Where is all of the mid major bravado today?

**clintr** · 03-23-2009, 09:27 AM

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.

haha!

**Cydkar** · 03-23-2009, 09:28 AM

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

**CycloneErik** · 03-23-2009, 09:28 AM

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.

**balken** · 03-23-2009, 09:29 AM

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.

**CycloneErik** · 03-23-2009, 09:33 AM

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.

**Cydkar** · 03-23-2009, 09:36 AM

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

**jdoggivjc** · 03-23-2009, 09:38 AM

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

**CycloneErik** · 03-23-2009, 09:39 AM

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

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?

**jbhtexas** · 03-23-2009, 09:40 AM

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.

**Cydkar** · 03-23-2009, 09:42 AM

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.

**cyclonenum1** · 03-23-2009, 09:42 AM

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.

**BryceC** · 03-23-2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

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

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.

**CycloneErik** · 03-23-2009, 09:46 AM

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.

**isunorth** · 03-23-2009, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

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

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.

**isunorth** · 03-23-2009, 09:54 AM

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?