An anti-midmajor plot?

[brainiac]

For those who want to argue the possibility the BIG schools are actually fearful that the midmajors may be gaining on them, here is a great article to read.

Even Bruce Weber states:
"Everyone is alarmed".

Alarmed about what, Bruce? And just who is everyone?
It seems the coaches of the big schools (Big Ten, ACC, etc.) are very alarmed that the mid-majors are getting perhaps too strong and garnering way too many NCAA bids.

"Apparently, they're alarmed by the prospect that the performances of Mason, Bradley and Wichita State will only encourage the NCAA selection committee to favor the best mid-majors over marquee conference also-rans. At stake are precious at-large slots in the field of 65."

"Maybe you've heard the whining. After Maryland and Florida State were left out of the tournament, the ACC said it would lobby for an expanded field. The ACC, which wields clout, is miffed that only four of its teams reached the NCAAs. Never mind that only four deserved to be there."

Now of course they want to expand the NCAA field to 80 schools in an effort to get even more second division BCS schools into the NCAA over the 2nd or 3rd best team in smaller conferences.

The author of this article calls guys like Weber & Jim Boeheim crybabies.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=105524&ran=68292

[WaylonJ]

Re: An anti-midmajor plot?

For those who want to argue the possibility the BIG schools are actually fearful that the midmajors may be gaining on them, here is a great article to read.

Even Bruce Weber states:
"Everyone is alarmed".

Alarmed about what, Bruce? And just who is everyone?
It seems the coaches of the big schools (Big Ten, ACC, etc.) are very alarmed that the mid-majors are getting perhaps too strong and garnering way too many NCAA bids.

"Apparently, they're alarmed by the prospect that the performances of Mason, Bradley and Wichita State will only encourage the NCAA selection committee to favor the best mid-majors over marquee conference also-rans. At stake are precious at-large slots in the field of 65."

"Maybe you've heard the whining. After Maryland and Florida State were left out of the tournament, the ACC said it would lobby for an expanded field. The ACC, which wields clout, is miffed that only four of its teams reached the NCAAs. Never mind that only four deserved to be there."

Now of course they want to expand the NCAA field to 80 schools in an effort to get even more second division BCS schools into the NCAA over the 2nd or 3rd best team in smaller conferences.

The author of this article calls guys like Weber & Jim Boeheim crybabies.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...5524&ran=68292

Don't you know when you post a link like that some argue it is meaningless, only one person's thoughts.
And that plots and biases are only in the imagination of the readers?

[tornado]

brain-feel free to keep posting.
Almost all message boards have people freely discussing what's in certain articles and links. It never fails that if you give a link, you get criticized and if you don't same thing.

And WJ-I sense a bit of sarcasm in your point of view, and I know where you're leading.

[thefish7]

I'm not particularly against the expansion of the field, or more play-in games or whatever. I do however have a problem with the good midmajor vs. also-ran power conference guy type thing. Luckily, I think the public/the dollars are on our side in this one. People like the little guys.

[Bravesguy]

fish, I might disagree
I perceive that the media does like the "little guy" but only when it suits their pupose of portraying the "David vs. Goliath" matchups in the tourney.
In the long run, they definitely make more money televising the Dukies and the Tar Heels. I believe if the field was expanded, then the NCAA knows where the $ comes from and has acted to demonstrate that money is a motivating factor, that the extra teams from 65 to 80th would be mostly the biggies that would draw the most money.

[Bravesfan]

fish, I might disagree
I perceive that the media does like the "little guy" but only when it suits their pupose of portraying the "David vs. Goliath" matchups in the tourney.
In the long run, they definitely make more money televising the Dukies and the Tar Heels. I believe if the field was expanded, then the NCAA knows where the $ comes from and has acted to demonstrate that money is a motivating factor, that the extra teams from 65 to 80th would be mostly the biggies that would draw the most money.

I don't know. I can't get a read on the ratings sometimes. The first two rounds of the NCAA tournament this past March showed that viewers loved watching the upsets, as ratings were up from the previous year. Then the next two rounds earned some of the weakest ratings in years.

What is going on here?! Does this mean people like seeing upsets as long as the "big boys" survive through the later rounds? Apparently, and this has been proven by this year's ratings, the lack of a Duke and North Carolina advancing past the second round did more damage to the ratings than George Mason advancing to the Final Four helped.

Maybe the Billy Packer's of the world are right on this one point. People apparently can't get enough of Duke, Duke and more Duke. As for me however, too much Duke is Puke!

[MacabreMob]

I don't know much on this subject really - I don't look into ratings much.

But wasn't Indiana St vs Michigan St in 1979 one of the most watched if not THE most watched NCAA championship (based on available viewers and whatever)?

I have no idea.

Some think people want to see a Duke and Kentucky final (or whatever).

Others think a potential George Mason vs Duke final will get more viewers.

Is it about getting viewers? Is it about the money? Is it about the best team? The best coach? The best player?

Money talks - bs... yep - you know.

Then go out and create 'reality' that all the BCS schools have all the best coaches and players - put them on tv and promote it.

A stinkin sham!

[Dallas Brave]

fish, I might disagree
I perceive that the media does like the "little guy" but only when it suits their pupose of portraying the "David vs. Goliath" matchups in the tourney.
In the long run, they definitely make more money televising the Dukies and the Tar Heels. I believe if the field was expanded, then the NCAA knows where the $ comes from and has acted to demonstrate that money is a motivating factor, that the extra teams from 65 to 80th would be mostly the biggies that would draw the most money.

I don't know. I can't get a read on the ratings sometimes. The first two rounds of the NCAA tournament this past March showed that viewers loved watching the upsets, as ratings were up from the previous year. Then the next two rounds earned some of the weakest ratings in years.

What is going on here?! Does this mean people like seeing upsets as long as the "big boys" survive through the later rounds? Apparently, and this has been proven by this year's ratings, the lack of a Duke and North Carolina advancing past the second round did more damage to the ratings than George Mason advancing to the Final Four helped.

Maybe the Billy Packer's of the world are right on this one point. People apparently can't get enough of Duke, Duke and more Duke. As for me however, too much Duke is Puke!

It would have been interesting to see what type of ratings a George Mason / UCLA final would have drawn. Despite having Noah, I don't think many people across the country care to watch Florida basketball since 99% of college sports fans consider it primarily a football school.

[Bravesfan]

It would have been interesting to see what type of ratings a George Mason / UCLA final would have drawn. Despite having Noah, I don't think many people across the country care to watch Florida basketball since 99% of college sports fans consider it primarily a football school.

Well, you raise an interesting point Dallas. The George Mason / UCLA final would probably draw well if not for the Cinderella factor and the UCLA aura. But while I don't have any rooting interest in Florida, I was impressed how they manhandled everyone throughout the tournament, so I certainly was interested in seeing how they would perform in the championship game. I thought if one team could give them trouble, it would be UCLA. I just think the whole Duke, North Carolina hype is just that, hype.

[MickeyT]

Here is an interesting article from Gregg Doyel who writes on College basketball for CBS Sportsline.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9487118

just when we thought the gap between midmajors and majors might be narrowing, he thinks the run by George Mason to the Final 4, he says "the rift between majors and mid-majors is bigger than ever."
He makes some interesting points.

[MacabreMob]

Here is an interesting article from Gregg Doyel who writes on College basketball for CBS Sportsline.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9487118

just when we thought the gap between midmajors and majors might be narrowing, he thinks the run by George Mason to the Final 4, he says "the rift between majors and mid-majors is bigger than ever."
He makes some interesting points.

Yes - saw the article. Very interesting. Doubt many BCS fans would agree with this article much when it comes to the Mids closing the gap. But the BCS fans that actually have a brain in their head that rests on their shoulders (and not in -oops) would agree with this article and want the field expanded. I posted earlier about this... consider Northwestern St over Iowa this past tourney. They would have to most likely beat someone like a Maryland (from last season) to get to Iowa. So they might pull the one upset, but what are the chances of two? I think this is what the BCS push is for expansion. They expect more bids that will result in a 64 or 32 field of nothing but BCS schools (after the 'play-in games from an 80 team field).

[AB99]

Here is an interesting article from Gregg Doyel who writes on College basketball for CBS Sportsline.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9487118

just when we thought the gap between midmajors and majors might be narrowing, he thinks the run by George Mason to the Final 4, he says "the rift between majors and mid-majors is bigger than ever."
He makes some interesting points.

Not sure if it was noted elsewhere, but
Gregg Doyel will no longer be an ESPN college basketball writer.
He has gotten a promotion to "National Columnist"

http://www.sportsline.com/info/ir/press/2006/natcolum06

[tknup]

Those quotation marks in your post are not attributed to anyone. As I read the article it is just the writers words not those of Weber or other D1 coaches.

[brainiac]

Those quotation marks in your post are not attributed to anyone. As I read the article it is just the writers words not those of Weber or other D1 coaches.

Again, I will cite what the article says (cut and paste)
The words that I said came from Bruce Weber did indeed come from Bruce Weber according to the article.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Everyone is alarmed," Illinois coach Bruce Weber said the other day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It would appear that those are words that are being attributed to Bruce Weber, so who do you think said them?

[MacabreMob]

Those quotation marks in your post are not attributed to anyone. As I read the article it is just the writers words not those of Weber or other D1 coaches.

Again, I will cite what the article says (cut and paste)
The words that I said came from Bruce Weber did indeed come from Bruce Weber according to the article.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Everyone is alarmed," Illinois coach Bruce Weber said the other day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It would appear that those are words that are being attributed to Bruce Weber, so who do you think said them?

See, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Show a BCS/B10/Illini fan a fact, and well... you know.