My field of 65...

[Gopher]

Nobody has the right to complain at 65 either. We went around and around all week about who didn't deserve to dance, not who did. When you can make arguments why this team or that team doesn't deserve to make it but have a hard time pointing who should go in their place... That means the solution is certainly not to include more.

 

But the argument is never that team X thinks they deserve to be playing for the National Championship, it's that they think if team Y made the tourney, why not us? I mean, does Creighton truly believe that they're the best team in the country? No, they just think they're more deserving of a spot in the dance than, say Arizona. Another team that nobody would mistake for an elite team.

 

Well, that's not going to change unless you include every team.

I agree... I'm not advocating adding more teams. I just think that, if they ever did, 128 would be too much. You would be adding teams like Iowa, Virginia, and Texas Tech. I'd be OK with 96, only because the NIT is lame, and there are currently a lot of mid-major teams who had VERY good seasons not in the dance... SDSU, Creighton, Vermont, Niagara, Weber State. Siena and Portland State got 9 and 13-seeds, respectively. Niagara was nearly as good as Siena, and Weber State was BETTER than Portland State, if you look at the entire season. So, if Siena can be a 9, I'm pretty sure Niagara woul d have a chance at making some noise in the tournament. If the whole idea is to give the small schools who did well (and more importantly, their kids... the seniors, the kids who are not going to play organized BB again in their lifetime) a chance to play in a post-season atmosphere, I think the teams I mentioned above certainly deserve to experience that as much as the 16-seeds in this tournament do. I understand that the teams I am making an argument for lost in their conference tournaments, but that's not nearly the same thing as the NCAA's... Some of the conference tournaments have some really strange obscurities, as far as where they play, etc. I'd hate to be a small-conference team who dominated all year, only to lose in your conference tournament because you had to play what was basically a road game. Happens every year, and those teams are the true losers of the selection process.

[billay]

Why would you say that? Pitt already beat them in their house. Do not let that WVU loss sway you. Pitt will not lose to FSU.

I didn't predict a victory, just said it was a good match up. FSU played very competitively in that game IIRC and almost beat Pitt. FSU has good balance, and a lot of size. Alabi is 7-1 and has some bulk, and Reid is big enough to bang with Blair as well. Tony Douglas was ACC defensive player of the year, and runner up for offensive player of the year behind Lawson.

[detlef]

I agree... I'm not advocating adding more teams. I just think that, if they ever did, 128 would be too much. You would be adding teams like Iowa, Virginia, and Texas Tech. I'd be OK with 96, only because the NIT is lame, and there are currently a lot of mid-major teams who had VERY good seasons not in the dance... SDSU, Creighton, Vermont, Niagara, Weber State. Siena and Portland State got 9 and 13-seeds, respectively. Niagara was nearly as good as Siena, and Weber State was BETTER than Portland State, if you look at the entire season. So, if Siena can be a 9, I'm pretty sure Niagara woul d have a chance at making some noise in the tournament. If the whole idea is to give the small schools who did well (and more importantly, their kids... the seniors, the kids who are not going to play organized BB again in their lifetime) a chance to play in a post-season atmosphere, I think the teams I mentioned above certainly deserve to experience that as much as the 16-seeds in this tournament do. I understand that the teams I am making an argument for lost in their conference tournaments, but that's not nearly the same thing as the NCAA's... Some of the conference tournaments have some really strange obscurities, as far as where they play, etc. I'd hate to be a small-conference team who dominated all year, only to lose in your conference tournament because you had to play what was basically a road game. Happens every year, and those teams are the true losers of the selection process.

Then I'd rather make a point of including more mid-majors at the expense of a 7th team from a big conference if that was the case. Ultimately, however, we should take it for what it is. It's as big as it is because it's more fun that way, not because that's the best of fairest way to determine the Natl Champ. Well over half the teams taken have no legitimate argument as to why they deserve a shot at the National Championship based on what they did this year. We just add them to make it more interesting.

 

And if that's the case, why does it matter how "fair" it is. It's all about generating excitement and money, so it's in the best interest of the tourney to grab more big schools because they'll travel better. I get the bit about letting the kids play on, but we're not talking about 10 year olds here, so that shouldn't really have any bearing on who gets picked.

 

Again, I understand that you're not advocating increasing the field, so I'm not necc. directing this at you.

[wildcat2334]

Then I'd rather make a point of including more mid-majors at the expense of a 7th team from a big conference if that was the case. Ultimately, however, we should take it for what it is. It's as big as it is because it's more fun that way, not because that's the best of fairest way to determine the Natl Champ. Well over half the teams taken have no legitimate argument as to why they deserve a shot at the National Championship based on what they did this year. We just add them to make it more interesting.

 

And if that's the case, why does it matter how "fair" it is. It's all about generating excitement and money, so it's in the best interest of the tourney to grab more big schools because they'll travel better. I get the bit about letting the kids play on, but we're not talking about 10 year olds here, so that shouldn't really have any bearing on who gets picked.

 

Again, I understand that you're not advocating increasing the field, so I'm not necc. directing this at you.

 

 

I think 65 is just fine- I mean with all the automatic bids the little guys get their excitement and day in the spotlight. the mid-majors are getting the shaft a bit with the 34 at large spots, but I think the committee did a great job.

 

UA bias here, but I think they made the right call - although I would have had no issue if they didn't make it either

 

I think SDSU has a legit case, but UA beat em by 13 and St. Mary's? puhlease anyone who watched the WCC final- they didn't belong on the same floor as Gonzaga - and the WCC is terrible- even in a down year for the Pac 10 - if St. Mary's played a Pac 10 slate, they aren't coming close to being .500 - they just aren't very good - Dickie V went on and on about St. Mary's - you know what? Arizona is just a better basketball team and they would pound St. Mary's

 

arguing over the 34th and 35th best at large teams is not too shabby if you ask me

[bushwacked]

I think 65 is just fine- I mean with all the automatic bids the little guys get their excitement and day in the spotlight. the mid-majors are getting the shaft a bit with the 34 at large spots, but I think the committee did a great job.

 

UA bias here, but I think they made the right call - although I would have had no issue if they didn't make it either

 

I think SDSU has a legit case, but UA beat em by 13 and St. Mary's? puhlease anyone who watched the WCC final- they didn't belong on the same floor as Gonzaga - and the WCC is terrible- even in a down year for the Pac 10 - if St. Mary's played a Pac 10 slate, they aren't coming close to being .500 - they just aren't very good - Dickie V went on and on about St. Mary's - you know what? Arizona is just a better basketball team and they would pound St. Mary's

 

arguing over the 34th and 35th best at large teams is not too shabby if you ask me

 

It's apparent you are judging St. Mary's primarily by how they played against Gonzaga with a still rusty and maybe dinged up Mills. I'm not sure they should have got in, but saying they wouldn't come close to 0.500 in the Pac 10? I don't know bout that, that's not something I would say with the degree of certainty you have.

[Gopher]

Nobody has the right to complain at 65 either. We went around and around all week about who didn't deserve to dance, not who did. When you can make arguments why this team or that team doesn't deserve to make it but have a hard time pointing who should go in their place... That means the solution is certainly not to include more.

 

But the argument is never that team X thinks they deserve to be playing for the National Championship, it's that they think if team Y made the tourney, why not us? I mean, does Creighton truly believe that they're the best team in the country? No, they just think they're more deserving of a spot in the dance than, say Arizona. Another team that nobody would mistake for an elite team.

 

Well, that's not going to change unless you include every team.

No, they don't, but they're a team that could very easily make a Sweet 16 run I don't think they need to believe that they're the best team in the country to make an argument that they should be in. All I'm saying is that they "deserve" to be there just as much as about 20 other teams that did make it. There is a little bit too much emphasis on how a team did during the final week of the season, or in Creighton's case, their final game. Yeah... they had a bad game and got beat by Illinois State... Prior to that, they were a top-25 team that hadn't lost in over six weeks. One bad game shouldn't cost you a bid, unless you're in a conference filled with teams in the 125+ RPI category.

 

Then I'd rather make a point of including more mid-majors at the expense of a 7th team from a big conference if that was the case. Ultimately, however, we should take it for what it is. It's as big as it is because it's more fun that way, not because that's the best of fairest way to determine the Natl Champ. Well over half the teams taken have no legitimate argument as to why they deserve a shot at the National Championship based on what they did this year. We just add them to make it more interesting.

 

And if that's the case, why does it matter how "fair" it is. It's all about generating excitement and money, so it's in the best interest of the tourney to grab more big schools because they'll travel better. I get the bit about letting the kids play on, but we're not talking about 10 year olds here, so that shouldn't really have any bearing on who gets picked.

 

Again, I understand that you're not advocating increasing the field, so I'm not necc. directing this at you.

I absolutely agree with that. I'd take SDSU, Creighton, St. Mary's over Wisconsin, Arizona, Maryland any day. Not saying they're better, necessarily, but they would bring more excitement to the tournament, in my opinion, and I'm fairly certain that they would travel well enough to fill whatever venue they played at. I think AZ is clearly talented enough... that's never been a question. It's their lethargic, seemingly careless attitude that bothers me (and I've always been an AZ fan). Personally, I'd rather see the team that desperately wants to be there, than a team that appears not to care, in large part due to their coaching. Who knows, though... now that they've basically been given the first round on a platter, we may see them become more motivated. They're not a lock, by any means, but for a 12-seed, they've got a pretty good matchup (Vegas currently has them as a one-point favorite... unusual, to say the least, for a 12-seed).

 

I think the field is big enough... All I'm saying is that, if they were to expand, 96 makes perfect sense, whereas 128 would include some pretty weak teams... losing records, etc. I know it wouldn't change anything... teams on the "bubble" would still complain (they would just be worse teams), but it would allow teams who won their regular season, but not their tournament, to be included. Honestly, I think the whole conference tournament thing is overkill. I mean, they play over two months of conference play to determine who is the best in each conference, then have a tournament to decide who gets automatic bids? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if you think about it. But, because of tradition, TV (money), etc., that won't be changed any time soon.

[wildcat2334]

It's apparent you are judging St. Mary's primarily by how they played against Gonzaga with a still rusty and maybe dinged up Mills. I'm not sure they should have got in, but saying they wouldn't come close to 0.500 in the Pac 10? I don't know bout that, that's not something I would say with the degree of certainty you have.

 

 

not a hugh fan of guessing on how good a team may be with/or without their best player, The reality is they aren't the same team NOW with Mills as they were in December

 

IMO St. Mary's would be the 8th or 9th best team in the Pac 10 battling Stan and OSU

Edited March 16, 2009 by wildcat2334

[Gopher]

I would have included Arizona AND SDSU, like I had in my projected field. SDSU is on the same level as Utah, who got a five-seed, and Arizona has proven that they can compete with, and beat, some of the top 15 teams in the country. To me, that's what it is all about, in comparing teams from major conferences. Arizona did, while Wisconsin didn't. That argument also justifies the SEC getting snubbed.

 

As far as Minnesota, they did beat Louisville... I just would have liked to have seen them play more than one tough game out of conference, as well as pick up a key road win or two IN conference. They did neither, which is why I had them as one of my last couple of teams outside the field. Glad to see them make it, though... I think a 10-seed is generous. I guess it will be a chance for them to prove that they deserve to be there. The Gophers match up well with Texas in that they have the size to compete with the big front line. Someone other than Abrams will have to step up for the Longhorns... Minnesota likes to pressure the perimeter on defense, and I don't think they're going to let him go off for 30 points. The Texas frontcourt is bigger and more experienced, however, so I do give them the advantage... I just think the Gophers have a shot if they play the defense that they're capable of, and shoot the ball well from the perimeter.

[godtomsatan]

I think the field is big enough... All I'm saying is that, if they were to expand, 96 makes perfect sense, whereas 128 would include some pretty weak teams... losing records, etc. I know it wouldn't change anything... teams on the "bubble" would still complain (they would just be worse teams), but it would allow teams who won their regular season, but not their tournament, to be included.

 

There are 320-some odd Division 1 teams. 128 is nowhere near the ratio of teams making the post-season that college football employs. While teams would still complain about being left out, you'd have no shortage of teams with winning records making the extra field.

 

Honestly, I think the whole conference tournament thing is overkill. I mean, they play over two months of conference play to determine who is the best in each conference, then have a tournament to decide who gets automatic bids? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if you think about it. But, because of tradition, TV (money), etc., that won't be changed any time soon.

 

30 of the 31 conferences have tournaments to determine their automatic bid. Most allow every team to participate in the post-season event. That means that starting with championship week, virtually ever Division 1 program has a shot at winning the national title regardless of how they performed in the regular season. I kind of like that.

[godtomsatan]

IMO St. Mary's would be the 8th or 9th best team in the Pac 10 battling Stan and OSU

 

We'll find out on Tuesday as Washington St. travels to Moraga to play the Gaels in the NIT.

[Big John]

There are 320-some odd Division 1 teams.

It is currenly 343.

[Gopher]

30 of the 31 conferences have tournaments to determine their automatic bid. Most allow every team to participate in the post-season event. That means that starting with championship week, virtually ever Division 1 program has a shot at winning the national title regardless of how they performed in the regular season. I kind of like that.

Don't get me wrong, it's my favorite sport by far, and I don't really think it needs a whole lot of tweaking. I just think it's kind of silly to declare a regular-season "champ" in these conferences, if it doesn't mean anything. It wasn't until the last ten years or so that many of these conferences finally gave in and started having their own tournaments... The Big Ten, Pac 10, and several others never used to. The Ivy League still doesn't, following the old format of declaring the regular season champ as the winner. In the Big East, for example... there's 16 teams. Why play an unbalanced schedule, and then declare a conference champion? Just play everybody once (15 games), seed the teams based on those 15 games, and have your tournament.

 

I think the other downside to expanding to 128 would be that #1 would play #128... talk about a dreadful game. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the top 15 playing teams 114-128 would be a joke. At least, with 96, you would give 1-32 a bye, and team #33 would face #96, and so on. Realistically, any of those games in the first round could go either way, which would make it even more interesting than the first round is currently, where at least a hand-full of games are over before they tip off.

[godtomsatan]

Washington gets a very favorable draw with Mississippi St. and Purdue before getting UConn......I'll take it.

 

The more I look at this, the more I don't like this draw at all.

 

The Huskies win the Pac-10 regular season title, Purdue wins the Big 10 tournament, Mississippi St. wins the SEC tournament, and N. Iowa, the 12 seed, is the MVC tournament champ. Any other pods with 4 champs in there? Quick answer? No. A couple with 3, who include 1 or 2 seeds, but no 4/5, 12/13 matchups that come close to these resumes.

 

Look at the other # 4-seeds as well: Gonzaga draws the MAC tournament champ who finished 3rd in their conference. Wake Forest, the 3rd place team in the ACC who lost their first game in the conference tournament, draws the Horizon champ who finished 2nd in their conference. Xavier, the A-10 regular season champ, draws Portland St., the Big Sky tourney champ who finished 2nd in their league.

 

And the Huskies draw the SEC tourney champ?

 

I'm not trying to make the argument that Washington deserves to get better treatment, but how down was the Pac-10 really this season with six teams in the tournament? You hear the Big 10 was down, and their regular season champ ends up with a 2-seed. You hear the Big 12 was down, and their regular season champ ends up with a 3-seed.

 

These same bitches can be made by Purdue fans as a 5-seed also and the Big 10 tourney champ, IMO.

 

Anyway, rant mode off. Go Huskies!!!

