2006 NCAA Selection show thread [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

View Full Version : 2006 NCAA Selection show thread

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:00 PM

figured I would start one.

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:02 PM

Early word from the CBS guys are that there are a lot of surprises. I'm wondering how the Villanova/Ray injury will play out? If it will keep them from a #1?

Eaglesfan27

03-12-2006, 05:03 PM

Early word from the CBS guys are that there are a lot of surprises. I'm wondering how the Villanova/Ray injury will play out? If it will keep them from a #1?

I hope not, as my grandfather is a big Villanova fan. Looking forward to watching this selection show.

Easy Mac

03-12-2006, 05:04 PM

Lets go Duke!

terpkristin

03-12-2006, 05:04 PM

Sigh...

Another year that I have no reason to watch the selection show.

I can't wait til Gary gets guys who aren't McDonald's All-Americans and the like. His coaching style is infinitely better for kids with potential and talent who weren't superstars in high school...

/tk

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:04 PM

Guess not, as they are #1 in the Minneapolis bracket (hate that naming scheme - I like the directional/geographic names better).

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:06 PM

Duke is the #1 overall. Bah.

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:10 PM

Duke may be the overall #1, but there's no way they'll win the whole thing.

rjolley

03-12-2006, 05:10 PM

I thought the overall #1 got the winner of the play-in game.

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:10 PM

wow. GW is an 8 seed

Easy Mac

03-12-2006, 05:11 PM

duke gets george washington or UNC-wilmington in the second round? Are you fucking kidding me?

Easy Mac

03-12-2006, 05:12 PM

geez, i may be a duke homer, but i think they have the bracket of death in this tourney. i love jj, but there's no way this duke team makes it into the final 4. maybe elite 8, but not further. jj doesn't have enough around him to do anything.

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:14 PM

shouldn't Duke be playing against the teams in the play in game?

TazFTW

03-12-2006, 05:14 PM

'cuse/A&M is a 5/12? Bye, bye Orange.

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:15 PM

No, the play-in teams get a Friday game. So Duke can't get them and play on Thursday. And it looks like the Greensboro games are Thursday/Saturday ...

Easy Mac

03-12-2006, 05:16 PM

shouldn't Duke be playing against the teams in the play in game?

no, for some reason that ends up going to a certain region no matter what (determined long before), and duke was scheduled closest to home, which wasn't the same bracket. makes little sense, but this is the ncaa.

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:16 PM

thats a solid bracket. The selection comitee sucks Duke's cock every year

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:17 PM

So. Illinois is an 11 seed, that might not be a good sign for the MVC.

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:19 PM

Wow, Bucknell is a 9 seed.

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:20 PM

Kansas a #4 seed ?

Easy Mac

03-12-2006, 05:21 PM

jesus, memphis may have the easiest bracket in the history of mankind. the thing is, they're the worst #1 seed, i honestly think anyone could come out of that bracket.

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:21 PM

I'm happy Gonzaga didn't get a 2 seed.

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:21 PM

Ouch, I know Gonzaga didn't play their best at the end of the season, but a 3 seed seems harsh. I really thought they had a shot at a 1, and they don't even get a 2. Wow.

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:22 PM

Very weak bracket.

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:24 PM

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:24 PM

Looks like the price of UCLA just went up in my Calcutta pool ...

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:25 PM

Still haven't seen any of those teams right on the bubble yet.

miami_fan

03-12-2006, 05:26 PM

The Gonzaga I saw at the end of the season definitely was a 3. Especially when placed in the same region with UCLA.

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:27 PM

SirFozzie

03-12-2006, 05:27 PM

any word on BC?

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:27 PM

BTW, what is the most people that have been in a thread at the same time? Have to believe that the NFL ones probably drew a big crowd, but 18 (17 members, 1 guest) in this one seems like a lot to me.

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:28 PM

Kentucky/UAB? Funny stuff.

TazFTW

03-12-2006, 05:28 PM

Uh oh, UAB/Kentucky again.

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:28 PM

There's a surprise, Utah State.

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:29 PM

Tennessee a #2 seed !!!

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:29 PM

Oh, good grief, which team did Seton Hall steal a spot from?

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 05:29 PM

Air Force?!

I knew the Mountain West would get more than one team. But that makes me even sadder that Wyoming didn't win last night. Because we beat Air Force twice and almost 3 teams on a fluke shot.

Grr...at least I go to a school that plays D1 at all now. lol.

Wow..Seton Hall.

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:30 PM

Looks like Florida State and Michigan are out.

SirFozzie

03-12-2006, 05:30 PM

you missed the Maximum Football thread.

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:31 PM

And anybody who thinks that Memphis' bracket is weak needs to take a closer look at UConn's. Below the top 5 teams, it's pretty cruddy.

rjolley

03-12-2006, 05:31 PM

Wichita St is a #7? That surprises me...

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:31 PM

Wow, Illinois not getting any favors here. Tough bracket, dropped to a #4 seed, having to play teams with (relative) home court in Air Force and Washington. I don't like it one bit.

And Conn in the Sweet 16 if they get there. This bracket is just horrid for my school.

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 05:31 PM

The NIT bracket gets released at 9pm eastern.

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:32 PM

There's no way in hell Utah State, George Mason and Air Force are better than Michigan or Florida State. Missouri State should be in ahead of Utah State and Air Force.

Karlifornia

03-12-2006, 05:32 PM

UCLA is playing as well as anyone in the country. They could easily make it to the Final Four.

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 05:32 PM

Easy Mac

03-12-2006, 05:32 PM

So can we all agree that duke got fucked in the ass for their bracket? you may hate them, but you have to agree that got an insane bracket, especially compared to the other top seeds.

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:33 PM

So can we all agree that duke got fucked in the ass for their bracket? you may hate them, but you have to agree that got an insane bracket, especially compared to the other top seeds.
Oh, good grief.

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 05:34 PM

I'm still baffled by the UConn-Kentucky 2nd round game.

What the hell. 2nd round?!

General Mike

03-12-2006, 05:34 PM

The NIT bracket gets released at 9pm eastern.

Go Rutgers.

Is Cincinnati gonna get in or not?

miami_fan

03-12-2006, 05:34 PM

Tenn. is a big surprise as a #2. I have really followed the Mountan West.

Dark Cloud: How good is the AFA?

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:35 PM

So can we all agree that duke got fucked in the ass for their bracket? you may hate them, but you have to agree that got an insane bracket, especially compared to the other top seeds.

If they're the overall best team than I guess how difficult their bracket is shouldn't matter anyway since they should be better than all of those teams.

Karlifornia

03-12-2006, 05:35 PM

So can we all agree that duke got fucked in the ass for their bracket? you may hate them, but you have to agree that got an insane bracket, especially compared to the other top seeds.

Are you Lee Melchionni's dad or something? :)

Man, it's been 11 years since Stanford wasn't involved in the selection show. :(

JonInMiddleGA

03-12-2006, 05:35 PM

As much as I hate to complain about the compliment, Tennessee as a #2 is a pretty big gift by the selection committee IMO. Given their performance down the stretch (lost 4 of last 6 IIRC), I had them at best a #4, feared a #5.

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:37 PM

Tenn. a 2 seed and BC a 4?

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:37 PM

For SirFozzie, BC is a #4. They will play Pacific in the first round.

Lathum

03-12-2006, 05:37 PM

BC better watch out for Pacific.

DaddyTorgo

03-12-2006, 05:39 PM

BC's a 4?? They did have a weak schedule, but they also have been playing extremely well lately and they took Duke to the wire in the ACC final earlier. That's kinda bullshit by the Selection Committee

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 05:39 PM

Tenn. is a big surprise as a #2. I have really followed the Mountan West.

Dark Cloud: How good is the AFA?

Air Force? Oh geez.

They're not a talented team. That coach is the former coach of the Nuggets and well, he seemingly could coach rabbits. They're a disciplined teams and they're not going to beat themselves, but they can be beaten by pounding them inside and forcing them to beat you by shooting.

And they simply won't do that.

Not to say that Wyoming is bad, but...we're not going to any post-season tournies this year and we basically beat them 3 times (2 times, but we lost on a last second fluke shot on their home court..) and if you saw us last night, we're not good or at least, we're streaky, young and inconsistent. And we beat ourselves all the time. And we beat them.

So...no team with skilled, fairly consistent players shouldn't worry about them.

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:39 PM

The Selection Committee is a joke.

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:40 PM

Seton Hall and Air Force are going to shock everybody!!!

Wait, they already have.

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 05:41 PM

Maybe the NCAA wanted the NIT to look better this year since they own it now.

hoopsguy

03-12-2006, 05:41 PM

Packer/Nantz are talking about BC having to play today, then travel 2,000 miles for their game against a dangerous Pacific team.

Tennessee as a #2? GMAFB, god I hate Bruce Pearl.

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 05:42 PM

Seton Hall and Air Force are going to shock everybody!!!

Wait, they already have.

Seton Hall doesn't bother me as much as Air Force does. Of course, I'm a Jersey guy.

But at least they've got impressive wins and played in the best conference in the nation this year. Still, I was shocked. I think the committee wanted to give the Big East 8 teams and that's what happened here.

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 05:43 PM

Easy Mac

03-12-2006, 05:43 PM

Washington, D.C.

