Lunardi Bracket Update 2/11/07

[cusportsfan]

Lunardi Updated Bracket as of 11 Feb 07

MSU a 10 seed falling and playing Southern Cal
Jays a 7 seed rising and playing Norte Dame
SIU a 5 seed and holding and playing VCU

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

[cpacmel]

9 ACC teams! 9 !:cursing:

[cpacmel]

Unless I am missing them, his last 4 IN.... are no where to be found on the brackets either.

[smacktalkermsu]

Anyone who thinks Duke is in as of today is an idiot.......

they are under .500 in their own league.......and it's not getting any easier.

@ BC
GT
@ Clemson
Maryland
@ UNC

They have to win 3 of these games to finish .500........I don't think they can do it......and it will cause serious uproar if they are 7-9 in the ACC and get an at large birth.....

There needs to be a rule that you have to finish at least .500 in conference to even be considered......if they get in i bet they will be 1 and done.

[pantherhawk]

I don't understand how they can take a team who has a losing conference record! If they can't take care of business within their conference then they don't belong in the NCAA. I can't remember wasn't it Maryland last year who finished like 7-9 in the ACC and the experts were saying "they got screwed, they deserved to be in over some other mid-major schools." I hope this committee sees that if they can't take care of business within the conference then they don't deserve the right to dance!

[smsbears07]

Now 7-9 in the ACC is much better than going .500 in the MVC. I know the MVC is tough now, but the ACC teams are alot tougher than valley teams. I understand how people would be mad if Duke went 7-9 and got in, but Duke at 7-9 in the ACC is probably better than some teams that have good conference records and will get in.

[smacktalkermsu]

Now 7-9 in the ACC is much better than going .500 in the MVC. I know the MVC is tough now, but the ACC teams are alot tougher than valley teams. I understand how people would be mad if Duke went 7-9 and got in, but Duke at 7-9 in the ACC is probably better than some teams that have good conference records and will get in.

But fellow bear fan.....tell me when was the last time an MVC team got an at large to the NCAA's that wasn't at least 11-7 with a deep run in Arch Madness?

I don't have the energy to see if it has ever happened........No MVC team with a .500 record should ever get in......even a 10-8 probably shouldn't unless they just went gang busters in the OOC season.

[bcrawf]

But fellow bear fan.....tell me when was the last time an MVC team got an at large to the NCAA's that wasn't at least 11-7 with a deep run in Arch Madness?

UNI two years ago. 11-7 and lost to Missouri State in the first round in St. Louis....

PS- Absolutely awesome signiture. I wish more people felt the same way....

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Oh great, the "losing conference record" argument. My favorite.

Just pick the best teams and stop looking for reasons to exclude the best teams. Some of you sound exactly like the BCS punks themselves, only you are just arguing for the other side.

[Nyghtewynd]

I don't need the "losing conference record" for Duke. If everyone else gets to use the "eye test", so do I. I've watched Duke's last two games, and I think they don't look anything like an NCAA team right now. I can think of at least 40 teams that would be better than Duke right now. Duke's playing a tentative, one-dimensional game that crumbles when someone leans on it, and they're awful away from Cameron. That wasn't a good team that they lost to yesterday, and the game never felt like it was in doubt.

[MVC Fan]

Oh great, the "losing conference record" argument. My favorite.

Just pick the best teams and stop looking for reasons to exclude the best teams. Some of you sound exactly like the BCS punks themselves, only you are just arguing for the other side.

So what are the arguments 'for' including those teams then? (teams w/losing conference records)

I don't think that has anything to do w/sounding like a BCS punk, just what many regard as common sense. I think a lot of ppl come to the conclusion that if a team can't finish .500 in its conference, they can't be one of the 'best teams' because, among other things, they can't even hold serve on their home court in conference play. Which is significant because that means they almost certainly aren't proving they can beat at-large level competition on at least a semi-consistent basis.

[MVC Fan]

Now 7-9 in the ACC is much better than going .500 in the MVC. I know the MVC is tough now, but the ACC teams are alot tougher than valley teams. I understand how people would be mad if Duke went 7-9 and got in, but Duke at 7-9 in the ACC is probably better than some teams that have good conference records and will get in.

I hope this was sarcasm, cuz i don't buy this for a second. That's perception more than anything...there's a lot less difference between Bradley and Georgia Tech, Maryland and Wichita State, or UNI and Clemson than ppl think.

[WSUbballer]

Oh great, the "losing conference record" argument. My favorite.

Just pick the best teams and stop looking for reasons to exclude the best teams. Some of you sound exactly like the BCS punks themselves, only you are just arguing for the other side.

