Tweet
CBS Sports college basketball writer Matt Norlander reports that 22 conferences are discussing the creation of "an innovative nonconference scheduling initiative", which would revive the concept of non-league games in February that would give teams a chance to enhance their resume. It sounds like a great idea. And apparently, even the high-major conferences seem interested.
-
-
I like this. NCAA keeps saying that a school has to get Quad wins. They know that does not work. The bigger schools wont play the mid-majors because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Try to get a Illinois to play Bradley. They wont for fear of getting beat unless they are paired up in a tournamentOriginally posted by Da Coach View Post -
Not sure about the Best teams playing? If they mean Duke would play North Carolina (oh wow whoppee-zip) or it means the best team in the Valley(Bradley) plays the best team in the Big Ten then hell yesComment
-
Based on this snippet from the article:
"The selling point of these out-of-conference matchups would be to pit projected NCAA Tournament candidates, in addition to bona fide bubble teams, against each other."
I don't see how this is going to be any different than what we get now, and frankly the NCAA hasn't done anything to help the mid-majors for as long as I can remember, so I am a little pessimistic that this will be any different.Larry Bird
I've got a theory that if you give 100 percent all of the time, somehow things will work out in the end.Comment
-
What do you mean by this? There isn't anything in place now.Originally posted by Tommy View PostComment
-
I'm commenting on what they are proposing. I cut and pasted the snippet from the article previously.Originally posted by egib52 View PostLarry Bird
I've got a theory that if you give 100 percent all of the time, somehow things will work out in the end.Comment
-
I understand that, but there isn't anything in place now.Originally posted by Tommy View PostComment
-
I understand that. I was commenting on the subject matter of the thread.Originally posted by egib52 View PostLarry Bird
I've got a theory that if you give 100 percent all of the time, somehow things will work out in the end.Comment
-
I absolutely LOVED bracket-busters weekend in the first few years before it expanded.
Best time ever in the Valley IMO (since I've been following - 1990-ish).
Of course the Valley was pretty dominant, so it helped our cause. In fact, had there not been BB in 2005-06, likely we'd be in NIT instead of NCAA tourney, and the Sweet 16 would have just been a Sweet Dream.
Our BB win helped us to 20 wins b4 Selection Sunday and that convincing win was part of a stretch of 7 straight wins.
No WAY would committee have given an At-Large bid to a mid-major with fewer than 20 wins.Comment
-
I agree that I miss Bracketbusters. I know some of the stronger leagues didn't want to get in any longer. I never bought the argument about the "before it expanded". Of course there are going to be some bad matchups if you have like over 100 teams participating, but who cares about most of those matchups? Those are just a bad non-conference game. It is important to ensure you get all of the teams so if some teams jump up and turn into a strong team, you have them in the event. Only the top 10 games or so really should be something that matter or are cared about.Comment
-
Agreed!Originally posted by MDCowboy View Post
The expansion of more teams really watered down the weekend. I'd prefer just 15-20 games total for teams with a winning record (at the time of making pairings) and a legit shot at the NIT or better only to participate.
Comment
Comment