At Philadelphia
No. 1 Connecticut vs. No. 16 Albany
No. 8 Kentucky vs. No. 9 UABAt San Diego
No. 5 Washington vs. No. 12 Utah State
No. 4 Illinois vs. No. 13 Air Force
At Dayton, Ohio
No. 3 North Carolina vs. No. 14 Murray State
No. 6 Michigan State vs. No. 11 George Mason
At Greensboro, N.C.
No. 7 Wichita State vs. No. 10 Seton Hall
No. 2 Tennessee vs. No. 15 Winthrop
Atlanta

At Greensboro, N.C.
No. 1 Duke vs. No. 16 Southern
No. 8 George Washington vs. No. 9 UNC-WilmingtonAt Jacksonville, Fla.
No. 5 Syracuse vs. No. 12 Texas A&M
No. 4 LSU vs. No. 13 Iona
At Auburn Hills, Mich.
No. 3 Iowa vs. No. 14 Northwestern State
No. 6 West Virginia vs. No. 11 Southern Illinois
At Dallas
No. 7 California vs. No. 10 NC State
No. 2 Texas vs. No. 15 Penn
Minneapolis

At Philadelphia
No. 1 Villanova vs. No. 16 (Monmouth/Hampton)
No. 8 Arizona vs. No. 9 WisconsinAt Salt Lake City
No. 5 Nevada vs. No. 12 Montana
No. 4 Boston College vs. No. 13 Pacific
At Jacksonville, Fla.
No. 3 Florida vs. No. 14 South Alabama
No. 6 Oklahoma vs. No. 11 Wisconsin-Milwaukee
At Dayton, Ohio
No. 7 Georgetown vs. No. 10 Northern Iowa
No. 2 Ohio State vs. No. 15 Davidson
Oakland

At Dallas
No. 1 Memphis vs. No. 16 Oral Roberts
No. 8 Arkansas vs. No. 9 BucknellAt Auburn Hills, Mich.
No. 5 Pittsburgh vs. No. 12 Kent State
No. 4 Kansas vs. No. 13 Bradley
At Salt Lake City
No. 3 Gonzaga vs. No. 14 Xavier
No. 6 Indiana vs. No. 11 San Diego State
At San Diego
No. 7 Marquette vs. No. 10 Alabama
No. 2 UCLA vs. No. 15 Belmont

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:43 PM

How are teams like Air Force or Utah State better than Cincinnati?

st.cronin

03-12-2006, 05:44 PM

Packer/Nantz are talking about BC having to play today, then travel 2,000 miles for their game against a dangerous Pacific team.

Tennessee as a #2? GMAFB, god I hate Bruce Pearl.

Bruce Pearl might be interested in your head in a bucket, puking your guts out.

JonInMiddleGA

03-12-2006, 05:44 PM

Maybe I'm just somehow oddly prejudiced by the absence of Georgia Tech or maybe I haven't been watching as closely as usual this year (heck, I know that's true) but I can't recall when I've seen as many seedings that had me scratching my head as this one.

And, separately, when was the last time that the ACC only had 4 bids?

SirFozzie

03-12-2006, 05:45 PM

Ok, splain me somethin..

NC has basically the same record as BC, and BC beats them TWICE.

Yet NC gets a three and BC a 4. The fuck?

Easy Mac

03-12-2006, 05:46 PM

cmp

03-12-2006, 05:46 PM

The MVC has as many teams in as the ACC? If those MVC teams were in the ACC there's no way they'd have a record anywhere close to .500 in conference.

Mr. Sparkle

03-12-2006, 05:48 PM

Ok, splain me somethin..

NC has basically the same record as BC, and BC beats them TWICE.

Yet NC gets a three and BC a 4. The fuck?

I thought the same thing, and I'm a UNC fan.

duckman

03-12-2006, 05:52 PM

I got a little uneasy there for a minute. They just had to wait until the last second to announce that Oklahoma was in the tournament. :rolleyes:

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:53 PM

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 05:54 PM

Wow, they just cut the chairman off and didn't want to hear any more from him. Nantz and Packer are pissed off.

kcchief19

03-12-2006, 05:55 PM

To paraphrase Cam Edwards, I can't understand a work Jim Nantz and Billy Packer are saying with the ACC and Big 12 dicks in their mouths.

ThunderingHERD

03-12-2006, 05:56 PM

What bullshit calling out power conference teams for playing weak non-conference schedules. If they end up with a tough SOS as a product of their conference schedule, what is the fucking difference?

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 05:57 PM

Nantz & Packer are licking BCS Conference ASS!!! Pathetic.

Ripping on the Colonial, Mo Valley... The so called "Big Schools" won't play these teams during the season (afraid of a loss).

Only weird pick I see... Air Force. How the heck did they get in? Missouri State deserved that spot.

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 05:58 PM

If the MVC was gonna get four teams in, they might as well have gotten five, because Missouri State got screwed. Give them Air Force's spot. Give them Seton Hall's spot. Give them George Mason's spot. I'm not saying that the MVC is as strong as the ACC, but if you're gonna put Bradley and SIU in, how does Missouri State get left out?

Jim Nantz sounds like he wants to rip into the chair of the committee right now. Besides the teams who are left out, some of the seedings are just way out of whack. This bracket is mind-boggling.

Can't give them George Mason's spot.. They beat the Mo Valley Regular Season Champ (Wichita State) on their homecourt in the Bracket Buster. Also, SIU (my girlfriend's Alma Mater) got the Auto Bid by winning the MVC Tourney.

In my opinion, Missouri State was the first team out of the Tourney.

General Mike

03-12-2006, 05:58 PM

Hofstra got screwed.

st.cronin

03-12-2006, 05:59 PM

Buccaneer

03-12-2006, 06:01 PM

Not to say that Wyoming is bad, but...we're not going to any post-season tournies this year and we basically beat them 3 times (2 times, but we lost on a last second fluke shot on their home court..) and if you saw us last night, we're not good or at least, we're streaky, young and inconsistent. And we beat ourselves all the time. And we beat them.

The Pittsburgh Steelers lost to the Ravens. That makes the Ravens better than the Super Bowl Champs.

Wyoming was 5-11 in the MWC. You couldn't even beat the teams that AF regularly won against (in going 12-4). At least AF beat SDSU once this season, you couldn't even do that in three tries.

kcchief19

03-12-2006, 06:04 PM

The MVC has as many teams in as the ACC? If those MVC teams were in the ACC there's no way they'd have a record anywhere close to .500 in conference.
One way to prove it -- play 'em. Northern Iowa beat Arizona and LSU. Missouri State lost a close one on the road in Arkansas. In short, the MVC played all their tough games on the road against the power conferences and fared relatively well -- better than you would expect for team's playing strictly road schedules.

All this moaning about .500 teams from the power conferences not making it -- there were 34 at large teams and I believe it was said that 28 came from power conferences and six came from mid-majors. The committee did an outstanding job of protecting the power conferences. I don't know what people would rather watch a 17-13 team that 8-8 in the Big 12 play instead of a mid-major team that went 23-8 and 12-6 in conference.

Packer further pissed me off when he started talking about the "low quality of play" in the MVC final. Did he see the freakin' SEC final or the the last two rounds of the freaking Big Ten tourney in front of his freakin' eyes? I've seen better scoring in high school games.

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 06:04 PM

I hope those MVC teams do well. I'm tired of hearing people rag on how bad these mid-major schools are. I mean, nobody wants to schedule them all year long and then we get to the tourney and we all go "they haven't played anyone."

100000000000% Correct.

The good Mo Valley and Colonial teams rarely can get games with good non-conference opponents. Whose fault is this??

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 06:05 PM

Galaril

03-12-2006, 06:05 PM

Ok, splain me somethin..

NC has basically the same record as BC, and BC beats them TWICE.

Yet NC gets a three and BC a 4. The fuck?

NCAA is bigtime Southern school biased. And they hate "Northern" Unis like BC or UConn. I remember BC getting shafted a few months ago with the Football bowl games and winding up up out in Boise bowl.Long live the South.:rolleyes:

Lathum

03-12-2006, 06:06 PM

I enjoy seeing the mid major's get alot of teams in. I agree that no one will play these teams in the regular season so let them prove it in the tournament. All of these mid major teams have Gonzaga to thank fot kicking off the whole mid major bandwagon.

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 06:07 PM

GW was #6 in the nation.. Yes, they did lose arguably their best player (he may be back for the tourney), but to drop them from a 3 or 4 seed (at worst) all the way down to a #8?

Strange..

We're the committee members drinking 'herbal' tea in the conference room?

By the way, Xavier CAN beat Gonzaga.. That's a scary #14 seed?

kcchief19

03-12-2006, 06:07 PM

What bullshit calling out power conference teams for playing weak non-conference schedules. If they end up with a tough SOS as a product of their conference schedule, what is the fucking difference?
That's it ... they don't end up with a tough SOS. Texas A&M's schedule was 85th, Florida 78th. All of the top MVC teams had tougher schedules, because whereas the MVC plays the toughest games they can schedule, these power conference teams play some of the biggest cupcakes they can find.

Lathum

03-12-2006, 06:08 PM

btw- anyone who wants in my FOFC NCAA tourny survivor pool here is the link.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=47843

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 06:10 PM

Urgh. Sorry, I did forget that SIU won their conference tournament. In that case, then, let me just shave my comment down quite a bit. If Bradley is in, Missouri State should be in. I can see how Wichita State got in (although the 7 seed is "shocking"), and I can see how Northern Iowa got in. Bradley over Missouri State befuddles me.

As far as George Mason is concerned, they lost to Hofstra twice, and Hofstra is out even though they had a better record. George Mason may have won at Wichita State, but Missouri State is just as good, and Hofstra is probably better. Throw in the big conference teams who got left out, and George Mason just plain doesn't belong, in my opinion.

I believe GMU getting in had a lot to do with the Patriots winning the regular season title in the Colonial (Co-Champs with UNC-W). Good to see the committee rewarding this.. Hofstra did get the shaft in my opinion though.. Air Force (no way they should be in), Utah State and Alabama were huge iffy's.. Missouri State should be in.

GoldenEagle

03-12-2006, 06:10 PM

dubb93

03-12-2006, 06:12 PM

Before the selection show I was worried about IU possibly getting UCONN or something like that in the 2nd round, and possibly getting a "toss up" in the first round. Now after seeing their bracket I think they may be able to make a dent in this tournament.

At the very least there isn't a team in their bracket that I don't think they atleast have a shot at beating.

