|
|
Post by Ken D on Mar 7, 2012 13:31:24 GMT -5
There has been a lot of talk in this area about State’s chances of securing an NCAA tournament bid. That leads to discussions about “if such and such gets in, why not State (or Miami, etc). My personal take is that, once you get down to the teams that are said to be “on the bubble” there is no way to distinguish among them that isn’t somewhat arbitrary.
There appears to be some support among coaches for further expansion of the tournament field. I can understand why. They are the guys whose career is at stake if they don’t make the field often enough. But I also find it difficult to drastically change what is/was arguably the most exciting four weeks in sports.
What do you all think about the structure of the NCAA tournament? Add teams? Subtract teams? Limits on # of teams from one conference?
|
|
|
|
Post by heelz1 on Mar 7, 2012 19:59:35 GMT -5
I do not have that answer but I do think that teams with similar records should be selected as to those with signature wins first if that has occured. A signature win would be a top 25 team defeat. Factors could then be how far in conference tournament teams went. It is tough because if it comes down to Miami or State as an example personally I would have to go Miami with them having beaten Duke and FSU despite State beating them twice. State has improved and had a good season for them however they have not won a game they were scheduled to lose. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken D on Mar 7, 2012 21:59:35 GMT -5
I do not have that answer but I do think that teams with similar records should be selected as to those with signature wins first if that has occured. A signature win would be a top 25 team defeat. Factors could then be how far in conference tournament teams went. It is tough because if it comes down to Miami or State as an example personally I would have to go Miami with them having beaten Duke and FSU despite State beating them twice. State has improved and had a good season for them however they have not won a game they were scheduled to lose. Just my opinion. Not sure how I feel about the whole "signature win" concept. Should you get extra credit if you happen to catch a good team on a bad night (see FSU's win over Carolina)? Should you lose points because the normally good team you scheduled figuring it would help your SOS turns out to be having a bad year? I'm more inclined to look at a team's conference record amassed over a whole season. |
|
|
|
Post by mattncsu02 on Mar 7, 2012 22:28:48 GMT -5
I think conference record should be the most important factor in qualifying for the tournament. The Big East is supposed to get 10 teams in the dance, yet 3 of those 10 teams have a lower conference winning percentage than State or Miami.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tizu on Mar 8, 2012 7:31:50 GMT -5
I think conference record should be the most important factor in qualifying for the tournament. The Big East is supposed to get 10 teams in the dance, yet 3 of those 10 teams have a lower conference winning percentage than State or Miami. Not to mention most of them won't even make the Sweet 16. |
|
|
|
Post by Ken D on Mar 8, 2012 8:30:57 GMT -5
I think conference record should be the most important factor in qualifying for the tournament. The Big East is supposed to get 10 teams in the dance, yet 3 of those 10 teams have a lower conference winning percentage than State or Miami. I agree with that. In fact, I think there should be a limit on the number of teams from one conference, and the number should never be more than half the number of schools in the conference. Of course, if such a rule had been in place last year, UConn would not have qualified. Just as in football, the BCS conferences dominate D-I basketball. They are the only ones for whom such a rule would apply. Every year, they get the lion's share of the at-large bids, as they should. My thinking is that we're splitting hairs now when we decide whether the sixth team from the ACC should get a bid before the sixth place team from the SEC. You can almost always make a good case for either school. Why not take the arbitrariness out of it? Give each of these conferences bids to the top half of their teams. If a lower ranked team wins their conference tourney, then they bump the lowest team from their own conference, not somebody else's. Sometimes as is the case with the PAC 12 this year, some marginal teams will catch a break. But I can live with that, as long as the rules are consistently applied. If this plan requires there be more teams added to the field, I have a suggestion for that, too. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
Post by Ken D on Mar 8, 2012 9:28:22 GMT -5
When all the dust settles from the Big East realignment, the six BCS conferences will have 80 schools for basketball. If we allocate 40 NCAA berths to them, that leaves us with only 28 spots for the remaining 25 conferences. Clearly, we would have to do something about that. I suggest a de facto division into D-IA and D-IAA. To the BCS conferences I would add the A-10, Colonial, Horizon, Ivy, Mountain West, Missouri Valley, C-USA, WAC and West Coast conferences. These I consider the "mid-majors, based on performance over the past 10 or so years.
I would give these 9 conferences 18 bids, bringing the total for D-IA to 58 teams. The remaining 16 conferences have been historically weak. I would give these conferences 24 bids, and I would have them play two rounds in the week prior to selection Sunday. Those two rounds would produce 6 winners to fill out the 64 team field, and they would be reseeded at that point so schools like Murray State can avoid always being paired with Kentucky, Duke and the like.
That's a total of 82 schools in the field. But since only 6 of the 14 new spots go to I-A, there's not much dilution in the top tier. You still have to earn your way in by finishing in the top half of your conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattncsu02 on Mar 8, 2012 11:51:04 GMT -5
Ken, I don't know what you do for a living, but you need to go to work for the NCAA. I think you could get them straightened out if they would listen to you.
|
|
