Where is all of the mid major bravado today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyclonenum1

...

And as I said last week when some of you were bemoaning the lack of respect from the NCAA selection committee for the mid majors...the selection committee does a tremendous job...only 2 of the Sweet 16 were not seeded to get this far...Purdue as a #5 and Arizona as a #12...everything else went exactly according to seeding.

---

http://www.merlotmarketing.com/TheWa...the-pirate.jpg

haha!

I thought the mid-majors were impressive if only a hair short of getting it done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BryceC

Ultimately it's about dollars and what teams have the physical ability to compete and make a run. That's why it happens.

---

Davidson, Kent State, Gonzaga's early years (with their Elite Eight repeat), Providence in 1987, George Mason, Tulsa (any time)-----These are some Elite Eight runs that were highly competitive.

How many Sweet 16 runs should we throw in here? In college basketball, everybody with talent has a shot on any given day. On some days, so does Colorado.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyclonenum1

Down to the Sweet 16 and only 3 schools left that are not from the major / BCS / power conferences. And those three (Memphis, Gonzaga, and Xavier) have really catapulted themselves into "major" programs over the past 10-15 years even though they play in mid major conferences because they schedule a bunch of non conference games against major schools and then wipe the court with their conference opponents.

---

I understand why people exclude teams like Gonzaga from mid-major discussions. However, it is essentially saying that you must not be consistently good to be considered a mid-major. BCS schools will obviously shine in this comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balken

I understand why people exclude teams like Gonzaga from mid-major discussions. However, it is essentially saying that you must not be consistently good to be considered a mid-major. BCS schools will obviously shine in this comparison.

---

Touche. If the criteria for being excluded from the tournament is that a team stinks, then I would agree. Teams that stink should not make the national championship tournament.

I think that he's trying to say that the average mid-major teams aren't qualified to compete in the Dance.

What about the major teams that laid eggs (Wake)? A mid major could have taken their place and performed with some heart.

I think he's just crapping his pants because his precious LSU didn't make it to the Sweet Sixteen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cydkar

What about the major teams that laid eggs (Wake)? A mid major could have taken their place and performed with some heart.

---

They don't count. That's a different ball game:jimlad:

Bring in the mid-majors! I wouldn't mind seeing a general limit of 5 teams per conference. This could be an option as a general rule of thumb, not as a hard and fast rule.

Seriously, who needs to get in if you're 7th in your conference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isunorth

In which case, I'd be interested to see if you agree with the posters logic.

---

As I read the last paragraph of the original post, the poster's logic appears to be suggesting that since most of the top seeds advanced, the committee must have done a good job seeding the top teams, and because the committee did a good job seeding the top teams, the committee must have also done a good job of selecting bubble teams. I do not agree with this logic.

If they eliminate mid majors or expand the tournament to 128 teams I will no longer participate in any pools or watch any games out of protest. Nobody will care but that's my promise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

I think he's just crapping his pants because his precious LSU didn't make it to the Sweet Sixteen...

---

LSU lost to the soon-to-be National Champions but they did beat a mid major darling in Butler to get the chance to play UNC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

They don't count. That's a different ball game:jimlad:

Bring in the mid-majors! I wouldn't mind seeing a general limit of 5 teams per conference. This could be an option as a general rule of thumb, not as a hard and fast rule.

Seriously, who needs to get in if you're 7th in your conference?

---

What if your conference is really, really good? I would hate to see the limit. There were really only 3 mid-majors that had a beef that was legit to me this year, Creighton (who never wins in the tourney) St. Marys, and SDSU. Considering all the 12 seeds won except UNI they did a great job getting everybody in.

Wake did lay an egg, but to say they didn't deserve to be in is ridiculous. Just as I still don't think AZ should have been in, even though they have played well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BryceC

What if your conference is really, really good? I would hate to see the limit. There were really only 3 mid-majors that had a beef that was legit to me this year, Creighton (who never wins in the tourney) St. Marys, and SDSU. Considering all the 12 seeds won except UNI they did a great job getting everybody in.

Wake did lay an egg, but to say they didn't deserve to be in is ridiculous. Just as I still don't think AZ should have been in, even though they have played well.

---

That's why I said a general rule of thumb, not a set policy. Some years, a conference is over-the-top good, and that has to be rewarded. That's why I would only think of it as a guideline, but it's applied according to the circumstances in front of the committee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

They don't count. That's a different ball game:jimlad:

Bring in the mid-majors! I wouldn't mind seeing a general limit of 5 teams per conference. This could be an option as a general rule of thumb, not as a hard and fast rule.

Seriously, who needs to get in if you're 7th in your conference?

---

I like the limit per conference idea like they do with the BCS in football.

Like it's been mentioned many times before, it has a lot to do with ticket sales and money. It also has to do with the fact that it's conceivable that the 7th best team in a major conference might still be better than the 2nd best team from a mid-major conference.

Given results from this year, you could say that the selection committee did a pretty good job using the original poster's criteria. Some years it will go that way and others it will not. At the end of the day it's about a committee trying to select the top 34 at-large bids. There are going to be people ****** off one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

As I read the last paragraph of the original post, the poster's logic appears to be suggesting that since most of the top seeds advanced, the committee must have done a good job seeding the top teams, and because the committee did a good job seeding the top teams, the committee must have also done a good job of selecting bubble teams. I do not agree with this logic.

---

Fair enough.

Just curious...would you not agree that the posters logic would likely be used to prove the opposite point had teams like Maryland, Arizona, and Wisconsin gone out early?