A team should be 500 in conf to qualify.
- Thread starter bum4iu2
- Start date
Exactly. I'd rather watch Boise St or Bradley before I watch Texas or Oklahoma.
that used to be the standard, at least for B1G teams. Very rare for a sub .500 B1G to ever make the tourney.
I think IU did once, the super frosh yr of 1990 (Cheaney, Grahams, etc) when they were 8-10.
B1G has become the fball conference (last 2 natty's) and SEC is the bball conference.
btw, Auburn is the #1 overall seed and has been a top 5-10 program the past few years. And it's still a fball school with huge donor/NIL funds, and little pressure on the bball program. All they care about is beating Alabama, and then Georgia, in football. I don't know why anyone would think Pearl would be crazy enough to abandon what he has down there and leave for IU. That was never going to happen.
I think IU did once, the super frosh yr of 1990 (Cheaney, Grahams, etc) when they were 8-10.
B1G has become the fball conference (last 2 natty's) and SEC is the bball conference.
btw, Auburn is the #1 overall seed and has been a top 5-10 program the past few years. And it's still a fball school with huge donor/NIL funds, and little pressure on the bball program. All they care about is beating Alabama, and then Georgia, in football. I don't know why anyone would think Pearl would be crazy enough to abandon what he has down there and leave for IU. That was never going to happen.
No. Especially in this superconference era. But 14 from a 16-team league is a bit much, when at least one, maybe two of them went 6-12.
They certainly set a precedent that regular season conference records don't really matter a ton. At some point, I'm not sure what actually does matter? We've been told the conference tournaments don't matter. Obviously if you can make a tournament with a 6-12 conference record, that doesn't matter. I guess maybe preconference schedule is the most important thing. Purdue fans have been hanging December banners for a few years, maybe Fatt Painter has it all figured out afterall?
Conference tournaments don’t matter? Or, is it the conference tournament championship game that doesn’t matter (which make sense, look how late the B10 one is)?
You don’t think when we played on Dayton that the B10 tourney performance helped us make the play in game? Had we lost that opener to Michigan most thought we were out.
Every committee is different. Michigan won the conference tournament, and had a better in season record...and still was seeded behind Purdue. I guess because Purdue beat Bama in November or December?
Fans focus on good wins and bad losses.
I’m not so sure it’s that simple. Perhaps IU had too many bad wins, (and/or too few good losses)?
??? they had four Quad 1 wins, and no Quad 2-4 losses... Both better results than UNC...
Absolutely Agree. Here is a proposal that might help.
1. The NCAA amends its' rules to allow for up to 40 countable season game.
2. If Your Conference has 1 2 teams or less, You are required to play a round robin Conference Schedule Home and Home.
3 . If You have 14 or more Conference teams. You split your teams into 2 divisions. You play Home and Home Round Robin in Division and 1
game against each team in the other Division. In the Big 10, You would have 2 nine team divisions. You get home and home against
each of the other 8 teams in Your division (16 games) and 1 game against each of the 9 teams in the other Division - 25 game total.
4. If Your Conference has a Tournament, and You have a losing in conference record, You will only be considered for the NCAA Tournament if You reach the semifinals of Your Conference Tournament.
This gets everybody closer to a round robin Conference Schedule and a better measure of quality. As for the Teams in larger Conferences Who miss the Tournament due to this rule, You can't have it both ways. You wanted the money and exposure that came with a bigger Conference. If You can't play up to an average standard in Your Conference and run with the big dogs, stay on the porch and watch the Tournament with the small dogs.
Did you read what I said?
do you think the committee only cares about quad 1 wins or quad 4 losses? Imho, they should look at the quality of all wins. (And do the same with losses).
There is such a thing as a bad win. Sure we had some good wins. But, we also scheduled a bunch of terrible teams and didn’t even bother to blow them out.
Let's play 82 games! And have an in-season tournament before the end of season playoffs!
No. We don't want to be NBA II and get to the point where some games are meaningless. Just because the NCAA allows You to play up to 40 games doesn't mean You have to. Play a 30 game Schedule or just play Your Conference Schedule. This is simply away to recognize that with larger Conferences, You are getting teams that can't play average ball within their Conference getting to the NCAA Tournament because They somehow meet other criteria set by the NCAA. This levels the field and forces teams to put an emphasis on their Conference Schedule during the Year.
The NET quad system is basically designed to categorize exactly what you're saying. I guess they could look deeper and make their own determinations. I actually advocate for that. But I would ask then, why do they need the NET/Quad system then? They reportedly used it, and WAB heavily. I suspect they have as many metrics as they do, so they can reference the ones that fit their narrative.
What was the SECs collective conference record against the weak ass ACC, overrated Big 12 and Big East and finally the B1G?
I would love a stat and fact based post mortem breakdown as to why the SEC received so many bids and why those bids were questionably seeded higher than the bracketologists envisioned.
The B1G was the consensus second best conference this season and went 8/18 on bids??
That's jacked up.
O
I would love a stat and fact based post mortem breakdown as to why the SEC received so many bids and why those bids were questionably seeded higher than the bracketologists envisioned.
The B1G was the consensus second best conference this season and went 8/18 on bids??
That's jacked up.
O
59-19 vs. other power conference teams. 30-4 vs. ACC. 10-9 vs. Big Ten
I heard next year all teams get participation trophies. Everyone will be screaming to get into the tournament.
Everyone is already screaming to get into the Tournament. And it isn't about the Players and Competition, it's about the Money. Schools get a bigger cut of Money for making the Tournament. In addition, many Coaches have provisions in their contracts calling for payment of bonuses if their team makes the Tournament. So You have the spectacle of a Coach defending a mediocre team and crying that they didn't make the Tournament when several teams with comparable records made it. Hey, We are the best of the worst, so We deserve to be included.
There's a small level of that. But mainly, fans and coaches and players want to be included in the single best postseason tournament that exists and captures the attention of people around the country, even those that are not CBB fans. It can literally be a life-changing experience.
Take care of business during the season and things will work out better. NONE of these teams UNC, IU, etc should have even been on the possibility list to make the tournament. Guess many are hoping for a mediocre coach just so IU can barely taste the tournament again. It’s time to start the NEW IU culture of great coaching, play, and winning.. not just getting by. Too many years have gone by since I’ve seen what IU culture should be about.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Dustin Dopirak weighs in on IU basketball and the NCAA tourney.
- Latest: Harpo Marxist
