2022-2023 Season

[billiken_roy]

im actually surprised anyone is being considered beyond the bcs conferences.   always have thought the bcs conferences would merge into four conferences of 16 teams each and then go off and play by themselves and not share anything with the rest of us.

[dennis_w]

3 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

im actually surprised anyone is being considered beyond the bcs conferences.   always have thought the bcs conferences would merge into four conferences of 16 teams each and then go off and play by themselves and not share anything with the rest of us.

i am sure they would if they could

[ACE]

1 hour ago, Bills By 40 said:

The next 20 spots in NET often include a lot of mid majors, we always seem to fall in that just missed the cut category and there's always groups like groups in there. By my rough count there were a dozen mid majors that would've made the field if the next 20 teams in NET made the field last year so I love that idea.

 

Instead of 2 AQ's for certain conferences, add the caveat that every conference gets an AQ for their regular season and conference tournament championships, unless the same team wins each. That's the most interesting way to do it and adds incentive to succeed in the regular season. 

 

Yeah, I'm in favor of expanding the field because the number of D1 teams has grown so much over the years. I think any team that is .500 or below in their own conference should never get an at large bid - I don't care how good the conference is they came from - they had their shot against other good competition and proved to be mediocre. That criteria would benefit non-BCS Teams.

I think it makes sense to have a field of 90 - 48 teams (seeds 1-12) get rewarded by essentially having a bye. They would not have to play a play-in game. The remaining 32 teams would play on that Tuesday and Wednesday. Currently there are four games on those two days, now you would have 16 games. The winners of those games then round out the field of 64 as the #13-16 seeds. You're adding to the March Madness fun on those two play-in days.  

 

[Cowboy II]

10 minutes ago, ACE said:

Yeah, I'm in favor of expanding the field because the number of D1 teams has grown so much over the years. I think any team that is .500 or below in their own conference should never get an at large bid - I don't care how good the conference is they came from - they had their shot against other good competition and proved to be mediocre. That criteria would benefit non-BCS Teams.

I think it makes sense to have a field of 90 - 48 teams (seeds 1-12) get rewarded by essentially having a bye. They would not have to play a play-in game. The remaining 32 teams would play on that Tuesday and Wednesday. Currently there are four games on those two days, now you would have 16 games. The winners of those games then round out the field of 64 as the #13-16 seeds. You're adding to the March Madness fun on those two play-in days.  

 

-you should stop thinking rationally as the NCAA or whoever is going to make the decision sure won't be

-I could not agree more with this:I think any team that is .500 or below in their own conference should never get an at large bid

-I also like your idea on how to "play in" as it keeps the rest of the Tourney the same and selfishly I like the Thursday and Friday marathons AND part of MM is filling out brackets and the betting that goes with those but see my first point 

[HoosierPal]

That is 55 for expansion, 340 against.

[Pistol]

47 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

im actually surprised anyone is being considered beyond the bcs conferences.   always have thought the bcs conferences would merge into four conferences of 16 teams each and then go off and play by themselves and not share anything with the rest of us.

The conference reshuffling has not come to a complete stop yet. When you look at the current iterations of the power conferences - accounting for pending moves - they sure don't look like finished products.

[Lord Elrond]

14 minutes ago, Cowboy II said:

-I could not agree more with this:I think any team that is .500 or below in their own conference should never get an at large bid

 

I agree whole heartedly with this. The problem is they are getting in today with the tournament the size it is. 
Example - last year Indiana University went 9-11 in the B1G. They made the NCAA tournament despite not winning the conference tournament (the First Four, as the NCAA puts it), beat Wyoming, then lost to St Mary’s. While I would like to see a team like this not make the tournament, it’s happening already. 

[BIG BILL FAN]

From the Dayton Message Board:

 

Sully@sullymygoodname
9m

Heard from multiple sources now that Mali Smith has re-injured his ankle and will be out to start the season.

From what I have heard, I would not expect him to be ready to go before Thanksgiving.