Edited March 17, 2009 by godtomsatan

[wildcat2334]

The more I look at this, the more I don't like this draw at all.

 

The Huskies win the Pac-10 regular season title, Purdue wins the Big 10 tournament, Mississippi St. wins the SEC tournament, and N. Iowa, the 12 seed, is the MVC tournament champ. Any other pods with 4 champs in there? Quick answer? No. A couple with 3, who include 1 or 2 seeds, but no 4/5, 12/13 matchups that come close to these resumes.

 

Yes, Washington draws a reasonable home court advantage with the games being played in Portland, but the result of coming out of this group is a likely date with UConn.

 

I wouldn't be shocked if the Bulldogs take the Huskies out at all. Wouldn't be shocked if Purdue takes them out as well if they make it to the 2nd Round.

 

 

agreed - tough draw for the Dawgs - MSU is rolling, athletic with a monster of a shot blocker down low- not exactly a good matchup for Brockman and company - see Jordan Hill

 

follow that up with Purdue- beatable but playing very well as well- and you get UCONN after that.........

 

one of the tougher draws out there for a 4 seed

[billay]

The more I look at this, the more I don't like this draw at all.

 

The Huskies win the Pac-10 regular season title, Purdue wins the Big 10 tournament, Mississippi St. wins the SEC tournament, and N. Iowa, the 12 seed, is the MVC tournament champ. Any other pods with 4 champs in there? Quick answer? No. A couple with 3, who include 1 or 2 seeds, but no 4/5, 12/13 matchups that come close to these resumes.

 

Look at the other # 4-seeds as well: Gonzaga draws the MAC tournament champ who finished 3rd in their conference. Wake Forest, the 3rd place team in the ACC who lost their first game in the conference tournament, draws the Horizon champ who finished 2nd in their conference. Xavier, the A-10 regular season champ, draws Portland St., the Big Sky tourney champ who finished 2nd in their league.

 

And the Huskies draw the SEC tourney champ?

 

I'm not trying to make the argument that Washington deserves to get better treatment, but how down was the Pac-10 really this season with six teams in the tournament? You hear the Big 10 was down, and their regular season champ ends up with a 2-seed. You hear the Big 12 was down, and their regular season champ ends up with a 3-seed.

 

These same bitches can be made by Purdue fans as a 5-seed also and the Big 10 tourney champ, IMO.

 

Anyway, rant mode off. Go Huskies!!!

I'm not exactly up to date on Miss. St, but if they hadn;t won the SEC tourney, they would not have made the tourney, no? Any team can get hot and win 3 or 4 in their conference tourney. I don't see the fact that they did so as making them a more formidable opponent.

 

Wake Forest is an enigma. They are talented enough to win the whole thing, but immature enough to go home on the first day. If (and this is a big if) they can get past the first two rounds, they become seriously dangerous. If they actually get to the matchup with Louisville, I like their chances. The more they feel they are in the spotlight, the better they are likely to play (although they do have some road issues). Every round they advance, the brighter the spotlight gets.

Edited March 17, 2009 by billay

[Robash]

Ill be at the West Sweet 16 and Elite 8 games.

[jackshi17]

It is currenly 343.

 

 

Actually Sagarin ratings currently list 347 teams.

 

Can be found on USA Today Sports

[godtomsatan]

I'm not exactly up to date on Miss. St, but if they hadn;t won the SEC tourney, they would not have made the tourney, no? Any team can get hot and win 3 or 4 in their conference tourney. I don't see the fact that they did so as making them a more formidable opponent.

 

My point is solely that the Pac-10 regular season champion, a conference that sent six teams to the dance, is stuck in a pod with the Big 10 tournament champ, a conference that sent seven teams to the dance. And that their first round matchups are a power conference tournament champ, and a top mid-major conference tourney champ.

 

You can't tell me that these conferences can't get a bone as a 3-seed or a 4-seed? Or that they can't get more distributed among the other at-large 4's or 5's?

[bushwacked]

We'll find out on Tuesday as Washington St. travels to Moraga to play the Gaels in the NIT.