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 06:14 PM

Good luck to Memphis, G.E.... Hope to see the Tigers and UAB do well in the Tourney.. GO CUSA!

Ajaxab

03-12-2006, 06:15 PM

Packer's logic of going back in history to justify how the big conferences got screwed this time around is a ridiculous piece of argumentation. The big conferences should have got more bids because their conferences have won more tournament games over the past five years? Of course they would have won more games because they had more teams in the tourney. You can't win a solid number of games as a small conference if you're not given the opportunity.

Packer's point may be well-founded but his rationale doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

kcchief19

03-12-2006, 06:15 PM

Also, Packer keeps rattling off the wins and stats of the ACC/Big 12 versus the MVC. Yes, the MVC might have had 25 freakin' wins too in the last five years if you put eight teams a year in the tournament.

Mid-majors also always get screwed with seeding. It's easy for the power conferences to pile up easy wins when their playing 13-16 seeds every year in the first round (oops, sorry, Kansas). The mid-major auto qualifier teams get tougher first round opponents than some of the at-large teams from power conferences -- witness Texas getting a 15 seed while Southern Illinois draws freakin' West Virginia.

I'm not saying the mid-majors deserve three seeds, but at least use some common sense in recognizing that the ACC is going to win more games in any given year than the MVC considering the ACC gets 4-6 teams and the MVC gets 1-2 and the ACC gets more favorable seeding.

If Billy Packer ever watched a mid-major game, I might value his opinion. But until he and Vitale and their ilk do that, they can shove their bracket up their ass.

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 06:17 PM

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 06:18 PM

We have already beat Gonzaga (who I think is way overrated)
Did Mark Few steal your Elmo Knows Your Name doll or something?

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 06:21 PM

What was up with Nantz cutting off the Committee Chairman (a ACC Guy by the way - AD at UVA) at the end of the conversation?

Very interesting..

To hear people cry foul for schools that are members of BCS/Bowl Cartel Conferences is hilarious..

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 06:23 PM

I don't mind seeing four MVC teams in or two Colonial teams in. Personally, I just think the wrong four MVC teams and the wrong two Colonial teams got in. It looks like the only crying about the ACC and Big 12 being "underrepresented" is coming from Nantz and Packer. Honestly, the only team out of those two conferences with a real beef should be Florida State, and that's just because they beat Duke recently. No other ACC or Big 12 teams were very close to the bubble. Colorado was close a couple of weeks ago, but they blew it.

Besides Missouri State and Hofstra, Western Kentucky is another team that could have a legitimate gripe. The Sun Belt may only barely qualify as a mid-major, but WKU won at UAB, lost at Bradley by 2, went to Arizona and took the Wildcats to overtime, and beat the Sun Belt tournament champs on the road in the regular season. I understand that the Sun Belt is a pretty weak conference, but WKU played very well against some tough competition, and they didn't even get mentioned.

As for your MVC comments, I can agree to a certain extent.. Bradley was the hot team at the end of the season though, and made the final of the league tourney... UNI beat Missouri State in the MVC Quarters (which was basically a NCAA Play-In Game). UNI got in over MSU because of that and because of a couple of huge out-of-conference wins (at LSU and vs. Iowa).

I was also disappointed to see WKU not at least get a mention somewhere.. I thought they could've done some damage in the tourney if they would've gotten by South Alabama in the Sun Belt Finals.. USA could surprise though (playing Florida in Jacksonville is gonna be tough though).

GoldenEagle

03-12-2006, 06:28 PM

I am very close to picking Xavier over Gonzaga in the first round. I think I am going to go with Winthrop over UT.

Chief Rum

03-12-2006, 06:28 PM

I don't follow the Pac-10 at all. Is UCLA really that good? I didn't hear a damned thing about them all season, and now in the past week, they're suddenly gods. I acknowledge that I missed something, but what did I miss?

Hi, Pumpy, saw no one really responded to you hear yet, so I'll give it a shot. Keep in mind I'm a UCLA homer (but that also puts among their biggest critics, if you know what I mean).

The reason you haven't heard anything about UCLA all season is because ESPN conveniently forgets the Pac-10 exists except to tell you they're down, and then just dismisses them. The Pac-10 itself doesn't help matters by playing its games on regional Fox networks.

UCLA has been very good all season, but pretty much a fly under the radar type as a result of the lack of national coverage.

The fact is, this is a classic case of a team really starting to come together at the right team. Last year's UCLA squad (also a NCAA team) started three freshmen that were among the best in the country, and then they brought in five more strong freshmen this past year, all of whom playing good minutes this season. So this is a very young team that has been devleoping as the season has gone by.

They also have been absolutely killed with injuries. Josh Shipp is out for the season, and has only played four games (he was considered by many to be the best all around player on the team). Jordan Farmar has been hobbled by injuries to his ankles all year. Ryan Hollins, Alfred Aboya, Michael Fey and Lorenzo Mata (just now coming back from a broken leg) all missed a lot of time, and they were supposed to be the guys in the middle. Ced Bozeman is playing with a torn labrum in his shoulder (UCLA is 21-3 with him in the lineup).

So this team has gotten the experience it needs, has proven playmakers in Farmar and Afflalo, the Pac 10 frosh of the year in Luc Richard Mbah A Moute (pay attention to him, he's gonna be really good), and is at its healthiest all seaosn (although still missing Shipp, and Bozeman and Mata hobbled).

I think what really made things stand out now is that UCLA has been blowing teams off of the court the past couple weeks, and that includes Cal and Arizona. Their losses are to Memphis, West Virginia, Cal, Washington twice and USC. All teams are in the NCAA except USC, and the Trojies won 17 games (or soemthing like that).

So I hope that helps.

miami_fan

03-12-2006, 06:32 PM

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 06:32 PM

Thanks, Chief Rum. Sounds good to me. It's weird to not hear about a team all season and then suddenly see that they're seeded ahead of Gonzaga. At least I see that there's some sense behind their #2 seed, though, so I won't put that on the (long) list of mistakes the selection committee made this year. :)

st.cronin

03-12-2006, 06:32 PM

I agree; I have been more impressed with UCLA than any east coast team, except maybe Connecticut.

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 06:39 PM

I find it kind of uplifting to see that some of us are actually discussing which mid-major teams should be left out instead of which should have gotten in. Really, what were Nantz and Packer arguing? They wanted George Mason left out? I know I said that GMU should be out, but I wanted them replaced with a team from their own conference (Hofstra). Who else did they want left out? An MVC team? Which one? The three at-large MVC teams are all deserving, and Missouri State is just as good.

Nantz and Packer want to argue about the MVC and the CAA all day, and they only briefly mentioned Air Force, and I don't even think I heard Utah State mentioned in their tirade at all. What they should have been pressing the committee chairman about was why Missouri State and Hofstra were left out, not why the ACC is "too good" to only have four teams in the tournament.

Chief Rum

03-12-2006, 06:40 PM

I really, really like the bracket Memphis got in. We have already beat Gonzaga (who I think is way overrated) and UCLA. Honestly, Bucknell could be the biggest test in the 2nd round but they do not have the athletes to compete. I hope we get the Hogs in the 2nd round but I just do not see them beating Bucknell.

Not to take anything away from Memphis, but I don't think the UCLA team you played in November is going to be the same as the one now. Back then, we had two freshmen seeing major time, were missing or getting very little from several players who are major contributors now (Bozeman, Aboya, Roll, Hollins, Mata). Now those frosh (particularly Luc Richard, Collison and Roll) are experienced freshmen, Hollins is playing the best ball of his career in the middle, and we're as healthy as we're likely to get this season. I know Memphis has changed, too, so I don't know how a matchup would come out. But I wouldn't even bother looking at that Preseason NIT game for guidance.

Chief Rum

03-12-2006, 06:43 PM

I should probably talk about something other than UCLA every now and then in this thread. :)

I thought Hofstra got jobbed, but I like the GMU selection. Missouri State should be in, too. GW dropping to an 8 is mind boggling. Tennessee at #2 is a big surprise. Should go to NC or Gonzaga.

Air Force and Utah State. Wow, I'm floored by them being in this thing.

Radii

03-12-2006, 06:47 PM

RE: UNC/Boston College, the committe has a long history of ingoring head to head situations when determining seeding in favor of other factors. Boston College needs to get its mind out of the old 1980s big east and start scheduling a little tougher in November and December.

Boston College has the 98th toughest schedule in the nation. UNC has the 10th toughest. Before this weekend, UNC was #8 in the RPI(according to collegerpi.com), BC 33rd. UNC had a better conference record(though only marginally). If the RPI numbers and schedule were closer, then perhaps the head to head win this weekend could have leapfrogged BC over UNC into a 3 seed, but not with the rest of the tournament resume so heavily in UNC's favor.

final four rematch in round 2, two coach of the year candidate's in the sweet 16 in UNC vs Tennessee. Can't wait(and with this team, still won't be suprised with a second round loss, though my expectations are light years ahead of where I expected...).

Eaglesfan27

03-12-2006, 06:47 PM

You know how I feel about UCLA, but they deserved their high seed. Good explanation of why, CR.

Solecismic

03-12-2006, 06:49 PM

I don't see why they were so hard up for the big conferences? I can only see one maybe two complaints. Cincinati has a pretty good argument. Maybe Michigan even though that out of conference schedule looks weak. I think in the past the committee told the mid majors to go out and play tough schedules and prove themselves. That is exactly what they have done. Now it is time for the big conferences' middle of the packers to do the same and not depend exclusively on the strength of their in-conference schedule.

I can't argue for Michigan despite my bias. They lost 7 of their last 9. If they had beaten Indiana, at home, last Sunday, that should have clinched it. If they had beaten 10th-seed Minnesota in the first round of the Big Ten tournament and done respectably in the second round, that should have clinched it.

Michigan might have good overall credentials. But in the last four weeks, the Wolverines have gone from a 5-seed to what would have been a 10-seed. You don't reward bubble teams going in the wrong direction.