I'm sorry. I don't care how "good" you think a team is... but if they can't win more games than they lose in their own conference, then why be rewarded for that? The BCS conferences get rewarded so much for being big and powerful and having all these quality teams, but then you have teams that can't win in em and you're suppose to reward them for having to mandatorily play them on their schedule and lose?

:no:

[gosalukie]

It appears that the bluejays did not get dinged at all for the loss at SIU. They actually moved up in seeding to #7 (and rising) from 8 or 9 I believe. To me that indicates respect for the Valley is continuing to trend upward. As an SIU fan I have been frustated many times over the past 5 years when SIU's profile has taken a big hit after a Valley road loss even to top tier Valley teams.

Why is Mo State trending down? didn't they win all thier games last week?

[smacktalkermsu]

UNI two years ago. 11-7 and lost to Missouri State in the first round in St. Louis....

PS- Absolutely awesome signiture. I wish more people felt the same way....

Ok you got me there......but still that is 4 games above .500......which is an absolute lock if you play in any of the big 6.

If you are 10-6 in the ACC with an RPI of 20 you are a 5 seed at worst......In the MVC it has been proven that you can be 12-6 with an RPI of 20 and be left out.

[Nyghtewynd]

Why is Mo State trending down? didn't they win all thier games last week?

Yes, they won all of the games last week. Why are they trending down? Because they're Missouri State. They're a cute little story when the calendar says it's safe, but as we start finding more and more BCS teams that "belong", you sure aren't going to move any of them down.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Question:

What if there had been a strange realignment of conferences before this year. Same players, same coaches, just a change in schedules.

Here's the new Big 12:
Nevada
Florida
Wisconsin
Butler
UCLA
Pittsburgh
Kansas
Southern Illinois
Ohio State
Texas A&M
Georgetown
Drake

Why should an arbitrary rule keep 5 or 6 of these teams out of the NCAA Tourney? I only see one team that doesn't deserve a bid, but hey, if a losing conference record means you don't get an invite, then rules are rules. Too bad.

[WSUbballer]

Question:

What if there had been a strange realignment of conferences before this year. Same players, same coaches, just a change in schedules.

Here's the new Big 12:
Nevada
Florida
Wisconsin
Butler
UCLA
Pittsburgh
Kansas
Southern Illinois
Ohio State
Texas A&M
Georgetown
Drake

Why should an arbitrary rule keep 5 or 6 of these teams out of the NCAA Tourney? I only see one team that doesn't deserve a bid, but hey, if a losing conference record means you don't get an invite, then rules are rules. Too bad.

LOL... too bad a scenario like that would NEVER happen...

Like I said, there's advantages and disadvantages to being in a "premier" conference. How many Valley teams would like the opportunity to have "big name" games automatically be put on their schedule and have a chance to control their own destiny? Going sub-.500 in a power conference clearly means a team choked away their numerous opportunities to win big games.

[smacktalkermsu]

I think SIU should be a no doubt 4 seed as of today.

Creighton should be a 6 or 7 and MSU should be a 7.

MSU
Kenpom 25 (7 seed)
Sagarin 19 (5 seed) = 6 or 7 seed
RPI 32 (8 seed)

SIU
Kenpom 33 (9 seed)
Sagarin 20 (5 seed) = 4 or 5 seed
RPI 9 (3 seed)

CU
Kenpom 43 (11 seed)
Sagarin 33 ( 9 seed) = 9 seed
RPI 25 (7 seed)

as you can see the computers don't really like Creighton all that well.....You have to consider that they are still being punished for a bad early loss or two. Plus they beat MSU twice so you can't really justify them behind MSU even though 2 of 3 computers says MSU is a better team.

MSU has been rewarded a lot for their victory over Wisky......and rightfully so. That one win could prove to be worth a seed or two.

Last 10 will also be very interesting to follow.....as of right now MSU and SIU are both undefeated on what will be their last 10 and Creighton has one loss to SIU......obviously MSU or SIU will lose on tuesday.....but all three valley contenders have set themselves up very well for a strong "Final 10" finish.

[TheAsianSensation]

First off, the "under .500" rule for conference play would be stupid.

Everyone but the Pac 10 and us have an unbalanced schedule. So it's up to the luck of the draw. For instance, Illinois only had to play once against Wisconsin and once against Ohio State this year. Most Big Ten teams have a combined 4 games against those 2 schools. So a 9-7 Illinois would be worth considerably less than a 9-7 Michigan State, for example.

A 7-9 ACC record against all the top teams twice might be even more impressive than a 9-7 ACC record if the team happened to just have to play UNC, BC, and VT only once.


And about Duke....like it or not....look at their SoS. 4. The 4th toughest schedule in the country. Now, there is a home tilt towards the amount of home/road games they've played. But. SoS. 4. You can get away with 7-9 in a conference if you have the #4 SoS to show for it.

