Baylor coach proposal would help NU

[hddude55]

He wants a 96 team field. No joke.

Let’s be real. His team didn’t get in either so a goofy idea probably isn’t hard to understand. But if the purpose of the tournament is to crown a worthy champion, does anyone seriously believe the possible champ is sitting at home?

 

[hddude55]

Sorry about double post

 

[TwinsRRUs]

Maybe then we could get our first tourney win!

Agree with your last sentence/question.

If you make the NCAA tournament 96 teams, how many games does that add? Only one more?

If they want crazy ideas, put 260 teams in and then see the winner have to win 8 straight games to be the champion.

Certainly the depth of teams would eventually show and it would give better teams another couple games to have a chance at an off night and to lose.

Adding teams takes away from the exhuberant feeling of making the tourney though. No more Sunday bracket excitement of making the tourney crap, no more paying attention to who is on the bubble, no more end of regular season give a damn except for the conference tourney, which doesn't seem that big of a deal now anyway.

Then when Nebrasketball wins a tourney game, it won't matter. Too lottle too late. Didn't win one when it mattered.

Same with football, make it 128 teams and may the best team win! Crazy ideas for sure.

 

[kaz36]

I guess I don't understand why the committee doesn't factor in how a team finishes the season, like they used to. I understand that they want to look at the season as a whole, but shouldn't the fact that a team is not a tournament worthy at the end of the year factor in? Just because a team looks like an NCAA worthy team in November and December shouldn't completely override the fact that they aren't even NIT worthy in January and February, IMO.

Another thing, how in the world does a team like USC, who finished 2nd in the PAC 12(season and tourney) and had an RPI of 32, get passed over by Arizona St who finished 8th with an RPI of 61? Doesn't make sense.

 

[CelticHawk]

I guess I don't understand why the committee doesn't factor in how a team finishes the season, like they used to. I understand that they want to look at the season as a whole, but shouldn't the fact that a team is not a tournament worthy at the end of the year factor in? Just because a team looks like an NCAA worthy team in November and December shouldn't completely override the fact that they aren't even NIT worthy in January and February, IMO.

Another thing, how in the world does a team like USC, who finished 2nd in the PAC 12(season and tourney) and had an RPI of 32, get passed over by Arizona St who finished 8th with an RPI of 61? Doesn't make sense.

No sense.

 

[scarletred]

I guess I don't understand why the committee doesn't factor in how a team finishes the season, like they used to. I understand that they want to look at the season as a whole, but shouldn't the fact that a team is not a tournament worthy at the end of the year factor in? Just because a team looks like an NCAA worthy team in November and December shouldn't completely override the fact that they aren't even NIT worthy in January and February, IMO.

Another thing, how in the world does a team like USC, who finished 2nd in the PAC 12(season and tourney) and had an RPI of 32, get passed over by Arizona St who finished 8th with an RPI of 61? Doesn't make sense.

Amen... It’s should be who is playing their way in the tournament and who is playing their way out.

 

[newAD]

I guess I don't understand why the committee doesn't factor in how a team finishes the season, like they used to. I understand that they want to look at the season as a whole, but shouldn't the fact that a team is not a tournament worthy at the end of the year factor in? Just because a team looks like an NCAA worthy team in November and December shouldn't completely override the fact that they aren't even NIT worthy in January and February, IMO.

Another thing, how in the world does a team like USC, who finished 2nd in the PAC 12(season and tourney) and had an RPI of 32, get passed over by Arizona St who finished 8th with an RPI of 61? Doesn't make sense.

I wish how a team finished was a bigger factor, but again, look who Nebraska finished against. The last 10 games included 2 games against Rutgers #203, no wins over teams in the dance, and a loss to #185, and 1 and done, getting your ass kicked by Michigan (their easiest game of the conference tourney). Not an impressive schedule, or impressive results.

 

[CelticHawk]

4 and 11 in your last 15 games. But Trae Young can put up 50, potentially. Aparently you just need to recruit and pay a 5 star, and you are in with 18 wins.

 

[Harry Caray]

How about a rule that you must finish at least .500 in your conference to earn an at-large bid? If you can't even win half the games in your own league, why are you worthy of a bid? The committee has pretty much declared that any games against non-Quadrant 1 teams are essentially meaningless.

A minor change I would make is to have the 8 worst automatic bids play for the 4 16-seeds. This would open a few more spots for at-large bids and make the first round a bit more competitive overall.

