I hate mid-majors and lesser conferences

[Pedro Cerrano]

Well, lets not compare anything to 1-A College Football, which has the worst (excuse me, non existent) post-season in the history of anything. I can't even get into 1-A Football because of how disgustingly unfair the post-season system is.

And sure, would it be tougher for Duke to face Virginia Tech in the first round? Of course, but what about Belmont last year? Winthrop against Tennessee a few years ago?

The great thing about the first round is there is 4 games going on at once, so if there is a blow-out CBS usually switches you over to a closer game going on (or, if you have the DirecTV package, you switch yourself). I just think there is nothing better than watching VCU beat Duke, or when George Mason made it to the Final 4. THAT is what March Madness is about. Its why college basketball does and always will have the best post-season.

Sure, would a best of 7 series format like the NBA determine more of a true champion? Yes. It would. And it would eliminate the magic that is the NCAA Tournament. Give me the NCAA Tournament over the NBA Playoffs 999.9999 times out of 1,000. Actually, screw it. Give it to me all 1,000. And I am a pretty big NBA fan.

And any team cutting down the nets in early April has more than earned it if you ask me. They are still playing good teams. Sure, maybe they'll get an easier game tossed in here and there, but they still have to win 6 games like everyone else. And you aren't getting too many easy match-ups once you are into the Sweet 16. You think Maryland didn't feel like they earned their National Title in '02 because they played Siena in the first round?

I think we're now debating what's more enjoyable to watch versus what is more fair in determining the Champion. I agree about the NBA example -- if we really really wanted to determine the best team we'd have the top 16 teams play series with each other similar to the NBA playoffs.

And I understand how much fun it is to watch Weber State beat North Carolina. I'll enjoy all those games.

My only point is, if you're having a tournament, the most fair way to determine the best team is to have the best 65 teams play. Not sure how anyone can refute that, even if it's not more enjoyable to watch.

[YardBirds13]

I think we're now debating what's more enjoyable to watch versus what is more fair in determining the Champion. I agree about the NBA example -- if we really really wanted to determine the best team we'd have the top 16 teams play series with each other similar to the NBA playoffs.

And I understand how much fun it is to watch Weber State beat North Carolina. I'll enjoy all those games.

My only point is, if you're having a tournament, the most fair way to determine the best team is to have the best 65 teams play. Not sure how anyone can refute that, even if it's not more enjoyable to watch.

I'll be happy to refute that.

The most fair way is to give every conference a chance to win a National Title. We know the MEAC and SWAC aren't very good. But give them a chance to prove it on a national stage. The CAA is better than those leagues (and a lot better than people give it credit for), why shouldn't they get at least one team to prove themselves in the dance?

Look, the power conference teams play tough teams all season, so they get all sorts of chances to get big quality wins, and a team like Maryland can peak late in the season, pick up wins against UNC and (maybe) Wake, and all of a sudden be a lock for the tournament.

A team like, say VCU, has to peak in Novembe is they are going to make the tournament you want to have. They HAVE to beat 2 or 3 good teams in November or December. If they peak at the end of the season (like you want a good team to do), they've got no shot at making your tournament.

I don't think its unfair at all (in fact, it's perfectly fair, in my opinion) to have each conference represented in the tournament by their league champion.

Now, when it comes to some of these conferences getting at-large bids, I actually tend to sway towards your side of the argument.

It seems often times that mid-major teams who want at-large bids want to be looked at differently than the power conference teams. THAT is unfair. Just because Siena played a tough schedule doesn't mean they should get an at-large bid. They didn't beat anyone on that tough schedule. Davidson has Stephen Curry. That's nice. They beat NC State and West Virginia. I'm sorry, but any team from a big conference that had only beaten NCST and WVU would have NO SHOT at an at-large bid.

So, while I think it is fair that the smaller conferences deserve to have dinner at the adult table, I just think they shouldn't be allowed to bring any guests, unless they REALLY earn it. The big conference should be able to roll up with all their homies in limos.

