Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports' started by TomVols, Mar 13, 2006.
What do you think of the field of 65?
I believe Cincinnati, Missouri State, and Hofstra should've been in (in that order). I believe Air Force, Utah State, Texas A&M.
While Tennessee was one slot too high at #2, Gonzaga and Wichita State should not have been seeded as highly as they were. Gonzaga barely survived their conference regular season and tournament in a very weak conference. I also think Syracuse did not deserve the seed they received. You could make an argument that Ohio State or Texas should've been a #1 seed as opposed to Memphis. I believe Indiana was given a very generous seeding at #6.
North Carolina should've received Tennessee's 2 seed. However, that would've put both Duke and North Carolina in Greensboro, and NCAA rules say only Duke or NC get a golden spoon treatment every year, not both Seriously, one of those teams never has to leave the state in the first round. I know the NCAA adopted the "pod" seeding, but please.
My biggest shock? The unbelievably strident criticism from Billy Packer, Jim Nantz, and Dick Vitale. The former two were almost ungentlemanly in their interview of the NCAA selection committee chair. George Washington's weak resume earned them a low seed. No surprise there. I don't belive the Missouri Valley is as good a conference as the ACC, but the selection committee says they reward teams, not conferences.
[ March 14, 2006, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
Tom, you've added 3 teams, but have taken 4 out. Who else would you add?
Missouri State, with an RPI of 20 (!), got the worst end of this. It's ludicrous that Air Force got the nod over Mo State.
A few years ago, Western Michigan got into the tournament with the same kind of weak resume, and they promptly went in and upset the higher seed. Maybe the committee sees something nobody else does. Maybe the committee wanted to give Illinois an easy win because Bruce Webber has pictures of somebody on the committee.
How do you figure this? They had a rough stretch in the middle of the season, but they have been playing very well the last couple of weeks, pushing Ohio State in the Big 10 Tourney.
They gave Duke all they wanted earlier in the season. They beat Ohio State, Kentucky, Michigan State, Charlotte and Illinios this year.
IU finished the season tied for 4th in the #1 RPI conference. Indiana picked up two road victories in the final week, including a win over a Michigan team that was 6-1 at home in Big Ten play including a victory over then-No. 8 Illinois. They played very well in the Big 10 tourney knocking off Wisconsin. IU has a solid RPI in the low 30's and a top 25 strength of schedule.
So I would love to see your argument for excluding them?
Now if you want to say they do not deserve to be a #6 seed I will agree. I felt they should have been a #7 seed. But they belong in the tournament.
GW? Eight seed? C'mon!
Maybe five or six at worst. They did not deserve an eight seed.
UT is too high as a two, IMO.
And as always, there are six to ten teams out that are just as good a pick as the last six to ten in. 20 wins and 20 RPI, and no dance, seems a little harsh, however.
Tom V. If they happen to be playing close enough, maybe my 'Cats, and your Vols could split a charter plane back to and from the SEC, ya think? Assuming the crew had dinner reservations at a sit-down restaurant, as opposed to a drive-thru...
65 teams with 64 determined, more or less, by tourneys over the last two weeks.
Not one team made a 'statement' to the effect of-
"We're a team TO beat.
Instead, 64 teams made a statement that "We're a team that can be beat.
I'm tired of these Big Conference bubble teams complaining like Cinc. and Michigan (and I'm a Mich. fan). To me, if the choice is between a .500 Major vs. a Mid-Major team that had a great season like Missouri State, I say give it to the Mid-Major everytime.
Let's face it, if Cincinnati is in the tourney, they would maybe win 1 game, be lucky to win 2, and there is no way they are going to win the thing. You'll likely get the same results from a really good Mid-Major.
And I think it is much better for college BB to get the Mid-Majors more exposure. In the last few years, we've seen the gap close a little between the Majors and Mid-Majors, and it has been great for the game. I say, keep rewarding the good Mid-Majors vs. the average Majors, and we'll close the gap even more and make the tourney that much more exciting.
I would love to see the day when the Northern Iowa's of the world have just as much of a shot to win it all as the Kentucky's, et al.
Love to see the day when..., huh?? You just have. 2006! YOu heard it here, first. Northern Iowa has as much of a shot to win it all as Kentucky. And this is coming from a 2 1/2 year student at UK during the Rupp's Runts to Dan Issel, Mike Casey, Mike Pratt era., all of the last three whom I know, and knew personally even back then. A fan, then and now. Both Kentucky nad Northern Iowa have exactly zero chance to win it all in 2006.
I meant in general terms. When was the last time a Mid-Major won the National Championship? Or let me re-phrase that, has a Mid-Major ever won the National Championship?
