G.Mason bubble

[TouchdownJesus]

Wanted to start a new thread with a reply of some relevance to Nick Douglas.

First, I love the tourney and don't mind it the way it is, but it does have flaws if your just looking to reward the best team in the nation. What is good about it is, unlike football, you know exactly what you have to do to be #1 and no one can take away your chance.

I really wish the tourney was made up of 48 teams. Give the Top 16 teams a bye into the 2nd round. At least that would be one advantage of having a really good regular season. Maybe even put 1st 2 rounds at higher seed's home court.

Basketball is so different than football in that a huge underdog has a much better chance of winning in a one-game scenario.

Another thing is, how does GMason get in and Hofstra not get in? Hofstra beat them twice down the stretch.

I'm not saying they don't belong in the tournament. They probably do. What I will say is that I can't stand when people say, well they have proven they deserved to get in. On the contrary, what they have done is taken complete advantage of their opportunity and you have to tip your hat to that. Just don't confuse the two.

A few years back, UNC went 7-9 in the ACC and got in. Was I happy? Yes, of course. Did they deserve. No. They went to the Final 4 and everyone said that proved they deserved it. Again, no it didn't. Just took advantage of it.

All in all, the tourney isn't going to change and thats fine by me. I think GMason deserved an invite, but I think Hofstra did as well, probably more. I guess GMason is lucky, since luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

Unlike the NFL....I hope the Patriots win it all. Either them, or LSU.

 

[nchiappetta]

First off, I will agree they got somewhat lucky in getting in...Hofstra did beat them twice and got snubbed. But Hofstra also lost in the NIT, which I know, anything can happen in one game. But if they were to be as good as GM is or has done, then they should have won the NIT, hands down.

To me and I am sure a lot of people, they HAVE proved they deserved to get in. What else were they supposed to do? This is going to sound somewhat rediculous, but DePaul CRUSHED Syracuse and beat Seton Hall in 2 of their last 3 games of the season, so did they deserve a bid as well? What sucks about the at large selections is there is no clear cut formula for picking the field. But that happens every year and there are always going to be teams that are left out and teams
that appear to have snuck in (Air Force, Utah State).

I don't know if the home court set up would work either. The teams are supposed to be the best teams regardless of the location, so giving one team an obvious advantage of playing on their home court would leave people with questions of whether that team that just won at home could have won at their opponent's court.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

Yeah, I know what your saying, but I still don't think you can prove you deserve a bid by what you do in the tourney. You can only prove that by your season.

Not sure if this is a perfect analogy...prob. not...
2 guys playing poker. Both are all-in before the flop. One has AA and one has KK. K comes up on the flop. A comes up on the river. Guy with KK says, boy you sure did get lucky. Um, no he didn't. AA had a HUGE advantage after the betting stopped. Anything after that is just luck.

Look at Notre Dame. They hung with teams all year. This is a perfect example of someone who, if in the tourney, could have gotten to the Final 4. But no way in hell would be deserving.

Like I say, more power to GMason. They prob. deserved to get in and Hofstra should have gotten in instead of Air Force. Just don't think they have proved that their reg. season was any better by winning in the tourney.

 

[DAwGD]

By my account only 2 of the top 16 teams actually lost in the first round (Kansas & Iowa). Do you think that is reason enough to change the system? I am not trying to flame you, I am just curious why you think the system is functioning poorly.

I like the tournament because if you want to be the best you have to prove it by being focused and on your game in every round. If you lose focus and get sloppy then you're out and you deserve to be out. Likewise, if you are beat by a lucky team in an abnormal game then that team should easily be knocked out in one of the upcoming rounds. However, if that team isn't knocked out and keeps on winning then they deserve to be where they are.

I can understand the criticism but because this tournament goes through so many rounds, it is a stretch to discount the unknowns that keep going. (that isn't really a reply as much to you as it is to Nick)

As to who should get in, that is tough. Like I said in Nick's thread, I think they should open it up to more teams and make it a two loss and you're out tourney (with a winner's bracket and a loser's bracket). It would go on a bit longer but it would shake out the concerns of luck in entrance and some of the lucky wins.

 

[DAwGD]

You know what, even if they opened it up to more teams there will always be teams on the bubble and teams whining that they didn't get in so maybe that wouldn't solve that problem.