I don't think there's much whining going on in Ann Arbor right now. At least I hope not. The players have only themselves to blame. They are far too talented to let the season slip away like that.

timmynausea

03-12-2006, 06:58 PM

Does anybody know when the tip-off times will be set and/or released? I have tickets for Auburn Hills, and I don't plan on going to every game. I can't find any kind of schedule, though.

ThunderingHERD

03-12-2006, 07:00 PM

That's it ... they don't end up with a tough SOS. Texas A&M's schedule was 85th, Florida 78th. All of the top MVC teams had tougher schedules, because whereas the MVC plays the toughest games they can schedule, these power conference teams play some of the biggest cupcakes they can find.

What a joke. Here is Southern Illinois OOC schedule:
11/18 La Lafayette W 65-47
11/25 Monmouth L 80-68
11/25 at AlasAnch L 72-64
11/26 at E Wash W 80-72
11/30 at Saint Louis L 56-42
12/03 at Wyoming W 57-53
12/10 Kent St W 58-51
12/18 at C Michigan W 64-54
12/22 Arkansas LR W 67-42
12/28 at Murray St W 57-53

note their losses to such powerhouses as monmouth and Alaska Anchorage.

Witchita State played only 2 power conference teams, Illinois and Michigan State, losing both.

Northern Iowa had the best OOC finish, fluking in to narrow wins over Iowa and LSU, and losing to 6-10 big 12 finishers Iowa State. Northern Iowa also managed to lose seven games in their own shitty conference, including 5 out of their last 7.

And finally, here is Bradley's schedule:

11/19 at DePaul W 75-60
11/26 Chicago St W 68-58
11/30 at Loyola-Chi L 86-72
12/03 BGU W 93-64
12/06 at Butler L 70-60
12/14 W Kentucky W 78-76
12/17 Delaware St W 68-46
12/21 at So Miss W 56-43
12/28 N Iowa W 68-60

They also lost 7 games in their shitty conference.

Anyone who thinks these teams played a tough schedule needs to STFU. If you think any of these teams would finish anything but dead last in a conference like the acc, you're an idiot.

Pumpy Tudors

03-12-2006, 07:01 PM

GoldenEagle

03-12-2006, 07:10 PM

MrBug708

03-12-2006, 07:29 PM

I don't follow the Pac-10 at all. Is UCLA really that good? I didn't hear a damned thing about them all season, and now in the past week, they're suddenly gods. I acknowledge that I missed something, but what did I miss?

UCLA has played a superb defensive scheme and right now, they have been playing at an unbelievable level. A 2 seed is surprising, but Memphis barely beat us far away from home and we are playing about 10x better right now. I'm pumped aout this bracket and see a Final 4 as a realistic achievement

MrBug708

03-12-2006, 07:33 PM

Dola

Im sure Ben Howland is looking forward to facing Crean minus Wade this time around

mgadfly

03-12-2006, 07:37 PM

Here are some upset predictions in the 1st round:
Seton Hall over Witchita State
Winthrop over Tennessee
Wis.-Milwaukee over Oklahoma
Nothern Iowa over Georgetown
Xavier over Gonzaga*

This is my upset special. Mark my words that this will happen.

Words marked, but ...

You do know that they finished 8-8 in the A10 and have since lost two of thier top 6 players, including their best player, don't you?

Radii

03-12-2006, 07:42 PM

Xavier over Gonzaga*

This is my upset special. Mark my words that this will happen.

Its things like listening to a Memphis homer rail on how overrated Gonzaga is that make March the best month of the year.

GoldenEagle

03-12-2006, 07:46 PM

mgadfly

03-12-2006, 07:49 PM

MrBug - You did not barely lose to Memphis. It was double digits.

Gonzaga is way overrated. They barely beat teams in the WCC. Look at what they have done. They will be out in the first round. If they survive Xavier, Indiana will beat them.

If they survive Xavier? You already had me mark your words, its as good as done. You already flip-flopping?

MrBug708

03-12-2006, 07:53 PM

MrBug - You did not barely lose to Memphis. It was double digits.

Gonzaga is way overrated. They barely beat teams in the WCC. Look at what they have done. They will be out in the first round. If they survive Xavier, Indiana will beat them.

YEs, because we had to foul and we ended up turning the ball over int he last minute. We were within a basket with about a minute to go. We playe dour second worst half of the year. See Chief Rum's analysis for more clarification, but I'[m pumped. UCLA ot a dream bracket into the Final 4.

Warhammer

03-12-2006, 07:53 PM

I was disgusted by Nantz's and Packer's comments. First, the conference record for all teams in a conference is always going to be .500. The only way you can compare conferences is by comparing who they play out of conference. Therefore, the ACC teams can't sit there and say, "Look at our conference schedule, we rock!" If that conference is sub-.500 in out of conference games, than so what if you're racking up wins against big name competition.

The conference that astounded me is the SEC. The SEC had no business getting 6 teams into the dance, were they watching the games? For the most part, I don't have too many quibbles about who got into the tourney. My quibbles are about where the teams are seeded. Illinois a #4 seed? Tennessee a #2? BC a #4? I just don't get it. My money is on TN getting bumped in the first round.

MrBug708

03-12-2006, 07:55 PM

Memphis is the most athletic team in the country, no doubt. They are a bunch of flyers, but UCLA Played the great in the second half of that game and UCLA has improved leaps and bounds. I can't stay still I'm so excited about this draw. I wanted OSU in our bracket, but the Zags work nonetheless

Warhammer

03-12-2006, 07:55 PM

YEs, because we had to foul and we ended up turning the ball over int he last minute. We were within a basket with about a minute to go. We playe dour second worst half of the year. See Chief Rum's analysis for more clarification, but I'[m pumped. UCLA ot a dream bracket into the Final 4.

You sure that was the same game everyone else saw? Memphis was up big, and Farmer got on fire, otherwise that is close to a 20 point win for Memphis.

ScottVib

03-12-2006, 07:56 PM

shouldn't Duke be playing against the teams in the play in game?

The rules say the winner of the play in game has to play a team in the Friday regional (since the play in game is only two days prior to the start of the main body of the tourny). With Duke assigned to Greensboro it should have fallen to the #2 overall seed, UConn, but for whatever reason they gave #3 overall Villanova the play in game.

Chief Rum

03-12-2006, 07:56 PM

MrBug - You did not barely lose to Memphis. It was double digits.

Gonzaga is way overrated. They barely beat teams in the WCC. Look at what they have done. They will be out in the first round. If they survive Xavier, Indiana will beat them.

Yeah, Bug was reaching quite a bit there saying we "barely" lost to Memphis. That said, it was 10 points, not exactly the best "double-digit" loss you can get.

Regardless, I still hold that taking any time looking at that game for reference when considering us possibly playing again in the Elite 8 is silly. This is not the same UCLA team you played.

Chief Rum

03-12-2006, 07:57 PM

Dude, Bug, you're killing me here. We lost that Memphis game pretty good. Let it go. ;)

MrBug708

03-12-2006, 07:57 PM

NEW YORK (AP) - Freshman Shawne Williams scored 20 of his 26 points in the first half to help No. 11 Memphis hold off No. 16 UCLA 88-80 in the semifinals of the NIT Season Tip-Off on Wednesday night.

Williams was 7-for-7 in the first half, including five 3-pointers, and Memphis shot 61 percent from the floor en route to a 51-34 lead at the break.

Memphis (3-0) will face top-ranked Duke in the final Friday night. The Blue Devils beat pesky Drexel 78-68 in the other semifinal.

The Tigers, a five-time participant in the Tip-Off, formerly known as the Preseason NIT, will be making their first appearance in the championship game. Memphis has been a semifinalist twice before (1990 and 1998).

Memphis seemed to have the game in hand with a 75-58 lead before UCLA's Jordan Farmar took over. The Bruins (3-1) went on a 18-7 run, including 13 points by Farmar to close the gap to six at 82-76 with 42 seconds left, but UCLA made all six of its free throws in the last 25.7 seconds.

Farmar, who sat out UCLA's 56-37 win over Delaware State on Saturday because of a sprained ankle, was off in the first half, making just one of six shots. He came alive in the second, scoring 23 of his team-high 28 points.

Rodney Carney scored 17 points and Darius Washington added 16.

Arron Afflalo had 14 points and Michael Fey, who also missed Saturday's victory with a sprained left shoulder, added 13.

Memphis beat Wisconsin-Milwaukee and then won at Alabama to reach the semifinals.

UCLA beat New Mexico State and Temple to advance to New York.

MrBug708

03-12-2006, 07:58 PM

It was two baskets with 42 seconds to go...:)

Chief Rum

03-12-2006, 08:00 PM

I agree with Bug that you have to look at the whole of the game, and they made it close. But it's a waste of time. These teams aren't the same anymore.

Or does everyone think Texas will lose to Duke by 30 if they play again?

mgadfly

03-12-2006, 08:02 PM

I'm almost convinced to pick ORU over Memphis.

MrBug708

03-12-2006, 08:03 PM

Indeed. UCLA was playing it's 4th real game with 5 true freshmen.

Sorry Chief, I'm just so pumped about the dream draw

GoldenEagle

03-12-2006, 08:04 PM

Shawne Williams is starting to heat back up for the Tigers. I think we are clicking at the right time. We did not have a solid inside but Dorsey is a monster now. That is going to be the biggest difference from the Memphis team that was seen earlier in the year. We also play amazing D. If we can get shots on the outside t fall, then I think we will make a deep run into the dance.

GoldenEagle

03-12-2006, 08:04 PM

I'm almost convinced to pick ORU over Memphis.

