Just because you aren't considered a major doesn't mean you can't field a good team. Plus, if you do a little winning and/or go to a better conference, no one in their right mind will call you anything but a major, see Gonzaga.

(06-18-2013 01:03 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I see "mid-major" as about the worst insult someone can say about a team. I know it ticks me off anytime I hear it. It's an insulting label.

Part of the problem is that there is no uniformly-accepted criteria of what distinguishes "major" from "mid-major." Everybody has a clear idea of what the difference is, but everybody does Not have the same idea.

I'd be curious to know the history of the term. When was it first used? And who used it? And who/what was being described by it?

(06-18-2013 12:12 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  No, it just means a team is not in a high profile conference. It doesn't make them bad.

My problem with the term is that they overuse it, because if there are mid-majors then there has to be low-majors. I made a post about how I think conference should be "tiered" a while back.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=609...pid8746688
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=609...pid8746690

Which is another way of saying, "you don't have football teams in your conference."

(06-17-2013 10:05 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 06:54 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  Do you mean caliber as in "having reached or accomplished"? Then yes. But they have been a quality enough of a program to make one. All are filled with a little luck. I don't know what their problem is, but it probably lies in the conference of their division that softens them up too much before the tourney.

They are not a mid-major. Don't legitimize the bull**** labels of the football schools.

Being in a poor conference sure didn't hurt Wichita last year or Butler. If that was a legit reason, no team from a minor conference would ever win more than a fluke (there's that word again) upset over a power conference team.

Gonzaga's biggest issue is that they've never been a real good defensive team, with rare exception, and that their talent has to be coached up (which Few is good at) because they as of yet have been unable to draw true bon-a-fide superstar talent.

They really missed a chance to break through nationally from 2004-06 when they had great seeds, great talent and a wide open bracket every year to make a run but either choked or were mismatched each time.

If you are really going use the relatively few examples of teams outside the major 6 (soon to be 7) conferences making a Final 4 as an example that playing lesser competition before the tourney doesn't in some way damage a team's ability to go deep in the tourney all I have to do is point out the number of times no team from a low to mid-tier conference have made it.

Of course some are going to make it through over 25+ years and with parity is CBB getting stronger over the last decade, it is even likely to increase some.

That being said, the MVC is much stronger than the WCC. That was my main point. At least Wichita had to match up with some high-quality opponents (Creighton) during conference play. Gonzaga has to schedule OOC games to just keep the level of competition up. Hell, before Self's 2008 run at Kansas, the weakness of the Big XII was a major talking point by KU fans for why they always fell short in the tourney.

(06-18-2013 08:39 AM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:12 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  No, it just means a team is not in a high profile conference. It doesn't make them bad.

My problem with the term is that they overuse it, because if there are mid-majors then there has to be low-majors. I made a post about how I think conference should be "tiered" a while back.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=609...pid8746688
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=609...pid8746690

Which is another way of saying, "you don't have football teams in your conference."

Not necessarily. I think the New Big East will be a major. The Sun Belt and MAC aren't majors and really don't even approach it.

(06-18-2013 08:47 AM)aughnanure Wrote:  If you are really going use the relatively few examples of teams outside the major 6 (soon to be 7) conferences making a Final 4 as an example that playing lesser competition before the tourney doesn't in some way damage a team's ability to go deep in the tourney all I have to do is point out the number of times no team from a low to mid-tier conference have made it.

You act as if the Final Four is the only barometer. Others have made deep runs and looked legit while doing it like Davidson in 2008 and Gonzaga in 1999. The power conferences routinely fill the Final Four out completely because they with rare exception have the highest seeds and thus face the fewest challenges. Sometimes the mid's help clear obstacles for them too, like a 12/13 seed knocking off a 4 and 5 only to get slaughtered by a 1.

Quote:Of course some are going to make it through over 25+ years and with parity is CBB getting stronger over the last decade, it is even likely to increase some.

That being said, the MVC is much stronger than the WCC. That was my main point. At least Wichita had to match up with some high-quality opponents (Creighton) during conference play. Gonzaga has to schedule OOC games to just keep the level of competition up. Hell, before Self's 2008 run at Kansas, the weakness of the Big XII was a major talking point by KU fans for why they always fell short in the tourney.

The Valley has turned into a 2 bid max league. The WCC is currently a legit 3-bid league even if there is a major dropoff after those three. The point is though that they are guaranteed four-six games every conference season against NCAA Tournament caliber teams. Hardly the creampuff WCC of the past. And back to my point, that horrible league with even less depth didn't stop them from making three straight Sweet 16 when they had less talent.

