For all the talk about the Mid Majors.....

[miami_fan]

What about those teams in the middle of the major conferences? Evidently, these are the teams that are losing with the rise of the smaller conference teams. IMO these schools have to worry less about the smaller conferences and more about the other middle schools in the other big conferences. I would submit that Seton Hall is the bigger culprit in taking away a bid from a Cincinnati or a Maryland than a mid major. With the larger super conferences and the unbalanced schedule that some of these conferences have, I think those middle of the pack schools are going to have to do a better job separating themselves from other middle of the pack major conference schools. Sure they could just move themselves from the middle of the pack to the top of their own conference. I think they can actually learn a lesson from the mid majors. Bracket Busters. I believe that this concept has helped the mid majors immensely and could do the same for those teams in the middle of the pack in the major conferences. Does it have great risk? Sure it does. However I think that the rewards for not only the winning team and that team's conference outweigh those risks. For example, does anybody believe the winner of a Bearcat- Terrapin matchup in February would not have gotten into the tourney? South Carolina and Michigan?

Thoughts?

[st.cronin]

It's a cliche, but: Parity. Trying to do the bracket this year, there was very little to pick from between the 3 seeds and the 8 seeds.

[Mustang]

Would be nice but, major conferences wouldn't do it, too risky.. same reason alot of them have iffy non-conference schedules. No way would they want to take the chance of risking the conference losing a spot.

What is there, 31 conference champs? Do away with the NIT, give the conference champs (+1) a 1st round bye and have the other 64 have their own play in game on Tuesday to get it to 64...

NIT is about the equivalent of giving yourself a stranger...

[kcchief19]

I don't think there is any gimmick that Maryland, Michigan, Florida State or any other mid-level team needs to do other than win ball games.

There were a grand total of three major conference teams that finished better than .500 that didn't make the tournament:

Stanford 11-7: 16-14 overall won't get you in the dance
Colorado 9-7: weak year for the Big XII means this record isn't that impressive
Florida State 9-7: Schedule was the killer; FSU played three power conference games against Florida, a horrid Purdue team and a weak Nebraska team. I firmly believe the committee ignored Florida State for not playing a mid-major as a lesson to other teams -- if FSU had played a game against Missouri State, I think they would be in the tourney.

Thanks to scholarship limits, parity and other issues, I have no doubt that a 12-6 record in a mid-major is as good or better than 8-8 in the Big East. The old rule of thumb was that you had to finish .500 in a power conference to get to the dance -- that threshold is now one win higher.

I don't see a problem with that. Even with those three teams left out, I'm convinced Cincinnati was left out because Syracuse won their way in.

I'm sorry to keep beating the the mid-major drum, but I don't think there is anything a power conference team needs to do other than win more games than they lose in conference.

But if you need a gimmick, the committee has established the criteria -- play a mid-major school. Play one non-conference game against a top team from the Valley and a .500 conference record will get you in.

[wade moore]

I'm sorry to keep beating the the mid-major drum, but I don't think there is anything a power conference team needs to do other than win more games than they lose in conference.

Exactly. And the middle of the road major conference teams are not just proving that they're just not as good as the top end of the mid-major conferences in the NCAA, they're falling left and right in the NIT too. You have teams in the top 5 of the major conferences losing to the #4 team in mid-majors, etc...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by wade moore

the middle of the road major conference teams are not just proving that they're just not as good as the top end of the mid-major conferences in the NCAA, they're falling left and right in the NIT too.

I agree with your first sentence here, but I think we need to urge caution in drawing conclusions from NIT results. Coaches from major conferences often feel they will have nothing to prove by advancing in the NIT. Most of their players don't want to be there, so they view these as essentially exhibition games - they use them to get players experience, and try out combinations for next year. I don't think they necesarily prove anything about the teams' or conferences' relative strengths.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I agree with your first sentence here, but I think we need to urge caution in drawing conclusions from NIT results. Coaches from major conferences often feel they will have nothing to prove by advancing in the NIT. Most of their players don't want to be there, so they view these as essentially exhibition games - they use them to get players experience, and try out combinations for next year. I don't think they necesarily prove anything about the teams' or conferences' relative strengths.

Probably true, but since these middle-of-the-road major conference teams won't play the top half of the mid-majors in the regular season, it's all we have to go on ...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Probably true, but since these middle-of-the-road major conference teams won't play the top half of the mid-majors in the regular season, it's all we have to go on ...

Well, I think the NCAA results, in which both teams are desperate to win, are a much better barometer. Those results, this year, do seem to bear out the fact that the best teams at least in the better mid majors (the MVC and CAA were among the best this year) are better than middle of the road major conferences, as well as the entire big 10.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Well, I think the NCAA results, in which both teams are desperate to win, are a much better barometer. Those results, this year, do seem to bear out the fact that the best teams at least in the better mid majors (the MVC and CAA were among the best this year) are better than middle of the road major conferences, as well as the entire big 10.

Agreed. Of course, I'm a bit biased as a major fan of the CAA.