LOL

Wolfpack

03-12-2006, 08:05 PM

When is a fanbase pissed about making the NCAAs? When it's the NC State fanbase. Everyone is in a rage about the 10 seed, mainly because we collapsed from a 3/4 seed projection we had a few weeks ago. Everyone's already confidently predicting an exit against Cal, though some hope that State beats Cal so they can play Texas in round two. For some reason, a sizeable chunk of our fanbase has wet dreams about Rick Barnes and hope he whales on State just to drive home how much better we'd be if we had him as coach and that he'd come running if Sendek left and State called up with the job. I just don't understand it.

ScottVib

03-12-2006, 08:06 PM

Seton Hall was expected to be in all along, so it wasn't a surprise for them to be in.

Air Force does not belong in the field, Cincinnati was more deserving. Now having said that it seems like every year the team people carry on and on about not deserving their bid ends up winning in round 1, as a result I'll be picking the Falcons.

Paker and Nantz came across as complete asses with the way they acted towards the Comittee chairperson.

GW got screwed, particularly if Pops Mensa-Bonsu is able to play.

The first thing I said when I saw the Duke bracket is LSU is a tough potential matchup in the Sweet 16.

IMO UConn is the most talented team in the field, but they lack focus. So one of two things will happen, either they'll lose focus and go out early, or they stay focused and win the whole thing. I don't see anything in the middle, if they get to Indianapolis I expect them to win. The trick will be staying focused enough to get that far.

cmp

03-12-2006, 08:06 PM

This is a difficult bracket for me to fill out this year, everyone seems to be equal.

mgadfly

03-12-2006, 08:09 PM

LOL

No seriously, we just need to look at this the right way.

Memphis beat UCLA by 8.
UCLA lost to USC by 3 (in most recent meeting).
That makes Memphis 5 points better than USC.
USC lost to ORU by 20.
20-5=15

I predict ORU having a bit of an off night and winning by 12. :D

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 08:24 PM

BishopMVP

03-12-2006, 08:33 PM

Xavier over Gonzaga*

This is my upset special. Mark my words that this will happen.I saw Xavier play in person a week ago. They are terrible. The A-10 is terrible. Xavier has been in freefall since January and only won the tournament because GW's best player is injured and the tournament was in Cincinnati.

ThunderingHERD

03-12-2006, 09:53 PM

If they were in the ACC, they'd recruit better players. If they were in the ACC, they'd not have to struggle to get teams to play them.

That has nothing to do with my point. The commitee (and others) are justifying leaving out the power conference teams in favor of the mid majors based on the ridiculous assertion that they had a tougher schedule. You give any one of those MVC teams Maryland or FSU's schedule and they don't even crack .500. Yet a team like Florida State gets passed over for a team like Bradley, even though FSU has the better record.

Young Drachma

03-12-2006, 09:58 PM

That has nothing to do with my point. The commitee (and others) are justifying leaving out the power conference teams in favor of the mid majors based on the ridiculous assertion that they had a tougher schedule. You give any one of those MVC teams Maryland or FSU's schedule and they don't even crack .500. Yet a team like Florida State gets passed over for a team like Bradley, even though FSU has the better record.

You make sense, I was confused.

Thomkal

03-12-2006, 10:13 PM

I was flipping channels and the chairman of the tourney committee was talking about Missouri State and what probably got them knocked out was that they had something like a 4-7 record against the four MVC teams that did get in. So I guess that somewhat explains why they didn't get in, but with an RPI that high, I don't know how you can leave them out. Cincy likely should have been in there too. Probably Hofstra. Tennessee as a #2 seed is a surprise, especially since they lost to South Carolina in the SEC tournament. I'm really sad Coastal Carolina didn't beat Winthrop in the Big South final. No doubt they would have been matched up against Tennessee and then it would have been a matchup of ex-Tennessee coach vs current Tenn coach, and would have been an intriguing game. But Winthrop isn't like the Winthrop of the past few seasons, and likely won't get by Tennessee.

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 11:44 PM

How about Billy Packer jumping the gun and talking about an 8/9 game (Arizona/Wisconsin) in a bracket that they haven't even announced yet.. He's slipping..

MylesKnight

03-12-2006, 11:54 PM

Quote from another College Basketball related Message Board;

"The top rated TV sports anchor here was playing poker friends when he found out about Air Force...

Air Force cancelled the team gathering for the selection show after losing in the conference tourney quarterfinals...

The Air Force team captain learned of the bid when people started calling his cell phone...

The Academy had a press conference scheduled for after the NIT announcement."

Interesting.

Swaggs

03-13-2006, 12:19 AM

I know Bobby Knight will disagree, but I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of cap on the # of teams a conference can put in ... maybe 3 or 4. Every Big East team making the tourny is just ... well, what's the point.

If you put a cap on the number of teams a conference can put in, then the point would not be to have the best 34 at large teams play for the championship.

My biggest surprise was, after seeing Seton Hall as a 10-seed, that Cincy did not get in, at all. I think 8-8 in the Big East should have easily earned them a spot.

EagleFan

03-13-2006, 12:21 AM

Anyone who thinks these teams played a tough schedule needs to STFU. If you think any of these teams would finish anything but dead last in a conference like the acc, you're an idiot.

Yeah, I guess it's better comparing them to the 2nd best conference as they really wouldn't be able to hold up to the Big East. :D

mauchow

03-13-2006, 12:34 AM

Go Wisconsin

kingfc22

03-13-2006, 01:14 AM

Does the committee always pair up NC State and Cal? What they couldn't think of anything more original?

Izulde

03-13-2006, 01:22 AM

I'm still working through this thread, but I just want to say, man, did Duke ever get a bitch of a bracket to be in. Bracket of death indeed.

Butter

03-13-2006, 08:03 AM

I saw Xavier play in person a week ago. They are terrible. The A-10 is terrible. Xavier has been in freefall since January and only won the tournament because GW's best player is injured and the tournament was in Cincinnati.

Listen to BishopMVP. He is wise.

I watched most of the A-10 tourney, and Xavier only won the tourney because of some nice home-cookin' from the refs. Hell, they got taken to the wire by Fordham. You think they're gonna hang with Gonzaga? They can't even hang with Hofstra.

The Atlantic Ten had maybe their worst year ever this season... I can only hope that the conference is just going through a down year where everyone had young teams at the same time, because it was horrible to watch.

GW and X are early outs... UNC-Wilmington will show that GW played no one this year, especially within their conference.

Packer and Nantz really need to show better class than that handling the situation. It seems like the last few years they've been talking about the same BS in the selection show, how the last couple of mid-majors in would have their jock handed to them by the power conferences on a regular basis. Point is: how the fuck do we know that? The big schools won't ever play 'em. In the last few years we've had Elite 8 runs by such teams as Kent State, St. Joe's, Xavier, Temple, and Tulsa. I think one of the MVC schools will make a run this year. I hope they do it in front of Packer and Nantz and beat UConn or Duke while they're at it.

Samdari

03-13-2006, 09:00 AM

I really don't understand all the kvetching about seeds. Why is getting a 3 vs 4 that big a deal? Other than getting a 1 or 2 and a (almost) free pass through the first round, you have to play a good team every time out in this thing. Even #1 and #2 teams have had to play teams that could beat them starting in the second round. Look at it this way on the 3 vs 4 thing - the committee is equally likely to screw up the 13 vs 14 seeds, and the 5 vs 6, so the 4 seed could have an easier path than the 3 anyway.

I agree that Nantz and Packer were classless, as well as clueless. 26 out of 34 at large bids went to the big 6 conferences, and they were grilling Littlepage about favoring the mid-major leagues? Someone needs to look up "favor" in the dictionary.

Huckleberry

03-13-2006, 09:02 AM

I'm still trying to figure out how Utah State got in.

And I've got Gonzaga going out to San Diego State in the second round.

BishopMVP

03-13-2006, 09:17 AM

The Atlantic Ten had maybe their worst year ever this season... I can only hope that the conference is just going through a down year where everyone had young teams at the same time, because it was horrible to watch.Unfortunately, look at the list of Seniors graduating:
GW: Mike Hall, Pops Mensah-Bonsu
Charlotte: Curtis Withers, Mitchell Baldwin (top assists)
Dayton: Warren Williams (top assists)
LaSalle: Steven Smith, Jermaine Thomas (top assists)
Fordham: Jermaine Anderson (leading scorer & assists)
Temple: Mardy Collins, Antywane Robinson (top 3pt threat)
URI: Dawan Robinson (leading scorer & assists), Jamaal Wise (leading rebounder)
Xavier: Brian Thornton (top scorer & rebounder), Dedrick Finn (leading assists)
Richmond: Jermaine Bucknor (top scorer), Kevin Steenberge (top rebounder)
St Joes: Chet Stachitas, Dwayne Lee (top assists)
St Bonnies: Ahmad Smith (top scorer), Paul Williams (top rebounder)
Duquesne: Bryant McAllister (top scorer & rebounder)
St. Louis: couldnt find anyone major
UMass: Viggiano

So without any big reasearch into newcomers, it appears only St. Louis, UMass, Dayton and maybe St. Joe's will be better next year. UMass will, however, be much better with Forbes, Mayben, Brower and Bonner coming in along with a couple freshmen.

Butter

03-13-2006, 09:32 AM

Unfortunately, look at the list of Seniors graduating:
Dayton: Warren Williams (top assists)

He is terrible though. None of the fans liked him... that he was tops in assists just shows how bad we were this year.

Hopefully, the A-10 can get back to being a top-8 league as in the past. Because the quality of play was just awful this year. I hope UMass and St. Joe's and a couple of others (including UD of course) can vastly improve their level of play, or it's going to be another long year next year.

Wolfpack

03-13-2006, 09:41 AM

I wonder if Air Force got in because all the other teams somehow cancelled each other out. My theory is that in spite of what you hear, the selection committee didn't want to set a precedent by giving the Big East nine teams (it didn't hurt that Cincy and Seton Hall played their way into trouble by losing in their opening games of the Big East tournament). Therefore, they took Seton Hall as the eighth team and closed that door. Now, you look at all the other major bubble teams and absolutely none of them impress enough to be taken. While FSU finished strong, their OOC blew chunks and they got beat by the 12 seed in the ACC tournament. Maryland and Michigan fell apart down the stretch. I'm guessing none of these candidates could get the necessary support to get in, leaving fringe teams like Air Force and Bradley or Missouri State available, perhaps as compromise candidates because the committee could not agree about the major conference teams. It seems silly to take none of them, but if no one team can get the support, sometimes compromise is all that's left. At least that's my theory.

