(03-12-2018 07:24 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:18 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:48 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If they expand the tournament field to 128 perhaps the committee will let 3 or 4 more mid majors in.

68 is already to many.

Yeah, if they don't go to 128, I wish they'd go back to 64. I like balance.

Chappy, probably one of the few times we agree.

Same here. I don't even fill my bracket until the play in games because it messes up the uniformity of a 64 team bracket.

HAHAHAHAHA..... mid major's getting at-large bids? don't make me laugh.... and cry....

Ya'll don't know the pain of getting f'ed in the A by the selection committee like us Missouri State fans.... The amount of exposure and money we have been robbed of is criminal. If we have got even 2-3 at large bids from our 5 best seasons, our program would be in a completely different place right now. We still have one of the best arenas in the country outside the P5 (and better than many p5 arenas IMO) and a ton of potential, but unless we can get into a better conference where we can actually get an at-large bid, I think our program is going to fade away and just be another low-major. Wichita and Creighton have already left the MVC, I don't see our conference ever getting another at large again...

Just look at all this heartbreak, 19 years and no dancing and I still watch/listen to almost every game... WHY???? WHY do I do this to myself!!!!
2000- RPI 33
2005 - RPI 56
2006 - RPI 21 ---- I'm still pissed, like legit pissed about this. F the big schools/selection fools screwing the mid majors over. Seriously.
2007 - RPI 48
2011 - RPI 39 AND MVC regular season champions... No Respect I tell ya, NONE!

(03-12-2018 07:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:48 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If they expand the tournament field to 128 perhaps the committee will let 3 or 4 more mid majors in.

68 is already to many.

I would hope the NCAA Tournament never goes past 80.

Otherwise, there's no sense of accomplishment and it would be watered down. Save the extra bids for the NIT and expand it since teams feel they're too good for the CBI and CIT.

(03-12-2018 08:48 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  HAHAHAHAHA..... mid major's getting at-large bids? don't make me laugh.... and cry....

Ya'll don't know the pain of getting f'ed in the A by the selection committee like us Missouri State fans.... The amount of exposure and money we have been robbed of is criminal. If we have got even 2-3 at large bids from our 5 best seasons, our program would be in a completely different place right now. We still have one of the best arenas in the country outside the P5 (and better than many p5 arenas IMO) and a ton of potential, but unless we can get into a better conference where we can actually get an at-large bid, I think our program is going to fade away and just be another low-major. Wichita and Creighton have already left the MVC, I don't see our conference ever getting another at large again...

Just look at all this heartbreak, 19 years and no dancing and I still watch/listen to almost every game... WHY???? WHY do I do this to myself!!!!
2000- RPI 33
2005 - RPI 56
2006 - RPI 21 ---- I'm still pissed, like legit pissed about this. F the big schools/selection fools screwing the mid majors over. Seriously.
2007 - RPI 48
2011 - RPI 39 AND MVC regular season champions... No Respect I tell ya, NONE!

2006 was the year they gave gift bids to Utah State and Air Force, one of which rightfully belonged to Hofstra or Missouri State, if not both.

One thing the mid-majors used to do but you don't see a lot of these days is form a stronger conference in response.

A11 Conference

UMass
Rhode Island
Buffalo
Akron
Dayton
VCU
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Georgia St.
FAU
Florida Int.

-11 in basketball optimized for today's 20 game schedule.

-8 in FB to split the FB money the least amount of ways. Maximize ability to load up on non-conference games if you want.

-Solves the problems of everyone involved.

Rhode Island, VCU, Dayton need to attach themselves to a G5 to secure their future.
UMass, Buffalo, Akron need Florida access for recruiting.
ODU, Charlotte, FAU/FIU need something more regional than CUSA.
Georgia St. has simply too much to offer.

(03-12-2018 04:30 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The selection committee pre-ordained 1(!) mid major bid this year. Jumped to 3 because Nevada and RI lost.