 

[Gopher]

So, I've got a little rant of my own today... For about the past.... oh, I don't know... 20-25 years or so, I've had a personal yearly tradition. The Monday after the NCAA field is announced, I always go pick up a USAToday paper. Even if it means going to multiple locations... gas stations, bookstores, newspaper stands, fast food restaurants, whatever... I ALWAYS make sure I get one before the day is done. I don't know what it is... I've just always felt that they have the most user-friendly snap-shot analysis of the full field... stats, rankings, rosters, tournament history, full schedule/results... all in one section of paper. I don't need experts' picks, analysis, etc. I just want the cold, hard facts, so I can look through them and come to my own conclusions. The USAToday has never changed their format for how they present this information... at least, not in the last 20 years. It's been a reliable stand-by for me.

 

So, yesterday morning rolls around, and I sneak out of the office at about 10:30 AM to go grab a paper. I first head to the nearest gas station (a Chevron, I believe), thinking that maybe I'll luck out and they'll have it there. No luck... just the San Jose Mercury and the SF Chronicle. Next, I drive over to the grocery store (Safeway) down the road, thinking that that's where I normally see the row of newspaper dispenser things. Nothing... no papers at all.

 

Deciding not to mess around any further (I told a fellow manager that I would be out for just a few minutes), I head to the local Barnes & Noble store, which was where I got a USAToday from last year (but in a different part of the bay). I look around for about 2-3 minutes, and don't see any papers. I ask the guy behind the counter, and he looks at me with a blank stare... no idea, apparently, what the USAToday is. Sad, considering he works for Barnes & Noble. Once I explain to him that it's a newspaper, he points behind him, saying that they do have other papers. Once again, I see the SF Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury, the Oakland paper, and a couple of other foreign papers... one was an Indian paper, the other looked to be written in Spanish.

 

At this point, I'm starting to become concerned... I know I can probably print most of the information that I need, probably even print it from the USAToday website. Nevertheless, like I said, this is a long-standing tradition, and living in the USA, I just want to be able to purchase the USAToday when I want to. I head to another gas station, a Shell... no luck. Another grocery store, FoodMax... there's a USAToday "dispenser" in front of the store. I quickly part the car, walk up to the machine, and discover that it apparently hasn't been used in about 3-4 years. The thing is vandalized... glass broken, door hanging slightly off the hinges, etc.

 

Another gas station, a restaurant, another grocery store, and two empty/broken USAToday dispensers later, still no paper. I go back to the office, pissed off, and grudgingly begin to print the information from USAToday.com... just not the same (mainly due to the fact that I like to be able to look at the teams' complete schedules in the paper version, and look for common opponents, etc.)... can't find that information on their site, without clicking on each team's page, and printing them one at a time, which I don't have the patience or time for.

 

I'm not even that pissed about the basketball information... the info is out there, I'll find it regardless. That part is more of a slight inconvenience, if anything. It's the fact that I couldn't find a copy of our national newspaper in this area if my life depended on it, but in the time that I took to search, was able to find dozens of papers geared towards people from Asia, India, and the Middle East.

 

I think I need to move.

[Vinatieri Is God]

The last sentence says it all.

[Henry Muto]

So, I've got a little rant of my own today... For about the past.... oh, I don't know... 20-25 years or so, I've had a personal yearly tradition. The Monday after the NCAA field is announced, I always go pick up a USAToday paper.

 

Man I wish I was here during the leading up to the selections I would have added in my own 2 cents since I follow it this closely as well. I even take work off every year the Thur/Fri to sequester myself in my house leading up to the selection show and I try to get all the teams and seeds right. Got 64/65 this year I missed Arizona. Next year I will try to make it a point to be on here with you and we can see how it goes. It should be fun.

 

Also I do the same thing...the only paper I buy each year is the Monday paper following the selection show the USA today.

Edited April 5, 2009 by Henry Muto

[Do Work Son]

Got 64/65 this year I missed Arizona.

 

huh?