[Nyghtewynd]

Don't you remember last year? RPI doesn't matter. Unless it helps a BCS school. Or a school with an administrator on the committee.

[TheAsianSensation]

Yes, they won all of the games last week. Why are they trending down? Because they're Missouri State. They're a cute little story when the calendar says it's safe, but as we start finding more and more BCS teams that "belong", you sure aren't going to move any of them down.

It's not always what the team is doing. It's what the teams around you are doing. It's just a big a reason to have your seed drop as your own play is.

[smacktalkermsu]

So what if duke is 6-10.......which they could be very easily at the clip they are playing......mix in a loss to St. Johns.....and you are in serious trouble. Then consider the fact that they will be underdogs in the ACC tourney first round game......chalk that up as a loss.

and you are sitting at 19-13 (6-10) with a 1-9 in their final 10.

if they beat st. johns they would be 20-12 (6-10) with 2-8 in their final 10.

No other team could survive that.

[gosalukie]

It's not always what the team is doing. It's what the teams around you are doing. It's just a big a reason to have your seed drop as your own play is.



If they change the seed rising, falling or even flag every update based on the prior position I guess that is why they are shown as trending down even though they won all thier games. I can see why a team could get bumped down because of other teams performance, I just thought that the rising/falling indicator was more of a general feeling on the teams direction but it may be strictly an indicator of where the team is this update based on the prior position.

[genius4point0]

It is strictly based on from one bracket to the next and has nothing to do with their trend.

Duke is in. That is all you need to know about them. If they were somehow 1-9 over their last 10 then they would be in trouble but that won't happen and they will be 4-6 or 5-5 or possibly better. They are in. They just need to stop giving these bubble teams good wins.

[MVC Fan]

Question:

What if there had been a strange realignment of conferences before this year. Same players, same coaches, just a change in schedules.

Here's the new Big 12:
Nevada
Florida
Wisconsin
Butler
UCLA
Pittsburgh
Kansas
Southern Illinois
Ohio State
Texas A&M
Georgetown
Drake

Why should an arbitrary rule keep 5 or 6 of these teams out of the NCAA Tourney?

Because if these teams played each other, they would not have as good of records. Some would even have losing overall records. And losing records have never gotten teams at-large bids, nor should they.

Whatever conference you're in, if you can't show some kind of excellence in that league-and saying a .500 record is anything close to excellence is quite debatable but we'll let it slide for this point-then you don't deserve to be in the tourney. It's been said for yrs, tourney selection is rarely about finding the 'best' teams because 1) that's subjective and highly debatable and 2) if it was, there would've been several teams w/losing overall records to get at-large bids by now. It's 'mostly' about finding the most qualified teams...and if you can't win half of your conference games, a lot of ppl are going to question your qualifications unless you had an amazing non-conference. Saying 'mostly', because often the committee slips in a 'they LOOK good' team, such as Texas may be this year. And looking at how much debate a team like Texas causes right now (hotshot player, ESPN hype machine but not much substance to who they've BEATEN) it only makes sense that the #s should take precedence over the eye test...nothing wrong w/setting a standard of at least proving you can be in the middle of your conference, even though we all know it'll never ever happen.

That goes for the ACC, MVC, or any other conference. The unbalanced schedules matter to a point, yes, but bottom line is NCAA tourney caliber teams should be able to at least hold serve or if not steal a road win or 2 in conference play, no matter who the opponents are. That's part of being a member of a certain conference; you get the automatic SOS & RPI push-ups from being in a conference, you better show against that level of competition that you can stand out on some level. It's not too much to ask a Maryland to, on average, sweep teams like Miami, N.C. State, and Wake Forest and then split w/the rest of the league, just like it's not asking too much to expect Bradley or Wichita State to at least show they're clearly better than the bottom of the league and are capable of at least beating the top teams on occasion.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

LOL... too bad a scenario like that would NEVER happen...

Like I said, there's advantages and disadvantages to being in a "premier" conference. How many Valley teams would like the opportunity to have "big name" games automatically be put on their schedule and have a chance to control their own destiny? Going sub-.500 in a power conference clearly means a team choked away their numerous opportunities to win big games.

Terrible logic. You are so focused on the opportunites, privileges, advantages, disadvantages, controlling your own destiny, and a million other off-topic subjects that you are ignoring the fact that the best teams should get in. Period. If a 12 team conference has 8 teams that are deserving, then they should get 8 teams. If the 10 best teams in the country were all in the same conference, why should there be an arbitrary rule that forbids all 10 teams from making the tourney?