A10 ranked 11th and got 3 in - the only league immune. Other leagues need to look at what the A10 does - noncon scheduling and in-conference scheduling. Ie. expand large with quality and make sure your top teams only play bottom feeders once. And put in a scheduling mandate.

The A 10 only got 3 in because they had a bid stealer, plus another school barely get in. They were a whisker from only getting one in.

(03-12-2018 07:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:48 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If they expand the tournament field to 128 perhaps the committee will let 3 or 4 more mid majors in.

68 is already to many.

Why? Should go to 80 and expand the play in games. Why the heck not.

Gonzaga was a 4 seed out of the 13th rated conference. They definitely have a formula that works.

W-Ohio State (5 seed)
L-Florida (6 seed)
W-Texas (10 seed)
W-Creighton (8 seed)
L-Villanova (1 seed)
L-San Diego St. (11 seed)

They played 6 of the top 44 teams that made the tournament in the non-conference portion of the schedule. It takes some NCAA success though to attract that type of schedule.

They also roll through the WCC which as we have noted is easy to do compared to the MWC for example.

(03-12-2018 09:09 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:48 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If they expand the tournament field to 128 perhaps the committee will let 3 or 4 more mid majors in.

68 is already to many.

I would hope the NCAA Tournament never goes past 80.

Otherwise, there's no sense of accomplishment and it would be watered down. Save the extra bids for the NIT and expand it since teams feel they're too good for the CBI and CIT.

I wouldn't say never. There are new Division 1 teams every year. In 20 years we'll probably have 400 Division 1 basketball teams. If that's the case, 80 teams is just about right.

At this point, I don’t think it matters what the mids do, they are going to get screwed. The worst example of this was Monmouth 2 years ago, they beat several bigs and still the committee found an excuse to burn them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-12-2018 10:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  One thing the mid-majors used to do but you don't see a lot of these days is form a stronger conference in response.

Well, the Metro, Sun Belt, and Great Midwest were all formed for that reason, but football came into play and they sort of dissolved or became hybrids.

We now know that 8-team conferences are certainly viable again with the advent of the division-less championship game in football. I'd like to see conferences shrink and implement the championship game, while increasing more interesting out of conference match-ups in all sports. It would be a return to nostalgia, while maintaining all the current monetary bonuses. The hard part is all the legal quagmires involved in basically booting schools and cutting the proverbial fat that was required by the NCAA to form the championship game in the first place.

400 yet only about 20 have a realistic shot of winning the national title every season. If you wanna be liberal, then only 45-50 can in a given year. Expanding the field wouldn't change that amount, it would just increase the number who could reach the Sweet 16 and Final Four.

Increase the field to 80 and the NIT to 40-48. I don't know why the NIT didn't stick to its 40-team field. As you can see with the CIT and CBI, there's no shortage of teams willing to play in the postseason. And remember, many who declined bids would accept for the non-pay-to-play NIT. Why would an athletic department already bleeding in the red want more debt to play in third rate basketball tournament?

(03-13-2018 12:16 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  400 yet only about 20 have a realistic shot of winning the national title every season. If you wanna be liberal, then only 45-50 can in a given year. Expanding the field wouldn't change that amount, it would just increase the number who could reach the Sweet 16 and Final Four.

Increase the field to 80 and the NIT to 40-48. I don't know why the NIT didn't stick to its 40-team field. As you can see with the CIT and CBI, there's no shortage of teams willing to play in the postseason. And remember, many who declined bids would accept for the non-pay-to-play NIT. Why would an athletic department already bleeding in the red want more debt to play in third rate basketball tournament?

I don't understand why you want to expand the NCAA tourney, but malign conference tournaments. If UMBC beats UVM on their home court in March, are they not more deserving? What is throwing UVM in the field really going to accomplish at that point?

(03-12-2018 10:54 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:48 PM)Chappy Wrote:  If they expand the tournament field to 128 perhaps the committee will let 3 or 4 more mid majors in.

