Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

EMT wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:

billyjack wrote:UConn beat Cincinnati by hitting a 75 foot buzzer shot that sent it into overtime.
Otherwise they would've been right on the bubble.

That's why we love tournament time. In the words of an old sage, "I'd rather be lucky than good."

I'm in favor of choosing the NCAA tourney bids prior to the conference championships. IMO, that gives you the best field of 64. You grab the best mid-majors instead of the upset bids and you don't reward the team that gets hot or has a favorable matchup in their conference tourney.

I totally disagree. There isn't a damn thing wrong with the tournament. Not a thing.

Don't understand why you're re-dredging this 4x16 up, again...for the umpteenth time?

But, it goes like this...five B-12 schools left outside in the cold. None are a good fit for any of the 4x16's and not good fits (as leftovers for the BE either).

Pac 16: Arizona, Arizona St, Cal, Colorado, Oklahoma, OK St, Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, Texas, Tx Tech, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Wash St

Big 16: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin, UNC, UVA

SEC 16: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss. Miss St, Missouri, So. Carolina, Tenn, TAMU, Vandy, NC St., Va Tech

ACC 16: Clemson, BC, Duke, Fla St., Ga Tech, Louisville, Miami, (UNC, NC St), ND, Pitt, Syracuse, (UVA, Va Tech), Wake F, WVU, UConn, Cincinnati, Temple

Big 12/AAC or Big 12/MWC: [size=85](Ok, OK St, Texas, Texas Tech, WVU), Baylor, Ia St, KU, K St, TCU.

muskienick wrote:What about a case where the P5 conferences work up a mutually agreeable arrangement where they reconfigure themselves to form four 16-member Conferences. Those 5 conferences now have a total of 65 members (not counting Notre Dame. (to bring their Conferences to 16 members each) and the 2 weakest combine their best 16 to form a 4th conference of 16 members.

There's no incentive for them to work together for that.

Human beings like symmetry and order; and seeing the 14-team SEC & Big Ten; 15-team ACC (plus ND); the 12-team Pac-12; and the 10-team Big XII makes people want to take a "Big Picture" top-down view of how to align for the common good...

But each has their own individual objectives, and there's simply no reason for the SEC & Big Ten to work towards balance and harmony with three leagues they make more money than. The Pac-12 and Big XII would be enthusiastic because they have either smaller TV markets or smaller available TV timeslots to the majority of the country. They'd be the most likely to work together on something...

That's because the only reason to work together is being at a disadvantage and working with someone else to overcome a common problem.

You're most likely to see that with someone like the MVC, WCC and A10 working together to be viewed as higher than they are now, because they have a common problem. They're viewed as JV to the football schools, they are smaller institutions than the BCS, and they need some solidarity to try and offset the ESPN-based myth of "BCS and everyone else is JV" while trying to carve into the BCS share of NCAA bids as opposed to fighting among themselves for table scraps.

JP! Where ya been bubba?

You have been missed (by some of us) and it is always good to see you posting. Don't stay away so long my friend.

gtmoBlue wrote:Don't understand why you're re-dredging this 4x16 up, again...for the umpteenth time?

But, it goes like this...five B-12 schools left outside in the cold. None are a good fit for any of the 4x16's and not good fits (as leftovers for the BE either).

Pac 16: Arizona, Arizona St, Cal, Colorado, Oklahoma, OK St, Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, Texas, Tx Tech, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Wash St

Big 16: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin, UNC, UVA

SEC 16: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss. Miss St, Missouri, So. Carolina, Tenn, TAMU, Vandy, NC St., Va Tech

ACC 16: Clemson, BC, Duke, Fla St., Ga Tech, Louisville, Miami, (UNC, NC St), ND, Pitt, Syracuse, (UVA, Va Tech), Wake F, WVU, UConn, Cincinnati, Temple

Big 12/AAC or Big 12/MWC: [size=85](Ok, OK St, Texas, Texas Tech, WVU), Baylor, Ia St, KU, K St, TCU.

I can't see the ACC being willing to drop UNC, NC State, UVa, & VT to add UConn, Cincy, Temple, & WVU.

gtmoBlue wrote:JP! Where ya been bubba?

You have been missed (by some of us) and it is always good to see you posting. Don't stay away so long my friend.

Thanks.

I take the summers off when it's basically just recruiting talk. I don’t really care about recruiting talk. Of course, I want my team/conference to get great players, but talking about it is so ridiculous. Go back through some old "Top recruiting classes" stories and see how USC, Stanford and Wake Forest are supposed to be better than Providence and Dayton (Score thus far: Providence > USC/Stan/Wake combined; Dayton better than that); or look at the 2008 NFL Running Back class, where the two best guys were some of the lower recruits: Matt Forte (Tulane) and Chris Johnson (East Carolina).

The point is, recruiting talk is dumb. Everyone’s class is supposed to be really good or great. Show me a coach that says “Well, this is the best we could get. Future is pretty bleak.”


And my other favorite topics are: “trying to shatter the myth of BCS superiority” which isn’t really worthwhile right now with the A-10 crapping the bed, and you guys knowing how good the Big East is; and of course, this realignment/expansion conversation. Not a popular topic since you guys are killing it and in “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it" mode. Even though things like the ESPN “quality over quantity” story is hilariously stupid, since Nova, Butler, Xavier and Creighton would not have their own performance in non-conference games affected in any way by what conference logo is on the floor of any other school.


Stever and GoldenWarrior are in the “Early look at BE tourney bids” thread saying the exact same thing I've been talking about in this thread for four years. For example:

to get 6 in, that 6th team is going to need to steal some wins from the top 5. And where that would most likely come is from teams 4 and 5- that are going to have like 6-7 losses from the top 5 already.

But they won't agree with the conclusion I came to from that truth. So why beat a dead horse?

This season, DePaul and St John's (and possibly GTown) will wind up being the league parts cars. That'll be enough.

And anyway, saying a team should add the Bonnies to be a parts car - when you have explicitly admitted your goal in admission would ultimately be to not be one after a few years - is disingenuous. But you're right, we've had this discussion before.

JP is alot like Sactowndog really. Both rant endlessly about the ails of the Big East and how we could so easily be saved by just adding their schools (Wichita St./St. Bonaventure).

DudeAnon wrote:JP is alot like Sactowndog really. Both rant endlessly about the ails of the Big East and how we could so easily be saved by just adding their schools (Wichita St./St. Bonaventure).

In a way, maybe, but I much prefer JP's way of going about it.

marquette wrote:

DudeAnon wrote:JP is alot like Sactowndog really. Both rant endlessly about the ails of the Big East and how we could so easily be saved by just adding their schools (Wichita St./St. Bonaventure).

In a way, maybe, but I much prefer JP's way of going about it.

No doubt, at least JP is honest and up front about it and doesn't insult the existing schools.