Bracketology

[Tommy]

I'm sure he's referencing the fact that Broussard was an assistant for Molinari and when Mo was fired he joined Ritchie McKay (another former BU assistant) at New Mexico, and thereafter continued texting Danny Granger who had stayed at BU in violation of NCAA rules.

Definitely the poaching of Granger.

[Stryker]

I'm sure he's referencing the fact that Broussard was an assistant for Molinari and when Mo was fired he joined Ritchie McKay (another former BU assistant) at New Mexico, and thereafter continued texting Danny Granger who had stayed at BU in violation of NCAA rules.

100%. Duanne is even given credit as a coach that got Granger to the NBA in his TCU profile page.

[Go_Braves]

I'm sure he's referencing the fact that Broussard was an assistant for Molinari and when Mo was fired he joined Ritchie McKay (another former BU assistant) at New Mexico, and thereafter continued texting Danny Granger who had stayed at BU in violation of NCAA rules.

Oh WOW - I never knew that - thank you Mikovio and everyone for sharing more detals and clarifying the situation.

[Dub]

Unfortunately, much like the legalization of marijuana, this violation now seems mundane in light of the portal.

Brussard: congrats on being a visionary and so far ahead of your time!

[Da Coach]

Haha..... for years, Duane as well as Ritchie McKay, bragged on their bio pages that they were responsible for "recruiting" Danny Granger to New Mexico. In a way, they were indeed responsible for luring him away from Bradley and to UNM, but by admitting it, they were admitting to the NCAA violations that they had vehemently denied after Bradley filed a case with the NCAA. Then they claimed they only called to wish Granger happy birthday.
Back in 2003, the Albuquerque Journal obtained phone records from the university through FOIA requests, and they documented dozens of phone calls made by Broussard and McKay to Granger, his father and his high school coach, proving they lied, and that there were indeed numerous illegal contacts in violation of NCAA rules.

[patrick_o'brian]

Andy Katz has Bradley as a #12 seed in the South Region against former Valley foe #5 Creighton. Would be a cool matchup.

[houstonbrave]

Yes I was referring to the Granger incident. Danny probably could have handled the situation better-Jimmy as a first year head coach was working to instill a culture but probably could have handled it better. I don’t like McKay over this but mostly it is on Duane. He played here for 4 years coached here for 9 years and chose to break NCAA rules to further his own career by cheating against the university he was at for 13 years - “ et tu brute” . Once a Brave Always a Brave except for Duane Broussard. End of rant.

[Da Coach]

Today's ESPN updated Bracketology-
https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/st...ld-predictions

If there was ever any doubt these guys favor the big boys, Joe Lunardi still has Kansas as a #1 seed, despite them getting clobbered Saturday by Texas.
In fact, Lunardi has Kansas moving up a spot and taking the #1 overall seed, despite the blowout loss!
Despite also losing, former #1 overall seed Alabama stays as a #1 seed, though they drop to the #2 seed overall.

On the other hand, he has Utah State, one of the top mid-majors in the country (2nd in the Mountain West) among his First 4 Out of the tournament, despite their NET of 21!
That would be the highest NET rank not to make the tournament since the NET was devised in 2018.
Yet, he has the 9th place team in the SEC, Mississippi State in the tournament with a NET of 46, and a conference record of 8-10, and the 9th place team in the Big Ten, Penn State, in the tournament despite an NET of 56 and a conference record of 10-10.

And the biggest joke, he has Wisconsin in the tournament. They are tied with Nebraska for 11th place in the Big Ten, with a losing record (9-11). They had lost 11 of their last 16 games before narrowly beating last place Minnesota yesterday. Their NET is 78!! That is well below Bradley's NET, even after Bradley lost to Drake.

West Virginia is in the tournament as a 10 seed, despite being 18-13, and 7-11 in the Big 12. That would rank as one of the worst records by an at-large team..

So will the NCAA disregard the NET as Joe Lunardi seems to be doing? Maybe just give all 14 Big Ten teams and all 14 SEC teams a bid?

[BraveBird]

I am of the opinion that if you are not at least .500 in conference play, you are ineligible for the NCAA tournament. Geez this is ridiculous.

