Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
Author Message
ivet Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,313
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 91
I Root For: ThePaul, Hoya
Location: Washington D.C.
Post: #41
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 09:19 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The BE had a ton of bids this year but its not a P5 conference.

High Major in the way I'm looking at it is the same thing as P5 caliber basketball so it wasn't designed to be a slight.

Dayton, VCU and Wichita where their programs are at the moment is equivalent to the BE. Same with Gonzaga, St. Mary's ect. Most of their members no.

Are you just ad libbing based on what ESPN keeps saying by putting a label?
This just doesn't make sense to me that some still regard the Big East as a "Mid Major." Hell, even I was surprised to see a number of AAC homers change course and accept the fact that the BE is on par with the P5 with regards to to basketball..

So that being said, what is your basis for not including them with the rest of the P5? TV Contract? RPI? National Championships? Tourney Bids? Schools Endowment?

Also would like to add that even a member of the P5 has included them as equals. See Gavitt Tip-off.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 09:33 AM by ivet.)
03-14-2017 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,967
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 09:31 AM)ivet Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 09:19 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The BE had a ton of bids this year but its not a P5 conference.

High Major in the way I'm looking at it is the same thing as P5 caliber basketball so it wasn't designed to be a slight.

Dayton, VCU and Wichita where their programs are at the moment is equivalent to the BE. Same with Gonzaga, St. Mary's ect. Most of their members no.

Are you just ad libbing based on what ESPN keeps saying by putting a label?
This just doesn't make sense to me that some still regard the Big East as a "Mid Major." Hell, even I was surprised to see a number of AAC homers change course and accept the fact that the BE is on par with the P5 with regards to to basketball..

So that being said, what is your basis for not including them with the rest of the P5? TV Contract? RPI? National Championships? Tourney Bids? Schools Endowment?

Also would like to add that even a member of the P5 has included them as equals. See Gavitt Tip-off.

P5 has 3 votes on NCAA management council, G5 has 2 votes. The Big East as a non-FBS conference has 1.

BE TV deal is only 20% in value of the P5.

Most of those catholic schools are not academic powerhouses. Georgetown is but otherwise not really.

I said the basketball in the Big East was High Major and not Mid Major. Apparently that wasn't a good enough descriptor for you.
03-14-2017 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,539
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 280
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
I think there's a big thing with the Big East....
tournament performance. It's just not been there yet. at all. since reformation Big East has had only 2 teams make the sweet 16. The next closest P5 conference has 5. That's got to change. You make your hay in March.

Like it or not- college basketball is a 3 week sport. It's tipping off tonight.
03-14-2017 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,478
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 39
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #44
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 09:15 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  Ken Pomeroy has a theory...

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo..._like.html

All that article says is that is tough to compare records from P6 conferences with a team from the MVC. It does not really make a good argument whether Illinois State got screwed or not. Yes, ISU had less opportunities to play P6 teams and more opportunities to lose to bad teams, but it also more opportunities to rack up wins. Bottom line ISU still was a border-line call. Pomeroy makes an argument you should include margin of victory, then supplies no evidence one way or another oneach team's margin of victory. So what exactly was he saying? It was not clear to me.

Anyway, don't get me wrong. I would rarher see a team that went 17-1 in its conference than another P6 that finished in 5th place or lower. At least you can say the 17-1 deserved "a shot"
03-14-2017 09:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 13,997
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 355
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #45
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 09:05 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  What is bad by the NCAA Committee is they put mid-majors against mid-majors so they are knocked down early and protect the P5.

The flip-side is it also guarantees a mid-major advances.
03-14-2017 10:22 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,198
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UC
Location: SD & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #46
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 08:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(03-13-2017 11:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Mid major conferences don't win national championships in any major sports. (Football and men's basketball). EVER. It's never happened. Except the AAC has won one in men's basketball. A conference that wins a natty is not a "mid major". Now maybe there is some other appropriate term other than power, but it's not mid major.

That's not really true. Now the definition of which conference is a "mid-major" has changed a lot over the years (case in point at one time the MVC was probably the third best conference in basketball). But in the last 40 years, since the NCAA started taking at large bids, Marquette, Louisville (twice), Georgetown, and UNLV won titles outside of major conferences. Now to your point, Louisville and Georgetown winning it all in 80 and 84 respectively, helped improve the statuses of their conferences to where they were considered major conferences, but not Marquette or UNLV.

Louisville and Georgetown were not in "mid-major" conferences in the 80s.

Ranking conferences by winning percentage in 1979-80 (just to choose a random year because it was the first year Louisville won a title):
1 Big Ten Conference 0.609
2 Atlantic Coast Conference 0.654
3 Southeastern Conference 0.565
4 Big East Conference 0.69
5 Pacific-10 Conference 0.566
6 Metropolitan Collegiate Athletic Conference 0.605
7 Big Eight Conference 0.578
8 Missouri Valley Conference 0.551
9 Eastern Athletic Association 0.536
10 Pacific Coast Athletic Association 0.527
11 Southwest Conference 0.533
12 Western Athletic Conference 0.502

The Metro and the Big East each had 3 invites to the NCAA tournament. Both conferences only had 7 schools and the NCAA only had 48 teams, so this clearly made them both *power* conferences.

And 1980 was a typical year. In most years in the 80s the Southwest was a "mid-major" while the Big-8, Pac-8, Metro, and Big East were about even over the course of the decade.
03-14-2017 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,734
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #47
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
Let them advance on their merits. Two is always better than one with NCAA credits.
03-14-2017 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,734
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 127
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #48
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 10:27 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 08:41 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(03-13-2017 11:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Mid major conferences don't win national championships in any major sports. (Football and men's basketball). EVER. It's never happened. Except the AAC has won one in men's basketball. A conference that wins a natty is not a "mid major". Now maybe there is some other appropriate term other than power, but it's not mid major.

That's not really true. Now the definition of which conference is a "mid-major" has changed a lot over the years (case in point at one time the MVC was probably the third best conference in basketball). But in the last 40 years, since the NCAA started taking at large bids, Marquette, Louisville (twice), Georgetown, and UNLV won titles outside of major conferences. Now to your point, Louisville and Georgetown winning it all in 80 and 84 respectively, helped improve the statuses of their conferences to where they were considered major conferences, but not Marquette or UNLV.

Louisville and Georgetown were not in "mid-major" conferences in the 80s.

Ranking conferences by winning percentage in 1979-80 (just to choose a random year because it was the first year Louisville won a title):
1 Big Ten Conference 0.609
2 Atlantic Coast Conference 0.654
3 Southeastern Conference 0.565
4 Big East Conference 0.69
5 Pacific-10 Conference 0.566
6 Metropolitan Collegiate Athletic Conference 0.605
7 Big Eight Conference 0.578
8 Missouri Valley Conference 0.551
9 Eastern Athletic Association 0.536
10 Pacific Coast Athletic Association 0.527
11 Southwest Conference 0.533
12 Western Athletic Conference 0.502

The Metro and the Big East each had 3 invites to the NCAA tournament. Both conferences only had 7 schools and the NCAA only had 48 teams, so this clearly made them both *power* conferences.

And 1980 was a typical year. In most years in the 80s the Southwest was a "mid-major" while the Big-8, Pac-8, Metro, and Big East were about even over the course of the decade.

Number 9 should have parenthesis (A10) and was widely known as the Eastern 8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_10_Conference

Quote:The Atlantic 10 Conference was founded in 1975 as the Eastern Collegiate Basketball League (ECBL) and began conference play in 1976. At that time, basketball was its only sport. After its first season, it added sports other than basketball and changed its name to the Eastern Athletic Association. However, despite its official names, it was popularly known as the Eastern 8, as it then had eight members (Villanova, Duquesne, Penn State, West Virginia, George Washington, Massachusetts, Pittsburgh, and Rutgers).

After changes in membership that saw charter members Villanova and Pittsburgh leave (in 1980 and 1982, respectively) and new members St. Bonaventure (1979), Rhode Island (1980), Saint Joseph's (1982), and Temple (1982) enter, establishing the league with 10 members, the conference adopted the current Atlantic 10 name in 1982.

Further membership changes saw the league expand to its maximum of 16 members. From 1997 through 2006, the league also operated a football conference; during that period, more than 20 schools were participating in A-10 competition in at least one sport. This ended when the A-10 football programs all departed to join a new football conference sponsored by the Colonial Athletic Association (CAA). In 2012, Butler joined the conference after leaving the Horizon League and VCU joined after leaving the CAA.

Conference realignment in 2013 saw the departure of Temple to the American Athletic Conference, Butler and Xavier to the reconfigured Big East, and Charlotte to Conference USA. George Mason joined from the CAA, and Davidson from the Southern Conference announced they would join in 2014.
03-14-2017 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SactoHornetAlum Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 70
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-13-2017 11:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Mid major conferences don't win national championships in any major sports. (Football and men's basketball). EVER. It's never happened. Except the AAC has won one in men's basketball. A conference that wins a natty is not a "mid major". Now maybe there is some other appropriate term other than power, but it's not mid major.

So UNLV winning out of the Big West in 1990 never happened...because I'm pretty sure the BWC was and is a mid-major.
03-14-2017 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 18,973
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Near Seawall Town
Post: #50
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
Exception to the rule. And it's not as if UNLV was a mid-major, they were a respected national program.
03-14-2017 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheBasketBallOpinion Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 161
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Georgetown
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 09:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 09:31 AM)ivet Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 09:19 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The BE had a ton of bids this year but its not a P5 conference.

High Major in the way I'm looking at it is the same thing as P5 caliber basketball so it wasn't designed to be a slight.

Dayton, VCU and Wichita where their programs are at the moment is equivalent to the BE. Same with Gonzaga, St. Mary's ect. Most of their members no.

Are you just ad libbing based on what ESPN keeps saying by putting a label?
This just doesn't make sense to me that some still regard the Big East as a "Mid Major." Hell, even I was surprised to see a number of AAC homers change course and accept the fact that the BE is on par with the P5 with regards to to basketball..

So that being said, what is your basis for not including them with the rest of the P5? TV Contract? RPI? National Championships? Tourney Bids? Schools Endowment?

Also would like to add that even a member of the P5 has included them as equals. See Gavitt Tip-off.

P5 has 3 votes on NCAA management council, G5 has 2 votes. The Big East as a non-FBS conference has 1.

BE TV deal is only 20% in value of the P5.


Most of those catholic schools are not academic powerhouses. Georgetown is but otherwise not really.

I said the basketball in the Big East was High Major and not Mid Major. Apparently that wasn't a good enough descriptor for you.

Actually BE gets paid the same ND does in the ACC for Olympic sports.

BE is a power BASKETBALL conference. The only people who disagree with that seem to be message board haters. Any rational media person outside of Doug Gottlieb has also stated as such.

https://twitter.com/SBNationCBB/status/8...8490237953

Also funny enough how Dan Muller when looking for a H&H with a power conference included the Big East. Must have been a mistake as they are clearly on the same level as the AAC or A10 07-coffee3
03-14-2017 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 13,997
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 355
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #52
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 09:15 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  Ken Pomeroy has a theory...

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/spo..._like.html

The selection committee at one time had a factor of how a school did it it's last 10 games.

This would favor a mid major who was 8-2 down the stretch over a P5 with a 4-4 record. Second bids would happen once in a while for traditional one bid conferences when this rule was in place. But they removed it.

They should require .500 in conference play (including conference tourney) for at-large teams & review of last 10 games for schools on the bubble.

That would actually really hurt mid-major teams severely, because it factored not only record, but SOS. Emphasis on last ten games would kill a lot of mid majors who's best games were likely OOC. That is why mid-major bids, or at least bids among lesser known teams used to be much less common 30 years ago then they were 10-12 years ago.

