NCAA Expansion

[Aargh]

If you don't agree with me that it would be kind of cool for WSU to be in the running for a D-IAA basketball title year in and year out, I'm good with that.

How about if I suggested tha KU could be in the running for a D1AA FB title every year?

Suggesting that WSU accept permanent and designated second-tier status is pretty disrespectful. Does Gonzaga or Memphis get to keep "top-tier" status?

I'm considered one of the kinder, gentler, more even-tempered, and less-outspoken posters here.

I'd suggest you delete your user name and get another email account and user name before you dare come back to this board. You have stated virtually everything that causes WSU fans to sometimes have problems with KU fans - and then backed it up even after it was pretty clear that your idea was somewhere below whale dung in the opinion of WSU fans.

[benishock]

This moron is just another arrogant, elitist KU fan with a condescending attitude. Just ignore him.

[Aargh]

I'm not a KU snob, aargh. I have family members who received good educations at WSU and are contributors to society.

Even when you try to play nice, you just can't help yourself.
"good educations at WSU" - In that context good is the equivalent of mediocre. Qualities of things are rated in terms of "good", "better", and "best". "Good" is the first step above unsatisfactory.

"are contributors to society" - as if that was somehow in question for a graduate of WSU.

Your statements about your own family members who went to WSU is considered damning by appearing to praise. Would it even occur to you to mention whether a KU grad was a contributor to society?

If you can't see the snob dripping off your nose, let me hand you a Kleenes.

[beatmu]

If you don't agree with me that it would be kind of cool for WSU to be in the running for a D-IAA basketball title year in and year out, I'm good with that.

How about if I suggested tha KU could be in the running for a D1AA FB title every year?

Suggesting that WSU accept permanent and designated second-tier status is pretty disrespectful. Does Gonzaga or Memphis get to keep "top-tier" status?

I'm considered one of the kinder, gentler, more even-tempered, and less-outspoken posters here.

I'd suggest you delete your user name and get another email account and user name before you dare come back to this board. You have stated virtually everything that causes WSU fans to sometimes have problems with KU fans - and then backed it up even after it was pretty clear that your idea was somewhere below whale dung in the opinion of WSU fans.

Well, I'm a Jayhawk and I'm not going to apologize for that, but I do apologize for stirring up the emotions that got you going. That really was not my intent, I am just surprised that WSU fans would rather be relegated to 'also rans' most years rather than being a big fish in a smaller pond.

And you never did address the question I posed to you... do you in fact think less of Illinois State and Southern Illinois for not competing at the highest level in football? Should their fans be apologetic for being second rate citizens in football? Because I don't see them as second rate... I just see their programs as being realistic about where they are the same way it would be kind of silly for a 3A high school to think they're going to be competitive with 6A schools day in and day out.

I'm proud to be from Wichita and I'm proud of the fact that Koch Arena is one of the toughest venues in America for opposing teams, but I'll always bleed crimson and blue first and foremost. I know some WSU fans have a tough time hearing a Jayhawk say that they don't feel any rivalry with WSU because they're fans of both schools. I'm sorry it has to be an either/or for you and other Shocker fans like you. Fortunately, not all WSU fans share your vitriol for KU... at least in real life if not on internet message boards.

I will also be cheering for the grapes in the NCAA; I hope you will be, too.

[beatmu]

I'm not a KU snob, aargh. I have family members who received good educations at WSU and are contributors to society.

Even when you try to play nice, you just can't help yourself.
"good educations at WSU" - In that context good is the equivalent of mediocre. Qualities of things are rated in terms of "good", "better", and "best". "Good" is the first step above unsatisfactory.

"are contributors to society" - as if that was somehow in question for a graduate of WSU.

Your statements about your own family members who went to WSU is considered damning by appearing to praise. Would it even occur to you to mention whether a KU grad was a contributor to society?

If you can't see the snob dripping off your nose, let me hand you a Kleenes.

Jeebus. What an absolute crock... no, I do not think less of my WSU family or their education than I do my KU family. You really are just wanting to be argumentative and get in the last word. No matter what I say, you are going to misinterpret.

Whatever. Post away. I'm done trying to have a conversation with you.

[shockerfan]

The issue is you are basically suggesting WSU demote itself. You might as well just came on the board and said "You guys could do well in Div II...why don't you give that a shot?"

Does WSU have a chance to win a national championship? Not really, but they still have a chance to ruin plenty of other big school's chances at that prize. I'm good with that!

[beatmu]

The issue is you are basically suggesting WSU demote itself. You might as well just came on the board and said "You guys could do well in Div II...why don't you give that a shot?"

