Swamp Fox;700853 wrote:Perhaps we should forget all of the nonsense about who actually deserves to be in the field, and divide the haves and have nots by the more important factor. Who will make more money for the NCAA? In short, which team's fans "travel" better? In a borderline decision, always go with the money. If it should come down to a coin flip, the time honored adage seems appropriate here. Namely..."Money talks and the other substance walks." I have already censored my post to not upset younger readers.

this doesn't matter for the tourney, almost all first weekend tickets have been sold and pretty much none of these bubble teams will make it to the second weekend.

dave;700739 wrote:I think I'm the only Michigan bball fan on here and even I don't think they should get in. They've proven time and time again this season they aren't quite there. If they could have finished off OSU, Kansas, or Wisconsin at home that would have been enough. The Big 10 is weak this year, beating PSU, MSU, etc shouldn't be enough.

Again, there is 68 teams and no one is really impressive right now so why not them?

bo shemmy3337;701092 wrote:Again, there is 68 teams and no one is really impressive right now so why not them?

because I don't think they are one of the 40 or so best at large teams, simple concept. they should be in though and I'll be very happy if they are.

bo shemmy3337;701092 wrote:Again, there is 68 teams and no one is really impressive right now so why not them?

He's trying to act like an objective poster by trashing the Big Ten. In reality, none of the bubble teams have a better resume than Michigan.

Cleveland Buck;701125 wrote:He's trying to act like an objective poster by trashing the Big Ten. In reality, none of the bubble teams have a better resume than Michigan.

lmao, so no bubble teams have better wins that against Harvard? I'd rather see teams in with a great win or two and a bad loss or two than a team that hasn't shown they can beat tourney caliber teams. Comprehend?

Dave, I don't get it. So Michigan hasn't proved they can beat or play with Tourney caliber teams?

They could beat 15-20 teams in the tourney easily.

Also, they hung REALLY tough against OSU and Kansas. So they lost. Who cares. Ask Kansas if they'd want to play Michigan and I bet you they'd rather not.

areyoukiddingme;701284 wrote:Dave, I don't get it. So Michigan hasn't proved they can beat or play with Tourney caliber teams?

They could beat 15-20 teams in the tourney easily.

Also, they hung REALLY tough against OSU and Kansas. So they lost. Who cares. Ask Kansas if they'd want to play Michigan and I bet you they'd rather not.

The tournament committee cares. I'm sure Kansas would love to play Michigan again, so they could make up for their performance against them last time and curbstomp the shit out of them.

When your in the big ten and you win 9 games, that is 9 solid wins IMO. Look at the shit teams like Kent and Akron who will waist a bid. Kent's best win this year was Iona and if they would have beat 3 or 4 more shitty teams they would be a bubble team with 25 or 26 wins still with one quality win in Iona. You can not say a team is better than another if they have 2 really good wins and 24 other wins against shitty teams in comparison to a team with 9 big ten wins and some close calls against 2 top ten teams IMO.

bo shemmy3337;701707 wrote:When your in the big ten and you win 9 games, that is 9 solid wins IMO. Look at the shit teams like Kent and Akron who will waist a bid. Kent's best win this year was Iona and if they would have beat 3 or 4 more shitty teams they would be a bubble team with 25 or 26 wins still with one quality win in Iona. You can not say a team is better than another if they have 2 really good wins and 24 other wins against shitty teams in comparison to a team with 9 big ten wins and some close calls against 2 top ten teams IMO.

How are they wasting a bid? So you think they should let all teams that go .500 or better(9 wins in Big Ten gets you at .500) in the Power 6 conferences in before some if not most of the conference tournament champions?

sportswizuhrd;701718 wrote:How are they wasting a bid? So you think they should let all teams that go .500 or better(9 wins in Big Ten gets you at .500) in the Power 6 conferences in before some if not most of the conference tournament champions?

I personally think it should go solely off of the RPI rankings and whomever the top 68 are, get in. I do not like the human element and I think the RPI system is a good one. They are taking a bid away from teams like Michigan who would win the MAC with ease IMO and I go to Kent and watch them frequently. The best 68 do not get in IMO.

The RPI is decent, but it has flaws. However, if they were able to come up with a tweaked system based similar to the RPI, I'd be all for it. In basketball, it's possible.

bo shemmy3337;701720 wrote:I personally think it should go solely off of the RPI rankings and whomever the top 68 are, get in. I do not like the human element and I think the RPI system is a good one. They are taking a bid away from teams like Michigan who would win the MAC with ease IMO and I go to Kent and watch them frequently. The best 68 do not get in IMO.

And the best two don't always play in the championship, but the final two have won the right to play in the title game because they have won the games needed to win in order to reach it that far. Just like the conference tournament winners.

Top 68 according to RPI ratings(statsheet.com)

Big East-11 teams(Cincinnati, Connecticut, Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, St.John's, Syracuse, Villanova, West Virginia)
Big 10-7 teams(Illinois, Michigan, Michigan St, OSU, Penn St,Purdue, Wisconsin)
ACC-6 teams(BC, Clemson, Duke, Florida St, UNC, Virginia Tech)
Big 12-6 teams(Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri, Oklahoma St,Texas, Texas A&M)
Conference USA-6 teams(Marshall,Memphis, Southern Miss.,UAB,UCF, UTEP)
PAC 10- 5 teams (Arizona, Cal, UCLA, USC, Washington)
SEC-5 teams (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt)
Mt. West-4 teams (BYU, Colorado St, San Diego St, UNLV)
A-10-3 teams(Xavier, Temple, Richmond)
Colonial -3 teams(George Mason, Old Dominion, VCU)
Horizon-2 teams (Butler, Cleveland State)
Missouri Valley-2 teams(Missouri State,Wichita St)
WCC-2 teams (Gonzaga, St.Mary's)
Ivy League-2 teams(Harvard, Princeton)
WAC-1 team (Utah St)
Summit-1 team (Oakland)
Southern-1 team (College of Charleston)
Atlantic Sun-1 team(Belmont)
MAAC-1 team(Iona)

69 teams listed as College of Charleston tied with Va Tech. C-USA with 6 teams in? As many or more than Big 12, ACC, Pac-10, SEC?

RPI does have flaws so this wouldn't work and I don't want to see another BCS ordeal where the smaller schools don't get much of a chance. I think using anything other than what we have now would make March Madness lose some of its luster.

Seriously though, there are about 6 real good teams and about 15 good teams. And that's it. Another joke is Clemson. They are in a weak ACC and their best OOC win was Seton Hall.

bo shemmy3337;701707 wrote:When your in the big ten and you win 9 games, that is 9 solid wins IMO. Look at the shit teams like Kent and Akron who will waist a bid. Kent's best win this year was Iona and if they would have beat 3 or 4 more shitty teams they would be a bubble team with 25 or 26 wins still with one quality win in Iona. You can not say a team is better than another if they have 2 really good wins and 24 other wins against shitty teams in comparison to a team with 9 big ten wins and some close calls against 2 top ten teams IMO.

Technically, since the MAC is a one-bid league, only one team will waste a bid (and not both Kent and Akron). I can only hope whichever team from that conference gets in does as good of a job "wasting" their bid as Ohio did last year when they kicked Georgetown's ass to the curb.

areyoukiddingme;701284 wrote:Ask Kansas if they'd want to play Michigan and I bet you they'd rather not.

Haha I don't really think Bill Self would care about playing Michigan again

bo shemmy3337;701720 wrote:I personally think it should go solely off of the RPI rankings and whomever the top 68 are, get in. I do not like the human element and I think the RPI system is a good one. They are taking a bid away from teams like Michigan who would win the MAC with ease IMO and I go to Kent and watch them frequently. The best 68 do not get in IMO.

Do the best 68 teams get in, in anyone's opinion?

If you don't win your conference and aren't in the top 37 at-large teams in the country, you don't have anything to complain about. Going strickly off RPI and getting rid of automatic bids would ruin a lot of what is good about the NCAA tournament.

Sports&Lady wrote:Haha I don't really think Bill Self would care about playing Michigan again

In fact, he would probably openly invite it.