Argue all you want about how to choose the best teams. I agree that it is a hard process. However, I can't stand arbitrary rules that have no logic behind them.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Because if these teams played each other, they would not have as good of records. Some would even have losing overall records. And losing records have never gotten teams at-large bids, nor should they.

nor should they? Why? Why is .500 such a magical number?

Mathematically, a few teams in my "mock Big 12" would have to have losing records. There is no way around it. However, based on real life this year, you and I both know that 11 of those 12 are absolutely NCAA teams. Your rule about eliminating all sub-.500 conference teams is arbitrary and would eliminate several of the top 10 teams from the country simply due to a change in their schedule.

Once again, let's pick the best teams. We can argue all day about who the best teams are, and we can argue about how bad a job the committee did of picking the best teams, but seriously, let's pick the best teams.

[DawgieStyle]

Terrible logic. You are so focused on the opportunites, privileges, advantages, disadvantages, controlling your own destiny, and a million other off-topic subjects that you are ignoring the fact that the best teams should get in. Period. If a 12 team conference has 8 teams that are deserving, then they should get 8 teams. If the 10 best teams in the country were all in the same conference, why should there be an arbitrary rule that forbids all 10 teams from making the tourney?

Argue all you want about how to choose the best teams. I agree that it is a hard process. However, I can't stand arbitrary rules that have no logic behind them.

I agree with ya man, Duke may finish sub .500 in their conf. but I'm telling ya, they are one of the top 64 teams in the country regardless of where they finish in the standings. No way are you gonna sell on the idea that Davidson or App. State are better than Duke, I don't care where they sit in their conf. rank.

[WSUbballer]

Terrible logic. You are so focused on the opportunites, privileges, advantages, disadvantages, controlling your own destiny, and a million other off-topic subjects that you are ignoring the fact that the best teams should get in. Period. If a 12 team conference has 8 teams that are deserving, then they should get 8 teams. If the 10 best teams in the country were all in the same conference, why should there be an arbitrary rule that forbids all 10 teams from making the tourney?

Argue all you want about how to choose the best teams. I agree that it is a hard process. However, I can't stand arbitrary rules that have no logic behind them.

Bad logic as well..
You would never find the 10 best teams in the country bundled up in one conference. You know this.
The logic is simple. It really comes down to W's and L's. The fact that these "top 10 teams" would be suffering losses upon losses against each other, despite the good competition. The fact remains.. they're still losses. Top 10 teams don't lose 6 or 7 conference games a year, much less 6 or 7 losses period.

[tennis08tarheels]

I hate Duke. But they should be a tournament team, unless they lose 4 or 5 more games.

Look at their OOC schedule.

Air Force: double-digit win
Davidson: blowout win
Indiana: win
Georgetown: win
Holy Cross: Double-digit win
@Gonzaga: win

All of those teams are in the top 70 of the RPI, and are having great years. I'd put them in with 7 ACC wins.

[WSUbballer]

I hate Duke. But they should be a tournament team, unless they lose 4 or 5 more games.

Look at their OOC schedule.

Air Force: double-digit win
Davidson: blowout win
Indiana: win
Georgetown: win
Holy Cross: Double-digit win
@Gonzaga: win

All of those teams are in the top 70 of the RPI, and are having great years. I'd put them in with 7 ACC wins.

I think that game against the Zags was in New York..

How many of those wins were on the road?
I heard committee members like seeing teams win on the road.

And yes I do know none of this really doesn't matter long term because they'll get in because of their name. But I wouldn't call them a "lock" yet with 4 of 6 to end on the road..

[Hein72]

If you cant finish .500 in confrence you shouldnt be in. It is as simple as that. I simply dont see the ACC getting 9 and getting teams in that are below .500 in confrence with how thick the bubble is this year. At least I dont think.

[Hein72]

Terrible logic. You are so focused on the opportunites, privileges, advantages, disadvantages, controlling your own destiny, and a million other off-topic subjects that you are ignoring the fact that the best teams should get in. Period. If a 12 team conference has 8 teams that are deserving, then they should get 8 teams. If the 10 best teams in the country were all in the same conference, why should there be an arbitrary rule that forbids all 10 teams from making the tourney?

Argue all you want about how to choose the best teams. I agree that it is a hard process. However, I can't stand arbitrary rules that have no logic behind them.

I agree that if a team is deserving it should be in no matter how many are coming from that confrence. The issue it does no matter how you look at it. MSU gets in last year if Bradley, WSU, SIU, or UNI get in. It is just how it works. Not only that be the issue is their are more than 64 teams that possibly deserve to be in the tourney, if their wasnt we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

[CaliRdBrd]

If you're .500 or under you don't deserve a chance at post season play (NCAA tourney).