Does WSU have a chance to win a national championship? Not really, but they still have a chance to ruin plenty of other big school's chances at that prize. I'm good with that!

Division II is Kansas Newman, Emporia State, Washburn et al. I recognize that would be a slap in the face to WSU fans. When Fairmount/WU/WSU started playing basketball, there were not 300+ members in Division I. I am merely suggesting that Div. I is too big, and throwing out the idea of creating another level at Division I, with the same rules, scholarships, etc., not demoting current D-I to the next level down. I didn't even suggest that the BCS schools keep all of the money. Sorry if you thought I was inferring that.. not my intent at all.

But based on what I'm reading here, I'm really beginning to think Bishop Carroll is a bunch of ******* for not playing 6A instead of 5A.

[ShockerFever]

Worst. Idea. Ever.

[shocker3]

At the end of the NIT selection show last night, the head of the NIT committee stated that he thought if the NCAA expanded to 96 teams that they would probably just do away with the NIT.

So you really wouldn't have any more teams in post season play. They would all just be in the ncaa tourney (and getting big bucks) rather than 1/3 of them playing in the NIT for no money.

[60Shock]

Back to the original topic.

The obvious reason we should favor expansion is that it significantly increases our chances for selection as (hopefully) the MVC, in most years ,would at least then be a two or perhaps a three selection conference.

Undoubtedly, we would have been selected this year if the expansion had been in force. Then once in, at least most of the politics are over except for the bracketing, and it is up to the ability of our team to either advance or go home.

There can be little downside in expansion for us and the MVC.

[shocker3]

Back to the original topic.

The obvious reason we should favor expansion is that it significantly increases our chances for selection as (hopefully) the MVC, in most years ,would at least then be a two or perhaps a three selection conference.

Undoubtedly, we would have been selected this year if the expansion had been in force. Then once in, at least most of the politics are over except for the bracketing, and it is up to the ability of our team to either advance or go home.

There can be little downside in expansion for us and the MVC.

I agree. In fact the odds are very good that we would have had 3 teams in this year and I think last year too.

Conferences like the Valley (A-10, MWC, WAC, C-USA, WCC, CAA) would have the most to gain from expansion.

The small one bid conferences will still only get one bid and the power 6 would continue to get a lot and even a little more. But the expansion would allow the Valley to become a 2 to 4 bid conference every year. That would give us some separation from the nearly 20 annual one bid conferences.

The way things are going right now we are quickly becoming the best one bid conference in the ncaa and that is a terrible position to be in.

[WSUShokker]

Back to the original topic.

The obvious reason we should favor expansion is that it significantly increases our chances for selection as (hopefully) the MVC, in most years ,would at least then be a two or perhaps a three selection conference.

Undoubtedly, we would have been selected this year if the expansion had been in force. Then once in, at least most of the politics are over except for the bracketing, and it is up to the ability of our team to either advance or go home.

There can be little downside in expansion for us and the MVC.

I agree. In fact the odds are very good that we would have had 3 teams in this year and I think last year too.

Conferences like the Valley (A-10, MWC, WAC, C-USA, WCC, CAA) would have the most to gain from expansion.

The small one bid conferences will still only get one bid and the power 6 would continue to get a lot and even a little more. But the expansion would allow the Valley to become a 2 to 4 bid conference every year. That would give us some separation from the nearly 20 annual one bid conferences.

The way things are going right now we are quickly becoming the best one bid conference in the ncaa and that is a terrible position to be in.

Is the disparity between the BCS leagues and ours that much different?
How bout the difference between our league and the one bid leagues?

I just dont want us to become what we despise and that is a league that has this sense of entitlement for what we did last year....It may come to that though and to hell with the leagues below us...I just wish there was a fair way to do it and the NCAA would do it because its the right thing to do..

I know wishful thinking and nothing but a pipe dream....

[ShockBand]

If they put in the expansion, I would beg them to PLEASE make a rule that you must be .500 or better in your conference to qualify.

[SubGod22]

If they put in the expansion, I would beg them to PLEASE make a rule that you must be .500 or better in your conference to qualify.

That should be common freaking sense but will never happen.

[ShockBand]

If they put in the expansion, I would beg them to PLEASE make a rule that you must be .500 or better in your conference to qualify.

That should be common freaking sense but will never happen.

I know, its weird they have a minimum win rule for bowl eligibility, where everyone and their dog can get a bowl game, but such a rule for the basketball tournament (where you would take still less than 1/3 in the expanded version) isn't needed? I'm sorry, if you can't win at least half your league games, you should be in one of the other tournaments, regardless of what league you play in.