2008-2009 College Basketball Thread......

[digamma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One good point someone made was that giving your automatic bids to the regular season champ may be a better option. The Southern Conference would have Davidson in the tourney who is better than a lot of the at-large seeds.

This is up to the conference. The Ivy League is the only conference left without a tournament, but others are welcome to follow this model. However small, the conference tournament is at best, a revenue generator, and at worst a good marketing opportunity (how many other national television games is the SWAC going to have?).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Eh... Davidson's really not that good this year. Curry's great, but they don't belong in the field.

They aren't bad. Most of their losses came against highly ranked schools or when Curry was hurt. They are better than half a dozen at-large teams in the tournament. In any event, it would benefit the Southern Conference to have them in it than whoever won their tourney. Davidson is much more likely to go farther.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Radii

I haven't seen Michigan enough, but, my impression of Clemson is that they pretty much decide their own fate against all but the absolute best of teams. If they play well they beat anyone in the country. If they don't they lose to a 16 seed caliber team. I wouldn't be surprised to see them in the sweet 16. I also wouldn't be surprised to see them lose to Michigan by 20.

I have not watched UM play all year; but Clemson can not handle long athletic teams regardless of skill. teams that want to slow it down and pound that do not have exceptional ball handlers will get destroyed by the press and ran down (ala Duke)....but long quick teams beat the press and score easy baskets....

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They aren't bad. Most of their losses came against highly ranked schools or when Curry was hurt. They are better than half a dozen at-large teams in the tournament. In any event, it would benefit the Southern Conference to have them in it than whoever won their tourney. Davidson is much more likely to go farther.

Given the small conference teams seeded 15th/16th and playing in that godforsaken playin game, davidson is probably better than 12-15 teams in the tournament. Then again, so is the worst team in any power conference.

Like digamma said above, any conference can change the team they choose to send to the NCAA Tournament. But it doesn't make sense for any of them to do so. The only reason anyone things that Davidson belongs anywhere near the tournament is that Stephen Curry provided some excitement last year.

Its probably better that they didn't make it, the chance of them winning a game in the tournament, much less repeating that performance, would have been very close to zero. Davidson getting in would have just dampened Curry's legacy as a Tournament star.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by digamma

This is up to the conference. The Ivy League is the only conference left without a tournament, but others are welcome to follow this model. However small, the conference tournament is at best, a revenue generator, and at worst a good marketing opportunity (how many other national television games is the SWAC going to have?).

Yep, it comes down to money. If a conference doesn't mind the fact that its not sending its best to the tournament then why should I?

[RedKingGold]

Can't really complain about Villanova's draw. I think getting a #3 seed in your own backyard is a better advantage than any #2. Also, Nova' matches up well against Duke in the potential Sweet Sixteen matchup and has beaten top seed Pitt in the regional final. Heck, the Sweet Sixteen is in Boston, less than 3 hours away from campus.

Toughest spot might be that VCU/UCLA winner. I actually like our chances at beating UCLA better than VCU should they pull of that upset. But again, it's basically a home game for the 'Cats.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

UCLA/VCU is gonna be a fun one.

Excited for this one.

I've watched Eric Maynor play live about idano.. 10 times in his career.. he is a fantastic college guard.


I'll get on my mid-major soap box later, no time now.

[Big Fo]

I wish there was a rule where less than half the teams from one conference can make it. Something like:

(number of teams in conference/2) - 1 = x(round up if not a whole number)

I don't care how good people say the ACC or Big Ten (ha) are, seven of eleven teams making the postseason is a joke.

[gstelmack]

I'm with the folks saying that anyone left out has only themselves to blame. Arguing over who got snubbed is a waste of time, as they were a pretty average team to be in that mix to begin with.

Want to expand the tourney? Simple: go to 32 conferences, each plays a conference tournament, probably with one of the setups where 4 teams get byes based on the regular season to help the regular season mean something, and each conference tourney winner goes on to a 5 round tourney. Basically make the conference tourneys the first couple of rounds of the big dance, and now everyone is included with a shot at winning it all. And you can eliminate all this regional mess by picking sites near appropriate conferences, so you don't send the SEC winner to Portland or something stupid like that.

Turn the NIT back into the NIT and let them invite 32 or 64 leftover teams as they see fit to bring in more cash and let others keep playing.

Or just leave everything alone...

[terpkristin]

Wait. I just got home from work. Terps made it to the dance? Really?
They have no business being there.

/tk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I don't care how good people say the ACC or Big Ten (ha) are, seven of eleven teams making the postseason is a joke.

Not when even the bottom team in a strong conference could beat up the winner of some of the not-really-Division-1-caliber-conferences.

The real joke is having close to 350 teams playing allegedly D-I anything.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

Wait. I just got home from work. Terps made it to the dance? Really?
They have no business being there.

Not only did they make it, they made it as a 10 seed, seemingly indicating they were considered to be "clearly in" and not one of the last couple teams on the bubble like we all assumed.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by Radii

Not only did they make it, they made it as a 10 seed, seemingly indicating they were considered to be "clearly in" and not one of the last couple teams on the bubble like we all assumed.

Just astounding. You lose to Morgan St. and you embarrass yourselves vs. Duke and you get in as a 10 seed????

The system is broken. I'm thrilled they're in, but that's just something that shouldn't have happened.

/tk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Radii

Not only did they make it, they made it as a 10 seed, seemingly indicating they were considered to be "clearly in" and not one of the last couple teams on the bubble like we all assumed.

The point was made however, and I'm pretty sure that Maryland & Wisconsin were mentioned by name, that teams were taken "off their line" in order to meet some of the other criteria in the rules.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chubby

very happy with SU's draw and the 3 seed. I think they get the weakest 2 but the toughest 1 (even if the committee made Louisville the top 1)

Same here, it's just really nice to see "Syracuse" up there on the screen after a couple of down years. I'm also really happy they got the Friday/Sunday games, the extra day of rest certainly won't hurt.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not when even the bottom team in a strong conference could beat up the winner of some of the not-really-Division-1-caliber-conferences.

The real joke is having close to 350 teams playing allegedly D-I anything.

Honestly I don't care if some of those conference champions can even beat a good high school team, at least they won their tournament.

I'd just rather see a few more good mid-majors that get knocked out of one bid conference tournaments than the likes of Maryland or Michigan. I know CBS and some fans prefer the "by the big conferences, for the big conferences" approach to organizing the Big Dance though.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I wish there was a rule where less than half the teams from one conference can make it. Something like:

(number of teams in conference/2) - 1 = x(round up if not a whole number)

I don't care how good people say the ACC or Big Ten (ha) are, seven of eleven teams making the postseason is a joke.

It would suck to be punished for being in a good conference (and its something those conferences would never agree to). It's kind of like while we'll never see 11 conference champions in a college football tournament - it makes the path to the championship easier the worse your conference is, and that's just backwards.

I like the theory that the committee always shoots out - that teams, not conferences, should be awarded bids.

I wouldn't mind maybe 3 more play-in games

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Honestly I don't care if some of those conference champions can even beat a good high school team, at least they won their tournament.

I'd just rather see a few more good mid-majors that get knocked out of one bid conference tournaments than the likes of Maryland or Michigan. I know CBS and some fans prefer the "by the big conferences, for the big conferences" approach to organizing the Big Dance though.

Why? Simply because they are midmajors? How is any midmajor somehow more deserving than a major conference school when they don't play anybody good in their conference (tournament) and play very few if any good teams out of conference?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

\
I know CBS and some fans prefer the "by the big conferences, for the big conferences" approach to organizing the Big Dance though.

That's the perception but I wonder if TV ratings and attendance really bear that out at the bubble (10/11/12 seed) level. I think people prefer the mid-majors at those spots over Arizona and Maryland, just because it's more interesting, and it adds flavor. A Maryland/Arizona run to the sweet 16/elite 8 (as an underdog) just doesn't get as much attention (even from CBS), as a similar run by a George Mason. I've always felt like the mid-majors are over-represented in tournament - I mean how can you fairly put them in over a major conference team that faces big talent almost every game?

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why? Simply because they are midmajors? How is any midmajor somehow more deserving than a major conference school when they don't play anybody good in their conference (tournament) and play very few if any good teams out of conference?

I just think teams that couldn't manage to finish in the top half of their conferences shouldn't be eligible to have a shot at the national championship. To me it's bizarre. And I'm not sure you can for certain say that the top few midmajors that were snubbed are clearly a class below Maryland or Arizona.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I just think teams that couldn't manage to finish in the top half of their conferences shouldn't be eligible to have a shot at the national championship. To me it's bizarre. And I'm not sure you can for certain say that the top few midmajors that were snubbed are clearly a class below Maryland or Arizona.

That would just reward conferences that have really crappy teams in them, and punish conferences with depth. An extra couple of Big East teams would get in because they were lucky enough to have DePaul and South Florida - the Big Ten should invite Indiana St and Western Michigan and they'd better ensure shots for the big schools under that format.

[Arles]

First, I would have been fine had Arizona not made it. They blew some late games and a chance to get in for sure against ASU in the tourney. However, I do think you have to look at their win over San Diego State and neutral win (albeit a Phoenix tourney) over Gonzaga as strong arguments for them going over San Diego State and St. Marys. When these teams are that close, I think head-2-heads (or wins over conf champions in the mid major) may play in.

For Arizona's benefit, I think the bubble teams of SDSU and St. Mary's really helped the Wildcats as they either beat them or beat the conf champ who destroyed them. At the end of the day, I think their streak also played a part. Still, all bubble teams could have won their conference tourney so I don't see too many valid gripes (esp for Creighton, St. Marys, SDSU and Davidson). And, I would have said the same had Arizona been left out (could have done better in their conf tourney).

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I just think teams that couldn't manage to finish in the top half of their conferences shouldn't be eligible to have a shot at the national championship. To me it's bizarre. And I'm not sure you can for certain say that the top few midmajors that were snubbed are clearly a class below Maryland or Arizona.

and I don't see why teams that have 0% chance of having a shot at winning a national title should get into the tourny over teams that actually can beat others in the tourny...

[molson]

The NIT Bracket is out!

National Invitational Tournament Official Athletic Site

If you're fascinated by mid-majors, there's a lot more of them here, you could just watch this tournament.

[Groundhog]

Lots of good teams in the NIT. I hope we get some of the games down here.

[cartman]

I might have to drive up to Waco to see the Baylor-Georgetown matchup in the NIT.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

Given the small conference teams seeded 15th/16th and playing in that godforsaken playin game, davidson is probably better than 12-15 teams in the tournament. Then again, so is the worst team in any power conference.

Like digamma said above, any conference can change the team they choose to send to the NCAA Tournament. But it doesn't make sense for any of them to do so. The only reason anyone things that Davidson belongs anywhere near the tournament is that Stephen Curry provided some excitement last year.

Its probably better that they didn't make it, the chance of them winning a game in the tournament, much less repeating that performance, would have been very close to zero. Davidson getting in would have just dampened Curry's legacy as a Tournament star.

Going through the list of at-large teams, Davidson is better than a quarter of them on neutral court in my mind. I think they'd have a fair shot of getting out of the first round.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

First, I would have been fine had Arizona not made it. They blew some late games and a chance to get in for sure against ASU in the tourney. However, I do think you have to look at their win over San Diego State and neutral win (albeit a Phoenix tourney) over Gonzaga as strong arguments for them going over San Diego State and St. Marys. When these teams are that close, I think head-2-heads (or wins over conf champions in the mid major) may play in.

For Arizona's benefit, I think the bubble teams of SDSU and St. Mary's really helped the Wildcats as they either beat them or beat the conf champ who destroyed them. At the end of the day, I think their streak also played a part. Still, all bubble teams could have won their conference tourney so I don't see too many valid gripes (esp for Creighton, St. Marys, SDSU and Davidson). And, I would have said the same had Arizona been left out (could have done better in their conf tourney).

Those big wins did come at home (that tournament was all AZ fans). It's easier to rack up wins like that when you don't have to play on the road. They don't have a single solid road win all season.

They're still a .500 team in a weaker power conference. A healthy St. Mary's squad beats them on a neutral court more often than not.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

That's the perception but I wonder if TV ratings and attendance really bear that out at the bubble (10/11/12 seed) level. I think people prefer the mid-majors at those spots over Arizona and Maryland, just because it's more interesting, and it adds flavor. A Maryland/Arizona run to the sweet 16/elite 8 (as an underdog) just doesn't get as much attention (even from CBS), as a similar run by a George Mason. I've always felt like the mid-majors are over-represented in tournament - I mean how can you fairly put them in over a major conference team that faces big talent almost every game?

Attendance wise I can tell you that the size of the school matters. I've been to a few tournaments and there is a massive contingent of people from larger schools. I remember going once at the United Center and seeing half the building filled with Purdue fans while maybe there were 50-100 Deleware fans in the crowd. The reserved sections for the bigger schools were always filled to the brim.

[Arles]

Let's look at St. Marys. They lost all three times against Gonzaga (including a 25 point beatdown in the finals with a fully healthy squad). Their best wins were against both Utah State (11 seed) and Providence (NIT) at home. They barely squeaked by Oregon (tied with a minute left) and Oregon was abysmal. They played only 7 games against teams in the top 100 and won just 3.

Arizona had 10 of it's losses come against top 50 teams and was 2-1 against the top RPI 25. Anyone saying St. Mary's deserves a slot is basically saying that if you just beat an 11 seed and an NIT team, you should be in. Go ahead and play 23 games against sub RPI 100 teams and go 3-4 against the top 100 - the fact that you beat NIT Providence and 11-seed Utah state (both at home) is enough for me.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I have to admit, I'm enjoying the bitching about mid-majors getting "screwed" by the committee considering the anti-BCS threads were full of how the NCAA tournament is great and mid-majors get their chance. Now its "the mid-majors don't get enough chances against good teams during the regular season" or the committee *gasp* has evolved the way they evaluate teams.

Arguing about teams ranked #32-#35 != teams ranked #1-#4

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Attendance wise I can tell you that the size of the school matters. I've been to a few tournaments and there is a massive contingent of people from larger schools. I remember going once at the United Center and seeing half the building filled with Purdue fans while maybe there were 50-100 Deleware fans in the crowd. The reserved sections for the bigger schools were always filled to the brim.

Good point, I didn't think about the traveling fans...though don't all of these games sell out? Does it matter who buys the tickets?

Speaking of that, I'm somewhat relieved Syracuse didn't get shipped to Boise or Portland. That would have cost me around $350.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Let's look at St. Marys. They lost all three times against Gonzaga (including a 25 point beatdown in the finals with a fully healthy squad). Their best wins were against both Utah State (11 seed) and Providence (NIT) at home. They barely squeaked by Oregon (tied with a minute left) and Oregon was abysmal. They played only 7 games against teams in the top 100 and won just 3.

Arizona had 10 of it's losses come against top 50 teams and was 2-1 against the top RPI 25. Anyone saying St. Mary's deserves a slot is basically saying that if you just beat an 11 seed and an NIT team, you should be in. Go ahead and play 23 games against sub RPI 100 teams and go 3-4 against the top 100 - the fact that you beat NIT Providence and 11-seed Utah state (both at home) is enough for me.

The RPI says that Saint Mary's did better with their schedule than Arizona did with theirs. It's not just about quality wins, but the overall body of work. St. Mary's was 18-1 till Mills got hurt and a ranked team.

It's easy to pull out quality wins for big schools in big conferences, but they also have the luxury of playing 10 of them a year. Eventually you're going to grab a win off a good school. Smaller schools like St. Marys don't get those opportunities since teams are reluctant to schedule them and will not play them at their place.

Like I said, St. Mary's is a better team than Arizona. We can crunch the numbers, but that's all that really matters. If the Gaels played in the Pac-10 with a healthy Mills, they finish higher than Arizona and with more quality wins.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Arguing about teams ranked #32-#35 != teams ranked #1-#4

+1 (!!)

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Good point, I didn't think about the traveling fans...though don't all of these games sell out? Does it matter who buys the tickets?

Speaking of that, I'm somewhat relieved Syracuse didn't get shipped to Boise or Portland. That would have cost me around $350.

I don't know how they do it or determine sellouts. I'm fairly certain a large number of tickets are reserved for the schools. I remember the Purdue-Deleware game years ago because the Purdue side was so filled and the quadrant that Deleware fans had was essentially empty (outside of the hottest cheerleaders I've ever seen).

One tip if you're going to just see one team. You can wait outside the stadium after the first game and buy tickets off the losing teams fans for practically nothing. Some will just give them away. They can actually turn out to be some of the best seats in the house.

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The RPI says that Saint Mary's did better with their schedule than Arizona did with theirs. It's not just about quality wins, but the overall body of work. St. Mary's was 18-1 till Mills got hurt and a ranked team.

It's easy to pull out quality wins for big schools in big conferences, but they also have the luxury of playing 10 of them a year. Eventually you're going to grab a win off a good school. Smaller schools like St. Marys don't get those opportunities since teams are reluctant to schedule them and will not play them at their place.

Like I said, St. Mary's is a better team than Arizona. We can crunch the numbers, but that's all that really matters. If the Gaels played in the Pac-10 with a healthy Mills, they finish higher than Arizona and with more quality wins.

Kind sir, I have no dog in this fight, but please, St. Marys gets absolutely trounched in the Pac-10, asserting that they finish higher than even this bad Zona' team is just.....non-factual.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One tip if you're going to just see one team. You can wait outside the stadium after the first game and buy tickets off the losing teams fans for practically nothing. Some will just give them away. They can actually turn out to be some of the best seats in the house.

I'd kind of like to see Hansbrough break the ACC all time scoring record, but I'm not paying $200 for top row/top section for the weekend(which really isn't a bad price for the weekend, i just can't afford it right now). I'm considering stubhub or maybe just driving over to Greensboro and hoping to catch a dejected LSU/Butler fan.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Arguing about teams ranked #32-#35 != teams ranked #1-#4

You missed the point, but I forgive you.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like I said, St. Mary's is a better team than Arizona. We can crunch the numbers, but that's all that really matters. If the Gaels played in the Pac-10 with a healthy Mills, they finish higher than Arizona and with more quality wins.

I have been kinda with you on St. Mary's (and maybe some other teams) deserving a shot more than Arizona, but you lost me here. Look, Mills could play in any league. Maybe St. Mary's has 2-3 other guys who could either be mediocre starters on lower end Pac 10 teams, or key bench contributors on mid-table teams.

But no way am I buying that a generally WCC-talent-level teams gets through the round robin gauntlet of a Pac 10 schedule and finishes higher than a team with Budinger, Wise and Hill, all of whom might actually be individually better than Mills. It was pointed out that St. Mary's struggled to beat UO this year. Dude, Oregon was atrocious this year. I mean stink up the joint like a corpse bad.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

Kind sir, I have no dog in this fight, but please, St. Marys gets absolutely trounched in the Pac-10, asserting that they finish higher than even this bad Zona' team is just.....non-factual.

Have you seen St. Marys play with a healthy Patty Mills? They are a very good team. In a Pac-10 schedule where they'll get 9 home games, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be able to finish in the middle of the pack.

This was a top 20 team that was beating up on Gonzaga on the road when Mills got hurt.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You missed the point, but I forgive you.

Your point appeared to me to be to point out that people criticizing the BCS brought up how March Madness selections are handled as the proper way to do it. And that (assuming one has an issue with the selections today--I don't , maybe you do), today is an indication that they were faulty in using this example to support their argument.

And I was pointing out to you that questionable results are not relevant--apples to oranges--because in this case, the selection committee is not considering the top of the top (who entirely determine who gets a title shot), but the guys barely getting in who have almost no chance of winning the title.

So, tell me what point I missed. Seems to me I am either spot on, or you need some work writing out your takes a little more clearly.

[Chief Rum]

If I had to guess, in a Pac (10) with St. Mary's, St. Mary's finishes ahead of Oregon for sure. They are maybe a tad ahead of Stanford and Oregon State--maybe. They finish behind Washington State, #7 in the conference. Probably 7 or so wins in conference.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I have been kinda with you on St. Mary's (and maybe some other teams) deserving a shot more than Arizona, but you lost me here. Look, Mills could play in any league. Maybe St. Mary's has 2-3 other guys who could either be mediocre starters on lower end Pac 10 teams, or key bench contributors on mid-table teams.

But no way am I buying that a generally WCC-talent-level teams gets through the round robin gauntlet of a Pac 10 schedule and finishes higher than a team with Budinger, Wise and Hill, all of whom might actually be individually better than Mills. It was pointed out that St. Mary's struggled to beat UO this year. Dude, Oregon was atrocious this year. I mean stink up the joint like a corpse bad.

And Arizona struggled mightily to beat a mediocre WCC school in Santa Clara at home. The St. Mary's Center could start in most power conferences with his size and they have a pretty good PF who is a bit undersized.

The WCC isn't a bad conference, and in fact has routinely done fairly well when given the shot in the NCAA. Gonzaga finishes in the top of just about every conference in the country with the exception of the Big East.

And I'm not necessarily saying SMC deserves a shot. The Mills injury killed their season more or less. But with a healthy Patty Mills, this was a very good team that would have remained in the top 25 and probably won a game or two in the tournament.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

and I don't see why teams that have 0% chance of having a shot at winning a national title should get into the tourny over teams that actually can beat others in the tourny...

Do you really think the TOP mid-majors have 0% chance of winning the title? George Mason just made the Final Four three years ago.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And Arizona struggled mightily to beat a mediocre WCC school in Santa Clara at home. The St. Mary's Center could start in most power conferences with his size and they have a pretty good PF who is a bit undersized.

The WCC isn't a bad conference, and in fact has routinely done fairly well when given the shot in the NCAA. Gonzaga finishes in the top of just about every conference in the country with the exception of the Big East.

I'm out here in CA, dude. I know the WCC ain't bad. I have seen both teams play and seen conference play in both conferences. Sorry, man, just different levels. St. Mary's doesn't have the depth to compete, and one player and a handful of decent players isn't enough in a major conference like the Pac 10.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm out here in CA, dude. I know the WCC ain't bad. I have seen both teams play and seen conference play in both conferences. Sorry, man, just different levels. St. Mary's doesn't have the depth to compete, and one player and a handful of decent players isn't enough in a major conference like the Pac 10.

Do you think Gonzaga could compete well in the Pac-10?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

Kind sir, I have no dog in this fight, but please, St. Marys gets absolutely trounched in the Pac-10, asserting that they finish higher than even this bad Zona' team is just.....non-factual.

I disagree. St. Mary's prior to Mills' injury were a damn good team. And it's not just Mills, Diamon Simpson is a very nice player, Omar Samhan gives them size (if not athleticism), and Carlin Hughes is a steady ballhandler. I'm not saying they'd run the table in the Pac-10, but I don't think they'd be awful, either.

No idea what this team is going to be like next season however, with no Simpson and Samhan even if Mills returns.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by LloydLungs

Do you really think the TOP mid-majors have 0% chance of winning the title? George Mason just made the Final Four three years ago.

Memphis can probably be considered a mid-major these days now that Conference USA is a joke.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm with the folks saying that anyone left out has only themselves to blame. Arguing over who got snubbed is a waste of time, as they were a pretty average team to be in that mix to begin with.

But see, I don't think the numbers bear that out. Let's say there's about 310 schools fighting for 34 at-large spots (removing the 31 teams that got the auto bid). The top six snubs are still in the top 40 out of 310 teams. That's not average. That's really, really good. Flawed, sure, but still really good.

This argument isn't just about St. Mary's or the mid-majors. Used to be it was unthinkable for a 22-win team out of the Big 10 or SEC to miss the tourney. The number of D-1 teams has grown so large that, mathematically, you either need to pare that down, or you need to expand the tournament a little. Not to 128 or 96, but I wonder if the Boeheim plan of 72 teams, with 16 low-major types playing eight play-in games allowing for seven more at-larges, is in the near future.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you think Gonzaga could compete well in the Pac-10?

I think in this year's Pac 10, which wasn't as top heavy, I can see Gonzaga mixing it up at about just behind Arizona State this year, kinda like Cal, maybe a little ahead of USC and Arizona.