You don't think that scenario is fair?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Your scenario is fair, it's just not the fairest way, IMO. The only way you can convince me is if you show me data that states that an Atlantic Sun team could lose like 1-2 games in the regular season and still not have an RPI even close to the top 65.

If that is the case then yes, maybe you need to relook at the situation. Because, like I think I stated, the one thing you can't hold against a mid-major is the strength of their conference schedule, they have no control over that.

[YardBirds13]

Your scenario is fair, it's just not the fairest way, IMO. The only way you can convince me is if you show me data that states that an Atlantic Sun team could lose like 1-2 games in the regular season and still not have an RPI even close to the top 65.

If that is the case then yes, maybe you need to relook at the situation. Because, like I think I stated, the one thing you can't hold against a mid-major is the strength of their conference schedule, they have no control over that.

I'm just not sure anything can be considered the "fairest way" when like 20 conferences have no shot at putting any team in the tournament by January 1.

As a fan of both a Big Conference team and a mid-major, I feel like I have the least bias here. you obviously just want all mid-major teams leveled to turn them into parking lots for the big conference schools

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'm just not sure anything can be considered the "fairest way" when like 20 conferences have no shot at putting any team in the tournament by January 1.

As a fan of both a Big Conference team and a mid-major, I feel like I have the least bias here. you obviously just want all mid-major teams leveled to turn them into parking lots for the big conference schools

Well, Maryland COULD use more parking garages -- any alum will tell you that.

[geschinger]

Sure, changing this around would mean that certain teams at the beginning of the year would have no chance to win it all, but can't we say the same thing about college football? Auburn didn't lose a freaking game a few years ago and they didn't win the title -- life is not fair.

NCAA Football needs to adopt some of the principles of NCAA Basketball not vice versa. The system used in College Football is about as awful as it gets.

[YardBirds13]

Totally agree with you Pedro.

I don't get why some guys get all defensive and point to how George Mason made the run, Davidson, VCU, etc.

The point is, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to make the run?

If you put the 8th team in the MLB playoffs replacing the WC instead of the 4th, I bet they would win the WS once every 8 times. Does that make it right? Does that make it fair?

MD, Providence, VT, even Virginia would destroy Deleware State.

Is it fair? In a way yes because there are rules, but in a way no because the best teams aren't getting in. But it wasn't "fair" when the Pats didn't make it in the NFL this year, but in the other sense it was becasue there are rules every year.

The only thing is, I think MD, Vtech, Michigan...I think these teams could make a legit run at the Elite 8. Probably 10-15 teams in the tournament that may get in over these teams have 0.0001 chance. So in that sense, it would be more competitive if the better teams got in.

His point was it's frustrating watching teams on the bubble play 20 better teams than any of these mid majors and they easily walk into the tourney, only to get trounced by 50 in the first round.

If you want a system that eliminates 20 conferences (the entire conference!) from even getting a team into the tournament, go watch college football.

I'm shocked there is anyone who doesn't think every conference should have a representative.

It's not about making a run at a title for these guys. Getting in is a huge accomplishment. Winning a game is like their championship.

There is 34 spots for the teams you guys are talking about. Win some damn games against against all the teams you get to play in your huge monster conference and you won't have to worry about the guys who actually won their conference "taking" your spot.

[Fairfax Bird]

There is 34 spots for the teams you guys are talking about. Win some damn games against against all the teams you get to play in your huge monster conference and you won't have to worry about the guys who actually won their conference "taking" your spot.

What he said. This is exactly right.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The real problem here is that there is no real way to judge the "top 65" teams.

They have enough problems figuring out the 34 at-large bids every year, and there are always controversies.

You can't go by wins, RPI and SOS have major flaws, so what are you going to do? Some convoluted B©S-esque formula?

