Tweet
Originally posted by ShockTalk
-
That would ultimately end in WSU and the rest of The Valley in "B" while the BCS ends up with their own tournament. -
Originally posted by AndShock
Xavier. Temple. UMass. St. Joseph's. BYU. UNLV. Tulsa. Memphis. TCU. UNLV. UTEP. Houston. Gonzaga. Butler.
Those are just some of the schools - along with WSU - that would be excluded if the BSC had their own tournament. That's some pretty good basketball tradition to kick to the curb.
No, I'm talking about the bottom third of the conferences. I'm talkin' about the leagues that have NEVER gotten an at-large bid.Comment
-
Absolutely not. You're doing to those conferences what you don't like being done to you. So Davidson wouldn't have gotten a bid the past couple of years? Or no Winthrop with Marshall coaching? Give me a break.Originally posted by WheatshockerComment
-
Originally posted by Wheatshocker
BYU basketball tradition is called "being overrated, getting a high seed, and getting killed in the first round of the tournament"
BYU hasn't won a tournament game in decades and haven't been competitive in many either even with 5-8 seeds. USU has had 11-15 seeds, won, and always been more competitive in NCAA tournament games even with lower seeds than BYU.Comment
-
Why? I said 14 conferences made up of 10-14 teams each. That's about 165-170 schools. It would have nothing to do with BCS football. There's only 11 D1-A football conferences now, and a couple of those shouldn't be there. Anyway, that would allow for at least 3 conferences that would be for D1-A basketball only teams (no D1-A football) and another 5 conferences that are non-BCS (mid-majors) for D1-A basketball and football. Also, some conferences would pick up basketball only schools, like the Big East does now.Originally posted by AndShockComment
-
No doubt there would be some team movement to other conferences. Don't forget, D1-B would have their own national championship and a young coach could make a pretty good name for himself winning it. Both divisions would still play each other in the non-con. I haven't gone into any depth on this idea, but I'm far from sold on this 96 team field solving anything.Originally posted by NCAABoundComment
-
If it goes to 96 teams I stop caring. That is just a stupid pandering, not to mid majors, but to middle class BCSers and their coaches who are afraid they are going to get fired because they don't get in. This is the most pathetic idea yet floated. Just leave it alone. You can screw the non BCSers all you want as it is.Comment
-
:yes:Originally posted by AshockalypseComment
-
Originally posted by Wheatshocker
Too late. They already expanded the dance to 65 teams several years ago.Comment
-
What about a 72 team tournament, 15 and 16 seeds would all be play-in games?
The "Stony Brook" type teams would get the play-in games.
That would allow more 'on the bubble' mid-major teams to get in.Comment
-
Maybe. But those bottom seeds want their day in the sun against the #1 seeds.Originally posted by ShoxFan963Comment
-
To me, it's either expand to 128, or leave it alone. Awarding byes gives teams an unfair advantage, especially when seeding is such an inexact science. 96 would create a split down the middle between bye teams and those having to play in the opening round.
However, it's either expand (eliminate the NIT), or reduce the # of teams playing D-1A.Comment
-
Another rpi nugget as of 2/9:
These teams have a lower RPI than Wichita State, and appear on ESPN's Bubble Watch:
Clemson, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Marquette, Notre Dame, South Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Missouri, Washington, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, Charlotte, Cornell, Northeastern, San Diego St., St. Mary's, Tulsa, UTEP, VCU, William & Mary.Comment
Comment