Mid-majors in the NCAA Tournament

[pfunk880]

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.

Absolutely. Nobody was left out this year that had a legitimate gripe.

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

I noticed that as well.

[Stryker]

Well, Davidson only has 1700 students, and I am sure their fan base isn't too amazingly large. I did expect to see more KU fans though.

[Da Coach]

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."

Bilas would tell you that even mediocre teams from a power conference like the ACC would dominate in a midmajor conference like the MVC. In fact, he says this all the time in defense of his argument that the entire ACC and Big East deserve to be in the tournament ahead of the 2nd place teams in conferences like the MVC and CAA.

Well, we just saw how well that logic worked last week when Bradley dismantled Virginia on their home court.

[tornado]

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....

I think the committee did OK this year, but in years gone by with the exclusion of Missouri State, etc...I think the mid-majors have gotten a raw deal.

[lefty]

I think the committee did OK this year, but in years gone by with the exclusion of Missouri State, etc...I think the mid-majors have gotten a raw deal.

I agree with you on Mo St. T....

[lefty]

Bilas would tell you that even mediocre teams from a power conference like the ACC would dominate in a midmajor conference like the MVC. In fact, he says this all the time in defense of his argument that the entire ACC and Big East deserve to be in the tournament ahead of the 2nd place teams in conferences like the MVC and CAA.

Well, we just saw how well that logic worked last week when Bradley dismantled Virginia on their home court.

So Bilas says the Big East and ACC should have 28 teams in the tourney?

I know I haven't heard every word that Bilas says(who would want to) but I doubt that this is true DC.

Is he BCS biased...yes...is this board MVC or mid-major biased ..yes.....
and both have some valid points

[lefty]

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.

What really kills it is some of the autobids of conferences that hardly ever win a game in the tourney...it makes the selection process very tough.

Actually if they took just the conference champs instead of conference tourney champs it would help the selection process....who started that mess anyway....that's who should take some blame

[Da Coach]

So Bilas says the Big East and ACC should have 28 teams in the tourney?

I know I haven't heard every word that Bilas says(who would want to) but I doubt that this is true DC.

Is he BCS biased...yes...is this board MVC or mid-major biased ..yes.....
and both have some valid points

That's not what I said. I never said he wants all those teams in the NCAA.

I said he believes all that even the bottom ACC and Big East teams should be in the NCAA before any at-large teams from mid-level conferences are taken. I have heard him make this argument based on the quality of those leagues and the level of competetion they play at.

[pfunk880]

Actually if they took just the conference champs instead of conference tourney champs it would help the selection process....who started that mess anyway....that's who should take some blame

I wish they would do that. Let the conference continue to have their stupid tournaments, and make their money, but give the NCAA auto-bid to the team that has truly earned it over the course of the regular season.

For example, if Davidson had lost in their conference tournament, they would have been on the NCAA bubble and someone far less deserving would have gotten in. And that scenario did play out in the CAA, with the conference champ (by three games!) VCU getting left out in favor of a George Mason team that was dismantled in the first round.

[tornado]

As I had said elsewhere in a different thread a few weeks ago...here's how I viewed what I heard from almost all of the national commentators and experts, and ESPN-types........

I watch an ESPN pre-NCAA selection show special the night before the bids were awarded, and it was Andy Katz, and several other ESPN big-wigs.
They went through each conference, all the BCS boys, even the Mountain West, and the A-10 (although they never even mentioned the name of the other conferences or the MVC because those were obviously all one-bid leagues) and rattled off all the teams from those conferences who SHOULD BE in the dance.

As I watched, I counted the number of teams they were saying should be selected....
the numbers were astounding......the NCAA would have had to expand the tourney to 70-75 teams in order for all the teams these guys were hyping could get in!

...six from the ACC, eight ...possibly even NINE! ...from the Big East, five from the Big Ten, 7 from the SEC, 7 from the Pac-10, 6 and possibly 7 from the Big 12, even 5 from the A-10....(which of course was only getting mentioned because of their east-coast bias....)

As I counted all the bids they were granting to the BCS-conference teams I realized they had "given" at least 39 total bids to the six "BCS conferences".
That means 33 at large bids were already accounted for!!!

You know, of course how many that left for every other conference in America....just one, of course...so the number they had "awarded" actually exceeded what the NCAA could give...but mostly because the ESPN brass thought the BCS boys were ultra-deserving.

My point is that if the ESPN-types had their way, all non-BCS conferences, except maybe the A-10, would be one bid leagues.
Had Davidson lost their conference tourney and auto-bid, would they have gotten an at-large bid?
Davidson's RPI (35) and SOS (129) were both way worse than Missouri State's in 2006 (21, 46), and worse than either Dayton's or ISU's this year, and all those teams were left out!