In the ACC, you could beat Miami twice, Wake twice, NC State twice with a win or two over an average team like Maryland or Virginia, and have 7 or 8 wins.

The newly created Big 12 argument is very weak.

[smacktalkermsu]

not to compare apples to oranges but Not being .500 in your league and expecting a shot at a Nat'l Title in Basketball is like.......Nebraska in 2001 getting a shot at Miami for the Nat'l title after not even playing in the big 12 CG

If you aren't one of the best in your league......you are not one of the best in the country.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If you're .500 or under you don't deserve a chance at post season play (NCAA tourney).

In the ACC, you could beat Miami twice, Wake twice, NC State twice with a win or two over an average team like Maryland or Virginia, and have 7 or 8 wins.

The newly created Big 12 argument is very weak.

You are using the ACC this year as an example. I agree that most times, a losing record will not equate with being worthy of an atlarge bid. However, I'm talking in general terms. Sub-.500 teams shouldn't be common atlarge teams, but they shouldn't be ignored altogether either.

How is my newly created Big 12 argument weak? Are you arguing that in that scenario, 11 of the 12 teams wouldn't be atlarge worthy?

As a general question for anyone, I would like to know the reasons that some of you think that some of the teams from the following list should be removed from atlarge consideration simply because they played against each other for much of the season:

Nevada, Florida, Wisconsin, Butler, UCLA, Pittsburgh, Kansas, Southern Illinois, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Georgetown, Drake

[WSUbballer]

You are using the ACC this year as an example. I agree that most times, a losing record will not equate with being worthy of an atlarge bid. However, I'm talking in general terms. Sub-.500 teams shouldn't be common atlarge teams, but they shouldn't be ignored altogether either.

How is my newly created Big 12 argument weak? Are you arguing that in that scenario, 11 of the 12 teams wouldn't be atlarge worthy?

As a general question for anyone, I would like to know the reasons that some of you think that some of the teams from the following list should be removed from atlarge consideration simply because they played against each other for much of the season:

Nevada, Florida, Wisconsin, Butler, UCLA, Pittsburgh, Kansas, Southern Illinois, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Georgetown, Drake

I'm sorry, but the argument is weak because it would never happen. You're trying to validate your point on something that absolutely would never happen. Pick Texas A&M for example. They lose at Florida, home to Wisconsin, at UCLA, and home to Ohio State in a two-week stretch. They still LOST the games. Therefore, they wouldn't be accredited to being a Top 10 team anymore, and then all of a sudden A&M doesn't look so good anymore because of the simple fact that they're losing. It's all relative. If you put all those teams in the same conference, a handful of them won't look so "good" anymore. That's a fact. I'm sorry.

It's kind of like an LSU or Alabama. Both looked like solid Top 10 teams at the beginning of the year. Put em in the SEC (especially on the road) and they go on a 4 or 5 game losing streak against quality teams. They still though are looked at as "not good" based on them losing 4 or 5 in a row..

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

not to compare apples to oranges but Not being .500 in your league and expecting a shot at a Nat'l Title in Basketball is like.......Nebraska in 2001 getting a shot at Miami for the Nat'l title after not even playing in the big 12 CG

If you aren't one of the best in your league......you are not one of the best in the country.

UNI sure wasn't one of the best in the country last year. They finished tied for 5th in a 10 team league, a league that wasn't even one of the top 5 leagues in the country. They still managed a bid. The NCAA tourney isn't about only including those teams deserving for a chance to win a national championship. If that were the case, we would only have 10-15 teams each year. It is about taking the best 34 teams after the 31 auto bids are taken. In college bball, amazing things can happen, and you can't count out anyone. That is why I hate the argument that "if you aren't one of the best in your league..... you are not one of the best in the country."

George Mason last year was a pleasant surprise. They received a bid despite relatively few instances of "proof" that they could compete with the big boys. More than anything, they took care of business vs "everyone else", and then they proved themselves in the tourney. Let's not go to the other extreme and start excluding teams that have proven they can compete with the nation's best night in and night out, just because their record doesn't meet some arbitrary requirement.

I want the best teams.

[OmahaBen]

I'm not sure, but I think teams have to be .500 or better overall to be considered for an at-large berth. I know the football bowls have that rule, and frankly I think it's a good one.

Ultimately, the game is about W's and L's. If you can't win at least half of your regular season games, do you really deserve a postseason berth?

If we're talking just conference games, I can somewhat stomach taking a team with a 7-9/8-10 conference record, but they would have to have a strong enough non-conference profile to overcome an initial bias against them.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

If we're talking just conference games, I can somewhat stomach taking a team with a 7-9/8-10 conference record, but they would have to have a strong enough non-conference profile to overcome an initial bias against them.