As for the conference play record, I can understand the idea of wanting teams to be 0.500. Not as a hard and fast rule, but more as a guideline. However you can't include the conference tourney in that, to where a team who is 9-9 (and might have to play the number one seed in the first round) would be eliminated for essentially a good loss.
03-14-2017 10:57 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ivet Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,313
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 91
I Root For: ThePaul, Hoya
Location: Washington D.C.
Post: #53
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 09:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  P5 has 3 votes on NCAA management council, G5 has 2 votes. The Big East as a non-FBS conference has 1.

BE TV deal is only 20% in value of the P5.

Most of those catholic schools are not academic powerhouses. Georgetown is but otherwise not really.

I said the basketball in the Big East was High Major and not Mid Major. Apparently that wasn't a good enough descriptor for you.

FYI, Its no longer called NCAA Management Council, its now called Division 1 Legislative Council. There is no G5. Here is the new setup. You can read more into the new system here.

[Image: di-board.jpg]

The Football Power 5 wanted more autonomy so they can include things like stipends to their athletes, the Big East also made it known that whatever route the P5 was going, they would also go along. Here is an example regarding Player Stipends

"If we want to be on-par with the other five football conferences then we have to pony up…as well," Seton Hall women's basketball coach Tony Bozzella said. "To mandate it says we have a certain criteria and certain expectations for our conference to do well."


The Big East TV deal is not even comparable to the other "mid-majors" and on top of that...did you just create a new grouping? High Mid-Majors? I wont get into the breakdown of the TV contract because that's been discussed here numerous times. Factor in the fact that this is a conference WITHOUT football.

Sorry but the Big East has a number of top schools, also factor in the fact that these are private schools that do not get state subsidies to offset tuition or are provided large sums of money for research. I'd say they are doing pretty well.

Anyways, maybe you should label the Big East as Super High Top Flight Mid-Major conference. You know, since they are not P5 although they pretty much are on par with the P5 even with a crutch (no state funds).
03-14-2017 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 13,256
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 413
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #54
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 10:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Exception to the rule. And it's not as if UNLV was a mid-major, they were a respected national program.

That statement would also apply if you replace "UNLV" with "UConn".

Which makes sense, because teams win titles. Conferences don't win jack. The trophy sits in the winning school's basketball offices, and the banner hangs in the team's arena. Not in the conference headquarters across from the overpaid commissioner's corner office.
03-14-2017 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,665
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 283
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  They should require .500 in conference play for at-large teams

Only 1 school got an at-large with a losing conference record.
03-14-2017 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,667
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 150
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #56
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
Here's another theory as to why the mid-major is down:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/201...tournament
03-14-2017 02:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,539
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 280
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 02:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Here's another theory as to why the mid-major is down:

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/201...tournament

what a ****** up rule that allows guys that graduate to transfer without sitting out. They aren't going for their education. They're going for 1 and only 1 reason. Basketball. Pathetic.

They need a rule ASAP that if you transfer even as a graduate you must sit out a year. PERIOD. It'll nip this problem right away.
03-14-2017 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hood-rich Offline
Smarter Than the Average Lib

Posts: 9,321
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
Post: #58
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
Some of the so-called Power 5 teams that got in and/or their seeding is ridiculous.

NWestern, 23-11, RPI=51 (8 seed)
Vandy, 19-15, RPI=38 (9 seed)
Wake Forest, 19-13, RPI=39 (11 seed)
Kansas State, 23-11, RPI=57 (11 seed)

Non-P5 teams left out.
Illinois St, 26-6, RPI=33 (how the hell does this team get left out in favor of one of the above?)
Monmouth, 21-7, RPI=49 (they got screwed last year too IIRC)

Non-P5 teams with absurdly bad seeds.
MTSU, 29-4, RPI=34 (12 seed) --- Beat the brakes off Vandy, btw.
Cincy, 29-5, RPI=12 (6 seed)
SMU, 30-4, RPI=13 (6 seed)

Play a better schedule they'll say... What do you do when they won't play you? Conference schedule is what it is.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 02:18 PM by Hood-rich.)
03-14-2017 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,247
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 01:39 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  
(03-14-2017 09:30 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  They should require .500 in conference play for at-large teams

Only 1 school got an at-large with a losing conference record.

