The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-27-2010 02:09 PM)bopol Wrote:  Ole Miss (16-15, 4-12 against Top 50 teams, 13-15 against Top 100 team, #82 in the RPI) vs. College of Charleston (26-9, 3-3 against Top 50 teams, 6 lossss against <100 teams and #97 in RPI).

Let's not forget which of those categories travel well. Ole Miss would be a better bet to get more fans in an arena than CofC. Now that I'm in grad school at Carolina, everyone is pannicking thinking UNC won't make the tourney. But they will. Becuse more UNC fans either live in or will travel to a subregional in FL or AL. As a Kent State fan, and a fan of fairness in college sports, I think this is a crappy reason. But sadly, I also believe it is a true reason.

I think they would still justify it using the RPI. RPI is important because it would keep the 20+ win Zips out of the tournament even with an expanded field. They aren't even a top 100 team with their current record because apparently playing high schools and various community college teams don't help you.

Ok, I'll flip the argument.

Old Dominion (25-10; #78 in RPI; 0-0 vs. Top 50) vs. Washington State (17-16, #90 in RPI; 4-14 vs. Top 50). I like ODU there.

Anyway, in the end, I think you will get roughly equal mix of major clubs and mid-majors clubs. I think you get rid of the yearly screw job on the top mid-major clubs like SD St. and Creighton last year, Illinois St in 2008, etc. etc. Given that only a few (4-5) mid-majors make the tournament as at-larges, I think you could see that triple and the top club in the MAC would routinely make the NCAA tournament, regardless of the MAC tournament. Similar results for the Horizon, CAA and MVC. Overall, midmajor basketball gets a boost.

That's my guess. Maybe we'll end up with Arkansas at 14-18 in the tournament instead of Cal State-Fullerton at 21-10. I guess we won't know until they implement it.

For BracketBuster, it does not serve the original purpose or fit its name, but I really like it. For teams like Kent State, it often gives them one more good opponent and additional TV game. Plus, the return game is often just as important. In 2008, I think we can agree the St. Mary win helped the NCAA seeding though in hindsight we might not have wanted the boost. In 2004, I think after the Creighton win that team could have been headed to the MAC's best seed (anybody know what it is?) ever before their four-game losing streak and then subsequent tourney final loss.

For expanding the tournament, the purists will hate it because most casual sports fans think it has always been 64 teams, but I think it greatly improves the chances of mid-majors. They cannot take all majors because they will quickly run out of teams. Besides, a good cross section of people on the selection committee makes sure that is not a problem. I think of the '00, '03 and '04 teams and think they could have won a few games with the right matchup but didn't have the access.

(01-28-2010 09:21 PM)KStud Wrote:  For BracketBuster, it does not serve the original purpose or fit its name, but I really like it. For teams like Kent State, it often gives them one more good opponent and additional TV game. Plus, the return game is often just as important. In 2008, I think we can agree the St. Mary win helped the NCAA seeding though in hindsight we might not have wanted the boost. In 2004, I think after the Creighton win that team could have been headed to the MAC's best seed (anybody know what it is?) ever before their four-game losing streak and then subsequent tourney final loss.

For expanding the tournament, the purists will hate it because most casual sports fans think it has always been 64 teams, but I think it greatly improves the chances of mid-majors. They cannot take all majors because they will quickly run out of teams. Besides, a good cross section of people on the selection committee makes sure that is not a problem. I think of the '00, '03 and '04 teams and think they could have won a few games with the right matchup but didn't have the access.

KStud - I think the MAC's best seed was the #9 that KSU received in '08 (we got killed in the 1st half by UNLV).

Not only did the st marys win get us the 9 seed, but there was taLk that year if we did not win the Mac we still would of got in as an at large.

(01-30-2010 10:22 AM)KentKrazy Wrote:  Not only did the st marys win get us the 9 seed, but there was taLk that year if we did not win the Mac we still would of got in as an at large.

Thankfully we didn't have to find out. That game at BG when we waltzed in there ranked #25 in the nation and crapped down our legs. That awful loss may have ruined our resume.

Don't think for a minute when they announce the pairing for this event, they could hose us. Unfortunately, in some circles, Akron is the more favorable team from the MAC. I realize we just beat them and we are the Gold Standard in the MAC, but they won the conference last year, and with Dambrot and his LBJ connections, some people have different agendas. I look forward to seeing who we draw.

Could someone who is at home tomorrow night watching the Barcketbuster special, please, please post as soon as Kent match is announced for those of us who will be at the game?

dannyb,
although i hear what your saying, the fact remains Kent's RPI is 65 while Akron's is 118. Of team's hosting Bracketbuster games, Kent State ranks sixth in RPI. Unless Akron gets matched up with one of the top 5, I don't expect to see the Zips on television in favor of Kent State.