Good point. We aren't talking about taking a team that went 4-12 in conference. If a team goes undefeated in non-conference, beating several top 25 teams along the way, then finishes a little poor, but manages 7-9 for their last 16 games against good competition, they should be in. Consider the whole season, not JUST the last half of it.

[Timmy]

OK Jamar, I'll take the bait.

I continually hear fans of BCS conference teams saying things like, "(Insert Valley team here) wouldn't last in the (insert BCS Conference name here) because of the daily grind of the conference season." To which I respond, "Does being in (BCS Conference) also automatically give you a better TV deal, higher national profile, more money for your program?" "If (MVC Team) can arguably play with the "big boys" now, wouldn't it stand to reason that with more intangibles they would only get BETTER?" That doesn't even factor in the fact that EVERY conference season is a GRIND. Playing on the road ANYWHERE is difficult.

If you cannot protect your home floor and/or steal one or two on the road you DO NOT belong in the tournament. Period. If the NCAA tournament was about getting the best 64 teams in, there would be no automatic bids. If you can't finish above .500 in your league the argument could be made that you can't win on the road or at home with regularity against good competition.

Your conference would, in 10 years or so, also have teams that are consistently good - and those that aren't. It's the nature of every conference in the nation. Some teams are always good (Indiana) and some not so much (Northwestern, Penn St.) There are ebbs and flows - (SIU) but as a general rule someone always rises to the top, and someone falters.

I'm not sure SIU would be .500 in that conference - but I'd also hope that being in such a strong conference would help with TV, recruiting, Saluki Way, etc...

If you are given the opportunities to play good teams home-home every single year and you can't go .500 - you should look for a conference that your team CAN compete in.

[WSUbballer]

I'm sorry but I could never say a team from a "power" conference is deserving when they lose more games than they win in conference. I don't care what the conference is or who the team is. You're rewarding the conference more than the actual team. Basically saying - losing is ok.

[TheAsianSensation]

If you're .500 or under you don't deserve a chance at post season play (NCAA tourney).

In the ACC, you could beat Miami twice, Wake twice, NC State twice with a win or two over an average team like Maryland or Virginia, and have 7 or 8 wins.

The newly created Big 12 argument is very weak.


But here's the problem with that: unbalanced conference scheduling.

Team A can get 6 games against the bottom 3, while Team B gets unlucky and only gets 3 or 4 games against the bottom 3.

Which comes full circle to another point in this thread. You can't make the general "below .500" statement because not all 8-8 records are created equal. Someone's 7-9 might be better than someone else's 8-8. You just can't blindly say that there is a line that you can draw when it comes to conference records.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Timmy,

I guess I have a different viewpoint than you do on TV money, exposure, etc. I don't think that should be a factor one bit. If we start considering the impact of such things, and let it effect our decision making when choosing atlarge teams, we are in effect penalizing teams for advantages that are nearly impossible to measure.

If we are going to penalize a team because they had a recruiting advantage, then we open up a huge pandora's box. Should we start considering who has the best school cafeterias. Afterall, better food and nutrition gives team's an advantage, right? What about the teams with the best head coaches? Those teams have an advantage, right?

I agree that any Valley school playing in the ACC would probably have better recruits due to the increase in exposure. Also, I don't think schools like Wake Forest would have ever seen the kind of success they have had in the past if they weren't in the ACC. However, atlarge bids are a season by season thing. We don't judge how a team got its players, or what advantages it had in getting them. We judge the players and teams by their actions on the court.

[CaliRdBrd]

It's just that there are so many deserving teams, that you need a simple plan to eliminate a lot of pretenders (i.e. teams that cannot finish above .500 in their own conference).

While we're at it, the teams that wins the regular conference title should be given an automatic berth inot the NCAA's, and conference tournaments need to go the way of the dodo bird

There...now you all now where I stand.

[MSNSaluki]

There's is one thing I'd like to see changed about the NCAA selection process.

I'd like to see the regular-season champion of every conference in America receive an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Then, the tournaments would be for the at-large spots.

The regular season shouldn't be upstaged by one weekend.

[TheAsianSensation]

There's is one thing I'd like to see changed about the NCAA selection process.

I'd like to see the regular-season champion of every conference in America receive an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Then, the tournaments would be for the at-large spots.

The regular season shouldn't be upstaged by one weekend.


It seems fair to reward the regular season champion....but if what you suggested goes down, there would basically be no spots available for any league, no matter what league, to get in much more than 3, maybe 4 teams in total.

Since Championship Week is lucrative for all parties involved, the system will stay the same as is.