Just a huge blow for the Flyers.


Supposedly seen in a boot & crutches, we'll see


This Sucks

[cgeldmacher]

3 hours ago, Bills By 40 said:

The next 20 spots in NET often include a lot of mid majors, we always seem to fall in that just missed the cut category and there's always groups like groups in there. By my rough count there were a dozen mid majors that would've made the field if the next 20 teams in NET made the field last year so I love that idea.

 

Instead of 2 AQ's for certain conferences, add the caveat that every conference gets an AQ for their regular season and conference tournament championships, unless the same team wins each. That's the most interesting way to do it and adds incentive to succeed in the regular season. 

 

I would just give two to each conference.  If the team that wins the league also wins the conference tournament, then the 2nd place team gets a bid.

[Bills By 40]

12 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I would just give two to each conference.  If the team that wins the league also wins the conference tournament, then the 2nd place team gets a bid.

But see in that scenario, I want the 2nd place team earning their bid by merit, not default. If they should be in the dance despite not winning either regular season or conference tournament then surely the selection committee will put them there. 

[Compton]

24 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I would just give two to each conference.  If the team that wins the league also wins the conference tournament, then the 2nd place team gets a bid.

Makes sense. Unfortunately, one of the conferences that would help the least, while hurting the most, is the A10. We'd be splitting our 2-4 teams' tournament revenue with a whole lot more teams, and still just getting 2-4 in.

[AnkielBreakers]

3 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

That is 55 for expansion, 340 against.

SLU fans need to get on this and vote 400 times for expansion. No one would benefit more from Expansion than the Bills over the past 3 years. Same with the A10 in general. An A10 team is always on the last 4 out.

[HoosierPal]

Sucks for Dayton.  As an A10 fan, I want them to have a strong OOC.

 

[wgstl]

36 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Sucks for Dayton.  As an A10 fan, I want them to have a strong OOC.

 

Ya I hate it from an a10 point, but with what luck we’ve had the last few years, I stopped feeling bad for other teams misfortune, especially svu 

[Old guy]

13 hours ago, Bills By 40 said:

The next 20 spots in NET often include a lot of mid majors, we always seem to fall in that just missed the cut category and there's always groups like groups in there. By my rough count there were a dozen mid majors that would've made the field if the next 20 teams in NET made the field last year so I love that idea.

 

Instead of 2 AQ's for certain conferences, add the caveat that every conference gets an AQ for their regular season and conference tournament championships, unless the same team wins each. That's the most interesting way to do it and adds incentive to succeed in the regular season. 

 

I think you assume that the pure mathematics of the NET system determines who goes to the dance and who does not. This is incorrect, the NCAA reserves the right to correct who attends and invite teams they believe deserve it, it is not done strictly using NET rankings. If they increase the number of teams in the tournament, I would tend to assume that they will do it whichever way they want like they are doing now. That is likely not much will change except for the number of teams invited, as Lord Elrond posted.

[billiken_roy]

7 hours ago, Old guy said:

I think you assume that the pure mathematics of the NET system determines who goes to the dance and who does not. This is incorrect, the NCAA reserves the right to correct who attends and invite teams they believe deserve it, it is not done strictly using NET rankings. If they increase the number of teams in the tournament, I would tend to assume that they will do it whichever way they want like they are doing now. That is likely not much will change except for the number of teams invited, as Lord Elrond posted.

its rare.   you can pretty much pencil it in through the top 40 they are likely in.   might be one or two but you will be near perfect taking the top 40 the auto bids for each conference that arent in the top 40 and you will be left with the bubble to protect the top 40 bcs schools that got upset in the tourney.   that will leave maybe 3 or 4 more spots to give to midmajors that their once transgression is they arent in a better conference.

[slu72]

Any reports on the Bradley scrimmage? Or, when is it happening? 

[Taj79]

Sounds like another investigative journalism topic once that Midnight Madness issue gets air time.

