2011 Early Bubble Watch


#1

Lunardi has us in the “Next Four Out” - translates to 9th in the Big Ten.

;D


#2

[quote=“UncleLar, post:1, topic:1115”]Lunardi has us in the “Next Four Out” - translates to 9th in the Big Ten.

;D[/quote]

;D That’s crazy. Next Four Out doesn’t even make us one of the Top 100 teams in the country. Big East with 13 teams and 1 in Next Four Out, while ACC has 12 teams.

If they go to 96 teams, simply making the field doesn’t make for a successful season.


#3

It simply to early to do the bracketing for a 96 team tournament. NCAA hasn’t even decided how its structured. There could more automatic bids. I hope they create some kind defined rules like no teams under a certain winning percentage can get in the bigger dance.


#4

I hated this 96 team deal… but I’m starting to come around on it now that I look at the bracket a bit.

Here’s the catch… they need to keep it starting on a Thursday following selection Sunday. Play 16 games on Thursday-Sunday to get down to the final 32 after the first weekend, instead of sweet 16.

Then you play the next week the same way - round of 32 on thursday/friday, sweet 16 on sat/sun.

Then the 3rd weekend you get Elite 8 and Final Four.

With a mid-week (thursday?) game for the title to follow. This would probably not happen because they like the build-up of the final four and it’s cache or whatever you want to call it, they’d rather have that week to promote it.

But this would work best for gamblers and bracket contests I think, and that’s a large segment they don’t want to alienate.

If you were to try to squeeze an extra round of games in on Tuesday/Wednesday I think you might really mess things up. Brackets would come out Sunday and you’d have 1 day to get them done.


#5

[quote=“UncleLar, post:1, topic:1115”]Lunardi has us in the “Next Four Out” - translates to 9th in the Big Ten.

;D[/quote]

So you’re saying that we’ll just miss out on teh basketball equivalent of the Poulan Weedeater/Fleet Enema bowl?


#6
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1115"][url=http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5086532]Lunardi[/url] has us in the "Next Four Out" - translates to 9th in the Big Ten.

;D[/quote]

So you’re saying that we’ll just miss out on teh basketball equivalent of the Poulan Weedeater/Fleet Enema bowl?

So you’re saying there’s a chance


#7

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:4, topic:1115”]I hated this 96 team deal… but I’m starting to come around on it now that I look at the bracket a bit.

Here’s the catch… they need to keep it starting on a Thursday following selection Sunday. Play 16 games on Thursday-Sunday to get down to the final 32 after the first weekend, instead of sweet 16.

Then you play the next week the same way - round of 32 on thursday/friday, sweet 16 on sat/sun.

Then the 3rd weekend you get Elite 8 and Final Four.

With a mid-week (thursday?) game for the title to follow. This would probably not happen because they like the build-up of the final four and it’s cache or whatever you want to call it, they’d rather have that week to promote it.

But this would work best for gamblers and bracket contests I think, and that’s a large segment they don’t want to alienate.

If you were to try to squeeze an extra round of games in on Tuesday/Wednesday I think you might really mess things up. Brackets would come out Sunday and you’d have 1 day to get them done.[/quote]

What I’ve heard is that because there will no longer be an NIT, the games won’t necessarily be all stacked on Thurs-Sun like they have been. So they will do something like Thurs-Sat-Mon and Fri-Sun-Tues to get down to the Sweet Sixteen for the second weekend.


#8
I hated this 96 team deal.. but I'm starting to come around on it now that I look at the bracket a bit.

Here’s the catch… they need to keep it starting on a Thursday following selection Sunday. Play 16 games on Thursday-Sunday to get down to the final 32 after the first weekend, instead of sweet 16.

Then you play the next week the same way - round of 32 on thursday/friday, sweet 16 on sat/sun.

Then the 3rd weekend you get Elite 8 and Final Four.

With a mid-week (thursday?) game for the title to follow. This would probably not happen because they like the build-up of the final four and it’s cache or whatever you want to call it, they’d rather have that week to promote it.

But this would work best for gamblers and bracket contests I think, and that’s a large segment they don’t want to alienate.

If you were to try to squeeze an extra round of games in on Tuesday/Wednesday I think you might really mess things up. Brackets would come out Sunday and you’d have 1 day to get them done.

What I’ve heard is that because there will no longer be an NIT, the games won’t necessarily be all stacked on Thurs-Sun like they have been. So they will do something like Thurs-Sat-Mon and Fri-Sun-Tues to get down to the Sweet Sixteen for the second weekend.

Hmm - that might not be too bad. This really is going to screw the NCAA next time they try to use the whole “missing too much class” argument for a football playoff. :wink:

Not sure you’d have anytime to go anywhere but straight to the next venue if you finished Tuesday and played again Thurs/Friday somewhere else.


#9

I know this much - I’m spending the opening weekend in Vegas next year… and if it has to be an entire week, so be it!


#10
[quote="Craftsy21, post:4, topic:1115"]I hated this 96 team deal.. but I'm starting to come around on it now that I look at the bracket a bit.

Here’s the catch… they need to keep it starting on a Thursday following selection Sunday. Play 16 games on Thursday-Sunday to get down to the final 32 after the first weekend, instead of sweet 16.

Then you play the next week the same way - round of 32 on thursday/friday, sweet 16 on sat/sun.

Then the 3rd weekend you get Elite 8 and Final Four.

With a mid-week (thursday?) game for the title to follow. This would probably not happen because they like the build-up of the final four and it’s cache or whatever you want to call it, they’d rather have that week to promote it.

But this would work best for gamblers and bracket contests I think, and that’s a large segment they don’t want to alienate.

If you were to try to squeeze an extra round of games in on Tuesday/Wednesday I think you might really mess things up. Brackets would come out Sunday and you’d have 1 day to get them done.[/quote]

What I’ve heard is that because there will no longer be an NIT, the games won’t necessarily be all stacked on Thurs-Sun like they have been. So they will do something like Thurs-Sat-Mon and Fri-Sun-Tues to get down to the Sweet Sixteen for the second weekend.

Hmm - that might not be too bad. This really is going to screw the NCAA next time they try to use the whole “missing too much class” argument for a football playoff. :wink:

Not sure you’d have anytime to go anywhere but straight to the next venue if you finished Tuesday and played again Thurs/Friday somewhere else.

It’s not that much different. There will still be 95 games – same as before. The only difference will be that there will no longer be home games like the NIT. So both teams will travel and miss some class time instead of just one. But it does make the argument a little bit tougher to accept.


#11

Couple of naive questions: ???
Is the 96 team NCAA a "done deal?"
Is the NIT “gone” for sure?

It seems to me that the NIT has been “on the ropes” before but always survives!


#12

[quote=“tundra, post:11, topic:1115”]Couple of naive questions: ???
Is the 96 team NCAA a "done deal?"
Is the NIT “gone” for sure?

It seems to me that the NIT has been “on the ropes” before but always survives![/quote]

It seems like if part 1 is true, then part 2 has a greater than 95% chance of happening as well.

I don’t believe the 96 team NCAA is a done deal yet, it hangs on the new contract negotiation between CBS, ESPN and whoever else is bidding. That could have happened already… I haven’t checked sports news in a while… but I don’t think it has.


#13

[quote=“tundra, post:11, topic:1115”]Couple of naive questions: ???
Is the 96 team NCAA a "done deal?"
Is the NIT “gone” for sure?

It seems to me that the NIT has been “on the ropes” before but always survives![/quote]

No.

Almost assuredly if the 96 team thing happens.

When the NIT survived in the past, it wasn’t owned by the NCAA. Before the NCAA took it over, it was owned by schools in the New York area which had a reason to keep it going (promoting basketball in the NYC area which indirectly benefited the schools). Now that the NCAA owns it, there’s really no reason for it to exist on its own.

But having said that, I believe that as part of the purchase price, the NCAA agreed to share the NIT profits with the NY schools for ten years. If the tournament ends, I would think that the NCAA would have to pay the schools some bucks (somewhere in the neighborhood of $10M, which is a probably a rounding error in the TV negotiations for the new tournament).


#14
[quote="Craftsy21, post:4, topic:1115"]I hated this 96 team deal.. but I'm starting to come around on it now that I look at the bracket a bit.

Here’s the catch… they need to keep it starting on a Thursday following selection Sunday. Play 16 games on Thursday-Sunday to get down to the final 32 after the first weekend, instead of sweet 16.

Then you play the next week the same way - round of 32 on thursday/friday, sweet 16 on sat/sun.

Then the 3rd weekend you get Elite 8 and Final Four.

With a mid-week (thursday?) game for the title to follow. This would probably not happen because they like the build-up of the final four and it’s cache or whatever you want to call it, they’d rather have that week to promote it.

But this would work best for gamblers and bracket contests I think, and that’s a large segment they don’t want to alienate.

If you were to try to squeeze an extra round of games in on Tuesday/Wednesday I think you might really mess things up. Brackets would come out Sunday and you’d have 1 day to get them done.[/quote]

What I’ve heard is that because there will no longer be an NIT, the games won’t necessarily be all stacked on Thurs-Sun like they have been. So they will do something like Thurs-Sat-Mon and Fri-Sun-Tues to get down to the Sweet Sixteen for the second weekend.

Hmm - that might not be too bad. This really is going to screw the NCAA next time they try to use the whole “missing too much class” argument for a football playoff. :wink:

Not sure you’d have anytime to go anywhere but straight to the next venue if you finished Tuesday and played again Thurs/Friday somewhere else.

It’s not that much different. There will still be 95 games – same as before. The only difference will be that there will no longer be home games like the NIT. So both teams will travel and miss some class time instead of just one. But it does make the argument a little bit tougher to accept.

It’s all done piecemeal. Little by little, they squeeze more and more out of these kids. Is it coincidence that the arenas get more elaborate, and the coaches sign larger contracts?

I think they just added an extra game to the regular season a few years ago, along wit the “exempt tournament” rule.

1982 - Jordan’s UNC - National Champs Played 34 games (32-2)
1988 - Ferry’s Duke - reached the Final Four Played 35 games (28-7)
2010 - Kentucky - Reached regional Final Played 38 games (35-3)

  • had Kentucky made the championship game, they would have played in 40 (FORTY) games this season !!!

#15

Rivals’ take: http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1074155

Looks like the 19/20 seeds are the new 12/13 seeds.

I’m assuming PSU is projected just outside this field since NW barely made it; Seton Hall is a 16 seed, although they can potentially be ahead of USF & Cincy (15s), and maybe even one of Louisville (9) / Marquette (6)… all pending on their NBA declared players.


#16

The lengthening CBB season is just another sad example of the ongoing professionalization of college sports. The more NCAA football and basketball look like the NFL and the NBA, the less infatuated I am with the former.

The argument about lost class time serving as a justification for forestalling a CFB playoff is especially ridiculous when you look at the lost class time caused by college volleyball, baseball and softball schedules. Football has one of the least onerous schedules when it comes to class time lost to game travel.


#17

I have always thought that the Football playoff is really being stopped by the BCS conferences. If the NCAA sponsored a championship you would have to include all league champs. That makes a 16 team tournament with 11 champs and only 5 at large to spread around.

I guess you could have a playoff without the NCAA sanctioning but how much different is that than it is now. There will not be a NCAA football champ at the highesst level.


#18

[quote=“Still in State College, post:17, topic:1115”]I have always thought that the Football playoff is really being stopped by the BCS conferences. If the NCAA sponsored a championship you would have to include all league champs. That makes a 16 team tournament with 11 champs and only 5 at large to spread around.

I guess you could have a playoff without the NCAA sanctioning but how much different is that than it is now. There will not be a NCAA football champ at the highesst level.[/quote]

Absolutely. It’s because the BCS schools do not want to share the revenues.

The “class time” arguement is rediculous. The NCAA has been using that bullsh*t line for years. The hypocracy is amazing. They used that line back when the schools were playing 11 games a season. THEN, they approved 12th game. That 12th game is played during class time. The playoff would occur during the Christmas break.

It’s laughable, if it weren’t so dirty.


#19

Assume that Lunardi’s forecast is in the ballpark, and I think I find it reasonable given the transfer of Babb. It begs the question again - where exactly do we think Ed DeChellis’ program is going? If you take the RPI as a metric, I really think our high points under Ed will be somewhere in the 50-70 range. Especially if he fails to come around on the OOC scheduling issues. If at some point Ed had made 3 straight NIT’s or something, then I would agree with the assessment that he was close. But he didn’t. He went 3 years between NIT appearances with nothing to show for it except one or two last place finishes. Are we really satisfied with being a bubble team for a hypothetical 96 team field for what was projected by most to be Ed’s most solid team yet?


#20

Let’s not hang the guy based on a Joe Lunardi projection. I say wait until we actually play the season first.