[Timmy]

Jamar - I wasn't suggesting anything regarding the selection of at-large teams with my thoughts on BCS conference affiliation = better facilities etc... To clarify, if you are in a BCS conference you already have (or should have) automatic advantages built into your program. More money for facilities and amenities (ie. charter travel over commercial,) more TV exposure for recruiting - Digger Phelps kissing your rear end every night on ESPN. Given all of those advantages, you really should have to finish .500 in your big, bad conference.

Failing that, I'd settle for the NCAA mandating an even split between non tournament home and road games which could be averaged out over a 5 year period or something like that... I (and I'm sure all of us) are sick to death of hearing about how tough BCS teams schedules are when they only travel in the conference season. It's been said before, but no one would allow the Yankees to play 100 games at home and 25 at Shea stadium each season - so why do the BCS teams get to?

[Angrybluejaydan]

Now 7-9 in the ACC is much better than going .500 in the MVC. I know the MVC is tough now, but the ACC teams are alot tougher than valley teams. I understand how people would be mad if Duke went 7-9 and got in, but Duke at 7-9 in the ACC is probably better than some teams that have good conference records and will get in.

I would buy into this logic if Duke had the balls to go on the road in the non conference. The fact is that Duke only played at a few selected nuetral sites in the non conference and never played a true road game until the ACC started up. They have 19 home games on their schedule this year. UCONN is pulling the same crap.

I will agree that Creighton doesn't have a good non conference road win. However Creighton at least tried to get one by going out on the road in the non conference (at Fresno, at Dayton, at Hawaii and at Nebraska).

Does Duke even have a decent road win in their own conference?

Has Duke even won a road game at all this year?

Duke might struggle during their "last 10" as well.

The ACC "only" got 4 teams in the dance last year. One of the reasons was the non conference schedule of the ACC bubble teams. It was weak last year. If you look at the teams this year in the ACC, no one but Boston College had the guts to go out on the road to bolster it's at large resume. I say the league should be punished again because they are not getting the message.

I think if these teams are going to gamble, stay at home in December, and hope to look impressive in the conference, then they should go to the NIT if they put all their eggs in one basket and lay a stink bomb during their respective conference race. :whip:

9 teams, my keister!:ranting:

[MSNSaluki]

It seems fair to reward the regular season champion....but if what you suggested goes down, there would basically be no spots available for any league, no matter what league, to get in much more than 3, maybe 4 teams in total.

Since Championship Week is lucrative for all parties involved, the system will stay the same as is.

I don't understand.
We award a bid to the tournament champion in every conference in America but we couldn't do it for the regular-season champion?
The number of available bids doesn't change ... only the teams guaranteed to get one.

[MVC Fan]

If we're talking just conference games, I can somewhat stomach taking a team with a 7-9/8-10 conference record, but they would have to have a strong enough non-conference profile to overcome an initial bias against them.

I can live w/it on rare occasion, too, but they better 1) have a stud non-conference performance, 2) not have any 'bad' losses in or out of conference (i.e. to teams below them in the league standings/far below them in RPI) and 3) better have been awfully close in the vast majority of those games they did lose. If not, then I see no reason to include them...I don't care how many good teams they lost to, the bottom line is in the vast majority of cases they've lost a lot more games than they've won against good teams. See Michigan State right now, 3-7 vs. the top 50 and just 5-8 overall vs. top 100 teams.

Of course, teams like Georgia & (unfortunately) Bradley, too, have similar stats as a Mich. St., even though both are above .500 in their leagues...but that's why there should be something of a reward for being above .500 in league, or penalty for being below, to help in separating similar teams.

[MVC Fan]

I (and I'm sure all of us) are sick to death of hearing about how tough BCS teams schedules are when they only travel in the conference season. It's been said before, but no one would allow the Yankees to play 100 games at home and 25 at Shea stadium each season - so why do the BCS teams get to?

Word to this. To me, the fact that, say, Texas or Purdue's losses are almost all 'good' losses is balanced out by the fact that they get 2/3 of their games for the season at home, and also don't get stuck playing teams like Loyola ILL, Tennessee Tech, or Lipcomb on the road, like MVC schools do. So I think there's only so much credit they deserve for 'good losses', in fact, I think if a team isn't winning about half of its games against top 50 or 100 teams, then road records tell as much or more about those teams than just the quality of losses. Because if they can't defeat top 50 or top 100 teams w/any consistency, they'd probably be struggling w/the 101-200 teams on the road, too.

[OmahaBen]

There's is one thing I'd like to see changed about the NCAA selection process.

I'd like to see the regular-season champion of every conference in America receive an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Then, the tournaments would be for the at-large spots.

The regular season shouldn't be upstaged by one weekend.

Then talk to the conferences and the member schools. The NCAA gives each conference one automatic bid. The conference decides how it wants to award it. Nothing says the tournament winner has to get the automatic bid, that's just how conferences have chosen to do it.