On another tangent, I've often thought that the selection show shouldn't air until Sunday primetime. What benefit is there to airing it only about an hour after the last championship game? All that means is that the committee has already committed the bracket to paper by early afternoon and pretty much disregarded any of the games played on Sunday. I think if they waited until 8 PM (heck, 9 PM), they'd have more time to go over everything, but everything is a time crunch right now and I think the committee's work has been sliding a bit over the years because of it.

BishopMVP

03-13-2006, 02:05 PM

I wonder if Air Force got in because all the other teams somehow cancelled each other out.If Air Force didn't get in, the terrorists would have won.

miami_fan

03-13-2006, 05:31 PM

On another tangent, I've often thought that the selection show shouldn't air until Sunday primetime. What benefit is there to airing it only about an hour after the last championship game? All that means is that the committee has already committed the bracket to paper by early afternoon and pretty much disregarded any of the games played on Sunday. I think if they waited until 8 PM (heck, 9 PM), they'd have more time to go over everything, but everything is a time crunch right now and I think the committee's work has been sliding a bit over the years because of it.

There has been some small talk for a few years now about the Big Ten and the Big 12 moving their conference championships back. It has long been acknowledge that the committee has contingency plans made for whomever actually wins those conferences. I think one of those conferences are going to have to lose a #1 seed or something like that before either side makes a move.

kcchief19

03-13-2006, 07:13 PM

What a joke. Here is Southern Illinois OOC schedule:
11/18 La Lafayette W 65-47
11/25 Monmouth L 80-68
11/25 at AlasAnch L 72-64
11/26 at E Wash W 80-72
11/30 at Saint Louis L 56-42
12/03 at Wyoming W 57-53
12/10 Kent St W 58-51
12/18 at C Michigan W 64-54
12/22 Arkansas LR W 67-42
12/28 at Murray St W 57-53

note their losses to such powerhouses as monmouth and Alaska Anchorage.

Witchita State played only 2 power conference teams, Illinois and Michigan State, losing both.

Northern Iowa had the best OOC finish, fluking in to narrow wins over Iowa and LSU, and losing to 6-10 big 12 finishers Iowa State. Northern Iowa also managed to lose seven games in their own shitty conference, including 5 out of their last 7.

And finally, here is Bradley's schedule:

11/19 at DePaul W 75-60
11/26 Chicago St W 68-58
11/30 at Loyola-Chi L 86-72
12/03 BGU W 93-64
12/06 at Butler L 70-60
12/14 W Kentucky W 78-76
12/17 Delaware St W 68-46
12/21 at So Miss W 56-43
12/28 N Iowa W 68-60

Without intending, you're proving my point. You're critizing the MVC for playing a shitty non-conference schedule, unless you count games on the road against LSU, Arizona, Illinois and Michigan State. Really ducking the big teams.

You then quote two of the teams in question schedule -- and you select the two weakest to bolster your weak opinion -- as if the weaker two of the top six MVC out of conference schedules is the same for the entire conference. You also missed out on their bracket buster out of conference games, but that's a small point.

Why don't you post Florida State's out of conference schedule? Since you're too chicken, I'll do it for you:

<table><tbody><tr><td class="l">Nov 19</td><td class="l">@ Jacksonville</td><td class="l">W 78-48</td></tr> <tr><td class="l">Nov 21</td><td class="l">Alcorn St</td><td class="l">W 85-67</td></tr> <tr class="field"><td class="l">Nov 25</td><td class="l">@ Florida</td><td class="l">L 66-74</td></tr> <tr><td class="l">Nov 29</td><td class="l">Purdue</td><td class="l">W 97-57</td><td class="l">(Big Ten-ACC Challenge)</td></tr> <tr><td class="l">Dec 2 </td><td class="l">UL Monroe</td><td class="l">W 85-62</td></tr> <tr><td class="l">Dec 7 </td><td class="l">Texas Southern</td><td class="l">W 90-59</td></tr> <tr><td class="l">Dec 17</td><td class="l">vs Bowling Green</td><td class="l">W 71-60</td></tr> <tr><td class="l">Dec 20</td><td class="l">Stetson</td><td class="l">W 75-57</td></tr> <tr><td class="l">Dec 22</td><td class="l">Campbell</td><td class="l">W 108-73</td></tr> <tr><td class="l">Dec 31</td><td class="l">vs Nebraska</td><td class="l">W 74-60</td></tr></tbody></table>
Give them credit for winning against Florida -- although they certainly wouldn't play Florida unless they had to. They lucked out in the Big Ten ACC Challenge getting a weak Big Te team. Nebraska wasn't much of a threat, but at least they play the power cofernece I suppose.

They rest of that schedule? Pure vomit. Campell? Stetson? At least when they're willing to play a mid-major, they find the weakest one they can in Bowling Green.
Anyone who thinks these teams played a tough schedule needs to STFU. If you think any of these teams would finish anything but dead last in a conference like the acc, you're an idiot.
I have an objective, statistical measure for backing up the claim that the MVC plays a tougher schedule than than some of the borderline teams in the power conferences. You have your own opinion. Until you come up with a statistical measure of your own, I'll take the RPI over your opinion.

If you think Wichita State would finish dead last in the ACC, you have clearly never seen an MVC team play. Watch some games before you talk.

I am NOT saying that every single year that Missouri State would go 10-6 in the ACC; I'm saying that when Creighton, Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois have good teams, they are as good as a .500 ACC team. If you think that the first place winner in the MVC would finish last in the ACC, you know nothing about college basketball and should STFU.

BishopMVP

03-13-2006, 07:17 PM

Why don't you post Florida State's out of conference schedule? Since you're too chicken, I'll do it for you:

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD class=l>Nov 19</TD><TD class=l>@ Jacksonville</TD><TD class=l>W 78-48</TD></TR><TR><TD class=l>Nov 21</TD><TD class=l>Alcorn St</TD><TD class=l>W 85-67</TD></TR><TR class=field><TD class=l>Nov 25</TD><TD class=l>@ Florida</TD><TD class=l>L 66-74</TD></TR><TR><TD class=l>Nov 29</TD><TD class=l>Purdue</TD><TD class=l>W 97-57</TD><TD class=l>(Big Ten-ACC Challenge)</TD></TR><TR><TD class=l>Dec 2 </TD><TD class=l>UL Monroe</TD><TD class=l>W 85-62</TD></TR><TR><TD class=l>Dec 7 </TD><TD class=l>Texas Southern</TD><TD class=l>W 90-59</TD></TR><TR><TD class=l>Dec 17</TD><TD class=l>vs Bowling Green</TD><TD class=l>W 71-60</TD></TR><TR><TD class=l>Dec 20</TD><TD class=l>Stetson</TD><TD class=l>W 75-57</TD></TR><TR><TD class=l>Dec 22</TD><TD class=l>Campbell</TD><TD class=l>W 108-73</TD></TR><TR><TD class=l>Dec 31</TD><TD class=l>vs Nebraska</TD><TD class=l>W 74-60</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Give them credit for winning against Florida -- although they certainly wouldn't play Florida unless they had to. They lucked out in the Big Ten ACC Challenge getting a weak Big Te team. Nebraska wasn't much of a threat, but at least they play the power cofernece I suppose.A)They didn't beat Florida
B)They also played and beat UMass in February.

JonInMiddleGA

03-13-2006, 07:25 PM

Oddly enough, one of the better quotes I've seen about the MVC comes from a pro-MVC article.
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?p=411348
(Note that it's dated 2/16, so there might be another game or two that should be included, I haven't parsed the MVC schedules team by team to look)

you don't have to peel back many layers to discover that many of the most impressive victories for NCAA Tournament contenders Northern Iowa, Southern Illinois, Creighton and Wichita State were against Wichita State, Creighton, Southern Illinois and Northern Iowa. If I showed you a team whose best nonconference victories were against Providence, Xavier and Nebraska, would you be certain it was an NCAA Tournament team? That's pretty much the combined collection of big-name wins for SIU, Creighton and Wichita State.

And that's the problem I believe a lot of people (me included) are having with their bids -- these teams really haven't proven much except that they can beat each other.

And a Pat Forde column has a pretty good quote that sort of illustrates the rest of the problem http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2366077
That by giving four bids to the Missouri Valley and four to the Atlantic Coast Conference, the committee is saying the leagues are equal.

Clearly, by giving three top-four seeds to ACC teams and no top-six seeds to Valley teams, that's not what the committee is saying. The ACC is better at the top than the Valley, and everyone knows it. But the committee did say that the Valley's third and fourth teams are better than the ACC's fifth and sixth.

That underlined part is what I don't believe is remotely close to accurate & why I believe this is most likely the single worst job ever done by the selection committee.

JonInMiddleGA

03-13-2006, 07:29 PM

And, having just seen the women's bracket a few minutes ago, I think they must have used the same committee as the men because it doesn't look much better.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/ncaatourney06/columns/story?columnist=voepel_mechelle&id=2367288
Michelle Voepel sums up the "say what?" pretty well in her new column:
North Carolina, to most eyes, was the clear top No. 1 in the NCAA Tournament. As a reward for that, the Tar Heels got one of the toughest regions I've ever seen.

Anyone want to clue me in on how the two top teams in the RPI -- as best I can figure -- are in the same region? Yes, if seeds hold, North Carolina faces Tennessee in the Cleveland regional championship game. Wow.

Oh, and let's throw in No. 3 Rutgers and No. 4 Purdue in that region, too.

