• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Bracketology

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

Attachments

  • photo621.jpg
    photo621.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 0
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Da Coach said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stryker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Da Coach said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I think they should make it a selection rule that you cannot be under .500 in conference to earn an at large.
 
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.
 
Da Coach said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly!...its a joke
 
Bigger schools=more fans=more money. That’s all they care about. It’s not about competition, sadly.
 
Fetz86 said:
I think they should make it a selection rule that you cannot be under .500 in conference to earn an at large.
Click to expand...

Agree with this as well..been saying it for years...if you can't go .500 in your own conference why are you rewarded with post season play?
 
Dubl R 1 said:
Agree with this as well..been saying it for years...if you can't go .500 in your own conference why are you rewarded with post season play?
Click to expand...

Tommy hit on the head, basically they want the money. Also that is who the big business wants for the same reason. They pay big bucks for the commercials so they want big schools with big followers.
It's all about the money for the advertisements, the schools and the NCAA
 
Da Coach said:
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.
Click to expand...


During the regular season - schools in the Power 5 will play several ranked teams. Just look at the Big 12 final standings 5 of the ten teams are ranked. That means that each team in the Big 12 got to play at least 8 to 10 games each season against ranked conference teams - not to mention ranked teams outside of their conference. Bradley and other mid majors are lucky to get "1" or "2" at the most games against ranked teams - and as shared are usually away games - rarely at home. During the regular season at least 5 Big 10 teams were ranked one time or another - although at the end of the regular season only 2 remain ranked. The Big 10 will likely have 8 teams in the Dance with at least half done after the second round.

The system is totally rigged against the Mid-Majors. Rules need to be changed requiring the Power 5 schools to play at least 3 mid-majors during the regular season and one of those games is to be played on a Mid-Major home court. Of course - this will likely never happen - TO MUCH MONEY WOULD BE AT STAKE.
 
basketball nut said:
Tommy hit on the head, basically they want the money. Also that is who the big business wants for the same reason. They pay big bucks for the commercials so they want big schools with big followers.
It's all about the money for the advertisements, the schools and the NCAA
Click to expand...

Of course I know that. I'd rather they just say that then this horse$%#^ about Eye Test, Signature Wins, Body of Work, blah blah blah....its insulting and honestly just makes the selection committee look foolish.
 
Go_Braves said:
During the regular season - schools in the Power 5 will play several ranked teams. Just look at the Big 12 final standings 5 of the ten teams are ranked. That means that each team in the Big 12 got to play at least 8 to 10 games each season against ranked conference teams - not to mention ranked teams outside of their conference. Bradley and other mid majors are lucky to get "1" or "2" at the most games against ranked teams - and as shared are usually away games - rarely at home. During the regular season at least 5 Big 10 teams were ranked one time or another - although at the end of the regular season only 2 remain ranked. The Big 10 will likely have 8 teams in the Dance with at least half done after the second round.

The system is totally rigged against the Mid-Majors. Rules need to be changed requiring the Power 5 schools to play at least 3 mid-majors during the regular season and one of those games is to be played on a Mid-Major home court. Of course - this will likely never happen - TO MUCH MONEY WOULD BE AT STAKE.
Click to expand...

Quite honestly it's also almost worthless for a mid major to even put themselves thru a regular season....regular season championship means almost nothing. I mean if 25 wins isn't enough for consideration anymore, man thats crazy....there are way too many good teams to do much better than 25 wins no matter what conference you are in.
A regular season championship would almost always bear out who a better team is rather than who gets hot for 3 games at the end of the year, but there is no money in the regular season...the conference wants that $$ from Arch Madness just like the power 5's want that money from the Big Dance.
 
Dubl R 1 said:
Quite honestly it's also almost worthless for a mid major to even put themselves thru a regular season....regular season championship means almost nothing. I mean if 25 wins isn't enough for consideration anymore, man thats crazy....there are way too many good teams to do much better than 25 wins no matter what conference you are in.
A regular season championship would almost always bear out who a better team is rather than who gets hot for 3 games at the end of the year, but there is no money in the regular season...the conference wants that $$ from Arch Madness just like the power 5's want that money from the Big Dance.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'd almost rather see regular season champs get an auto bid and the tournament winner get the NIT bid or something. Or a weighted NCAA at large bid or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top