And that's one too many for a tournament to determine a champion.

I don't think RPI is flawed. It's a composite metric that takes different components into consideration and generates an a resulting metric. The real issue is the human error. If you trust RPI for one school, but then not another, you subjectively and inconsistently value one component over another.

This committee cycle is pretty biased toward the majors. I just wish there was a UNCW, Nevada, Vermont, Rhode Island, and a Wichita in that at-large pool to really expose it. This isn't just about Illinois State missing the dance, this is about all of these other schools getting in ahead of them:

Xavier
Vanderbilt
Wake Forest
Oklahoma State
USC
Miami
South Carolina
Seton Hall
Virginia Tech
Northwestern
Michigan State
Providence
Kansas State
Marquette

Those are ALL of the at-large schools below ISU in the RPI. Fourteen majors. And they only run from seeds 7-11. The committee wouldn't even give the nod to mid-major AQ's with higher RPI's into these favorable seeds! UNCW, MTSU, Nevada, URI...all within or ahead of these others...those are your 12's. 12s!

I don't have any faith the committee would have even taken ISU as the next in. I think they can cover themselves once the final team was selected, and make those mid-major snubs the subject of NIT chatter. But, if you're looking past ISU and select ALL of those teams above them, why stop there and not go further for that Syracuse, Iowa, California, Utah, or Illinois? There is nothing for anyone to give the committee that remark. It's not like Illinois State's the only team overlooked within that pile of at-large's. Give me a break.

Selection is one thing, but seeding is another, and this is just a bad message being sent. Even if you think all of those teams are better than someone like Illinois State, it's for the likes of those 7/10's among the A10, MVC, and WCC, and the 12-line where you can really see either a total disrespect for non-major programs, a disconnect/unfamiliarity between committee attention from programs and conferences outside of their own, or rampant politics and network interference.

It's bad enough good mid-major programs have to fight harder to build strong schedules away from their conference to have to get insulted at the end by a committee of those who stiff the little guys enough at that game. This committee just doesn't give a ****. Some small program is going to have to make them eat crow, but even then, next year, lather, rinse, repeat, you know?
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 02:39 PM by The Cutter of Bish.)
03-14-2017 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 4,209
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 129
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #60
RE: Decline of Mid-Major At-Large Tournament Appearances
(03-14-2017 02:12 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Some of the so-called Power 5 teams that got in and/or their seeding is ridiculous.

NWestern, 23-11, RPI=51 (8 seed)
Vandy, 19-15, RPI=38 (9 seed)
Wake Forest, 19-13, RPI=39 (11 seed)
Kansas State, 23-11, RPI=57 (11 seed)

Non-P5 teams left out.
Illinois St, 26-6, RPI=33 (how the hell does this team get left out in favor of one of the above?)
Monmouth, 21-7, RPI=49 (they got screwed last year too IIRC)

Non-P5 teams with absurdly bad seeds.
MTSU, 29-4, RPI=34 (12 seed) --- Beat the brakes off Vandy, btw.
Cincy, 29-5, RPI=12 (6 seed)
SMU, 30-4, RPI=13 (6 seed)

Play a better schedule they'll say... What do you do when they won't play you? Conference schedule is what it is.

Totally agree. At best, Northwestern should have been in the play-in (I don't think they should have been invited over Illinois St.) with Vandy. MTSU should have been a 9/10 (probably better since they're ranked). Wichita should have had a better seed too.

I'm sick of the committee setting up the possibilities for cutesy tournament rematches in the second round like Louisville-Michigan, UK-Wichita, UNC-Arkansas. Stupid.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017 02:40 PM by esayem.)
03-14-2017 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.