[TheAsianSensation]

I don't understand.
We award a bid to the tournament champion in every conference in America but we couldn't do it for the regular-season champion?
The number of available bids doesn't change ... only the teams guaranteed to get one.

Ok, then why just not get rid of all conference tournaments then? They'd be useless.

And they'll never disappear because of the $$$ it creates for everyone.

[MSNSaluki]

Ok, then why just not get rid of all conference tournaments then? They'd be useless.

And they'll never disappear because of the $$$ it creates for everyone.


No they wouldn't. They'd still give teams three or four days to make their NCAA case. They'd still give conferences a chance to make boatloads of cash.

You are making this too complicated. Nothing would change EXCEPT the regular-season champ would get the automatic bid, not the winner of the conference tournament. It's not that radical of an idea.

[gopanthers!]

Wow...an actual civil discussion about basketball? Are we sure this is Valleytalk?? :grin:

[TheAsianSensation]

No they wouldn't. They'd still give teams three or four days to make their NCAA case. They'd still give conferences a chance to make boatloads of cash.

You are making this too complicated. Nothing would change EXCEPT the regular-season champ would get the automatic bid, not the winner of the conference tournament. It's not that radical of an idea.

For the power conferences...if a team wins the title and they wouldn't have been in otherwise, then odds are they improved their resume enough anyways to warrant an at-large. See Syracuse last year.

But for about the 20 or so non-power league tournaments, the tournament becomes pointless.

On the surface, the idea is really good. However, there is an economical impact to it. Those 20 or so smaller tournaments will be rendered insignificant, and won't make nearly the $$$$ that it does now.

[Coachtrey]

A couple of things, since we are being hypothetical. ifa team like portland state goes undefeated the whole year but only beats teams like savanah state and prairie view a&m and beats everyteam they play by 1pt in double overtime, and say duke doesnt win a game but everygame they played was against top 25 competition, and they lost by a single point in everyone of there games in double overtime. Who is the better team? Do we give Duke a pass, because they are duke and they are in the acc? do we say portland state isnt a good team bevause they played nobody? and what if a team like bradley goes 15-15 plays all middle pack teams, and has a +- ratio of 0. Then what? :fear:


And secondly, changing the automatic bid the the winners of the regular season is a bad idea. The way it is set up now virtualyl every team in the country has a "chance" to win a national title. Taking this away would give alot of teams nothing to play for in some cases a few games into the season, sounds kinda like a step closer to the colelge football mess te me.:fear:

and lastly, when filling out your brackets dont put any bigsky teams past eh first round, they are all terrible this year.:fear:

goodnight

[MSNSaluki]

For the power conferences...if a team wins the title and they wouldn't have been in otherwise, then odds are they improved their resume enough anyways to warrant an at-large. See Syracuse last year.

But for about the 20 or so non-power league tournaments, the tournament becomes pointless.

On the surface, the idea is really good. However, there is an economical impact to it. Those 20 or so smaller tournaments will be rendered insignificant, and won't make nearly the $$$$ that it does now.

Have you ever watched the SWAC championship? There's about 1,100 people there. It's not a big money maker for those conferences.

[MSNSaluki]

A couple of things, since we are being hypothetical. ifa team like portland state goes undefeated the whole year but only beats teams like savanah state and prairie view a&m and beats everyteam they play by 1pt in double overtime, and say duke doesnt win a game but everygame they played was against top 25 competition, and they lost by a single point in everyone of there games in double overtime. Who is the better team? Do we give Duke a pass, because they are duke and they are in the acc? do we say portland state isnt a good team bevause they played nobody? and what if a team like bradley goes 15-15 plays all middle pack teams, and has a +- ratio of 0. Then what? :fear:

Portland State would deserve a bid to the NCAA tournament, far more than if Eastern Washington got hot over a three-day stretch and won the Big Sky tourney. And Duke would still have a chance to make the NCAA tournament - they could win the ACC tourney.


And secondly, changing the automatic bid the the winners of the regular season is a bad idea. The way it is set up now virtualyl every team in the country has a "chance" to win a national title. Taking this away would give alot of teams nothing to play for in some cases a few games into the season, sounds kinda like a step closer to the colelge football mess te me.:fear:

This idea is about rewarding teams who play at a high level for a long period of time, not rewarding the "Cinderellas" who turn in one good weekend. We've got a thread going that lists about 60 teams people don't think deserve to be in the NCAA tournament. If this is about getting the best teams in the NCAA tournament, I say let's get the best teams and there are very few regular-season champs who are pretenders.

and lastly, when filling out your brackets dont put any bigsky teams past eh first round, they are all terrible this year.:fear:

That we can agree on.:lol: