Jump to content

Selection show


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BGleas said:

Agree. I always watch the Selection Show. This might have been the first time since I was a little kid that I didn’t watch a second of it. My kids are watching some Disney show, didn’t make them turn the channel and didn’t go down to the basement to watch there. Sad. Hopefully IU is back next year. 

But was the Disney show solid??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm watching Bracketology on ESPN and Crean and Dakich are both on it. Kind of funny. The best part is that when it came time to do the touch screen and fill out their brackets Dakich was tasked with the Midwest. He got to Houston and took that opportunity to take a shot at Sampson. “Kelvin Sampson obviously with his 20th chance. Hope he gets it right this time and stays out of trouble.” xDxDxD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BGleas said:

Agree. I always watch the Selection Show. This might have been the first time since I was a little kid that I didn’t watch a second of it. My kids are watching some Disney show, didn’t make them turn the channel and didn’t go down to the basement to watch there. Sad. Hopefully IU is back next year. 

Same here. Was out with my wife and daughter and the alert came over my phone that the selection show was on. First time in 30 years I’ve missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ThePaulieWalnuts said:

Syracuse, Oklahoma and Arizona State should be out.  Middle Tennessee, USC, Oklahoma State and Saint Mary’s should be in imo.  Also, wish they’d just go ahead and expand the tourney to include both regular season and conference tourney champs.

No thank you because the tournament already has enough teams.  It is up to the conference who they want to send and they pick to have tournament champions to represent their conference in the tournament.  When someone says they need to expand the tournament my reply is that everyone are already in the tournament because of the conference tournaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ThePaulieWalnuts said:

Syracuse, Oklahoma and Arizona State should be out.  Middle Tennessee, USC, Oklahoma State and Saint Mary’s should be in imo.  Also, wish they’d just go ahead and expand the tourney to include both regular season and conference tourney champs.

I would like to see the field expanded.  When it went from 32 to 64 teams in 1985 there were 282 D-1 schools.  Today there are 352 schools looking to make the field.  With parity as it is today, the field would likely not be 'watered down'.  More schools in the field could increase the likelihood of schools playing a more locally. 

With the increase of 25% more D-1 schools, 25% more tournament teams would bring us to 85 teams.  Now, it wouldn't have to be 85, make it 84 or 86.  We would not have to get to that number tomorrow.  Phase in 2 to 4 teams every year or 2 to get to that number.  Revisit the idea of tourney expansion every summer.  What could go wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PoHoosier said:

I would like to see the field expanded.  When it went from 32 to 64 teams in 1985 there were 282 D-1 schools.  Today there are 352 schools looking to make the field.  With parity as it is today, the field would likely not be 'watered down'.  More schools in the field could increase the likelihood of schools playing a more locally. 

With the increase of 25% more D-1 schools, 25% more tournament teams would bring us to 85 teams.  Now, it wouldn't have to be 85, make it 84 or 86.  We would not have to get to that number tomorrow.  Phase in 2 to 4 teams every year or 2 to get to that number.  Revisit the idea of tourney expansion every summer.  What could go wrong?

No thank you because there are tom nay teams right now and should be taken back to 64 teams.  The only reason they changed to 65 and then 68 was that they moved to having 32 conference which meant 32 automatic bids.  The big conference teams that was on the bubble complained and the NCAA caved in and expanded the field.  Like I said before every team is already in the tournament and that is because of the conference tournament.  If they want to get in then win the conference tournament then there would be no worries about getting selected.  I get tired of hearing from these bubble teams who are mediocre already and don't deserve to get in any ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the big conference teams that were on the bubble getting left out...  How many of those big conference at large bids won the tourney?  FF appearances?  IU's last title was when they tied in conference for the regular season championship.  Do they win the conference tournament when 3 other B1G teams are rated in the AP top 11?  With IU never winning the conference tournament, are you ok with no appearances in the NCAAs in this century (which means no run in 2002)?  My point is taking only conference tournament title teams you are weakening the field by removing FF contending teams.  Expanding the field would allow that 30 and 5 team ranked 49 in the RPI that lost to a team that shot lights out in their tournament game easier entry.  Do you agree its a shame that team only gets an NIT berth?

In your opinion, does everyone who doesn't win their conference tourney not deserve to get in?

Some questions I am deeply curious as to how you feel about those issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PoHoosier said:

As to the big conference teams that were on the bubble getting left out...  How many of those big conference at large bids won the tourney?  FF appearances?  IU's last title was when they tied in conference for the regular season championship.  Do they win the conference tournament when 3 other B1G teams are rated in the AP top 11?  With IU never winning the conference tournament, are you ok with no appearances in the NCAAs in this century (which means no run in 2002)?  My point is taking only conference tournament title teams you are weakening the field by removing FF contending teams.  Expanding the field would allow that 30 and 5 team ranked 49 in the RPI that lost to a team that shot lights out in their tournament game easier entry.  Do you agree its a shame that team only gets an NIT berth?

In your opinion, does everyone who doesn't win their conference tourney not deserve to get in?

Some questions I am deeply curious as to how you feel about those issues.

I said keep it at 64 teams and I would let more of the mid majors in with a 30-5 record in over a team from a big conference that can't even win at least half of their conference games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PoHoosier said:

My mistake, I was wrong, sorry about that.  I misread your post entirely.  Having read 32 multiple times, I saw that as where you wanted the tournament moved to.  It all makes sense now.  Thanks.

Nope, just saying when D1 kept getting bigger and more conferences that meant more automatic bids which meant less at large bids. Most of those at large bids went to the power conferences and they did not like losing out on tournament bids so they added play in games to get more at large bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, PoHoosier said:

I would like to see the field expanded.  When it went from 32 to 64 teams in 1985 there were 282 D-1 schools.  Today there are 352 schools looking to make the field.  With parity as it is today, the field would likely not be 'watered down'.  More schools in the field could increase the likelihood of schools playing a more locally. 

With the increase of 25% more D-1 schools, 25% more tournament teams would bring us to 85 teams.  Now, it wouldn't have to be 85, make it 84 or 86.  We would not have to get to that number tomorrow.  Phase in 2 to 4 teams every year or 2 to get to that number.  Revisit the idea of tourney expansion every summer.  What could go wrong?

Actually it moved from 32 to 40 in '79.  And to 48 in '80.  And 52 in '83.  And 53 in '84.  And then 64 in '85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...