Lando Griffin Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Still don’t think a conf tourney qualifier should ever play in a play in game but that 16 seed game was fun. UVA is just gross. TheChosenOne likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLIKNS Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 I agree , I think if you win your conference tournament, you are a champion and have earned the bid. Play in should be for at large bid... SLUMedBilliken15 likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Elrond Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Question for the selection committee: “How’s that choice of UVA for the NCAA Tournament looking now after the 67-42 loss to Colorado State? Still think you made the right choice?” Let’s get real, that game was simply not competitive. 25 point loss to a team that only scored 67 points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 The. Virginia baseball team scored more runs yesterday than the basketball team did in the first half. great job selection committee! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Elrond Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Ah! But the second question for the selection committee: “So do you think that in the future, you will use this experience of this colossal non-competitive fail to alter how you prioritize selecting teams in the middle of the pack from Power 5 conferences over good mid-major schools?” NCAA Selection Committee answer: “A lot more people watch UVA than Indiana State, we see no failure here. We’re good, thanks. Not only do we not see a failure here, we can’t understand why you would ask the question. Again, more eyeballs watching the Cavaliers than watching the Sycamores.” billikenbill likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lando Griffin Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 13 minutes ago, Lord Elrond said: Ah! But the second question for the selection committee: “So do you think that in the future, you will use this experience of this colossal non-competitive fail to alter how you prioritize selecting teams in the middle of the pack from Power 5 conferences over good mid-major schools?” NCAA Selection Committee answer: “A lot more people watch UVA than Indiana State, we see no failure here. We’re good, thanks. Not only do we not see a failure here, we can’t understand why you would ask the question. Again, more eyeballs watching the Cavaliers than watching the Sycamores.” Exactly why I think if they are going to expand get rid of the 16 seed play ins and put more P6 play ins. Let the little guys have their day, more eyes on the P6 games anyway! One other thing is that those 16 seeds to get a “unit” paid out to them for playing so that’s decently important dollars wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Not only is UVa bad, they are terribly boring to watch. They had no business in the Dance. The screwing of ISU should be concerning to all mid-majors. Some day Coach Schertz could have SLU with a top 30 NET and we get screwed from the auto bid. Soderball and AGB91 like this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 3 hours ago, Lord Elrond said: Ah! But the second question for the selection committee: “So do you think that in the future, you will use this experience of this colossal non-competitive fail to alter how you prioritize selecting teams in the middle of the pack from Power 5 conferences over good mid-major schools?” NCAA Selection Committee answer: “A lot more people watch UVA than Indiana State, we see no failure here. We’re good, thanks. Not only do we not see a failure here, we can’t understand why you would ask the question. Again, more eyeballs watching the Cavaliers than watching the Sycamores.” But is the at true? I think more people would watch a 25-5 Indiana state team play a 18-12 Power 5 school that would watch 2 18-12 power 5 school teams play. The casual fan tunes into the tournament for the ISU storyline not the UVA storyline. ACE and willie like this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, dlarry said: But is the at true? I think more people would watch a 25-5 Indiana state team play a 18-12 Power 5 school that would watch 2 18-12 power 5 school teams play. The casual fan tunes into the tournament for the ISU storyline not the UVA storyline. Exactly, and what about merit? The committee needs to stop talking about the NET if it doesn't matter. ISU at 29 and UVa at 54... that's not even close. When the NET or quads or whatever other analytic doesn't suit an argument... go with the "eye test"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 The mountain west seems legit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Elrond Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 32 minutes ago, dlarry said: But is the at true? I think more people would watch a 25-5 Indiana state team play a 18-12 Power 5 school that would watch 2 18-12 power 5 school teams play. The casual fan tunes into the tournament for the ISU storyline not the UVA storyline. Casual fans might tune in for later games in big runs, or they may not. Fans of a program always tune in. They go with certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lando Griffin Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 3 hours ago, slufan13 said: The mountain west seems legit. They’ve got a chip on their shoulder too with how they were seeded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Izzo wants to cut out auto bids for mid majors. It's just a matter of time. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39771265/tom-izzo-ncaa-selection-process-needs-more-nuance-less-analytics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lando Griffin Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, HoosierPal said: Izzo wants to cut out auto bids for mid majors. It's just a matter of time. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39771265/tom-izzo-ncaa-selection-process-needs-more-nuance-less-analytics I couldn’t imagine a quicker way to ruin the magic of this tournament than do something like that. David King likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almaman Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 screw the casual fan. the Dance biggest sports thing in USA besides NFL. It should be geared toward everyone not just those with a dog in the race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 hour ago, HoosierPal said: Izzo wants to cut out auto bids for mid majors. It's just a matter of time. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39771265/tom-izzo-ncaa-selection-process-needs-more-nuance-less-analytics Because he knows he avoided an upset loss on a BS call a decade ago in Columbus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soderball Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 hour ago, HoosierPal said: Izzo wants to cut out auto bids for mid majors. It's just a matter of time. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39771265/tom-izzo-ncaa-selection-process-needs-more-nuance-less-analytics Izzo is such a bum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 hour ago, HoosierPal said: Izzo wants to cut out auto bids for mid majors. It's just a matter of time. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39771265/tom-izzo-ncaa-selection-process-needs-more-nuance-less-analytics I have talked about this in other threads... Real mid-majors (schools like us) need to be a part of the conversation and start shaping how we talk about the college hoops landscape. The "mid majors" he's talking about are actually low D1; The media just tends to lump every non-P6 school into this "mid-major" basket. Here's how I would define the three groups... P6: schools that will always get multiple at-large bids; with the exception of the Big East, these are schools that play football. Mid-majors: A-10, MVC, WCC and AAC (they generally play football, not very well and any one of these schools would jump to get into a different football league). These schools at least have the possibility of getting an at-large bid, although the changing landscape of college basketball is making this much more difficult - switching from the NET to RPI; P6 conferences getting bigger which means fewer opportunities to put together a strong non-conference schedule; NIL & free agency generally will benefit the P6 schools. Sometimes these conferences will only get one at-large bid at best, in addition to the auto bid. Low D1: Getting an at large bid is nearly impossible at this level. They account for approximately 20 spots per year - there is plenty of representation of this group in the field of 68. Which is the group that is getting squeezed and barely getting any representation? True mid-majors need to do a better job of fighting for their piece of the pie. I feel like they need to pool together and hire a lobbyist & media firm. All we hear about is from the poor P6 schools. Every mid-major should have been outraged about ISU and made a big deal about it. Instead we hear from 15 second Pitino, old man Izzo and tools like Bilas pimping for the P6 schools. Little brother Kimmie English whining and then promptly gets bounced in the first round of the NIT - . Sure, the low majors have provided some great one-off moments like UMBC and that element should stay in the tournament, but the great Cinderella March Madness deep runs have come out of the Mid-Major group (VCU, Butler, George Mason, FAU, Gonzaga (in the early days), and Loyola). Unfortunately, these types of stories will become increasingly rare as the number of bids continues to shrink each year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almaman Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 45 minutes ago, ACE said: I have talked about this in other threads... Real mid-majors (schools like us) need to be a part of the conversation and start shaping how we talk about the college hoops landscape. The "mid majors" he's talking about are actually low D1; The media just tends to lump every non-P6 school into this "mid-major" basket. Here's how I would define the three groups... P6: schools that will always get multiple at-large bids; with the exception of the Big East, these are schools that play football. Mid-majors: A-10, MVC, WCC and AAC (they generally play football, not very well and any one of these schools would jump to get into a different football league). These schools at least have the possibility of getting an at-large bid, although the changing landscape of college basketball is making this much more difficult - switching from the NET to RPI; P6 conferences getting bigger which means fewer opportunities to put together a strong non-conference schedule; NIL & free agency generally will benefit the P6 schools. Sometimes these conferences will only get one at-large bid at best, in addition to the auto bid. Low D1: Getting an at large bid is nearly impossible at this level. They account for approximately 20 spots per year - there is plenty of representation of this group in the field of 68. Which is the group that is getting squeezed and barely getting any representation? True mid-majors need to do a better job of fighting for their piece of the pie. I feel like they need to pool together and hire a lobbyist & media firm. All we hear about is from the poor P6 schools. Every mid-major should have been outraged about ISU and made a big deal about it. Instead we hear from 15 second Pitino, old man Izzo and tools like Bilas pimping for the P6 schools. Little brother Kimmie English whining and then promptly gets bounced in the first round of the NIT - . Sure, the low majors have provided some great one-off moments like UMBC and that element should stay in the tournament, but the great Cinderella March Madness deep runs have come out of the Mid-Major group (VCU, Butler, George Mason, FAU, Gonzaga (in the early days), and Loyola). Unfortunately, these types of stories will become increasingly rare as the number of bids continues to shrink each year. More pie, 8 more pieces feeds the only truly deserving Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 DUQUESNE WINS! Long live the Dukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgeldmacher Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 I hate Dayton already. Then, in a game where I actually want them to win, they suck, which makes me hate them even more. BrettJollyComedyHour likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCityBilliken Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 We can use a Cinderella team in the A-10. Go Dukes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettJollyComedyHour Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 29 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said: I hate Dayton already. Then, in a game where I actually want them to win, they suck, which makes me hate them even more. Now they're leading and I f ucking hate them even more. laker119 likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 20 point run, wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laker119 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 3 minutes ago, BrettJollyComedyHour said: Now they're leading and I f ucking hate them even more. Dayton gonna Dayton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.