 

[kaz36]

I wish how a team finished was a bigger factor, but again, look who Nebraska finished against. The last 10 games included 2 games against Rutgers #203, no wins over teams in the dance, and a loss to #185, and 1 and done, getting your ass kicked by Michigan (their easiest game of the conference tourney). Not an impressive schedule, or impressive results.

I'm not even stumping for Nebraska with my argument. I'm absolutely against Oklahoma making it, fairly comfortably, with a team that would struggle to win an NIT game. I really think the NCAA committee had their heads up their asses with this one.

 

[newAD]

How about a rule that you must finish at least .500 in your conference to earn an at-large bid? If you can't even win half the games in your own league, why are you worthy of a bid? The committee has pretty much declared that any games against non-Quadrant 1 teams are essentially meaningless.

A minor change I would make is to have the 8 worst automatic bids play for the 4 16-seeds. This would open a few more spots for at-large bids and make the first round a bit more competitive overall.

Every road Big 12 team but OSU 88 and Iowa State 144 had a 75 or higher RPI. KU, WVU, TCU, and TT all finished above 30. That’s a whole lot of potential Quad 1 games.

The Big 10 has five teams with RPIs higher than last place Iowa State. Unfortunately Nebraska played 4 of them twice. That absolutely killed Nebraska’s chances.

 

[newAD]

I'm not even stumping for Nebraska with my argument. I'm absolutely against Oklahoma making it, fairly comfortably, with a team that would struggle to win an NIT game. I really think the NCAA committee had their heads up their asses with this one.

I don’t like OU being in, I didn’t want them in, but, again based on what they are looking at, I’m not surprised they made it.

 

[inWV]

Another thing, how in the world does a team like USC, who finished 2nd in the PAC 12(season and tourney) and had an RPI of 32, get passed over by Arizona St who finished 8th with an RPI of 61? Doesn't make sense.

The only way to explain this is it was the result the committee wanted. A purely subjective decision.

 

[huskerbaseball13]

He wants a 96 team field. No joke.

Let’s be real. His team didn’t get in either so a goofy idea probably isn’t hard to understand. But if the purpose of the tournament is to crown a worthy champion, does anyone seriously believe the possible champ is sitting at home?

The talk of expanding the tournament is not new. I guess I'm indifferent as long as the tournament does not get too watered down. With that said, if the purpose of the tourney is to crown a worthy champion then teams like Maryland Baltimore County have no business being apart of the field.

 

[husker2612]

Another thing, how in the world does a team like USC, who finished 2nd in the PAC 12(season and tourney) and had an RPI of 32, get passed over by Arizona St who finished 8th with an RPI of 61? Doesn't make sense.

This is the biggest BS of the tourney. AZ St beat 1 ranked opponent that I can see. That was Xavier back in November. Have losses to Colorado, Oregon St and basically any team with a pulse. If the committee members thought Nebraska didn't deserve to be in how in their wildest imagination did they think AZ st deserved a spot. It is mind blowing.

 

[schuele]

This is the biggest BS of the tourney. AZ St beat 1 ranked opponent that I can see. That was Xavier back in November. Have losses to Colorado, Oregon St and basically any team with a pulse. If the committee members thought Nebraska didn't deserve to be in how in their wildest imagination did they think AZ st deserved a spot. It is mind blowing.

Arizona State won at Kansas and beat Xavier on the neutral court. Those were impressive wins, but that's their entire resume. They've been an absolute crap team for the past 2 1/2 months, finished 9th in a weak Pac-12, and with everything seemingly on the line they put up by far the worst performance of anyone in their conference tournament. When a mediocre Colorado team lights you up for 97 points, you might not even belong in the NIT.

 

[husker2612]

Arizona State won at Kansas and beat Xavier on the neutral court. Those were impressive wins, but that's their entire resume. They've been an absolute crap team for the past 2 1/2 months, finished 9th in a weak Pac-12, and with everything seemingly on the line they put up by far the worst performance of anyone in their conference tournament. When a mediocre Colorado team lights you up for 97 points, you might not even belong in the NIT.

Not sure how I missed the Kansas win. Yes you are right, those 2 wins are it. It seems the committee only cares about getting 2-3 wins over ranked opponents. Nothing else seems to matter in their eyes. Doesn't even seem to matter when those 2 or 3 wins came, as a team can completely change from Nov to March. Oklahoma is another one 3 top 25 wins the rest of the season was garbage. Still got it. Sad, a lot a good teams got left out with this mentality.

 

[huskerfan1414]

Fox network leagues got hosed.
Sec and big 12 got popped up all year. Say it enough everyone believes it.