(06-18-2013 07:42 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 08:47 AM)aughnanure Wrote:  If you are really going use the relatively few examples of teams outside the major 6 (soon to be 7) conferences making a Final 4 as an example that playing lesser competition before the tourney doesn't in some way damage a team's ability to go deep in the tourney all I have to do is point out the number of times no team from a low to mid-tier conference have made it.

You act as if the Final Four is the only barometer. Others have made deep runs and looked legit while doing it like Davidson in 2008 and Gonzaga in 1999. The power conference routinely fill the Final Four out completely because they with rare exception have the highest seeds and thus face the fewest challenges. Sometimes the mid's help clear obstacles for them too, like a 12/13 seed knocking off a 4 and 5 only to get slaughtered by a 1.

Quote:Of course some are going to make it through over 25+ years and with parity is CBB getting stronger over the last decade, it is even likely to increase some.

That being said, the MVC is much stronger than the WCC. That was my main point. At least Wichita had to match up with some high-quality opponents (Creighton) during conference play. Gonzaga has to schedule OOC games to just keep the level of competition up. Hell, before Self's 2008 run at Kansas, the weakness of the Big XII was a major talking point by KU fans for why they always fell short in the tourney.

The Valley has turned into a 2 bid max league. The WCC is currently a legit 3-bid league even if there is a major dropoff after those three. The point is though that they are guaranteed four-six games every conference season against NCAA Tournament caliber teams. Hardly the creampuff WCC of the past. And back to my point, that horrible league with even less depth didn't stop them from making three straight Sweet 16 when they had less talent.

I think there's some miscommunication on my part. The MVC was a better conference this past year, easily. Yes, they have more "known" teams with BYU and St Mary's (not very bullish on them, I admit), but they weren't a better conference last year and one could argue the drop off after them is considerably more than anything in the MVC.

On your first paragraph, I was attempting to refute what I thought was your insinuation that the Final 4 was all that matters. So yeah.

(06-17-2013 06:54 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 08:22 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 08:32 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 08:43 AM)trephin Wrote:  Why do the Zags have to be a conference mate? As Frank and others have suggested before, why not just set up a basketball scheduling agreement for a bunch of OOC games between the conference and Gonzaga? Olympic sports are no longer a concern for either side. The schools could pick and choose who wants to participate. You get the benefits of exposure etc and you wouldn't settle for a partner for them.

Well because the conference doesn't benefit from their success. If Gonzaga makes a final four that doesn't help us. We can play better OOC games closer to home.

Yes, but Gonzaga isn't a Final Four caliber program. Never have been. They made an Elite 8 once and that was 15 years ago. I'd bet on St. John's getting to a Final Four before Gonzaga.

Somehow Gonzaga has developed a reputation far beyond their actual accomplishments. They are a very good mid major, but that's it.

Do you mean caliber as in "having reached or accomplished"? Then yes. But they have been a quality enough of a program to make one. All are filled with a little luck. I don't know what their problem is, but it probably lies in the conference of their division that softens them up too much before the tourney.

They are not a mid-major. Don't legitimize the bull**** labels of the football schools.

How are they not a mid major?

You're saying that "their problem lies in their division that softens them up too much before the tournament." What you're saying is that they play in a mid major conference and they come out of it not strong enough to make a run in the tournament. Isn't that by definition a mid major?

I agree that they are a quality program. But let's be honest, they've achieved their success at the mid major level. That's how they've racked up a lot of wins and that's how they've gotten to the tournament so consistently. It' that string of 15 years getting to the tournament that qualifies them as a quality program. But if that string is built on domination of a mid major program, as it is, and they haven't been able to get beyond the first weekend as they rarely do, then what qualifies them as anything more than a mid major?

(06-17-2013 08:23 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 07:05 PM)LouPower Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 06:51 PM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 05:32 PM)LouPower Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 11:44 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  The same can be said for Pitt. Just because you underachieve doesn't mean you're not capable of doing better. They were just a 1-seed and even if over-seeded (I don't think so), were a favorite to win their region before losing to the team that did eventually win it behind a barrage of 3's.

Are you gonna tell me Mason and VCU are more capable of going deep because they each made a fluke run? Like I said, they've underachieved or possibly peaked under Coach Few but in any given year, no one would be surprised if they advanced to the Final Four.

No run to the Final 4 or further is a fluke. You had to beat a minimum of 4 tournament teams to get there. I'm peeved that SLU has to play in a league with George Mason (because I strongly dislike Mason)...but their run is real.

Of course its flukey. They always are, unless you are an absolute dominant team. One doesn't have to look far. Take Marquette last year. Marquette in 2003. With so many possessions, so many points, a little luck goes a long way.

Now, that is not to be confused with "undeserving," but simply that its really hard to get that far without needing a good amount of luck going your way.

Yeah, it's how you define fluke. I see it with a negative connotation; like someone is looking down on a team.

Yeah. My main issue with your definition is that it devalues a team's great overall season. The Final 4 is never the 4 best teams in the country. And that's why we love it.

They may not be the 4 best teams in the country, but they are the 4 most successful - at least according to the standards by which we define success in college basketball.

Were the Giants the best team in football when they beat the 18-0 Patriots in the Super Bowl? Who cares? They won the biggest game of the year and that's all that really matters.

(06-17-2013 09:55 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 05:35 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  As for VCU and Mason, the answer to your question is yes. And I'm wondering if it's a trick question. Are VCU and Mason capable of making a run to the Final Four? There is no doubt. They've actually done it. And what makes their runs a fluke? You can call a single win a fluke because a team get ridiculously hot or catches another team on a bad night. Or someone makes a lucky shot in a close game. Or there's bad refereeing. But 4 wins? That's not a fluke.

Fact of the matter is if you play either of those Tournaments again 100 times, neither would likely win their region more than a handful of times, if not less. I realize that playing the what-if game is counter-productive in the NCAA Tournament because of the single elimination nature but there is a reason why double digit seeds have only made it that far three times ever and that's because the teams are generally not as good as the teams seeded ahead of them. Their runs were nothing short of a hot streak, great coaching up of the talent and a little luck as well as the fact that the teams they beat possibly didn't respect them because of their pedigree, which was certainly the case for that arrogant UConn team (which almost lost to 16-seed Albany) against Mason.

Quote:And let's not forget that neither of these teams was a high seed, which means that they didn't get an easy game anywhere along the way. VCU was a #11 seed and had to beat Georgetown, Purdue, Florida State, and Kansas. The only close game in their run was their 1-point win over Florida state. Every other game their margin of victory was double digits. Nothing fluky about that. They dismantled those teams. Shock and awe.

Same thing with George Mason. They were a #11 seed who had to beat Michigan State, North Carolina, and UConn. Except for WSU, that the Who's who of NCAA tournaments. College basketball royalty. They too had one game that was a scare, a 2-point win over UConn. Their margins of victory were not as big as VCU's, but they were between 5 - 10 points. No lucky last second shots accounting for those wins.

North Carolina State's run to the national championship in 1983 was flukier than VCU's and Mason's runs to the Final Four.

The fact that they did survive all of those tough games shows it was a fluke since few teams can survive such a rigorous gauntlet of good teams in a row. Just because it was a fluke doesn't mean they didn't earn their keep or weren't legitimately good.

Remember, the definition of a fluke (my unofficial one without Googling a dictionary anyways) is an occurrence of an event that is not consistent with other events of similar circumstance. Butler's back-to-back runs to the national title game as a mid-major and especially from their seed in 2011 was a fluky as it gets for a non-major program and a team that didn't receive a very high seed either year. That doesn't mean it wasn't downright impressive. Their 2011 run was literally almost as hard as it can be seed-wise to reach the Final Four (the seed total of the teams they beat was 16, with 15 being the minimum) and that's a fluke (i.e. outstanding occurrence from what's normal) not only because of how tough it is for any team to beat so many good teams in a row but also because there are usually upsets that make the seed total of other teams higher.

I hear what you're saying and thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I can only say that we don't really know how many times any of these times would win if they played 100 times. Maybe those other teams were overrated and we just didn't see it. What we do know is the outcomes of the games when they were actually played in the real world.

Sometimes in life you only get one shot at something. Sometimes people spend the rest of their lives, saying to themselves: "If I could only do it all over again . . ." But they won't get to do it all over again. Sometimes better teams fold because they can't handle the pressure regardless of the talent differential. Sometimes it was a close game and coaching made a bigger difference than talent. But coaching is part of who they are and therefore can't be dismissed.

Let's look at the other side of the coin, which is Gonzaga. Are we saying that all of those early exits from the tournament were flukes? For the last 12 years, they've lost in the first or 2nd round 10 times. And those other 2 times they lost in the Sweet 16. That's a pretty long string of futility to ignore. Even this year with a #1 racking and a high seed, it was same old, same old. No fluke there.

