Mid-majors in the NCAA Tournament

[Bravesfan]

First, congrats to Memphis for becoming the second non-BCS team to make the Final Four in the last three years. I know they probably fit in the "major team from mid-major conference" category, but they are a non-BCS team nonetheless.

Second, congrats to Davidson for laying it all out on the court today against a formidable Kansas team. Great to see Bill Self finally get over the hump, but also sorry to see Davidson could not get that last shot down. It would have been nice to see a "lower-major" major team make the Final Four, but those are the breaks.

Irregardless of whether Davidson would have pulled this game out or not, I think the one thing to take away from this tournament is that the mid-majors not only belong in the tournament, they can win or compete if given the chance.

The one thing I do NOT want to ever, and I do mean EVER hear from these so-called "experts" again is that mid-majors don't belong in the tournament. If I ever hear something to the likes of "a mid-major team might win a game or two with the right draw, but the cream will eventually rise to the top" again from any of these people after the tournament that we have had this year, I will puke! I think the fact that these "mid-majors" performed so well this year when given the chance to play against BCS teams (and that includes Bradley defeating Virginia on the road in the CBI) shows that these "pundits" have lost all credibility!

Obviously our one obstacle that needs to be addressed is to get the selection committee to select more non-BCS teams to the tourney on a regular basis. The fact that non-BCS teams still get passed over by the middle of the road BCS teams shows that the committee is still out of touch with reality, all the more exposed by the results of this years tourney games.

[tornado]

Irregardless of whether Davidson would have pulled this game out or not, I think the one thing to take away from this tournament is that the mid-majors not only belong in the tournament...

indeed, and the games involving Davidson had by far the biggest TV audiences and generated the most press, the most interest...
The NCAA is shooting itself in the foot by leaving out so many fine mid-majors and giving them such bad seeds.

[lefty]

I really don't understand the uproar. Davidson was ranked in the top 25 as were some other mid-majors...and I don't remember hearing any analyst say mid-majors shouldn't be in the the tournament....the 4 number ones are in so I'd say the committee knew what they were doing.
It looks to be a very good finish for the tourney

[pfunk880]

I really don't understand the uproar. Davidson was ranked in the top 25 as were some other mid-majors...and I don't remember hearing any analyst say mid-majors shouldn't be in the the tournament....the 4 number ones are in so I'd say the committee knew what they were doing.
It looks to be a very good finish for the tourney

I agree.

[Braves4Life]

Something must be wrong in the universe as I find myself agreeing with Lefty more and more

[Dallas Brave]

I really don't understand the uproar. Davidson was ranked in the top 25 as were some other mid-majors...and I don't remember hearing any analyst say mid-majors shouldn't be in the the tournament....the 4 number ones are in so I'd say the committee knew what they were doing.
It looks to be a very good finish for the tourney

Just because the committee picked the right number 1 seeds isn't relevant to whether or not the non-BCS conferences get fair and objective consideration for an at-large bid. This year, the non-BCS schools got 6 of the 34 at-large bids. Based on how non-BCS schools have performed over the last 4-5 years (i.e., making the sweet 16 since that requires winning two games), non-BCS schools should get, on average, 8-9 at-large bids out of the 34 selected each year.

[lefty]

Just because the committee picked the right number 1 seeds isn't relevant to whether or not the non-BCS conferences get fair and objective consideration for an at-large bid. This year, the non-BCS schools got 6 of the 34 at-large bids. Based on how non-BCS schools have performed over the last 4-5 years (i.e., making the sweet 16 since that requires winning two games), non-BCS schools should get, on average, 8-9 at-large bids out of the 34 selected each year.

well it's been debated to death for sure but i think the committe does a pretty good job for the most part. I don't know that anyone has come up with a perfect formula. This year Villanova was a bubble that many thought should not have got in and they were in the Sweet Sixteen so it looks like they were a good choice after all. There will always be some disagreement on who should be in..and if the NCAA took everyone then we would complain the mids get raw deal on the seeds...so there will always be something.....which makes boards like this necessary to solve the world's problems

[lefty]

Something must be wrong in the universe as I find myself agreeing with Lefty more and more

Now that is scary

[lefty]

indeed, and the games involving Davidson had by far the biggest TV audiences and generated the most press, the most interest...
The NCAA is shooting itself in the foot by leaving out so many fine mid-majors and giving them such bad seeds.