 

[huskerfan1414]

Not sure how I missed the Kansas win. Yes you are right, those 2 wins are it. It seems the committee only cares about getting 2-3 wins over ranked opponents. Nothing else seems to matter in their eyes. Doesn't even seem to matter when those 2 or 3 wins came, as a team can completely change from Nov to March. Oklahoma is another one 3 top 25 wins the rest of the season was garbage. Still got it. Sad, a lot a good teams got left out with this mentality.

Again i say, according to their spoken criteria, a team can win 6 games, all in november, and make it. As an 8 seed.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

The talk of expanding the tournament is not new. I guess I'm indifferent as long as the tournament does not get too watered down. With that said, if the purpose of the tourney is to crown a worthy champion then teams like Maryland Baltimore County have no business being apart of the field.

If the purpose of the tourney is to crown a champion then you would reduce the field not expand. The lowest seed to make it to and win a title game is an 8 seed, that was Villanova way back in 1985. 99% of the time the title game is played between teams that are 5 seeds or better. In the modern era, Butler, Kentucky and UConn are the only other teams, seeded 7 or worse, to play in the title game.

Reduce it to 32 and let the bitching really begin

 

[tpmcg]

eliminate the conference tournaments and have a large 'play-in' tournament for the scrubs. eliminate selection committee.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

The thing I enjoy most about this stuff is that if Nebraska had a 8-10 conference record and beaten Creighton and Kansas in December then those games would mean something and they would deserve to be in. The board would be filled with, it’s the whole body of work not just the last 10 games. Quad 1 and 2 wins matter. Blah blah blah.

The committee and 183 of the 187 people who predict these things had Nebraska out. Time to move on.

It’s NIT time. Next year is our year. #teamMiles

 

[gw2kpro]

He wants a 96 team field. No joke.

Let’s be real. His team didn’t get in either so a goofy idea probably isn’t hard to understand. But if the purpose of the tournament is to crown a worthy champion, does anyone seriously believe the possible champ is sitting at home?

Now we need 96. Guess what happens then? Someone comes in 97th.

Said it many times.

Expanding the college football playoff field to 8 or 16 would do nothing to reduce end of season controversy. In fact, it would be likely to greatly increase it.

There may be other solid reasons to expand the football playoff field, but "reducing controversy" is not one of them. Short of every team making it, someone will ALWAYS be crying. Always.

 

[scarletred]

The thing I enjoy most about this stuff is that if Nebraska had a 8-10 conference record and beaten Creighton and Kansas in December then those games would mean something and they would deserve to be in. The board would be filled with, it’s the whole body of work not just the last 10 games. Quad 1 and 2 wins matter. Blah blah blah.

The committee and 183 of the 187 people who predict these things had Nebraska out. Time to move on.

It’s NIT time. Next year is our year. #teamMiles

Agree with this unless you would have lost 8 of you’re last 10 regular season conference games like OU....

I think the committee really failed by letting Oklahoma get in, just about everyone feels,the same way.

 

[husker2612]

If the purpose of the tourney is to crown a champion then you would reduce the field not expand. The lowest seed to make it to and win a title game is an 8 seed, that was Villanova way back in 1985. 99% of the time the title game is played between teams that are 5 seeds or better. In the modern era, Butler, Kentucky and UConn are the only other teams, seeded 7 or worse, to play in the title game.

Reduce it to 32 and let the bitching really begin

It isn't at 68 to try and "crown a true champion" Anyone that watches enough basketball know the stats and odds of who is going to win the thing. You are right. Odds are 1 of the top 4 seeds will win probably win it. It all comes down to more $$$$$$ that is it. If they do ever decide to expand it, it will be only about money.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

Double the #...shoot I would rather have more games than less games. It is basketball, it is easy to set up and play. 128 goes to 64 really freaking fast...one round.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Agree with this unless you would have lost 8 of you’re last 10 regular season conference games like OU....

I think the committee really failed by letting Oklahoma get in, just about everyone feels,the same way.

So games after February 1 should matter more? Why?

Just about everybody except the 10 that matter and 177 of the 187 that predict this stuff for a living.

 

[scarletred]

So games after February 1 should matter more? Why?

Just about everybody except the 10 that matter and 177 of the 187 that predict this stuff for a living.

Because they simple did not play their way in to the tournment...

Oklahoma St proved more at the end that they deserved to be in.... The eye ball test needs to used and not even you can deny Oklahoma was better than the Cowpokes at the end of the day..

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Because they simple did not play their way in to the tournment...

Oklahoma St proved more at the end that they deserved to be in.... The eye ball test needs to used and not even you can deny Oklahoma was better than the Cowpokes at the end of the day..