[Stryker]

Today's ESPN updated Bracketology-
https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/st...ld-predictions

If there was ever any doubt these guys favor the big boys, Joe Lunardi still has Kansas as a #1 seed, despite them getting clobbered Saturday by Texas.
In fact, Lunardi has Kansas moving up a spot and taking the #1 overall seed, despite the blowout loss!
Despite also losing, former #1 overall seed Alabama stays as a #1 seed, though they drop to the #2 seed overall.

On the other hand, he has Utah State, one of the top mid-majors in the country (2nd in the Mountain West) among his First 4 Out of the tournament, despite their NET of 21!
That would be the highest NET rank not to make the tournament since the NET was devised in 2018.
Yet, he has the 9th place team in the SEC, Mississippi State in the tournament with a NET of 46, and a conference record of 8-10, and the 9th place team in the Big Ten, Penn State, in the tournament despite an NET of 56 and a conference record of 10-10.

And the biggest joke, he has Wisconsin in the tournament. They are tied with Nebraska for 11th place in the Big Ten, with a losing record (9-11). They had lost 11 of their last 16 games before narrowly beating last place Minnesota yesterday. Their NET is 78!! That is well below Bradley's NET, even after Bradley lost to Drake.

West Virginia is in the tournament as a 10 seed, despite being 18-13, and 7-11 in the Big 12. That would rank as one of the worst records by an at-large team..

So will the NCAA disregard the NET as Joe Lunardi seems to be doing? Maybe just give all 14 Big Ten teams and all 14 SEC teams a bid?

Utah State is an interesting case for sure. I think this is a situation where a mid-major has benefited from NET like mid-majors did from the RPI years ago. Utah State really only has a couple "bad losses", to SMU & San Jose State, with other losses coming from pretty decent to good teams. This really helps their NET. However, Lunardi looks at their wins and its the same problem as BU. Utah State really has no signature wins. They lost every game they had against good teams, like losing twice to San Diego State, once when SDSU was ranked 25th. Everyone that follows mid-majors knows Utah State is a pretty darn good team, but without a win over a good/great team all season, this is where things are.

Penn State I can kinda see an argument as they have ranked wins over Maryland and Indiana and have a real star player on the team in Pickett. If they beat IL for a third time this weak and get to 20 wins I think the argument for them in the tournament isn't the worst I have seen. At least the conference record isn't below .500.

Wisconsin I think is total bogus they are still getting consideration. 12th place in the BIG10 and only one win over a ranked opponent and a 1 point loss against Kansas as a resume is super weak, especially when they have 13 losses already. I doubt they actually get in as it is likely Ohio State beats them this week and they don't win a game in the BIG10 tournament. Just stupid they are still projected as being in.

Mississippi State, probably just in because they beat Marquette and have two other wins over ranked teams. Idk if they will actually get real consideration from the committee or not. Their resume is pretty poor against the rest of their conference. IMO they should be out, and I don't think they will get in unless they win a couple of SEC tournament games this weekend.

WVU is as much of a joke as Wisconsin this year IMO. Especially now that Iowa State is no longer ranked, so those two wins are a lot less impactful. Ranked wins over Kansas State and TCU are nice but not enough with 13 losses. Hopefully WVU loses to TTU this week and doesn't pick up another win, although beating TTU would be meaningless. WVU went from having 5 wins over ranked opponents to just 2 as of today, so I can see how they may have been considered at one time but 3-4 over their last 7 games and losing those ranked wins should have put them off the bubble for sure IMO. Stupid a 13 loss team is considered for an at-large still.

[Da Coach]

Penn State I can kinda see an argument as they have ranked wins over Maryland and Indiana and have a real star player on the team in Pickett. If they beat IL for a third time this weak and get to 20 wins I think the argument for them in the tournament isn't the worst I have seen. At least the conference record isn't below .500.

