So what do people think of BIG getting only 4 teams in dance?
- Thread starter hdhntr1
- Start date
Same here. Huskers got penalized for a weak nonconference schedule. Losing big against St. Johns canceled out the close loss to Kansas. Losing to UCF was a killer. But they ifnished strong, winning 8 of 9 in conference. I think the 4th place finisher (tied with Michigan) in the B1G deserved a bid. Much more deserving than Syracuse or Oklahoma.
Don't forget TX, OK, UCLA and ASU. Funny thing is that in the selection show, one of the four pundits had 2 BIG teams in final 8 and 3 had three. THey also had at least a couple BIG teams advancing from there
I'd have more sympathy for Nebraska if they didn't play the easiest possible schedule in the Big Ten having only single plays vs Purdue, MSU, OSU, and Michigan and combine that with not a single noteworthy OOC victory and bowing out in the first game of the Big Ten tourney. I mean sure they went 13-5, but it is probably the most hollow 13-5 ever in the Big Ten.
They should've scheduled more relevant games and/or won the ones they actually had.
Nebraska actually got screwed by the Big Ten schedule. They played Purdue, MSU, and OSU all on the road. They went like 17-1 at home with their only loss a 1 pt loss at KU. Can’t tell me they wouldn’t have at least gotten 1-2 wins vs those teams at home.
Losing in the NIT to a thoroughly mediocre Miss St missing Nick Weatherspoon doesn’t help their argument.
Of course they were on the road as it was a 5-4 game. Could be partly the snub effect. Snubbed in the seed as well. How is a last 4 out a 5 seed? And they did go 13-5 in the BIG no matter the schedule. Sorry after watching Syracuse ASU, neither team deserved to go. Also TX and OK. Should have been a spot for NEB.
They weren't in the first four out - those teams are the #1 seeds in the NIT. The NIT seeding tells you that there were well over 10 teams in front of Nebraska in the pecking order.
The Nebraska example makes me think about one of the many criteria I'd like to change about tournament bids.
Somehow, I'd like to see the conference seasons/records matter more, and that includes the smaller conferences. It would have been disgusting if Loyola had not made the tournament with THAT record because they only got as far its conference tournament semis.
I don't have specifics for my new criteria. Just off the top of my head:
* Maybe something like if you don't finish in the top half of your conference, you don't make the tournament.
* A bid as a conference tournament winner should require some type of qualifier for the conference season - if you're not in the top half of your conference, you're not getting a bid based only on a conference tournament win.
My silly, off-the-cuff rules may not have helped Nebraska. But NC State, Florida St and Virginia Tech are going nowhere. Same for Oklahoma, Texas and TCU. Spread the wealth, help the smaller conferences, slow down conference re-alignment, small conference scheduling issues, and let somebody else lose a game or two in the first weekend.
Part of what's excellent about the first weekend of the tournament is the possibility of David over Goliath.
Somehow, I'd like to see the conference seasons/records matter more, and that includes the smaller conferences. It would have been disgusting if Loyola had not made the tournament with THAT record because they only got as far its conference tournament semis.
I don't have specifics for my new criteria. Just off the top of my head:
* Maybe something like if you don't finish in the top half of your conference, you don't make the tournament.
* A bid as a conference tournament winner should require some type of qualifier for the conference season - if you're not in the top half of your conference, you're not getting a bid based only on a conference tournament win.
My silly, off-the-cuff rules may not have helped Nebraska. But NC State, Florida St and Virginia Tech are going nowhere. Same for Oklahoma, Texas and TCU. Spread the wealth, help the smaller conferences, slow down conference re-alignment, small conference scheduling issues, and let somebody else lose a game or two in the first weekend.
Part of what's excellent about the first weekend of the tournament is the possibility of David over Goliath.
Hard to make even a weak case for PSU or Nebraska. Weak rpi, weak sos, hardly any top 100 wins.
5 seeds in the NIT are in the next 20 out category, not next 4 out. I don’t remember hearing either of them even mentioned is Dekection Sunday.
Absolutely. I'd make the regular season the determinant of the NCAA Tournament bids. If conference want to have their own Tournament to make money, fine. But what happens in those games shouldn't devalue the 31 game regular season.
The Big 10 plays 20 conference games next year. That is more than enough to determine the seeding of teams for selection to the NCAA. There is too much money at stake to ditch the Big 10 Tournament, but I don't see how anyone adds to their resume by what happens in that 3-5 game stretch.
Totally disagree. If Nebraska had beaten Michigan in the BTT, it would have been exactly what they needed for their NCAA Tournament resume--a Top 20 win. All the Bracketologists pretty much agreed that Nebraska was out after they lost to Michigan.
If you can't get a top 20 win in 31 games, tough. That's what the regular season is for. And I seriously doubt NE was 1 top 20 win from the NCAA yet ended up a 5 seed in the NIT. The math just doesn't work out.
They supposedly were in the first four out a couple days before selection. That should not have changed losing to Mich on neutral site. What I said was the seeding was bogus and you are using the seeding to say the seeding was not bogus. Even a 4 seeding would have had them playing at home and likely the outcome of that game would have been different as they were 17-1 at home. And if they had been a one or two seed where they probably should have been after being snubbed by the committee, they would have had more home games.
Regardless of how they got there, a 13-5 BIG record and strong down the stretch should have gotten them in the Dance. That it didn't should have had them at a 1 or at worst 2 seed, not a 5.
Didn't realize that. Thanks for pointing this out.
Nevertheless, I wasn't saying that a win would have put them in, but the loss definitely eliminated them according the Bracketologists. Two wins (Michigan and MSU) and they definitely would have been in, though. This was the point--that the BTT does indeed offer opportunities to bolster resumes and get teams into the Tournament.
My opinion on this issue changed after watching UCLA. I think the Big Ten was maligned to the point mediocre teams from other conferences replaced mediocre Big Ten teams. Also, Oklahoma after they were exposed had no right to be in the tourney and thankfully they were bounced by URI.
OK, you changed my mind. I still think the regular season champ should get the automatic bid for all conferences. Not fair in the 1 bid leagues for a single loss to erase a seasons body of work. For consistency you need to make it the same for all leagues. But OK, I see the point of using conference tournament performance for at large teams.
Same could be said about several other teams including ASU, TX, SYR and more. With 22 total wins, Strong down the stretch, 13-5 in BIG, they deserved a dance card over several teams that got in.
Just remember those conferences are choosing to have their tourney be the auto bid. Ivy League didn’t even have a tourney til recently. Small conferences could just forgo their conference tourney and let the regular season champ have it.
S
So the 1st committee “snubbed” them by not letting them leapfrog 20 more deserving teams, then, inexplicably, the next set of professionals snubbed them again by giving them only a 5 seed?
Hmmm... wonder if everyone is snubbing them or if their resume put them exactly where they deserve?
So the 1st committee “snubbed” them by not letting them leapfrog 20 more deserving teams, then, inexplicably, the next set of professionals snubbed them again by giving them only a 5 seed?
Hmmm... wonder if everyone is snubbing them or if their resume put them exactly where they deserve?
I realize that. I just think it makes for a poorer tournament product when some 16-18 team makes it over the conference champ. The NCAA needs to regulate their product.
And I like the way the Ivy does it, only the top 4 teams get to a short tournament.
They can say what they want about who is the toughest league etc., but no team that finishes under .500 in conference play should be in the NCAA tournament.
That’s just random and arbitrary.
So an ACC team that beats 7 top 20 teams nonconference and goes 11-0, then plays 14 more top 20 teams and goes 10-11, who could end up 21-11 with the top sos in the country, top 20 rpi, and most top 50 wins in the country, should get left out because some 9-9 Big 10 team in the 6th best conference went .500?
Makes zero sense.
+1,000,000. The Pac-12 should have been a single-bid conference based on merit, but that's not how the politics of the selection committee roll.....
You just love the Big Ten don't you! Must kill you that the league you are constantly berating is 7-2 postseason so far with Penn St winning AT Notre Dame yesterday. And the BIG was 7-1 in the bowl season too, but don't let that stop your narrative, which I suspect is a way to demean any achievements by current Northwestern coaches.
It’s not a narrative, it’s a statistic.
6th best conference. No need to get emotional about it.
Now the fact that we finished 10th half a decade into CC’s tenure, in the 6th best conference is cause for concern though.
Well, Syracuse proved the doubters wrong. Boeheim outcoached Izzo today and somehow pulled out the win. Might be time for old Tom to hang it up.
He may be forced to.Well, Syracuse proved the doubters wrong. Boeheim outcoached Izzo today and somehow pulled out the win. Might be time for old Tom to hang it up.