Why does the end matter more?

Only a few teams played themselves into the tournament by winning their conference tournament. Every bubble team had hickies that is why they were bubble teams.

 

[BluejayAttyAlum]

Not sure how I missed the Kansas win. Yes you are right, those 2 wins are it. It seems the committee only cares about getting 2-3 wins over ranked opponents. Nothing else seems to matter in their eyes. Doesn't even seem to matter when those 2 or 3 wins came, as a team can completely change from Nov to March. Oklahoma is another one 3 top 25 wins the rest of the season was garbage. Still got it. Sad, a lot a good teams got left out with this mentality.

Arizona St is one of only 2 teams in the entire country that beat two #1 seeds in the NCAA tourney. Further, they didn't even get either of those two wins at home; one was on the road at Allen Fieldhouse, with the other against Xavier at a neutral site. You don't need metrics to be able to tell that is pretty damn impressive.

(The other team to beat two #1 seeds is Providence who beat both Xavier and Villanova, but both wins were at home).

 

[kidofSN]

The end matters more but it is more reflective on what the team is at the time of the tourney. Add in the fact that until this year it was a big deal how a team did in their last 10 games. So it was important until this season. You are saying it simply does not matter if a team improves itself thru the season. So if a team starts poorly there is very little reason to try to improve. Sorry that is not what any thing in life is about!

 

[scarletred]

The end matters more but it is more reflective on what the team is at the time of the tourney. Add in the fact that until this year it was a big deal how a team did in their last 10 games. So it was important until this season. You are saying it simply does not matter if a team improves itself thru the season. So if a team starts poorly there is very little reason to try to improve. Sorry that is not what any thing in life is about!

Good explanation.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

The end matters more but it is more reflective on what the team is at the time of the tourney. Add in the fact that until this year it was a big deal how a team did in their last 10 games. So it was important until this season. You are saying it simply does not matter if a team improves itself thru the season. So if a team starts poorly there is very little reason to try to improve. Sorry that is not what any thing in life is about!

And if every team played a schedule that was of equal strength that would make sense. But they don't. You are making the assumption that because a team struggled down the stretch against a good schedule that means they are worse than a team that goes 10-0 down the stretch against a relatively weak schedule.

How do you know how good a league win is if you don't have a base line? If you look at the Big Ten team's over all out of conference record it is decent 149-53 but against teams that made the NCAA tournament they were 10-26.

 

[kidofSN]

And that is exactly where SOS comes into play as it should. I never asked that SOS not be considered. Look at the whole picture not just what strengthens your point of view! OU is the perfect example. They beat quadrant one teams in the first six weeks of the season. They finished the year winning 4 of their last 15 games. They were a better team early. Once teams figured out how to defend them they fell apart. You cannot tell me that should not make a difference . They are not a tourney team at this point in time. They were early in the season but fell apart.

 

[huskerfan1414]

Point of ncaa tourney is not just to select a champ, thats the final climax but not the only point of it.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

And that is exactly where SOS comes into play as it should. I never asked that SOS not be considered. Look at the whole picture not just what strengthens your point of view! OU is the perfect example. They beat quadrant one teams in the first six weeks of the season. They finished the year winning 4 of their last 15 games. They were a better team early. Once teams figured out how to defend them they fell apart. You cannot tell me that should not make a difference . They are not a tourney team at this point in time. They were early in the season but fell apart.

You are choosing to argue something that is no longer a factor in the decision making process and that is the last 10 games metric. Game 6 matters as much as game 28.

The fallacy of your argument is that you don't care that one segment of games outweighs the other. You just want the segment of games you think matter more to get more weight.

 

[huskerfan1414]

Honestly when it comes to oklahoma i dont think they belong in ebpven if you spread their wins out.

 

[kidofSN]

Yes.. I feel what has been acceptable for years was acceptable for a reason. A team that improves thru the year should be in the tourney before a team that falls apart during the year. If that does not make sense to you I am sorry. It makes perfect sense to most people!

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Yes.. I feel what has been acceptable for years was acceptable for a reason. A team that improves thru the year should be in the tourney before a team that falls apart during the year. If that does not make sense to you I am sorry. It makes perfect sense to most people!

I understand the last 10 game philosophy there chief. It just doesn't matter anymore.

 

[kidofSN]

Defend what they did this year all you want. Just because they did it this year does not make it right. If you want to accept what is obviously wrong that is your business. However at the same time I expect to have the right to say what I feel is wrong and not told to shut up just because that is the way it is!