Me saying IU should not be in was an editing typo (My surgical recovery has clouded my head) I believe IU should've been in but should've been a 7 or an 8 seed. I was editing on the fly and did not edit my sentence carefully. I meant to say that the three teams I listed should not have been in (in juxtaposition to the three that should've gotten in), and that IU was given a generous seed at #8. However, I don't think beating Charlotte is resume-worthy. IU did well in a good conference. I think they'll either surprise some folks and get to the Sweet 16 or be upset in game 1. Feast or famine.
I'm a bit surprised that GW is considered snubbed by their low seed. They have a very weak resume.
Did y'all see the chair of the selection committee come out firing today at CBS and Nantz/Packer? Good for him.
I believe the NCAA tournament should be a field of 96. I think that would end a lot of the controversy. It's been suggested that the field should be 128, but I think it's too much to ask of teams that win their conference tournaments on Sunday to turn around and play on Tuesday or Wednesday. 96 is plenty. I know it would kill the NIT, but so what?
No problem, completely understand.
I agree. I thought they should have been a #7 seed.
Charlotte, lost in overtime Saturday at George Washington, is 18-11 overall and second in the Atlantic 10 -- Indiana beat the 49ers in a true road game.
I see them winning in the first round and then losing to Gonzaga, but I think they will give them a good game.
I did see that and it makes for good discussion, but in the end it really doesn't matter much. The selections have been made and no matter what anyone thinks about them, they are final. But I have enjoyed watching the give and take.
I think the 96 team field would be good. But I doubt it would end the controvesy. I am sure there would still be a debate about those final spots as team #97,98, and 99 will be upset and feel snubbed. But I like your idea and hope they go to this format.
Exactly. So what? I don't ever watch the NIT and really could care less who wins it.
64 teams is plenty enough. Right now, being realistic, seeds 11 - 16 really have no shot of winning it all. And seeds 7-10 have very little chance. That leaves 24 teams with a legitimate shot of winning it. Bringing in more teams just dilutes it more. Expanding the field so slightly above average teams like Cincinnati can win 1 game and then go home accomplishes nothing.
" ' I know it would kill the NIT, but so what? '
'Exactly. So what? I don't ever watch the NIT and really could care less who wins it.'"
Obviously, the NCAA did not feel the same way about this. In fact, a "reverse snub" by Marquette coached by Al McGuire, in 1970, led to a current prohibition. When the NCAA attempted to send Marquette, then an independant, who had a good squad from Milwaukee to Ft. Worth, to play in the then Midwest Regional, rather than to Dayton to the Mideast, where McGuire thought they deserved, as (A.) good enough, and (B.) their traditional place to play, turned down the NCAA invitation, and accepted an N.I.T. bid. From 1953 to 1970, teams had been free to accept ofr reject NCAA or NIT bids, as they chose, and was permitted and tolerated, especially within a couple of hudred miles of NY. These area schools, such as LIU, Manhattan, Holy Cross and St. Johns, routinely accepted NIT bids over NCAA bids, as did Philadelphia Area schools, and Bradley, and Dayton from further away.
After choosing Gotham over Cowtown, Marquette then proceeded to win the NIT, with a team that was Top Ten Caliber. The NCAA, which had the 'power', determined to never be embarassed in that way again, and ruled that a member school offered a post-season bid had to accept the NCAA bid, or was prohibited from accepting any other. Always nice to meet such altruistic sorts, that have such charitable aims toward another, Humh?
Maybe in 1970 I would feel differently about the NIT as well.
But right now the NIT is
And I would rather see an expanded NCAA tourney.
I wouldn't. It would be like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. More isn't necessarily better.
I'm sure teams 97-100 will feel snubbed, but those teams are not good basketball teams. I'm sure there will always be the argument that a team that finishes fifth in the SEC East is better than the team that finishes second in the A-10, but somewhere sanity has to kick in. Look at the weakest of the four NIT teams. That's who we're talking about excluding.
Which is utter non-sense for the same reason it used to be laughable for Nebraska and Oklahoma to play 9 warm up games in football with the winner of their game going to the Orange Bowl.
Competition matters. You cannot properly reward teams without recognizing that some conferences are simply better (coaches, players, facilities, etc) than others.
Strength of schedule is included in the RPI that the committee uses. Obviously, that includes conference and non-conference games. You can't do much about whether the competition in your conference is any good, but that's why so many teams go out of their way to schedule tough non-conference games.
The NCAA would be insane to expand the field. Filling out brackets has become a national pastime. If you expand it further, it will become more complicated (with the casual fans losing interest), and from a logisitcal standpoint, you won't be able to fit it on one page, which will frustrate people and they'll lose interest. Why is it so important to include mediocre teams like Cinc. and Michigan (to use examples for this year)? What will that possibly accomplish?
The NCAA tournament may be the best sporting event in the country. Now is not the time to be messing around with it.