Mustard Buzzards threatening to steal a bid?? nm
- Thread starter Bulldog from Birth
- Start date
They should be in either way. Why even publish an RPI if you leave the #29 team out of a 68-team tournament?
GET RID OF AUTOBIDS.
Seriously, just take the 64 best teams, regardless of conference. People say that will take away the upsets, but that's wrong. Not all, but most, teams who win the first round upsets would have made it anyway. This year, teams like Middle Tennessee State, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech, and Denver will probably be left out so much worse mid-majors who won their conference tournaments can be let in.
It's not teams like 2013's Western Kentucky, Albany, Florida Gulf Coast, or Long Island who make games interesting usually. It's the teams like 2013's South Dakota State, Davidson, Bucknell, and Valpo, and those would all be IN under my format, along with deserving mid-majors like Middle Tennessee State, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech, and Denver and also teams like Ole Miss, Alabama, and Tennessee.
Seriously, just take the 64 best teams, regardless of conference. People say that will take away the upsets, but that's wrong. Not all, but most, teams who win the first round upsets would have made it anyway. This year, teams like Middle Tennessee State, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech, and Denver will probably be left out so much worse mid-majors who won their conference tournaments can be let in.
It's not teams like 2013's Western Kentucky, Albany, Florida Gulf Coast, or Long Island who make games interesting usually. It's the teams like 2013's South Dakota State, Davidson, Bucknell, and Valpo, and those would all be IN under my format, along with deserving mid-majors like Middle Tennessee State, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech, and Denver and also teams like Ole Miss, Alabama, and Tennessee.
Florida Gulf Coast routed Miami this year. Sorry for the nitpick
http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=323180526
http://espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=323180526
Look at the bubble teams. They're all mediocre at best. And I'm being pretty generous. Both UM and USM have two 200+ losses and a combined 2 top-50 wins (both UM over Missouri which will fall very close to #50 with the loss). They're just not good teams at all. They really need to at least go back to 64 teams
Totally disagree. The small teams make the tournament for me. There's nothing better than upsets in the tournament when your team is not involved. And some of the smaller conference tournaments are just as entertaining as the big boy tournaments. If they have no hope of making the tournament, then they would have nothing to play for. The chances of the 64th team in the country making a run in the dance are about the same as one of the small conference winners, not good. But it gives everyone the opportunity to get in.
Expanding the field more than it is now would be a terrible idea. The same bubble issues would present themselves with the only difference being it is worse teams. But no one is getting left out of the tournament right now that truly has a chance of winning it. Why water it down with a lot of mediocre teams for the first few weeks.
Expanding the field more than it is now would be a terrible idea. The same bubble issues would present themselves with the only difference being it is worse teams. But no one is getting left out of the tournament right now that truly has a chance of winning it. Why water it down with a lot of mediocre teams for the first few weeks.
It's already getting very difficult for the SEC to get into the tourney. 8 Big East, 7 B1G, 5 Mountain West, 5 Pac12, 5 Big12, 5 Atlantic10, and 4 ACC are getting in this year. That's 39 teams from 7 conferences! The SEC is so far behind it can't keep up. You're going to see 1-2 SEC teams very soon at this rate. How many times has MSU finished top 2 overall in the SEC? We'll go 10 year stretches with 1 bid.
Well I don't think that it should matter the conference. I think every conference should get that 1 auto bid, and then the other 32 are the next best 32 (or whatever the number is). The SEC shouldn't have a certain number that it deserves to get. If Only 1 SEC team deserves to get in then so be it. It's on us to determine whether we deserve to get in or not, not our conference.
I get what you're saying but they value RPI, SOS and wins vs top 50 teams the most and unless SEC teams start scheduling crazy difficult OOC schedules and WINNING there's no way to get the teams high enough to get in when the conference games pull those 3 categories way down. Tennessee is definitely a good enough team to be in the tournament but it's doubtful they get in because they are playing in a bad rated conference.
I agree that the small teams make the tournament. That's why I want Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech, Denver, and Middle Tennessee in instead of lambs to the slaughter who have no chance.
At the very least it should be regular season champions instead of conference tournament champions, but that still leaves a bunch of terrible teams with no chance. I could compromise on demoting the 10 worst conferences to d2, and then autobids to regular season champions. But short of that, just take the 64 best. There will still be small teams in the tournament, and this way it's the best small schools, not the bad ones who got lucky for one weekend.
