Where is all of the mid major bravado today?
- Thread starter cyclonenum1
- Start date
I think he's just crapping his pants because his precious LSU didn't make it to the Sweet Sixteen...
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
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?
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.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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 pissed off one way or the other.
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?
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I agree. In the end, it keeps us talking either way, and it keeps us paying attention.
It was fun when we watched Boeheim get passed over. Those guys that assume the tourny is their right are fun to watch go down. Go Richmond Spiders!!!
If this wasn't all about money, from a competition standpoint, there should be two tournaments. Maybe divided along FBS and FCS lines. Really, is UCONN winning by 60 and UNC winning by 40 adding anything useful to the tourney? A #1 has never lost to a #16. And yes, a #15 does bite a #2 now and then, but not often.
But, as this is about money, the current format will remain.
But, as this is about money, the current format will remain.
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'd be in favor of giving a regular season conference champion who didn't win their conference tourney an edge over a middle of the pack BCS conference team.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
I'm sure some would have used it. If Arizona or Wisconsin had been blown out in the first round, it might be a legitimate argument.
Figures that a GM apologist would do something like this! I know you chalked up a bunch of "moral victories" to GM this year...but I am from the camp that a loss is a loss and a win is a win.
A. I wouldn't put money on UNC winning the national championship - they look EXTREMELY VULNERABLE.
B. What was the final score of that game? LSU 75, Butler 71 - seems to me Butler belonged in the tournament as an at-large Mid-Major even though they lost, despite your assertion to the otherwise...
Yet you're qualifying your beloved LSU's loss in the NCAA tournament because it's to the "eventual NCAA tourney champions" - explain that bit of hypocrisy to me...