And just in case North Carolina is still feeling too comfy about its draw -- note to committee, this is sarcasm -- the Tar Heels also might face Vanderbilt on the Commodores' home court in the second round. Likewise, Tennessee could have to face Old Dominion in Norfolk, Va., in the second round.

I can sum this up in one sentence: I don't get it.

JonInMiddleGA

03-13-2006, 07:46 PM

Butter

03-14-2006, 07:55 AM

Triple -dola I guess ... lest anyone think I have anything personal against the MVC or something. I've got 3 mid-majors currently slotted for the sweet 16 in my bracket & 2 of those are from the MVC. It isn't their top I question, it's their depth.

Do you think the fifth and sixth ACC teams would make the round of 16 this year? If not, that kinda undermines your whole point. I'm going with kcchief19 on this one. We'll never really know how a top quality MVC team would fare in a full big conference schedule though, so the point is moot until the big conferences start playing some top quality mid-major opponents on a regular basis.

JonInMiddleGA

03-14-2006, 08:31 AM

Do you think the fifth and sixth ACC teams would make the round of 16 this year? If not, that kinda undermines your whole point.

Not at all, since we're not talking about the 16, we're talking about the 64. Like I said, I don't have a problem with a couple of MVC teams in the field, it's the others that are the source of the dissatisfaction.

And, also like I said, it appears that there was a lot of crack smoking taking place on more than one selection committee this year, so it seems to me that there's either a definite lack of judgement there or there's some agendas at work this year or, quite possibly, both.

kcchief19

03-16-2006, 02:19 PM

Triple -dola I guess ... lest anyone think I have anything personal against the MVC or something. I've got 3 mid-majors currently slotted for the sweet 16 in my bracket & 2 of those are from the MVC. It isn't their top I question, it's their depth.
I don't disagree with this at all. If the MVC and the Big XII were merged and played a full schedule this year, I'd say Kansas and Texas would win pulling away, then Oklahoma a distant third. A game or two back from Oklahoma would be a pack with Texas A&M, Colorado, Wichita State, Northern Iowa, Creighton, Missouri State and Southern Illinois --in essen the top tier of the MVC with the second tier of the Big XII. Nebraska, Oklahoma State and Bradley would be a step back.

Then the next tier would be almost entirely the Big XII, with the exception of Baylor and maybe Missouri. They would be mixed in the last tier with the rest of the MVC.

I think the problem is that the perception is that the ACC and Big XII are six teams deep and those six teams are better than the MVC top teams. In reality -- and especially this season -- the Big XII had two premiere teams that were had and shoulders above anybody in the MVC. It's the Big XII 3-6 where the MVC 1-4 are competitive. In the past, I'd say the Big XII 5-8 seeds, but times have changed. There is more parity in college basketball than there was five years ago. There are certainly easier games in the MVC than in the Big XII, but not as many as you think. I think Baylor would had almost the same record if they played in the MVC, and Missouri probably would have won only a couple more games. There are dogs in the power conferences too.

I don't see much difference between the second-best team in the Valley and the fifth-best team in the ACC -- and this year the fourth-best team in the Big XII. If those teams are comparable, I see ZERO problem with giving a 20-10 MVC shot over a 18-12 ACC team.

wade moore

03-16-2006, 02:22 PM

totally agree kc.

mgadfly

03-18-2006, 11:39 PM

Seth says Gonzaga closer to #1 than a #3 - wonder how he'll feel about that if they don't advance to the Sweet 16 to lose to UCLA? Seriously, their recent NCAA performance has not shown them playing to their seed. Closer to #1? As if I needed further proof that Seth Davis sucks ...

Maybe not a #1 seed, but apparently Seth didn't suck quite as bad as you thought.

Illinois as a 4 seed, what was the committee thinking? ;)

I'm just happy both my teams made it to the sweet 16. It'd be real nice if UW or GU could sneak through to the Elite 8. The game I'm most looking forward to tomorrow is Arizona v Nova. Hopefully it is a good one.

hoopsguy

03-19-2006, 08:01 AM

kcchief19

03-19-2006, 09:15 AM

That's a tough call, hoopsguy. I'm one of those bewildered at the criticism of Gonzaga going into the tournament -- essentially people saying that Gonzaga was underrated in previous years but overrated this year. They played a pretty rough non conference schedule and came it through pretty darn well. They went through their conference undefeated and have the longest winning streak in the nation. How can you overrate that?

That said, I would have made the a two seed, probably the No. 2 two seed. That would indeed make them closer to the one line than the three line, but at the same time I don't think many people would have made the argument they deserved a one seed.

Warhammer

03-19-2006, 09:47 AM

Maybe not a #1 seed, but apparently Seth didn't suck quite as bad as you thought.

Illinois as a 4 seed, what was the committee thinking? ;)

I'm just happy both my teams made it to the sweet 16. It'd be real nice if UW or GU could sneak through to the Elite 8. The game I'm most looking forward to tomorrow is Arizona v Nova. Hopefully it is a good one.

The one team that got screwed with their seeding was Illinois. They played like a number 2 all year, and then get Washington in the second round.

mgadfly

03-19-2006, 10:05 AM

FWIW, I picked Gonzaga to make it to the Sweet 16 and Illini to lose in the 2nd round (all viewable in the FOFC league). You are quoting thoughts going into the tournament there, not my predictions of how I thought they would do once the draws were established.

Do you think Gonzaga, going into the tournament, was closer to the one line than the three line, given their conference and their level of play down the stretch?

I know you are just having some fun with me here, but I stand by my statement that Seth Davis sucks.

I'm mostly having fun with you. I do think they had a more impressive resume than people gave them credit for. Struggling against WCC competition who prepare all season to beat them didn't surprise me. Going 14-0, even in a weaker conference did. With an RPI of ~9, a very aggressive approach to the non-conference scheduling (usually rewarded by the committee), 10-0 in the past 10 games (including a couple of very well played games), winning the conference tournament despite limited minutes from an injured JP Batista and dismal shooting from Adam Morrison, and the return of two of their top 6 players from injuries (who were just then beginning to get minutes) made me think that a #2 or #1 wasn't out of the question.

However, I had them at a #3 as well mostly because I thought there were four clear #1 seeds (Duke, UConn, Memphis, Nova), and 5 #2 type seeds (OSU, Texas, UCLA, North Carolina, and Gonzaga) and figured they'd be dipped to the 3 line.

And I should say that a couple of differences I had with many of the comments about the Zags end of season struggle (especially the conference tournamnent) were:

1) Just like UCONN and the other top 4 seeds in the Big East, GU didn't HAVE to win their tournament and it is sometimes tough to eliminate teams playing with desperation;

2) Even with as great of a basketball player as Morrison is, I believe the most important player on the team is JP Batista. The difference between Morrison and Pendergraft/Knight/Gurganioius is not nearly the difference between Batista and Diallo/Mallon/Heytvelt. Both Heytvelt & Mallon are solid players (with huge potential for Heytvelt) but both them are already expected to play major minutes. With Batista hurt (or in foul trouble) the Zags usually went with a PG, PG, SF, SF, PF line up that really struggled. If you watch the entire games from the WCC tournament, the Zags crushed those teams when Batista was in the game... then he'd go out and they'd surge back and he'd have to go back in and build the lead up ... and so on. Considering Batista was going to be healthy by the first round of the NCAA tournament, I didn't think they should have been penalized much for their struggles while he was injured (where they won the game anyway).

mgadfly

03-19-2006, 10:12 AM

The one team that got screwed with their seeding was Illinois. They played like a number 2 all year, and then get Washington in the second round.

I was just giving Hoopsguy a hard time since he is an Illini fan. I was surprised that they were a #4. I didn't have them as a #2, I had them as a #3 (w/ GU). Their RPI was somewhere around 14 the last time I'd checked, but they were 10-5 in road/neutral games which is a lot of games away from home for a major conference team (which I thought should have been respected a little more). They were also 13-5 against Top-100 competition and I thought they should have had a #3 seed.

mgadfly

03-19-2006, 10:29 AM

I know you are just having some fun with me here, but I stand by my statement that Seth Davis sucks.

Here is Seth's bracket so that we can all follow along to see how bad he sucks:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/2006/ncaa_tourney/brackets/seth_davis.html

And I am not saying that he doesn't...

As for me, I picked GU to lose to UCLA. UCLA has better guard play than us, and enough big guys to prevent Batista from dominating the game.

RPI-Fan

03-19-2006, 10:37 AM

Here is Seth's bracket so that we can all follow along to see how bad he sucks:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/ncaa/men/2006/ncaa_tourney/brackets/seth_davis.html

And I am not saying that he doesn't...

As for me, I picked GU to lose to UCLA. UCLA has better guard play than us, and enough big guys to prevent Batista from dominating the game.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like a pretty damn good bracket so far, yeah?

All but two of his S16 teams are alive and each of his E8 teams are still alive,.

illinifan999

03-19-2006, 01:15 PM

own shitty conference

shitty conference.

Anyone who thinks these teams played a tough schedule needs to STFU. If you think any of these teams would finish anything but dead last in a conference like the acc, you're an idiot.

Do you feel like an idiot yet?

Warhammer

03-19-2006, 01:29 PM

I was just giving Hoopsguy a hard time since he is an Illini fan. I was surprised that they were a #4. I didn't have them as a #2, I had them as a #3 (w/ GU). Their RPI was somewhere around 14 the last time I'd checked, but they were 10-5 in road/neutral games which is a lot of games away from home for a major conference team (which I thought should have been respected a little more). They were also 13-5 against Top-100 competition and I thought they should have had a #3 seed.

I could see the #3 seed. The difference between facing a #6 in the second round and the #5 seed is HUGE. I think there are two major drop offs in talent, between the #1s and 2s, and between the 5s and 6s (although one of the 5s is lower than the others).

Logan

03-19-2006, 02:54 PM

I could see the #3 seed. The difference between facing a #6 in the second round and the #5 seed is HUGE. I think there are two major drop offs in talent, between the #1s and 2s, and between the 5s and 6s (although one of the 5s is lower than the others).

History has shown that the 6 seeds have a higher winning percentage than 5 seeds. So shouldn't it be taken into account that a greater percentage of the time, the 4 seed will play the 12 seed than the 3 seed playing the 11 seed?

hoopsguy

03-19-2006, 03:59 PM

I wasn't even all that frustrated about the 4 seed for Illinois, at least not in comparison to not getting the "pod" protection at all - being shipped out west to have to play a pair of west coast teams and then having to travel cross-country to line up with UConn if they made it through that gauntlet.

They got a great draw with games in Indy/Chicago last year, with the FF in St Louis. So on a two year basis there is no room to complain, but time and time again the committee says that previous years don't factor into the current year decision process.

I enjoyed watching Gonzaga play against Indiana last night; I thought their bigs did a really nice job and would not have projected them to win that game if I had known going in that Morrison would be 5-15 or whatever he finished. I'm looking forward to their game against UCLA next week, although this will be one where my brackets determine my rooting interest.

And Seth has been "out-picked" by his readers each of the last two seasons. Not that this is the reason that he sucks; that has more to do with what comes out of his mouth as a paid analyst.

mgadfly

03-19-2006, 07:45 PM

I don't know how much of an advantage UW received by playing in San Diego. They are a little closer, but 20 hours instead of 29 hours by car or a 3 hour flight as opposed to a 4 hr 15 minute flight doesn't seem that big of a difference to me.

Now if the game had been in Portland where a two or three hour car drive would have put all the UW fans at the arena, that'd be a significant advantage. As it was, I thought I saw a lot of orange in the stands during the game.

But you're right, it'd have been better to be sent to a closer pod location.

Warhammer

03-19-2006, 08:03 PM

The NCAA cracks me up. They go to this pod location to "protect" teams from playing in a hostile environment, yet it seems like everything is about getting to a location close to home. Why not go back to allowing teams to play in their hometown. Cripes, Duke always gets to play in Greensboro, what the heck is the difference driving an hour down the road vs. playing in Raleigh-Durham?

hoopsguy

03-19-2006, 08:19 PM

I'm not a big fan of the pod system, but if they are having trouble selling out arenas for early round games then I get the logic behind it.

Personally, I would prefer that they use the pod system only to avoid putting a high seed team in a location where they are at a clear disadvantage. So instead of sending Duke to Greensboro, they made sure that they avoided having them play George Washington in DC.

wade moore

03-20-2006, 06:12 AM

wade moore

03-24-2006, 05:26 AM

bump for ThunderingHerd.

LloydLungs

03-26-2006, 04:25 PM

bump for ThunderingHerd.

Here's another "Two Missouri Valley Sweet 16s and George Mason in the Final Four, but they would all somehow finish last in a BCS conference" bump.

Pumpy Tudors

03-26-2006, 04:32 PM

MJ4H

03-26-2006, 04:37 PM

I'd settle for LSU-Florida.

LloydLungs

03-26-2006, 04:40 PM

I take back everything bad I said about George Mason. I had said that I wanted Missouri State to have the Patriots' spot in the tournament. I didn't exactly say that George Mason was the least deserving at-large bid, but that's just because I couldn't wrap my head around Seton Hall. In any event, George Mason has obviously proven me wrong. I am itching for an LSU-George Mason championship game, and while I don't expect it, it would be an awesome thing to watch.

I always felt that George Mason deserved it, but I thought Hofstra deserved it more. In retrospect, obviously Hofstra should have been in as well. They've got to be feeling pretty bittersweet right now. This should be a nice financial and prestige boost for the CAA as a whole, but the Pride beat GMU twice and could have easily made a run of their own, if given the chance.

Young Drachma

03-26-2006, 06:16 PM

Huge financial eggs come from these NCAA baskets
Conferences score big with tourney's popularity, TV revenue

07:22 AM CST on Thursday, March 16, 2006
By GARY JACOBSON / The Dallas Morning News

It wasn't so long ago, says Southland Conference commissioner Tom Burnett, that a small NCAA Division I athletic league would operate with just a commissioner and a sports information director working out of their homes.

The booming popularity of the NCAA men's basketball tournament and its big television contracts helped change that.

The Southland Conference employs nine people in its Plano office. The conference and its schools will receive roughly $5 million from the NCAA this year, Mr. Burnett said, practically all of it attributable to the men's tournament.

The other Division I conferences headquartered in the Dallas area will get even more. Conference USA expects about $15 million, and the Big 12 Conference expects $24.5 million.

If you could buy shares in March Madness, Wall Street would consider it one of the great growth stocks in financial history.

"This is a very valuable sports product," said C-USA commissioner Britton Banowsky.

The University of Memphis, a member of C-USA, is the top seed in the Dallas subregional, which begins Friday at American Airlines Center.

As a group, the Dallas area's three Division I conferences will receive more NCAA money this year than the entire three-week men's tournament generated – $41 million – from television and ticket sales in 1986 when Dallas hosted the Final Four.

The tournament's TV revenue alone this year will be $453 million, more than 800 times the amount in 1970. In 2013, the final year of its $6 billion, 11-year deal with CBS, the NCAA is scheduled to receive $764 million from the network.

Money from television and marketing rights accounted for 86 percent of the NCAA's total revenue of $507.7 million last year, according to the association's 2005 report to members.

"You have an organization running an entire industry that is totally dependent upon one event in one men's sport," said Gary Roberts, a Tulane University law professor and sports business expert.

NCAA's distribution

A small amount of NCAA revenue ($13 million this year) comes from ESPN, which televises the women's basketball tournament. Much of the rest is from championship ticket sales, largely the men's tournament, NCAA reports show.

The NCAA distributes about 95 percent of the money it receives to its members for athletic and academic support, as well as for championship event expenses in its three divisions. Last year, $298.7 million went directly to 31 Division I conferences and independents, representing more than 320 schools. About 40 percent of that money was tied to success in the men's tournament.

Rod Fort, a sports business expert at Washington State University, says the powerhouse basketball conferences maximize revenues through March Madness just as the powerhouse football conferences maximize revenues through the Bowl Championship Series.

The BCS, however, isn't nearly as lucrative. This year's four biggest bowl games generated roughly $130 million for participants.

Some critics say all that money overemphasizes sports at the expense of the classroom.

"I think it is madness," Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist said of the NCAA Tournament. "It is not what you would have if there was any reasonable balance between academics and athletics."

Maximizing revenue

The NCAA acknowledges the criticism. It recently administered the first penalties against schools whose athletes aren't making satisfactory academic progress. In January, during his state of the association address, NCAA president Myles Brand said big-time college sports and education can, and should, coexist.

"The business plan for the athletics department mirrors that of the university," he said. Their common goal: maximizing revenue and redistributing it throughout the organization.

As the larger debate continues, no one foresees any slowdown in the immense popularity of the NCAA men's tournament. And no one predicts any meaningful drop in the value of the television contracts, although some see a leveling off.

According to TNS Media Intelligence, more than $2.2 billion was spent on network advertising during the NCAA Tournament from 2000 to 2005. And the $467.7 million spent last year almost equaled the amount generated during the entire college football season. The research firm expects nearly $500 million to be spent on network advertising during this year's tournament.

CBS also benefits from local ad sales at stations that it owns and operates, says Jon Swallen, senior vice president of research for TNS. The network's contract includes Internet rights, which are expected to be increasingly important.

Bob Dekas, CBS' coordinating producer for NCAA basketball, links the tournament's popularity with a grass-roots wholesomeness that appeals to rural America as well as big cities.

"Nothing in life is pure," Mr. Dekas said. "But it's as pure as life gets."

While the NCAA has concern about being overly dependent upon one source of money, ballooning revenue from the men's basketball tournament has helped some conferences diversify from football.

The Big 12's expected cut this year from the NCAA will be nearly 22 percent of its total revenue of $112.3 million, according to projections the league provided to The Dallas Morning News. In fiscal 1997, the league's first year of existence, the NCAA provided $5.7 million, about 9 percent of the Big 12's total.

Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg said the NCAA's share of his league's budget should continue to grow through the end of the current CBS contract. After 2013, he sees more potential growth from football bowl games and regular-season television.

"The NCAA contract is fully priced in the marketplace," he said.

CBS began its affiliation with the men's tournament in the early 1980s. Television rights fees increased steadily, taking a big leap in 1991 with a seven-year, $1 billion deal, and an even larger leap in 2003.

It pays to win

In the first three years of the current contract, NCAA revenue distributed to the Big 12 increased 80 percent from 2002, according to the NCAA. Conference USA's revenue from the NCAA increased 64 percent and Southland's 55 percent.

The part of the tournament's payout tied directly to winning favors traditional power conferences because it is based on total tournament appearances over rolling six-year periods. Consistently having more teams in the field and more wins means more money.

In the formula, each game appearance, leading up to the finals, equals one unit. Units earned one year don't begin to pay off until the following year.

This year, each unit accumulated over the previous six years is worth $163,981, up from about $100,000 in 2002.

So, just getting a berth in the tournament this year eventually will mean more than $1 million to a team's conference. And game-winning shots this year will be worth a million bucks, literally.

That frustrates Mr. Burnett of the Southland Conference. His league, which began in 1963 and opened its first office in 1987, gets one tournament berth, almost always a low seed. The last time a Southland team got past the first round was when Karl Malone played for Louisiana Tech in 1985.

So, when it's time to tally units, Southland has only six while the Big 12 can have 80 or more. The multiplier effect is powerful.

Mr. Burnett hopes his conference eventually will get more revenue opportunities by placing teams in the National Invitation Tournament, purchased by the NCAA last year as part of a settlement in an antitrust lawsuit.

Still, Mr. Burnett says, it's hard to imagine life without the NCAA windfall.

"If we did not have that payout, a lot of leagues would have problems," he said.