[HoosierPal]

If you expand the tourney to 128, and look at the final NET from last season, here are your must see match-ups

#1 Gonzaga - #128 Montana State

#2 Houston - #127 Texas State

#3 Kansas - #126 Akron

#4 Arizona - #125 Nevada

#5 Baylor - #124 Colgate

and

#64 Utah State - #65 St. Johns

#63 Chattanooga - #66 SLU

#62 Vanderbilt - #67 South Dakota State

What would CBS pay to add these 64 extra games?  Who drives to Chattanooga to watch this game (assuming early round would be on campus of better seed?)

[dlarry]

12 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

If you expand the tourney to 128, and look at the final NET from last season, here are your must see match-ups

#1 Gonzaga - #128 Montana State

#2 Houston - #127 Texas State

#3 Kansas - #126 Akron

#4 Arizona - #125 Nevada

#5 Baylor - #124 Colgate

and

#64 Utah State - #65 St. Johns

#63 Chattanooga - #66 SLU

#62 Vanderbilt - #67 South Dakota State

What would CBS pay to add these 64 extra games?  Who drives to Chattanooga to watch this game (assuming early round would be on campus of better seed?)

How are the ratting for the “first 4 games” or whatever they are called compare to the rest of the tournament? 
I have no idea. I know I usually don’t pay much attention to them.

my tournament starts on Thursday.

 

That said I’d probably make theb7 hour drive to Chattanooga to Watch the Bills play them in the Tournament.

[HoosierPal]

6 minutes ago, dlarry said:

How are the ratting for the “first 4 games” or whatever they are called compare to the rest of the tournament? 
I have no idea. I know I usually don’t pay much attention to them.

my tournament starts on Thursday.

 

That said I’d probably make theb7 hour drive to Chattanooga to Watch the Bills play them in the Tournament.

Those First Four games are 'free' in most brackets, so I don't pay attention to them either.

[Lord Elrond]

29 minutes ago, dlarry said:

How are the ratting for the “first 4 games” or whatever they are called compare to the rest of the tournament? 
I have no idea. I know I usually don’t pay much attention to them.

my tournament starts on Thursday.

 

That said I’d probably make theb7 hour drive to Chattanooga to Watch the Bills play them in the Tournament.

Why assume it has to be at the campus of the highest seed? I’m sure the NCAA could get some neutral site to pay for hosting it (in return for fans coming to their fair city and spending money like any tourist), like the later rounds. And as for TV, look at what the streaming services are paying for exclusive content. My own guess is they add a week to the schedule, expand to 96, give the top 32 a bye, and schedule 33-96.

Again, as a fan, I don’t like expanding the tournament. But I think the money will be there, and the NCAA will follow the money. 

[Bills By 40]

On 10/21/2022 at 11:00 PM, Old guy said:

I think 

I'm not always so certain you do. 

[wgstl]

 

Gotta say, a little surprised by this. I didn't think JP would not only catch up, but pass up Gibson this quickly. 

[RUBillsFan]

On 10/22/2022 at 8:49 AM, HoosierPal said:

If you expand the tourney to 128, and look at the final NET from last season, here are your must see match-ups

#1 Gonzaga - #128 Montana State

#2 Houston - #127 Texas State

#3 Kansas - #126 Akron

#4 Arizona - #125 Nevada

#5 Baylor - #124 Colgate

and

#64 Utah State - #65 St. Johns

#63 Chattanooga - #66 SLU

#62 Vanderbilt - #67 South Dakota State

What would CBS pay to add these 64 extra games?  Who drives to Chattanooga to watch this game (assuming early round would be on campus of better seed?)

Any expansion of the NCAA tournament within the next few years should stop at 80.  Bottom 32 teams (or bottom 32 "at-large" teams if you prefer) all play an 1st round/opening round game and then you are down to 64.  

I also think that people would 100% drive to Chattanooga to see an NCAA tournament game even if it were a "round of 128" matchup.