(06-17-2013 09:58 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  Again, fluke is an something out of the norm of what's consistent. NC State's run in 1983 was fluky. Didn't mean something similar couldn't happen and it did two years later when Villanova won it all in a similar run and then Kansas nearly the same way a few years later.

Villanova is actually a good example of why it wasn't fluky. They played with a different set of rules that year in the Big East, using a shot clock, than in the NCAA tournament. Villanova showed that without the clock, they could control tempo, slow it down, and play with Georgetown - something that they couldn't do with a different tempo. Heck, Villaoonva took only 10 shots in the 2nd half of that game. The game was played under completely different conditions than when they met in Big East play.

(06-18-2013 07:32 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 08:39 AM)aughnanure Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 12:12 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  No, it just means a team is not in a high profile conference. It doesn't make them bad.

My problem with the term is that they overuse it, because if there are mid-majors then there has to be low-majors. I made a post about how I think conference should be "tiered" a while back.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=609...pid8746688
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=609...pid8746690

Which is another way of saying, "you don't have football teams in your conference."

Not necessarily. I think the New Big East will be a major. The Sun Belt and MAC aren't majors and really don't even approach it.

Exactly.

I see majors as the conferences that have a lot of success in the tournament, mid majors as the conferences that have some but not much, low majors as the conference that have almost no success in the tournament.

(06-18-2013 07:42 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 08:47 AM)aughnanure Wrote:  If you are really going use the relatively few examples of teams outside the major 6 (soon to be 7) conferences making a Final 4 as an example that playing lesser competition before the tourney doesn't in some way damage a team's ability to go deep in the tourney all I have to do is point out the number of times no team from a low to mid-tier conference have made it.

You act as if the Final Four is the only barometer. Others have made deep runs and looked legit while doing it like Davidson in 2008 and Gonzaga in 1999. The power conference routinely fill the Final Four out completely because they with rare exception have the highest seeds and thus face the fewest challenges. Sometimes the mid's help clear obstacles for them too, like a 12/13 seed knocking off a 4 and 5 only to get slaughtered by a 1.

Quote:Of course some are going to make it through over 25+ years and with parity is CBB getting stronger over the last decade, it is even likely to increase some.

That being said, the MVC is much stronger than the WCC. That was my main point. At least Wichita had to match up with some high-quality opponents (Creighton) during conference play. Gonzaga has to schedule OOC games to just keep the level of competition up. Hell, before Self's 2008 run at Kansas, the weakness of the Big XII was a major talking point by KU fans for why they always fell short in the tourney.

The Valley has turned into a 2 bid max league. The WCC is currently a legit 3-bid league even if there is a major dropoff after those three. The point is though that they are guaranteed four-six games every conference season against NCAA Tournament caliber teams. Hardly the creampuff WCC of the past. And back to my point, that horrible league with even less depth didn't stop them from making three straight Sweet 16 when they had less talent.

Has the WCAC ever had 3 teams in the tournament in the same year?

(06-19-2013 10:23 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  How are they not a mid major?

You're saying that "their problem lies in their division that softens them up too much before the tournament." What you're saying is that they play in a mid major conference and they come out of it not strong enough to make a run in the tournament. Isn't that by definition a mid major?

I agree that they are a quality program. But let's be honest, they've achieved their success at the mid major level. That's how they've racked up a lot of wins and that's how they've gotten to the tournament so consistently. It' that string of 15 years getting to the tournament that qualifies them as a quality program. But if that string is built on domination of a mid major program, as it is, and they haven't been able to get beyond the first weekend as they rarely do, then what qualifies them as anything more than a mid major?

The Zags biggest obstacle is geography. Place them 3,000 miles to the east and they'd have been in the A-10 a decade ago and likely would be going to the nBE without question. I know the MWC is focused on football but both they and the Zags would benefit from an affiliate membership.

It's pretty much their only hope to play in a solid conference unless some major dominoes shake, stars align right or technology decreases the cost of fuel/transportation, as well as the time.

(06-19-2013 10:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I hear what you're saying and thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I can only say that we don't really know how many times any of these times would win if they played 100 times. Maybe those other teams were overrated and we just didn't see it. What we do know is the outcomes of the games when they were actually played in the real world.

Sometimes in life you only get one shot at something. Sometimes people spend the rest of their lives, saying to themselves: "If I could only do it all over again . . ." But they won't get to do it all over again. Sometimes better teams fold because they can't handle the pressure regardless of the talent differential. Sometimes it was a close game and coaching made a bigger difference than talent. But coaching is part of who they are and therefore can't be dismissed.