Maybe they could give the top 64 teams a two loss out but the back 64 only a one loss out. It gives the back 64 teams a chance, even if it is small.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

Yeah, I see what your saying. I love the tourney. I desperately want them to change the BCS system in college football. Thats not the case here.

Like I said, I think 48 teams would be better. Give the top 16 a bye, let them rest, and play relatively close to home early.

When Carolina went 7-9 in ACC. They couldn't even finish .500 in their own conference, yet have a chance to be #1 in the nation? They have to win 6 games, just like a team that has been dominant the whole year.

I also wish there was more of a formula for getting in. I know it would be tough and could backfire, but either a system or maybe just a few rules.

If you don't finish .500 in your conference, you simply don't go. If you win your conference (reg. season), you go. Stuff like that.
I don't think I'd want to see a system where each conference gets so many teams in and then maybe a few at-large.
Not to mention, it would mess up anyway, but conf. tourneys could really mess that up.

Pretty much just food for thought after seeing the other post. They will never have less than 64 teams, so I hope they just keep it like it is.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

Also, I'm just not a big fan at all of double elimination tourneys. One thing I always get confused on as well.

In the last game, if one team has a loss and the other one doesn't...do they have to beat them twice? It always seems like they just call that last game the championship, doesnt seem fair to me...

 

[DAwGD]

TDJ,

Good point. I don't know that I would like that either. Seems fair though that if it did come down to a team with a loss vs a team without one that the team with the loss should have to win twice.

I think such a system would be great from a fans perspective. More games = more fun and more drama.

 

[zebbers]

Maybe even put 1st 2 rounds at higher seed's home court.

Ummm..no. Have you ever been to a college basketball game? For that matter, have you ever been to an NCAA tourney game? The NCAA takes great pains to ensure as neutral of a site as possible. This is for a reason. Home court advantage IS an advantage in CBB. If a team is 'elite' it should win in as 'fair' of a game as possible.

As far as byes...give me a break. Every other team has to play the same amount of games to get to the championship (playin game aside which I disagree with). The top teams already get relatively 'easy' first round games. If you can't beat your first round opponent, you go home. Thats the way it goes...whether you are the 1st seed or the 16th seed.

I never understand these pisspoor arguments. You are trying to argue that the tourney somehow isnt geared to reward the best team but somehow reducing the field to 48 is going to allow that? Ill say it again. The best teams WILL WIN THEIR GAMES OR GO HOME.

Basketball is so different than football in that a huge underdog has a much better chance of winning in a one-game scenario.

Subtract huge and you have a decent point. I don't really consider any of the teams in the tourney 'huge underdogs'. They won their conference or otherwise did something that the selection commitee liked. A huge underdog would be a mid-bottom team from a small conference going up against some top team from the ACC. Check the regular season schedules and see what happened.

But still. A so-called great team should beat the underdog 100% of the time. If not, then they aren't much of an underdog. Basketball has so many opportunities for scoring and so many opportunities for defense. There is NOT the ability for an underdog team to just have one lucky shot that happens to win it for them. If so, they had to have kept it close for 39.5 minutes OR atleast not let it get out of reach...and that means something. I was at the Northwestern State vs Iowa game. There was nothing underdog about it. Iowa sucked it up, Northwestern played better ball down the stretch and hell played good ball the whole game. They were the better team. YOU CANNOT ARGUE OTHERWISE.

Another thing is, how does GMason get in and Hofstra not get in? Hofstra beat them twice down the stretch.

Its called strength of schedule and its called the selection committee. The SC members aren't morons. They know what they are doing. GMUs losses to Hofstra stand out as more of a matchup issue than anything. GMU had a late season win over Witchita State, a high quality team (which they happened to repeat in the NCAA). Hofstra had a good season but GMU was the right pick. Its that simple. Marshall beat West Virginia, maybe they shoulda gotten in. Oh right...it isn't about individual wins vs other teams.



As far as double elimination tourneys: Um no. Double elimination tourneys serve to crown 1st 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams. If you lose YOU CANNOT get 1st or 2nd. You go to the consolation bracket and can try to get into the 3rd place game. This would be utterly retarded for CBB.

I will continue to say this:
Unless you can show me a team that did not make the 65 that would have been in the championship games you have no reason to bitch.
The top seeded teams HAD AN ADVANTAGE. If they lost, they lost. You can't make excuses. You cant say its not fair they had such an awesome regular season in a tougher conference. Tough shit. Thats what the conference title and conference tourney are for. The CBB NCAA tourney is one of or perhaps THE FAIREST TOURNAMENT IN SPORTS TODAY. THIS IS THE NCAAs. WIN OR GO HOME.