The other point mentioned is a good one: there are 34 spots open for at-large teams. If this was 1974 and only conference champions got in there might be an argument for this, but most likely they still would go with adding at-large teams to the mix.

Teams need to win their games.

You all know how much I love the Terps and want to see them in the post-season. However, if they are the ninth-best team in the conference with an under-.500 conference record, I don't care if they are judged by whatever preliminary measure you use to be number-63 in the country. If they aren't good enough to be one of the 35 possible teams (ACC champion and the at-larges) they don't deserve to make it under any system short-of simply adding more teams to the tournament (which would be bad).

[O's are Legends]

For the record I was not talking about any one team in particular. If George Mason and Creighton etc etc are a top 65 team then yes they deserve to be in.

I'm talking about a team like Delaware State, who has an awful RPI (just an example from a few years ago) getting a bid.

I wish you included this in your original post. Really clear things up instead of just hating ALL mid majors and lesser conferences.

Totally agree with you Pedro.

I don't get why some guys get all defensive and point to how George Mason made the run, Davidson, VCU, etc.

The point is, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to make the run?

If you put the 8th team in the MLB playoffs replacing the WC instead of the 4th, I bet they would win the WS once every 8 times. Does that make it right? Does that make it fair?

MD, Providence, VT, even Virginia would destroy Deleware State.

Is it fair? In a way yes because there are rules, but in a way no because the best teams aren't getting in. But it wasn't "fair" when the Pats didn't make it in the NFL this year, but in the other sense it was becasue there are rules every year.

The only thing is, I think MD, Vtech, Michigan...I think these teams could make a legit run at the Elite 8. Probably 10-15 teams in the tournament that may get in over these teams have 0.0001 chance. So in that sense, it would be more competitive if the better teams got in.

His point was it's frustrating watching teams on the bubble play 20 better teams than any of these mid majors and they easily walk into the tourney, only to get trounced by 50 in the first round.

Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to make that run. Are you :cussing: serious? Sounds like you bet against Mason or are a fan of one of those teams that lost to them otherwise how could you not be in awe of what they accomplished? Mason didn't even win their conference tournament in 05-06, they received an at large bid. Not every Mid-Major is a Delaware State. Go ask the A-10 (3 ranked teams last year for at least 2 separate weeks) or the Missouri Valley Conference who have the 7th strongest conference rpi this year and always have great teams. Tell them they shouldn't be allowed to be in the tourney, Xavier - the two recent elite 8's yup should have never happened. Xavier is ranked 17th, Gonzaga 14th and Butler 22 as of this week and are well deserving of their rankings.

If you beat Michigan State who made the Final 4 the year before, UNC the previous NCAA champions, Wichita State for the second time and UCONN the number 1 ranked team in the Nation, you damn well proved you were a great team and earned everything along the way. To say that should have never happened is just absurd. It’s the greatest run in NCAA basketball history and you’re the only person I've ever heard say this.

Maybe the Terps shouldn't be losing at home to Morgan State or getting blown out by 27+ three times in one season. Maybe G-town shouldn't be losing to Cincy twice and Seton Hall, the Hoyas have done an awful job closing out games this year and that has been their problem, not Xavier's , not Creighton's, not BYU's or Western Kentucky’s problem. The Hoyas had to take care of business and they didn't, Summer's has been sleeping somewhere down the stretch and has himself to blame. He's not going to take the Vasquez or Caner-Medley rout and blame other teams for not making the tourney then get your ass kicked by Manhattan College. I'm a huge G-town fan since I was a kid and it’s real fortunate this weekend they beat Nova on the road along with the great wins early in the season. If they can win their last 2 then they might make it back in the NCAA tourney but if they had lost to Nova that's it the season is over and I'm not going to blame Buffalo for winning the Mid-American Conference for Gtown not getting in.