Let's face it T...the world loves the underdog in ANY sport. If I remember right many of the analysts were hyping Davidson before the tourney started....
By the way T...Davidson player Brian Barr's twin brothers played for Olivet graduating 3 years ago....

[MacabreMob]

I just wanna say... I saw a lot of empty seats at the Davidson/Kansas game today.

If it had been Kansas/Kentucky... I believe every seat woulda been filled. But the fans woulda seen a bad game.

[Dallas Brave]

well it's been debated to death for sure but i think the committe does a pretty good job for the most part. I don't know that anyone has come up with a perfect formula. This year Villanova was a bubble that many thought should not have got in and they were in the Sweet Sixteen so it looks like they were a good choice after all. There will always be some disagreement on who should be in..and if the NCAA took everyone then we would complain the mids get raw deal on the seeds...so there will always be something.....which makes boards like this necessary to solve the world's problems

I agree its a tough job for the committee. My take on it though is that there is enough statistical evidence of non-BCS team perfromance to slot 8-9 at-large slots for them every year. That leaves 25-26 at-large slots for the six BCS conferences, so they will always be sending at least their top 4 teams from each conference. Having 16 teams in a conference, like the Big East has, should be discouraged.

Edit Update:
With the allocation above, each BCS conference, on average, would send at least 4 at-large teams and the their respective tournament champ ... or at least five teams from each conference. Having 30-32 BCS teams is very equitable in my opinion.

[TheAsianSensation]

First, congrats to Memphis for becoming the second non-BCS team to make the Final Four in the last three years. I know they probably fit in the "major team from mid-major conference" category, but they are a non-BCS team nonetheless.

Calling Memphis mid-major is bull****. I don't care what conference they're from.

The problem is for every mid major that makes a run, there's a bubble team that got in that makes a run. Davidson was an autobid so you have to be careful with this argument.

[Braves4Life]

Calling Memphis mid-major is bull****. I don't care what conference they're from.

The problem is for every mid major that makes a run, there's a bubble team that got in that makes a run. Davidson was an autobid so you have to be careful with this argument.

Ummmmmmmmmm, he didn't call Memphis a mid-major AsiaMan

[ctt8410]

and I don't remember hearing any analyst say mid-majors shouldn't be in the the tournament....

Jay Bilas for one:

"If you're in a major conference you're going to get hammered for not going out and killing yourself in the non-conference. Let's be honest about it. If you're in a mid-major they're going to give you a break. That's OK, I just wish they'd admit it: They give the mid-majors a break. It's OK, but let's not go through this charade of it being the 34 best teams because I don't think that's what we're getting."

[mportsch]

My take on it though is that there is enough statistical evidence of non-BCS team perfromance to slot 8-9 at-large slots for them every year.

I don't like this statement at all. TEAMS should get bids, not a "category" of teams. This is no different than when a talking head says "the Big Ten should get 5 bids," which is also a bogus statement. Each team needs to be evaluated for their body of work individually. I think the number of mid-majors taken as at-large teams should be determined by the overall quality of teams each season. Slotting a certain number of bids for mid-majors is as dumb as doing the same thing for BCS teams.

I don't really see any reason for uproar here. How many mid-majors with good resumes were left out this season? Maybe Dayton and Illinois State, although each of those teams had holes in their body of work. I don't see a huge issue with the way things are currently done. As we've all witnessed, a mid-major can make noise in the tournament as currently constructed.