I agree with you, but this points out the fallacy of the NET and the "Signature Wins" argument.
What if Maryland and Indiana, along with Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Rutgers, and Nebraska were all required to play a game this season against Bradley at Carver Arena. Would Bradley have won some of those? I believe they would have.
Those were the Big Ten teams that Penn State played on their home court this season. So Penn State managed to knock off a couple of the better teams (Indiana & Maryland), and Voila!, they have a couple "Signature Wins" on their resume because they happen to play in the Big Ten and those teams were required to play them in State College, PA on their home court. And that gets them into the at-large discussion, despite an RPI of 72, a NET of 56, having a mediocre record with a weak non-conference schedule (non-conference SOS 211), and no signature wins against non-conference opponents, and having lost 5 of their last 6 games! Do they have any better chance of winning and advancing in the tournament than Bradley or Drake?
But the end result is they get in and take home $2+ million dollars just for making an appearance and playing 1 game, and another $2+ million for every additional game they play if they are fortunate to advance.
Mid-major schools, that sorely need that kind of money, will never get a chance at it, while the Power 5 teams, which are already rolling in money, will get the major share of it.
This is why the big conferences cooked up the NET formula, and use such subjective non-sense as "Signature Wins", then they refuse to play good mid-major teams, assuring that the mid-majors won't get those necessary Signature Wins. They do not want to allow the mid-majors to get that money, which could possibly allow some to build better programs, and compete for the top tier recruits, TV money, etc.

[Stryker]

I agree with you, but this points out the fallacy of the NET and the "Signature Wins" argument.
What if Maryland and Indiana, along with Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Rutgers, and Nebraska were all required to play a game this season against Bradley at Carver Arena. Would Bradley have won some of those? I believe they would have.
Those were the Big Ten teams that Penn State played on their home court this season. So Penn State managed to knock off a couple of the better teams (Indiana & Maryland), and Voila!, they have a couple "Signature Wins" on their resume because they happen to play in the Big Ten and those teams were required to play them in State College, PA on their home court. And that gets them into the at-large discussion, despite an RPI of 72, a NET of 56, having a mediocre record with a weak non-conference schedule (non-conference SOS 211), and no signature wins against non-conference opponents, and having lost 5 of their last 6 games! Do they have any better chance of winning and advancing in the tournament than Bradley or Drake?
But the end result is they get in and take home $2+ million dollars just for making an appearance and playing 1 game, and another $2+ million for every additional game they play if they are fortunate to advance.
Mid-major schools, that sorely need that kind of money, will never get a chance at it, while the Power 5 teams, which are already rolling in money, will get the major share of it.
This is why the big conferences cooked up the NET formula, and use such subjective non-sense as "Signature Wins", then they refuse to play good mid-major teams, assuring that the mid-majors won't get those necessary Signature Wins. They do not want to allow the mid-majors to get that money, which could possibly allow some to build better programs, and compete for the top tier recruits, TV money, etc.

Yep I agree it is a racket. But I'm not sure there is any solution, other than trying to somehow totally revamp the at large selection process, which can't be done. idk.

[Fetz86]

I think they should make it a selection rule that you cannot be under .500 in conference to earn an at large.

[BUfan14]

This will never happen, but they should have a maximum conference limit, no more than 5 or 6 teams per conference. It would make the regular season and conference tournament more interesting in some of those big conferences too.

[Dubl R 1]

I agree with you, but this points out the fallacy of the NET and the "Signature Wins" argument.
What if Maryland and Indiana, along with Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Rutgers, and Nebraska were all required to play a game this season against Bradley at Carver Arena. Would Bradley have won some of those? I believe they would have.
Those were the Big Ten teams that Penn State played on their home court this season. So Penn State managed to knock off a couple of the better teams (Indiana & Maryland), and Voila!, they have a couple "Signature Wins" on their resume because they happen to play in the Big Ten and those teams were required to play them in State College, PA on their home court. And that gets them into the at-large discussion, despite an RPI of 72, a NET of 56, having a mediocre record with a weak non-conference schedule (non-conference SOS 211), and no signature wins against non-conference opponents, and having lost 5 of their last 6 games! Do they have any better chance of winning and advancing in the tournament than Bradley or Drake?
But the end result is they get in and take home $2+ million dollars just for making an appearance and playing 1 game, and another $2+ million for every additional game they play if they are fortunate to advance.
Mid-major schools, that sorely need that kind of money, will never get a chance at it, while the Power 5 teams, which are already rolling in money, will get the major share of it.
This is why the big conferences cooked up the NET formula, and use such subjective non-sense as "Signature Wins", then they refuse to play good mid-major teams, assuring that the mid-majors won't get those necessary Signature Wins. They do not want to allow the mid-majors to get that money, which could possibly allow some to build better programs, and compete for the top tier recruits, TV money, etc.

Exactly!...its a joke