Just because you play against great teams doesn't make you a great team. You have to earn it. DePaul and Virginia suck, that's it, there is a new season next year, good luck. I don't want to see them in the tourney, their awful; they have lost against good teams all year and if you replaced them with the 16 seeds their still going to lose as they have all year. I’ve watched them lose all year, why do I need the NCAA tourney to remind me of how bad they are.

Delaware State has 7 wins this year. Of course UMD, VT, and Providence would destroy that 7 win team. Don’t bring in the Delaware State 2005 team to compare to the 2009 UMD, VT, and Providence teams. (Providence should be in) How about matching them up to good 2009 mid major teams like Utah, Dayton.

It’s true not every mid major team is good but not every mid major team is Delaware State or Toledo. Go ask Xavier or Creighton and not every Major basketball team is UCONN or PITT, go ask Rutgers.

[BaltimoreTerp]

My point with them not being allowed to make a run is, I don't think George Mason necessarily deserved to be in it. They were 15-3 in the CAA and 23-7 overall. If you don't think the first team out in the ACC could have beaten those numbers playing the same schedule as GM then I think you're being a bit naive. There were teams better than GM that did not make it that had a better chance of making a Final Four run than GM.

Sure, it's a great story. But you would also watch in awe of the KC Royals of they were given an entry into the MLB playoffs and beat the Angels, Yanks, and Phillies for the WS Title...Doesn't mean they deserve it.

Look....There's no one in the country that says with a straight face that the NCAA Tourney is the 64 best teams. Fine, that's the tournament in today's world. That's fine. But Pedro's ultimate point was just that, that it's not the 64 best teams. He believes that the 64 best teams should be playing for the Championship.

Why should the 40th best team not get the chance to compete for the championship when the 80th or 90th does?

Did you not hear him? George Mason in 2006 WAS an at-large team. UNC-Wilmington won the conference. So obviously they were one of the top 34 non-conference-champions. In other words, in your and Pedro's scenario they still would have made the tournament.

Sounds to me like you just have something against schools YOU view as inferior.

And chances are the 40th-best team will make the tournament unless all of the top teams lose their conference tournaments, in which case you have an outlier year anyway.

[O's are Legends]

My point with them not being allowed to make a run is, I don't think George Mason necessarily deserved to be in it. They were 15-3 in the CAA and 23-7 overall. If you don't think the first team out in the ACC could have beaten those numbers playing the same schedule as GM then I think you're being a bit naive. There were teams better than GM that did not make it that had a better chance of making a Final Four run than GM.

Sure, it's a great story. But you would also watch in awe of the KC Royals of they were given an entry into the MLB playoffs and beat the Angels, Yanks, and Phillies for the WS Title...Doesn't mean they deserve it.

Look....There's no one in the country that says with a straight face that the NCAA Tourney is the 64 best teams. Fine, that's the tournament in today's world. That's fine. But Pedro's ultimate point was just that, that it's not the 64 best teams. He believes that the 64 best teams should be playing for the Championship.

Why should the 40th best team not get the chance to compete for the championship when the 80th or 90th does?

Are you serious, I guess Creighton doesn't deserve to be in either this year despite just falling short of a top 25 ranking this week.

05-06 Mason were ranked in the top 25 at one point, won 14 of 15 including Wichita State on the road in the bracket busters, even if you put the top ACC team they could only do 1 better winning 15 out of 15 during that stretch. Mason earned their AT-LARGE bid and proved it in the tourney.

Yes. Of course the first ACC team would have won more games playing the same schedule but Mason clearly was a great team and not the Royals and deserved an at large bid. There have also been times where a mid major team deserved to go like Drexel a couple years back (think 05-06) but a team from a major conference like Arkansas who was less deserving made it in so it does work both ways.

