(05-23-2018 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 08:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 06:52 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-20-2018 01:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

Agreed, there was never a good reason to expand beyond 64.

Heck, 48 was from a competitive view better than 64, 64's only advantage was the mathematical symmetry.

Wasn't it due to the MWC earning an auto bid? They didn't want to lose another at-large bid?

Capping leagues at 5 might be fine for the bottom 27 or so conferences...but really unfair for leagues like the ACC. They actually have had teams make the F4 that finished outside the Top 5.

Agreed. There shouldn’t be a cap at all. If 15 ACC teams are all within the best number of at-large teams available, then they should all be in the tourbament field.

I know that we have a lot of midmajor sympathy on this board, but if they want to get better non-conference games, then they need to do what Gonzaga did back in the early-2000s and play anywhere at anytime. They played on the road without return home games from power conference teams for years and built their reputation to where they now can get power teams to come to their place. That wasn’t just gifted to them, though. Most of the complaints from smaller conferences is that power teams won’t play them anywhere but at power conference arenas, to which the response is, “Too bad, so sad.” If midmajor teams want those power conference games, then they need to take them on the road or don’t complain. If you start having competitive value on the level of Gonzaga, then you have the leverage to start asking for more home games.

I like Illinois State and thought they deserved to be in the tournament last year, but complaining that power teams won’t come to Bloomington doesn’t and shouldn’t garner a single shred of sympathy. Plenty of power teams will play them if the Redbirds would go on the road without a return home game and even get paid for it. If they don’t want to take that opportunity, then the NCAA Tournament selection committee shouldn’t cut them a break on scheduling.

I don't agree at all. Teams have a chance to finish in the top half in their conference in the regular season. Then they have a chance in their conference tournament. If they can't do well in either, then they've proven that at least half the teams in the conference are better. And determining who the "best" teams are is very subjective. From the frequent wins of 12 and 13 seeds its obvious the committee repeatedly under-seeds teams from the less prominent conferences.


Knowing how to win is a real thing. If you manage to finish in the bottom half of your conference, barring an injury that made it a fluke, you don't know how to win and shouldn't be in the tournament, regardless of how much talent you have.

So if you finish 8th in the ACC and runner ups in the conference tournament you would be cool leaving that team out? Even though they would most likely be ranked in the Top 25-35?

(05-23-2018 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  I don't agree at all. Teams have a chance to finish in the top half in their conference in the regular season. Then they have a chance in their conference tournament. If they can't do well in either, then they've proven that at least half the teams in the conference are better. And determining who the "best" teams are is very subjective. From the frequent wins of 12 and 13 seeds its obvious the committee repeatedly under-seeds teams from the less prominent conferences.

Is it obvious that whenever a lower-seeded team pulls an upset they were underseeded?

By that rationale, the committee grossly underseeded Syracuse this year. Syracuse lost 3 times to North Carolina during the season, and you might argue that means that Syracuse didn't know how to win games, but the NCAA tournament showed that's not accurate.

And if the argument is that a team that has a mediocre regular season and then wins a conference tournament, while playing a few or several conference mates that probably shouldn't have moved up to Division I in the first place, has proven itself more deserving than a good team that loses three times to a somewhat better team, then I'm not buying that argument.

If a team cannot finish over .500 in its conference, they have proven they are mediocre at best. They shouldn’t get in unless they win tourney.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-24-2018 11:41 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  If a team cannot finish over .500 in its conference, they have proven they are mediocre at best. They shouldn’t get in unless they win tourney.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I completely understand that sentiment. However I went and looked at the NIT field to find some teams that finished sub .500 in their conference and the first one I hit was Baylor. They went 18-12 in the regular season, 10-2 in non-conference and had an 18-13 record at selection time.

The two losses were at #21 Xavier and at home vs #8 Wichita State. Baylor wins those two games and they have a resume worth strong consideration.

Oklahoma State also went 8-10. They had three non-conference losses, to a then ranked TAMU at a neutral site, then #6 Wichita State at home and at Arkansas. Win those and they have a resume worth a hard look as well.

A blanket rule doesn't make sense when sorting out so many at-large candidates.