Let's look at the other side of the coin, which is Gonzaga. Are we saying that all of those early exits from the tournament were flukes? For the last 12 years, they've lost in the first or 2nd round 10 times. And those other 2 times they lost in the Sweet 16. That's a pretty long string of futility to ignore. Even this year with a #1 racking and a high seed, it was same old, same old. No fluke there.

No, Gonzaga has a pretty long tract record of futility in the Dance, even with single digit seeds. I'd say they either need to get Few a really strong assistant to make better adjustments or move on from him even if it risk setting back the program some (and they aren't going anywhere, the brand is too strong). It doesn't change the fact that some of these recent mid-major runs to the Final Four are flukes or exceptions to the rule.

(06-19-2013 10:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Villanova is actually a good example of why it wasn't fluky. They played with a different set of rules that year in the Big East, using a shot clock, than in the NCAA tournament. Villanova showed that without the clock, they could control tempo, slow it down, and play with Georgetown - something that they couldn't do with a different tempo. Heck, Villaoonva [sic] took only 10 shots in the 2nd half of that game. The game was played under completely different conditions than when they met in Big East play.

And NC State made some great adjustments against Phi Slama Jama, like fouling them and forcing them to make free throws. Doesn't mean it wasn't a major fluke that they won that year.

It's okay to admit these rare and unlikely occurrences are what they are: flukes. We celebrate lots of flukes like the Miracle on Ice.

(06-19-2013 10:41 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Exactly.

I see majors as the conferences that have a lot of success in the tournament, mid majors as the conferences that have some but not much, low majors as the conference that have almost no success in the tournament.

We can agree to disagree. But low-majors are barely a blip on the NCAA radar and it's a shock if any of them ever garner anything above a 14 seed. There are other factors as well.

(06-19-2013 10:48 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Has the WCAC ever had 3 teams in the tournament in the same year?

Yes, the WCC had three teams in last year.

(06-19-2013 07:56 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I hear what you're saying and thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I can only say that we don't really know how many times any of these times would win if they played 100 times. Maybe those other teams were overrated and we just didn't see it. What we do know is the outcomes of the games when they were actually played in the real world.

Sometimes in life you only get one shot at something. Sometimes people spend the rest of their lives, saying to themselves: "If I could only do it all over again . . ." But they won't get to do it all over again. Sometimes better teams fold because they can't handle the pressure regardless of the talent differential. Sometimes it was a close game and coaching made a bigger difference than talent. But coaching is part of who they are and therefore can't be dismissed.

Let's look at the other side of the coin, which is Gonzaga. Are we saying that all of those early exits from the tournament were flukes? For the last 12 years, they've lost in the first or 2nd round 10 times. And those other 2 times they lost in the Sweet 16. That's a pretty long string of futility to ignore. Even this year with a #1 racking and a high seed, it was same old, same old. No fluke there.

No, Gonzaga has a pretty long tract record futility in the Dance, even with single digit seeds. I'd say they either need to get Few a really strong assistant to make better adjustments or move on from him even if it risk setting back the program some (and they aren't going anywhere, the brand is too strong). It doesn't change the fact that some of these recent mid-major runs to the Final Four are flukes or exceptions to the rule.

(06-19-2013 10:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Villanova is actually a good example of why it wasn't fluky. They played with a different set of rules that year in the Big East, using a shot clock, than in the NCAA tournament. Villanova showed that without the clock, they could control tempo, slow it down, and play with Georgetown - something that they couldn't do with a different tempo. Heck, Villaoonva [sic] took only 10 shots in the 2nd half of that game. The game was played under completely different conditions than when they met in Big East play.

And NC State made some great adjustments against Phi Slama Jama, like fouling them and forcing them to make free throws. Doesn't mean it wasn't a major fluke that they won that year.

It's okay to admit these rare and unlikely occurrences are what they are: flukes. We celebrate lots of flukes like the Miracle on Ice.

(06-19-2013 10:41 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Exactly.

I see majors as the conferences that have a lot of success in the tournament, mid majors as the conferences that have some but not much, low majors as the conference that have almost no success in the tournament.

We can agree to disagree. But low-majors are barely a blip on the NCAA radar and it's a shock if any of them ever garner anything above a 14 seed. There are other factors as well.

(06-19-2013 10:48 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Has the WCAC ever had 3 teams in the tournament in the same year?

Yes, the WCC had three teams in last year.