It isn’t the top 64 teams but just like you mentioned the 08-09 Patriots, it isn’t always fair and that’s how most sports work. Look at MLB, the Padres had an 83 win season and made the postseason! and didn’t the Mariners miss out when they won around 100 games or more (sorry I can’t remember exactly the year or wins but they were clearly playoff worthy)

These 80th and 90th teams are going to continue to get in whether we like it or not. Some may complain but if let’s say Akron wins their tourney and makes the tourney, it gives their program a bit more coverage and allows them to face better OOC games the following year and may put them in position to sign better players that will allow them to become a top 65 team in the future.

Edited March 2, 2009 by O's are Legends

[YardBirds13]

Again this is not the point. Let's look at MD just because we are all familar with them.

They could lose out and you say, "Win a game against Morgan State or Virginia or hold a lead against Miami and you don't have to worry."

My thing is, how can you use that logic, when we also beat 14-16 teams who are better than anyone Deleware State has played, including Deleware State themselves?

Look at the NFL...Your same argument can be used for NE..doesn't mean the best teams got in or that it was necessarily totally fair for them.

You are comparing the NFL (32 teams) to Div-1 NCAA Hoops (317 teams I believe).

It isn't an equal playing field in college basketball. To compare it to pro sports is absurd. The small schools have no money and no chance to ever make the tournament if you do it your way.

I'm floored anyone actually thinks this.

[Dan-O®]

Lol, are you really asking that? It's something called "Strength of Schedule" (btw GTown is #1 -- what do you think your conference leader's record would be if they played GTown's schedule?)

Thank you. Now I know the error of my ways. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Nobody has ever said the point of the tournament was to reward the 64/65 best teams on paper. The goal is and always should be to reward teams who have played their way into it. Like it or not, the Atlantic Sun and SWAC and whatever other conference's tournament champion will have earned their way into it. I suppose that's where you and I differ in opinion. The Atlantic Sun, etc... conference tourney championship is not proof of merit to you, while I would argue that any championship at the Division I level is worth a tourney bid. Why would these teams bother playing under the Division I umbrella otherwise? Sure, a team like G-Town has played a tremendously tough schedule, but what have they done with it?

I suppose I'm ultra-touchy on this subject given that my school is competing this year as a top seed in a conference tourney for their first ever NCAA bid. Should they make it into the tourney I think they have a team that will be very competitive in their opening round game. When people argue that the team I've followed night in, night out for the past 4 months doesn't belong there at all, I find it ignorant. This is a chance for glory and national recognition for schools that spend much of the time out of the limelight. It would be a tremendous honor for my university to be represented in this tournament. Finally then, some people might actually know we exist. Why rain on the parade?

[YardBirds13]

Thank you. Now I know the error of my ways. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Nobody has ever said the point of the tournament was to reward the 64/65 best teams on paper. The goal is and always should be to reward teams who have played their way into it. Like it or not, the Atlantic Sun and SWAC and whatever other conference's tournament champion will have earned their way into it. I suppose that's where you and I differ in opinion. The Atlantic Sun, etc... conference tourney championship is not proof of merit to you, while I would argue that any championship at the Division I level is worth a tourney bid. Why would these teams bother playing under the Division I umbrella otherwise? Sure, a team like G-Town has played a tremendously tough schedule, but what have they done with it?

I suppose I'm ultra-touchy on this subject given that my school is competing this year as a top seed in a conference tourney for their first ever NCAA bid. Should they make it into the tourney I think they have a team that will be very competitive in their opening round game. When people argue that the team I've followed night in, night out for the past 4 months doesn't belong there at all, I find it ignorant. This is a chance for glory and national recognition for schools that spend much of the time out of the limelight. It would be a tremendous honor for my university to be represented in this tournament. Finally then, some people might actually know we exist. Why rain on the parade?

Great paragraph, and it sums up why Pedro and Ravenbird are completely wrong about this.

As a fan of a mid-major and a high major team, I feel that I can see it from both sides.

But, there I cannot fathom not having the conference champs in the NCAA Tournament.

Who is your team, I'll root for them in their conference tourney. If they aren't in the CAA, root for my Dukes of JMU in the CAA Tournament!