This is my projection for the TV games:

TV Games
Siena at Butler (Primer Game)
ODU at Northern Iowa
Wichita St. at Utah St. (midnight game)
La Tech at Kent
Nevada at Northeastern
College of Charleston at VCU

Western Carolina at Murray St.
William and Mary at Iona
New Mexico St at Pacific
Akron at GMU
Morgan St. at Missouri St.

I think Kent's getting a good game. They aren't really competing with Akron because Akron's on the road and Kent's at home. Akron and GMU would be awesome, so I don't think they'll complain in ZIPLAND.

(01-31-2010 12:46 PM)BrashFlash Wrote:  Could someone who is at home tomorrow night watching the Barcketbuster special, please, please post as soon as Kent match is announced for those of us who will be at the game?

I don't think they are having a BB selection show like they have the last couple of years. I see it nowhere on the ESPN family of networks schedule tomorrow. I know last year it was on ESPNU, but they have other stuff listed. I haven't seen anything other than it will be announced sometime tomorrow.

(01-31-2010 12:54 PM)fallsdog Wrote:  dannyb,
although i hear what your saying, the fact remains Kent's RPI is 65 while Akron's is 118. Of team's hosting Bracketbuster games, Kent State ranks sixth in RPI. Unless Akron gets matched up with one of the top 5, I don't expect to see the Zips on television in favor of Kent State.

That is a very good point.

(01-27-2010 10:49 AM)AlphaFlash Wrote:  

(01-27-2010 08:34 AM)fallsdog Wrote:  A few of my all time favorite Kent games have been home bracketbusters vs. creighton and butler and of course staying up til 2:45 to watch Kent play St. Mary a few years back. Its a cool day of hoops.

Only 2:45? Bro, I was so wired, I don't think I fell asleep until 5:00 that night/day. But I catch your drift.
My opinion really hasn't changed about the BB. I'm not a big fan of them. They don't "bust brackets." It does not give a mid-major a clear advantage on Selection Sunday. Yes, KSU has had success in recent years, after having a few years of un-success. (The Hawaii game is still the most miserable night of my sports-following life.) I could even argue that the game aginst St. Mary's ony made JC more marketable, more than giving Kent State a better advantage that March.
Just my opinnion. But as I see it, if they removed the Bracket Busters, nothing changes in the eyes of the Selection Committee.

It wasn't 2:45 or 5:00 for me. I was there. The only KSU fan in the house. Using the KSU comp tickets (although it was singular) the St. Mary's game day staff set up a folding chair on the baseline about 5 feet from the end of the KSU bench for me. I got text message after text message about how I was on TV every possession at that end of the court. That was an incredible game. Loved it. Woke up the next morning and flew back to Colorado where I took a one day hiatus from my skiing trip. That was a nice BB win.

dannyb,

think of me next year if kent plays a marquee game that you could get duckets for!!!!!

Updated (games through yesterday) side-by-side ratings.

[img][/img]

One thought on the projected pairing. Larry Hunter is the coach at Western Carolina, the former coach of Geno Ford. ESPN loves a good story line and the RPI matches up close enough that I believe Western might be our opponent.


Also, on the expansion of the tournament, the way I understand it is that the extra 31 spots will be 'automatic' bids. From what I heard there will be an extra bid given to the regular season conference champion of each conference.

I believe this is a fantastic thing for all mid-major schools and won't really matter for those larger conferences seeing as those who win the conference were going anyway. I am a huge proponent of this expansion. The MAC would be guaranteed an opportunity to get two teams in the tournament each year as would all the other non-power conferences.

It is probably true that for the casual fan the tournament might appear too large or a little confusing, seeing as there would be 8 byes per region, but that also means more madness!

I believe the move would greatly benefit the sport.

"Columbus", that would still leave room for more at-large bids, as for the top 10, give or take, conferences, even if the two champions are different, both will have gotten in with a 65 team field anyway, as you stated. Plus, for the remainder of the conferences, in some the regular season champion will also win the conference tournament. So, there will be far fewer than an additional 31 automatic bids, even if each conference is guaranteed two, no matter what. My prediction remains that the majority of additional at-large bids, no matter how many, will go to teams from the top 8 conferences.

Agree to disagree I guess. I see where you're coming from here.

Although I don't underestimate their stupidity in any way, I just don't know how much lower the selection committee can go with major teams. They already allow teams that are 18 win .500 conference members like the Arizona's of last year and Kentucky's of the year before to be part of the tournament. There just aren't that many more deserving teams on top of the mediocre majors that already make it.

Mid Majors need these extra spots to prove themselves on a national stage no matter how watered down it may be. I believe the expansion will do more for the mids than just the tournament. Having these teams on the national stage can do wonders for recruiting in smaller programs as well.

"Columbus", let me make clear that I am for the expansion. And you're right in that there is only so far down they can go in taking teams from the top 6 or 8 conferences. Admittedly, I didn't "do the math". Perhaps mid-majors would make out better than the Washington Post columnist feels they would. Sports writers are hardy infallible. We'll just have to wait and see. I hope they expand soon.