• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

NCAA Basketball - 2011

#161
LSquared said:
Yes, interesting article, and thanks for posting. OTOH, it is kind of silly when 11 teams from one conferecne get in. Big East represented over 16% of the 68 team field. And 69% of the Big East teams made the tourny. That's just wrong.

I think they should institute a rule, sort of a reverse automatic-bid rule. You gotta finish in the top 1/2 of your conference to get a bid.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It goes in cycles. It was the Big East this year, some years it is the ACC, Big Ten or SEC that get a lot of bids - and sometimes it turns into a lot of teams that go farther and sometimes it doesn't.

Your rule would eliminate Marquette - they are going to Sweet Sixteen out of the 11 seed.

If you don't want a conference getting a lot of bids, then you have to beat them in non-conference play. ND was 5-1 against these big-time teams - (Georgia, Cal, Kentucky (the lone loss), Indiana State, Wisconsin, Gonzaga). If Alabama wants to play in the NCAA's it should not lose to Seton Hall or Providence - 2 of the weaker teams in the Big East. BC and Colorado both lost to Harvard - they can't be too upset that they are not in. I do feel bad for Virginia Tech.
 
#166
dangnewt said:
I disagree. It goes in cycles. It was the Big East this year, some years it is the ACC, Big Ten or SEC that get a lot of bids - and sometimes it turns into a lot of teams that go farther and sometimes it doesn't.

Your rule would eliminate Marquette - they are going to Sweet Sixteen out of the 11 seed.

If you don't want a conference getting a lot of bids, then you have to beat them in non-conference play. ND was 5-1 against these big-time teams - (Georgia, Cal, Kentucky (the lone loss), Indiana State, Wisconsin, Gonzaga). If Alabama wants to play in the NCAA's it should not lose to Seton Hall or Providence - 2 of the weaker teams in the Big East. BC and Colorado both lost to Harvard - they can't be too upset that they are not in. I do feel bad for Virginia Tech.
Click to expand...

I suppose Marquette is a example of the risks. And you're right about other years being other conferences...

But, what's the point of the tournament? To bring in the best teams? Then why not just use RPI and the top 64 teams? Why let Ivy league or Patriot League or whoever even have a bid??

If, however, you think the tornament is somehow better for having Princeton, Bucknell, UCSB or Richmond, then why not let more of those kinds of teams in, and less of the mega-conference folks? And you can beef up the competition in the NIT.

I'm just sayin'.....
 
#167
College football fans want a playoff to determine a national champion. But then you'll get the arguments about who should be in the playoffs just like we get the yearly arguments over who should and should not be in the NCAA basketball tournament.

-Mike
 
#169
MJ5150 said:
Everyone seems to love BYU and this guy named Jimmer. Whatever. It's all over for them on Friday.

Who is Jimmer anyway? The next Adam Morrison or JJ Reddick.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Considering the massively different trajectories the careers of Reddick and Morrison have taken... which one is it?

Being the next Reddick wouldn't be too bad. Being the next Morrison on the other hand...
 
#170
MJ5150 said:
Everyone seems to love BYU and this guy named Jimmer. Whatever. It's all over for them on Friday.

Who is Jimmer anyway? The next Adam Morrison or JJ Reddick.

-Mike
Click to expand...
Dude, stop that! You do realize this guy single-handedly beat the Gators in the first round last year, right? And that the guy who's gonna guard him sprained his ankle Saturday?
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
#174
LSquared said:
I suppose Marquette is a example of the risks. And you're right about other years being other conferences...

But, what's the point of the tournament? To bring in the best teams? Then why not just use RPI and the top 64 teams? Why let Ivy league or Patriot League or whoever even have a bid??

If, however, you think the tornament is somehow better for having Princeton, Bucknell, UCSB or Richmond, then why not let more of those kinds of teams in, and less of the mega-conference folks? And you can beef up the competition in the NIT.

I'm just sayin'.....
Click to expand...

I like the structure of the tournament - all the Division 1 league champions are there plus the best of the non-champions. The bubble discussion is how do the 4th through 8th teams in the big conferences compare to the 2nd through 4th of the mid-majors and maybe the 2nd team in the small conferences. I want to see the best of the rest - I'm agnostic as to conference.
 
#177
dangnewt said:
The other posting will make the one about the Big East easier to buy. The short take is that seeds 5-13 are closer than the numbers 5 and 13 would suggest.

"Instead, only 2 teams made it through and in each case only be beating another Big East team."
Yes and no - I'll grant him UConn but Marquette beat the regular season A-10 champion and 6 seed to put itself in the position to play Syracuse.

Maybe Pitt and ND should have had lower seeds - how much lower? - Pitt was 28-6 - ND was 27-7 - all losses to tournament teams.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, Dan, I wouldn't personally go as far as the commenter. I think those teams probably earned their seeds and that's that. On the other hand, there's no question in my mind that the Big East underperformed in the tournament very significantly.
 
#179
GregC said:
Just to clarify, Dan, I wouldn't personally go as far as the commenter. I think those teams probably earned their seeds and that's that. On the other hand, there's no question in my mind that the Big East underperformed in the tournament very significantly.
Click to expand...

Nate Silver and I agree that the Big East underperformed this year. ND and Pitt were big upsets - no matter how you slice it. Louisville was a big upset but Georgetown and St. Johns - not so much.

The thing that bothers me with the commenter is the "heads I win, tails you lose" aspect. Was the Big East over-rated such that Louisville gets a 4 seed that it didn't deserve or is the Big East over-rated because Louisville was a legit 4 seed that lost - you really can't have both. If Louisville is really a 5 or 6, then it is no big deal that it didn't reach the Sweet 16. Similarly, because there are a lot of Big East teams in the tournament, they are going to play each other sooner - so the commenter doesn't give any credit for a Big East team that wins against another Big East but full scorn for losses against a Big East team.
 
#180
dangnewt said:
Nate Silver and I agree that the Big East underperformed this year. ND and Pitt were big upsets - no matter how you slice it. Louisville was a big upset but Georgetown and St. Johns - not so much.

The thing that bothers me with the commenter is the "heads I win, tails you lose" aspect. Was the Big East over-rated such that Louisville gets a 4 seed that it didn't deserve or is the Big East over-rated because Louisville was a legit 4 seed that lost - you really can't have both. If Louisville is really a 5 or 6, then it is no big deal that it didn't reach the Sweet 16. Similarly, because there are a lot of Big East teams in the tournament, they are going to play each other sooner - so the commenter doesn't give any credit for a Big East team that wins against another Big East but full scorn for losses against a Big East team.
Click to expand...

Jeeze, I mean to bother people..... just tryin to spur a little conversation.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back