Tweet
Would the tournament be called "May Madness?"
-
-
:yes:Originally posted by ripemupshocks“Talk low, talk slow and don't say too much.”
John WayneComment
-
How does taking the name out of the process make that much of a difference? Are you telling me that, without a name attached, you couldn't tell the which team was non-BCS (WSU) and which was a BCS (Notre Dame or Missouri)? I would think the number of 1-50 RPI games played would be your first clue... 5 vs 9 / 11. Then a look at the conference record 12-6 vs 10-8 /10-6.Originally posted by 19SHOCKER76Comment
-
[/quote]How does taking the name out of the process make that much of a difference? [/quote]
I don't claim to have an answer, just saying that as long as the selection process is soooooo subjective nothing is going to change. How do you get more objectivity? One suggestion here has been that the top two or three teams from each conference get bids, that's a good start, eliminating a lot of the at large bids.“Talk low, talk slow and don't say too much.”
John WayneComment
-
It was mentioned in another thread Doug Gottlieb and another talking head on ESPN were given resume's for 3 teams. They both picked William & Mary as the best team. The other two were NCAA BCS picks.Originally posted by ShockTalkComment
-
The problem with that is those talking heads have never sniffed the inside of the selection committee's war room. And we should give them no more a sniff when it comes to selection process credibility. They are paid (not directly, of course) to talk up the teams with large fan bases that will tune into ESPN.Originally posted by shockball
Oh, they love them some March upsets and Cinderella hyperbole, but they know who ultimately butters their bread.Comment
-
I saw that when it happened. I'm not saying that based on the information they were given, they didn't pick the more deserving. What they were not asked was to pick which team is probably the non-BCS team. It's been proposed that there is BCS bias, consciously or not, by the selection committee. I'm simply proposing that if an individual wanted to figure out which was and was not the BCS team, they could probably do so most of the time without the name of the school.Originally posted by shockballComment
-
I'd say it is almost a given that the size of the field will increase. March Madness is a huge cash cow for the NCAA, so they will milk everything they can out of it. They will screw it up and decide to put in the 12th place team in the Beast and the 10th in the Big 12, 8th in the Big 10/11 and screw over the so-called mid-majors.Comment
-
Hopefully this year has shown that mid-majors deserve better. I hated to see the cats lose, but having Butler in the Final 4 is a great win for mid majors hoping to get in come selection sundayOriginally posted by Zardoz"Say it slowly and savor it..."
Nothing worse than sCUm/sKUmComment
-
If that were the case then there wouldn't have been a significant decline in mid-major at large bids after George Mason's Final 4 run. As much as we like seeing a mid-major in the Final 4...the heads of the NCAA and the media don't as much. Look for a decline starting next year again LOL.Originally posted by wsushockerdude"He called me around noon and was thrilled," Brandt said. "He said he was going to be a Shocker forever." -- RIP Guy, you WILL indeed be a Shocker forever!Comment
-
However, George Mason was a TRUE cinderella at an 11 seed. Butler is a 5, and while a 5 in the final four isnt something that usually happens, it does prove they can win. Not to mention the games that mid majors won against powerhouse teams (Butler and Syracuse, UNI and KU, Murray State and Vanderbilt, Cornell and Wisconsin, and St Marys and Villanova).Originally posted by shockerfan"Say it slowly and savor it..."
Nothing worse than sCUm/sKUmComment
-
Butler has won 23 straight. They have wins over Big East, Big 12 & Big 10 leaders throughout the season & enrout to the final 4. They weren't a 5 seed. They were the classic case of an under-appreciated mid major.Phi AlphaComment
-
im guessing you mean they shouldnt have been/deserved to be a seed higher than 5? If so i agree.Originally posted by Speed"Say it slowly and savor it..."
Nothing worse than sCUm/sKUmComment
-
Give the top mid-majors a 3-5 seed every year and we'd see a lot more of them making the final four.Comment
-
Take a look at the rpi now:
Duke is #2
WV is #3
Butler is #7
Michigan St. is #17
Maybe the best teams just won to get to the final 4, and the seeding was way off. Butler at a 5 seed was just wrong.
I know these figures are up-to-date, and include the tournament wins, but still.Comment
Comment