 

[DAwGD]

I don't know much about double elimination tourneys but you're right if that's how it worked that sh*t would be retarded.

I was just reading up on WBC and turns out it was round robbin with single elimination in the semi finals. You can tell I didn't watch any of that till the last game :com:

 

[freelancc]

its the unpredictable MADNESS that is most appealing with the tournament in the first place.


i love to see the snobbish programs (U-Conn etx) flame out like they do.. :sadwave:

 

[Sun Tzu]

You are joking about neutral sites arent you? Take a look at the brackets over the last few years and tell me how it has been eutral.


Duke and/or UNC in Carolina every year. Illiinois, Syracuse, Michigan State and Syracuse with home regionals. Two seed UCLA get Oakland, Nova 10 minutes from campus its first two games....


UNC gets a 3 seed instead of a 2 so they can get shipped off per Coach K's wish (you think they lose to Mason in Greensboro?)
Lots of good and bad in the tourney, but is sure as hell isnt neutral.

 

[DAwGD]

free,

me 2. Seeing the Big East flame out made my week. Everyone was bugging me all year about how the teams in the Big East are so deep and talented. All I kept sayin was wait till the tourney. Talent ain't jack if you can't use it to get what you want.

They'll make their millions in the NBA but they won't get their NCAA Championship. Nuh-uh. :flush:

 

[zebbers]

Duke and/or UNC in Carolina every year. Illiinois, Syracuse, Michigan State and Syracuse with home regionals. Two seed UCLA get Oakland, Nova 10 minutes from campus its first two games....

Let me correct my statement. The top seeds do get preference when determining what regional bracket they are in. That is part of their reward for a good season. That is what Calhoun was bitching about by having to play GMU in DC (though it was a BIG EAST venue). But even the lower seeds tend to get put in closer regional brackets for pure logistic reasons, no need to have a team travel cross country for a 1st round game. However, they CANNOT play on their home court. If any of the HOST teams had made the tourney, they would not have been allowed in their own regional (georgetown going in the Minni bracket.

Even with this 'regional' advantage if you wish, if you have been to a tourney game you would see the pains the NCAA takes to make it as neutral as possible. I'm sorry...UNC/DUKE playing in north carolina is not home court advantage. It takes a lot more than being 'close to home' to have a homecourt advantage. UCLA playing 330 miles away in Oakland isn't either. Its the venue, its the announcers, its the court, its the layout of the fans that makes a true homecourt advantage.

Maybe we should have teams east of the mississippi go west and west to east? And then flip em north and south too.

Hell...the way the tourney games end up...the underdog gets more people behind it in game anyway and there ends up being an underdog advantage.

My point about neutrality was in counter to the OPs suggestion of pure home games for high seeds. You cannot compare the current setup to that. It may be impossible to have 'true neutrality' but this is pretty damn close. It certainly beats having Dukes 1st&2nd round games at the Cam, right?

UNC: they lost. It had nothing to do with where they played. They barely deserved a 3 seed, much less a 2. Hell..I dont even know what you are bitching about.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

If you are referring to me....this post has absolutely nothing to do about UNC. I used them in an example from a few years back to show that I, even as a huge fan, realized how crappy it was that they got into the tourney with a losing record in the conference.

As for GMason/Hofstra. I didn't go back and look at their schedules. I just know they both had pretty much same conf. record and same overall record, and down the stretch, Hofstra beat them both times.

I also don't like out-of-conference stuff meaning that much in basketball. You play 16 games against conf. teams. You can control your conference finish. You can't control whether Notre Dame is going to have a good record or not. You might schedule Notre Dame and think they are good. You want to play a good team. You beat them by 1, just like everyone else does. They were very competitive, but it kills your "strength of schedule" b/c they lose every game this year.

I think you should look at conferences and then conference finishes primarily to determine entry. A good counter to my argument on Hofstra would be that GMason tied for 1st with UNCW and Hofstra was a game back.

My biggest complaint of the tourney is, as I've said, a #1 seed has to win just as many games as a #16 seed to win it all. I still think a first round bye would be great for seeds 1-4.

Look at a team like Syracuse. They were a 5-seed. If they could have gotten a 4-seed, the extra 2 days of rest would have been enormous, and a reward for the season.