I don't think so....Gonzaga and St. Mary's are the only ones that made it (BYU made NIT). Maybe two years ago??

(06-19-2013 08:09 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 07:56 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I hear what you're saying and thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I can only say that we don't really know how many times any of these times would win if they played 100 times. Maybe those other teams were overrated and we just didn't see it. What we do know is the outcomes of the games when they were actually played in the real world.

Sometimes in life you only get one shot at something. Sometimes people spend the rest of their lives, saying to themselves: "If I could only do it all over again . . ." But they won't get to do it all over again. Sometimes better teams fold because they can't handle the pressure regardless of the talent differential. Sometimes it was a close game and coaching made a bigger difference than talent. But coaching is part of who they are and therefore can't be dismissed.

Let's look at the other side of the coin, which is Gonzaga. Are we saying that all of those early exits from the tournament were flukes? For the last 12 years, they've lost in the first or 2nd round 10 times. And those other 2 times they lost in the Sweet 16. That's a pretty long string of futility to ignore. Even this year with a #1 racking and a high seed, it was same old, same old. No fluke there.

No, Gonzaga has a pretty long tract record futility in the Dance, even with single digit seeds. I'd say they either need to get Few a really strong assistant to make better adjustments or move on from him even if it risk setting back the program some (and they aren't going anywhere, the brand is too strong). It doesn't change the fact that some of these recent mid-major runs to the Final Four are flukes or exceptions to the rule.

(06-19-2013 10:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Villanova is actually a good example of why it wasn't fluky. They played with a different set of rules that year in the Big East, using a shot clock, than in the NCAA tournament. Villanova showed that without the clock, they could control tempo, slow it down, and play with Georgetown - something that they couldn't do with a different tempo. Heck, Villaoonva [sic] took only 10 shots in the 2nd half of that game. The game was played under completely different conditions than when they met in Big East play.

And NC State made some great adjustments against Phi Slama Jama, like fouling them and forcing them to make free throws. Doesn't mean it wasn't a major fluke that they won that year.

It's okay to admit these rare and unlikely occurrences are what they are: flukes. We celebrate lots of flukes like the Miracle on Ice.

(06-19-2013 10:41 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Exactly.

I see majors as the conferences that have a lot of success in the tournament, mid majors as the conferences that have some but not much, low majors as the conference that have almost no success in the tournament.

We can agree to disagree. But low-majors are barely a blip on the NCAA radar and it's a shock if any of them ever garner anything above a 14 seed. There are other factors as well.

(06-19-2013 10:48 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Has the WCAC ever had 3 teams in the tournament in the same year?

Yes, the WCC had three teams in last year.

I don't think so....Gonzaga and St. Mary's are the only ones that made it (BYU made NIT). Maybe two years ago??

Nope, BYU was in the MWC 2 years ago

The WCC got 3 bids in '08 and '12.
In '08, San Diego (the Toreros) got in only because they won the conf tourney. San Diego beat UConn in the first round in the last second or OT.
In 2012, BYU was the third team in along with locks Gonzaga and St Mary's. BYU has been in the WCC for 2 years.

The WCC got 2 bids in 2005, 2010 and 2013 (GU and SMC for each of the those 2-bid years.)

In all, the WCC has gotten 2+ bids 5 out of the last 10 years.

Gonzaga should stay in the WCC and build up the league.
Some thoughts:
1) the league has schools in every major west coast city. Perfect locations. I'm allowing that Gonzaga has a good following in Seattle, because they used to occasionally play games at Key Arena.
2) the Pac-12 has struggled lately.
3) the WCC schools have to start playing in larger nearby arenas. Start by hosting Gonzaga in those large arenas to fill it up. Get out of those dinky gyms.
4) San Francisco and Loyola Marymount in particular have to turn the corner and get local recruits in SF and LA.

(06-19-2013 10:58 PM)billyjack Wrote:  Gonzaga should stay in the WCC and build up the league.
Some thoughts:
1) the league has schools in every major west coast city. Perfect locations. I'm allowing that Gonzaga has a good following in Seattle, because they used to occasionally play games at Key Arena.
2) the Pac-12 has struggled lately.
3) the WCC schools have to start playing in larger nearby arenas. Start by hosting Gonzaga in those large arenas to fill it up. Get out of those dinky gyms.
4) San Francisco and Loyola Marymount in particular have to turn the corner and get local recruits in SF and LA.

Problem is most of the wcc schools are small and play in high school gyms, the only exceptions being Gonzaga and BYU.