albany
59 New Mexico St
60 Belmont
Your 14 seeds become 53-56
53 E Washington
54 UC Irvine
55 Georgia St
56 Northeastern
Your 13 seeds become 49-52
49 Wofford
50 Stephen F Austin
51 Valpairaiso
52 Harvard
Your 12 seeds become 45-48
45 Boise St
46 Dayton
47 Wyoming
48 Buffalo
Your 11 seeds become 41-44
41 Texas
42 UCLA
43 Ole Miss
44 BYU
The 13 line becomes much stronger.