You will never convince me there there isn't a pro-BCS bias throughout the media and upper echelons of the NCAA (eg-Gary Williams).

[Braves4Life]

I wouldn't necessarily say that all of the "talking heads" are biased, or "East-coast biased". (Some, like Digger and Billy, yes!). I think many have just been brainwashed or pre-conditioned because of their over-exposure and over-coverage of these "big boys" (Duke & ACC; SEC; Big East). If you see the same teams playing all of the time then you just naturally get used to them and feel that their brand of ball is better than everyone elses. People who watch the Big 10 think their league is the best; those who watch the ACC think theirs is better (which, of course, they are since they routinely SMOKE the Big 10 in "The Challenge" ).

Take this analogy: You show up for your first day of work (or class for those still in school) and look around the room at all of the girls and come to the conclusion that there is NOT ONE good looking girl in the room. Then, after spending nearly a year at the job/class you find yourself attracted to several of the girls there and maybe even begin seriously dating one or more. Now remember, less than a year ago NONE of these girls was very attractive! Sometimes you just get comfortable with your surroundings and lose a sense of reality -- The reality that the girls in this job/class are not very attractive.

[tornado]

and it also depends on how long it's been since you had a date....

[Dallas Brave]

The basketball analysts are essentially like most "businessmen" who have to make decisions. They want to avoid the perceived risky choice. The old saying was that, "You'll never get fired for buying IBM." Fortunately, very few people say that any more, but that type of thinking was rampant in boardrooms in the 70's and early 80's.

Before the first round of the Sweet 16 this year, the game that most analysts highlighted as a possible blow-out was UCLA and Western Kentucky. Well in that first round of the Sweet 16, these teams lost by the following margins:
Washington State (21)
Stanford (20)
Tennessee (19)
Michigan State (18 )
Wisconsin (17)
Villanova (15)
Western Kentucky (10)
West Virginia (3)

I don't recall any of the talking heads saying how Washington State or Stanford or Tennessee or Michigan State were in over their heads ... or shouldn't be in the tournament ... or were lucky to get to the Sweet 16 ... the nonsense you always hear when a non-BCS school gets blown out by a BCS school.

The Diggers and Packers (those two names go together in ways I don't care to imagine!) are old, crotchety curmudgeons who, I believe, the college game has truly passed by.

[Bravesfan]

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

Well, I was not talking about Davidson or the "mid-major" powers like Gonzaga or Xavier in particular. I was talking about mid-majors who do not win their auto-bids, who are constantly passed by in favor of two or three mediocre BCS teams every year.

You are right in saying that ISU and VCU may not have been one of the best 34 teams in the country this year. What I'm talking about is letting in an 18-14 Arizona team that finished seventh in the Pac-10 over an ISU team that finished a strong second in the Valley, or over a VCU team that finished first in the Colonial league. I personally don't think Arizona was one of the best 34 teams in the country either (top 50 wins notwithstanding).

We all know that none of these teams were a threat to win the NCAA Tournament this year, so why not let a few more mid-major teams in over that mediocre Arizona team (or Villanova team for that matter) that don't always have the advantage over the big boys? The fact that Villanova made the Sweet 16 this year is irrelevant, btw. Any team can get hot and win a game or two in the tourney. It is what they did in the regular season that counts toward who gets invited in the first place.

[Dallas Brave]

I personally don't think Arizona was one of the best 34 teams in the country either (top 50 wins notwithstanding) ...
We all know that none of these teams were a threat to win the NCAA Tournament this year.

Great point because this is another red herring argument used to exclude non-BCS schools ... why invite them because they won't win it. To using that type of logic would mean that the numbers of teams should be cut down rather than expanded. Since the tournamet was expanded in the 1979, the following seeds have won the tournament:

Seed - Record ----- Champions
1........358-102 (.778 )..15
2........261-110 (.704)....6
3........189-112 (.628 )...4
4........161-115 (.583)....1
5........136-117 (.538 )...0
6........152-114 (.571)....2
7........100-116 (.463)....0
8..........86-115 (.428 )...1

So, if the committee is only going to invite teams that can "win it" ... well, don't bother inviting anyone if they are going to be a 9 seed or higher (BCS or non-BCS) beacuse they ain't going to win it. So there is more to it then just who can win the tournament ... it's about recognizing NCAA schools that have had a great season and giving real student-athletes a chance to experience playing in the NCAA tournament ... that experience should not be the sole privilege of the BCS conferences.