At the very least it should be regular season champions instead of conference tournament champions, but that still leaves a bunch of terrible teams with no chance. I could compromise on demoting the 10 worst conferences to d2, and then autobids to regular season champions. But short of that, just take the 64 best. There will still be small teams in the tournament, and this way it's the best small schools, not the bad ones who got lucky for one weekend.
Last edited:
Oh yea I agree with you on that. The numbers are messed up. They look at RPI hard for some teams, but USM who has an RPI of like 29 (I don't know this, but someone said it earlier today) is on the bubble. That doesn't seem right. I honestly feel like it should all be on the eye test. Who actually looks the best. Get a committee of people who actually know basketball, and pick the teams who they truly believe are the best left.
Either one of those two options about what to do with the little guys is good with me. Moving the smallest to a lesser division in basketball would make the most sense. Like in football there are 2 divisions of D1. And the other thing is about the regular season champ. I do agree that it is unfair for the team who wins the league not to get the autobid, but at the same time, the conference tourneys are part of the madness of march of which I enjoy. So that part is based on me. While not fair, the current format excites ME the most.
The part I don't necessarily agree with is taking the best 64. In that situation, the little guy is playing for nothing. I like how every single team in the nation has a shot to get to the big dance. It kind of reminds me of the Utah Valley State baseball team from last year. They won what 42 out of 43 to end the season in a crap conference? Then they didn't get invited to a regional because of their RPI and their conference wasn't fully integrated into D1 yet. I feel like that was an absolute shame. What were those guys playing for? They did everything they could, and just didn't get the chance to compete in the end.
One thing that I would be down for is having a small team tournament or something before the Big Dance, and say the top 8 or so teams in that tournament clinch a spot in the Big Dance. That way, the actual tournament won't have so many tiny schools, and the SWAC-like schools will already have been weeded out.
The part I don't necessarily agree with is taking the best 64. In that situation, the little guy is playing for nothing. I like how every single team in the nation has a shot to get to the big dance. It kind of reminds me of the Utah Valley State baseball team from last year. They won what 42 out of 43 to end the season in a crap conference? Then they didn't get invited to a regional because of their RPI and their conference wasn't fully integrated into D1 yet. I feel like that was an absolute shame. What were those guys playing for? They did everything they could, and just didn't get the chance to compete in the end.
One thing that I would be down for is having a small team tournament or something before the Big Dance, and say the top 8 or so teams in that tournament clinch a spot in the Big Dance. That way, the actual tournament won't have so many tiny schools, and the SWAC-like schools will already have been weeded out.
Here's how I'd do it. The 32 automatic bids get a 1st round by. Which intensifies the importance of the best teams playing their best in their conference tournament. The next 64 get in and have to play the extra game to cut the tournament back to the 64 from a few years ago. Basically you are including the entire NIT field. I never want less teams. I always want more teams.
Here's a chart
It would be fairer to the mid-majors to just take the best 64, since the better mid-majors still get in, as does anyone with a real chance of pulling an upset*
I realize anyone could like Norfolk State last year, but I'm just saying that teams with RPIs in the top 60 or so have a much better chance.
It would be fairer to the mid-majors to just take the best 64, since the better mid-majors still get in, as does anyone with a real chance of pulling an upset*
I realize anyone could like Norfolk State last year, but I'm just saying that teams with RPIs in the top 60 or so have a much better chance.
This is the only change that needs to be made and I've been saying this for years. Instead of getting an auto-bid by winning your conference tourney, you get an auto-bid for winning your conference. If the mid-major conferences are only going to get one bid then it should go to their best team that can actually be competitive. People are always going to gripe about which teams get at-large bids and which ones don't.
How does USM have a RPI that low? They beat Georgia and CUSA teams. So winning in that pathetic conference gets you a high RPI?
It's more 17ed up than that. USM didn't beat any team in the top 50--their best wins were #67 Denver and #93 UTEP. Their RPI comes from the quality of who they LOST to-- Arizona (13), Memphis (15), Wichita (37) and LA Tech (54). How impressive is that? Got beat by all the teams that should have beat them. RPI of 29 and the best team they beat was #67? Really? If the BCS football rankings went like that, the Bears 2-10 team would have been in the playoffs because they lost to all the really good teams they played. Alice in 17n Wonderland scoring system.
Last edited: