Will believe it when I see it...
I think its much more likely that this happens:
Well, we won't know, so I agree to disagree and we'll see.
One caveat: The NIT selection committee is bat**** insane, and using their seedings, those seeds won't translate. Texas Tech, being a 5 seed in the NIT, isn't making the 96 team NCAA field, for example. Do not trust the NIT selection committee.
Well, we won't know, so I agree to disagree and we'll see.
One caveat: The NIT selection committee is bat**** insane, and using their seedings, those seeds won't translate. Texas Tech, being a 5 seed in the NIT, isn't making the 96 team NCAA field, for example. Do not trust the NIT selection committee.
Same goes for NC State, Arizona, USC, UCONN from this season. You are BCS and you are .500 or better you **** well will get heavy consideration, especially if you are Football known BCS.
edit: Until the Big 10 expands to 16 teams. THEN we have catastrophic results on our hand.
I think some are buying into conspriacy theories too much. I sense overexaggeration of the demise here, to be honest. It WILL be a demise, but not a catastrophic one.
edit: Until the Big 10 expands to 16 teams. THEN we have catastrophic results on our hand.
edit: Until the Big 10 expands to 16 teams. THEN we have catastrophic results on our hand.
Remember, this is the NCAA talking about wanting to expand, not the individual power conferences.
I don't think the NCAA cares who the extra 32 teams are. I think they feel they'll get the same revenue no matter who they are.
Back to that .500 conference record thing......2 things:
1) If a conference has a really big year, you're actually punishing it by having teams good enough that won't qualify. Yes, we all know about the mid-major injustices, but there can be power conference injustices too. Just because mid majors get screwed doesn't mean majors should get screwed too.
2) The Law of Unintended Consequences. If we set that rule, you're going to basically give a free pass to EVERY team that finishes at .500 or better to the NCAA tournament. All of a sudden, Virginia Tech and their flaky 10-6 mark get a free pass and gets them heralded. You know, VT's 5 opponents they played twice were the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th best teams in the ACC? Several ACC members went 9-7 in league play, and their 9-7 was more impressive than VT's 10-6.
The point being, banning all sub-.500 teams actually means letting in every .500 team or better, which actually means MORE power conference teams get in.
TAS you seriously believe that the NCAA does not care who the other 32 teams are? Last year didnt a 16-14 or there about Arizona team make the field?
I look at the NCAA as the mouthpiece for ESPN, period. NCAA might not care so to speak but I guarantee you ESPN does, hence the NCAA cares.
VTech weren't they even this season a bubble team?
My bottom line is I think the NCAA is only expanding because it sees more revenue with more games... but thats not more UC Santa Barbara v Detroit. Its more games involving BCS schools with wide appeal, alumini bases and money. Advertisiers love more viewers and a game with NC State regardless of who they are playing will be better on the ratings then that UCSB v Detroit game.
Who wants to watch a possible 1/24 matchup or a 2/23 matchup?
Thats BS...
They will now try to justify inviting 10-12 Big East teams and 10 ACC teams and blah blah blah...
Everything is about the money and making the BCS happy...
Frankly its just garbage because I could care less about watching the 9th Big East team face the 7th ACC team in the first round...
Remember, this is the NCAA talking about wanting to expand, not the individual power conferences.
I don't think the NCAA cares who the extra 32 teams are. I think they feel they'll get the same revenue no matter who they are.
Back to that .500 conference record thing......2 things:
1) If a conference has a really big year, you're actually punishing it by having teams good enough that won't qualify. Yes, we all know about the mid-major injustices, but there can be power conference injustices too. Just because mid majors get screwed doesn't mean majors should get screwed too.
2) The Law of Unintended Consequences. If we set that rule, you're going to basically give a free pass to EVERY team that finishes at .500 or better to the NCAA tournament. All of a sudden, Virginia Tech and their flaky 10-6 mark get a free pass and gets them heralded. You know, VT's 5 opponents they played twice were the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th best teams in the ACC? Several ACC members went 9-7 in league play, and their 9-7 was more impressive than VT's 10-6.
The point being, banning all sub-.500 teams actually means letting in every .500 team or better, which actually means MORE power conference teams get in.
#1- Once again, like I said, I don't care who you play, if you can't finish at better than half your teams in your conference, you don't deserve to get in...that would stop the whole 9 team entry in you have 16 teams and such...
There's absolutely no reason regardless of how strong your conf. is that a 7-9 team should get in, even if they win 20 games...who is to say that they didn't beat DePaul, South Florida, Cincinnati, and maybe 2 of the upper echelon teams...mediocre conference play should not be rewarded!
#2- If you read all my criteria, you'd see that VTech still wouldn't get in because of their out of conf RPI that I believe was in the 300's...so yeah, they're out. So no, 10-6 wouldn't help them AND 9-7 was fine...just no 8-8 or 7-9 and what not...
Ok, maybe they beat up on DePaul, Rutgers, whatever. Or they play Syracuse, WVU, and Pitt twice apiece and go 3-3 in those games. The point is that they are most likely going to be a weak 7-9.....but every once in awhile, there's going to be a strong 7-9, and you can't deny a strong 7-9 team by making a rule for all the weak 7-9 teams.
For this particular example, sure.
Actually, before I respond, I should make sure: Are you talking about this rule for conference records in a 65 team field or a 96 team field? It makes a difference.
Well, personally I would make it criteria that say IF you meet all youre certainly in and then go from there with say 5/6 and then 4/6....and it really could mean either 65 or 96....
The point really is that there need to be set criteria established so that coaches and schools can not say any longer "well, we weren't really sure what we needed to do to be selected" and "if we knew we had to do X we would've scheduled that way"....
I am so beyond tired of that!
And, to be fair, in a 96-team field, you can forget using a .500 conference record as a benchmark. Bradley would make that field in that case, while, in theory, an 8-10 Big East team would miss. I'm biased towards mid-majors as you all know, but even that scenario would be ludicrous.