68 is already to many.

Why? Should go to 80 and expand the play in games. Why the heck not.

Every team in the NIT except for a few of the bid stealers is capable of winning 2 or more games in the NCAA's. Shoot, screw what I said, go to 90.

Or make the NIT a second chance bracket, with the winners of each region receiving at-large bids that would otherwise go to the winners of the First Four.

(03-13-2018 12:21 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 12:16 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  400 yet only about 20 have a realistic shot of winning the national title every season. If you wanna be liberal, then only 45-50 can in a given year. Expanding the field wouldn't change that amount, it would just increase the number who could reach the Sweet 16 and Final Four.

Increase the field to 80 and the NIT to 40-48. I don't know why the NIT didn't stick to its 40-team field. As you can see with the CIT and CBI, there's no shortage of teams willing to play in the postseason. And remember, many who declined bids would accept for the non-pay-to-play NIT. Why would an athletic department already bleeding in the red want more debt to play in third rate basketball tournament?

I don't understand why you want to expand the NCAA tourney, but malign conference tournaments. If UMBC beats UVM on their home court in March, are they not more deserving? What is throwing UVM in the field really going to accomplish at that point?

The majority of the bids aren't going to come from minor conferences. The Football 5, the Big East, AAC, A-10, MWC and even C-USA will get most of what's left over as well as any outstanding mid, like Loyola had they lost the Valley and Saint Mary's, who usually only needs four extra spots anyways.

How about the tournament contracts to 32 teams?

That way its one bid per conference much more fair.

You'd be more likely to see the NIT become a private invitatioal and invite anyone they want than that.

If this is only about basketball for the G5, and it could be for many schools, then you must re-align at the expense of everything else.

If this is only about football for the G5, and it could be for many schools, then you must re-align at the expense of everything else.

If this is about overall athletics excluding football and basketball for the G5, and it could be for many schools, then you must re-align at the expense of everything else.

Hell, if this is about academics for the G5, and it could be for many schools, then you must re-align at the expense of everything else.

G5 is Left Behind. Athletics is dying in the G5. The heydey is long past for most schools and the P5 plays a major part in that.......

(03-12-2018 08:48 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  HAHAHAHAHA..... mid major's getting at-large bids? don't make me laugh.... and cry....

Ya'll don't know the pain of getting f'ed in the A by the selection committee like us Missouri State fans.... The amount of exposure and money we have been robbed of is criminal. If we have got even 2-3 at large bids from our 5 best seasons, our program would be in a completely different place right now. We still have one of the best arenas in the country outside the P5 (and better than many p5 arenas IMO) and a ton of potential, but unless we can get into a better conference where we can actually get an at-large bid, I think our program is going to fade away and just be another low-major. Wichita and Creighton have already left the MVC, I don't see our conference ever getting another at large again...

Just look at all this heartbreak, 19 years and no dancing and I still watch/listen to almost every game... WHY???? WHY do I do this to myself!!!!
2000- RPI 33
2005 - RPI 56
2006 - RPI 21 ---- I'm still pissed, like legit pissed about this. F the big schools/selection fools screwing the mid majors over. Seriously.
2007 - RPI 48
2011 - RPI 39 AND MVC regular season champions... No Respect I tell ya, NONE!

MVC frequently doesn't get the respect they deserve by the committee.

Realistically, other mid-major conferences don't have complaints too often.

(03-12-2018 04:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With the selection committee showing an increasing level of favoritism towards the major conferences ....

Remember, the PAC only got 3 bids, and really, they could have gotten as few as one, UCLA and ASU snuck in. And it was just a couple years ago that the SEC was a 3-bid league too.

The SEC made a commitment to getting better at hoops by doing two things: Schedule tougher OOC games, and invest more of that huge football money into coaches, facilities, etc.

Mid-majors can't really duplicate the latter, but everyone can improve their scheduling, so that's step one.