The logic of rewarding teams for losing to perceived good teams makes no sense. A normal OOC schedule would have helped in the rankings but it seemed pretty obvious to me that the B1G's hype was overblown.
SMF "knows basketball"
- Thread starter joeydavid
- Start date
The logic of rewarding teams for losing to perceived good teams makes no sense. A normal OOC schedule would have helped in the rankings but it seemed pretty obvious to me that the B1G's hype was overblown.
Yep
They were talking about 3 in the final four and how arguably this will be as great as the big East dominant years .
It’s great for these media darlings and fanbases to eat a huge shit sandwich like smf does regularly
The Big 10 was still the best conference overall this year. They aren't performing all that well in the tourney. It happens. 3 of their first round losses were in OT. There really is so much parity and player movement, that going forward, it's probably hyperbole to call any conference dominant over the others.
Yeah, the crystal clear takeaway this year was what a lot of us suspected from the beginning in that mid-majors and conferences like the Pac-12 and Big East were going to be vastly underrated without having a non-conference schedule. It's easy to rack up quality wins when you're the only conference with access to quality wins but those quality wins don't mean a lot when you're playing a good team on a neutral floor.
SMF jumped the shark years ago and this might the dumbest thing he's typed since the day before yesterday...
Yeah. P12 undervalued. Oregon regular season champ is more like a 2 or 3 seed than a 7 too.
Big 10 was not the best , Pac 10 was top to bottom , BIG 10 is overrated because most of these sports writers graduated from Big 10 schools over hype them
Give SMF credit for one thing. When he is wrong, he is REALLY wrong. He leaves no doubt.
Well of course it does. If you start punishing teams for losing to good teams then you are going to find that the non-conference schedule of every top team in the country consists of Robert Morris, Lehigh and Alabama A&M. And no one wants that.
The problem this season, and Colgate showed this to the extreme, is that there weren't enough non-conference games to get the teams properly ranked. If you want more teams gaming the system like Colgate and the Patriot League did (although I'll bet they had no idea when they did it what the consequences of their actions would be) then tell teams that if they play a good team and lose their ranking is going to drop.
Speaking of non-conference schedules, Arkansas playing North Texas, Oral Roberts, and Abilene Christian early on looks a hell of a lot more impressive now than it did then.
And look at Oral Roberts. They played 8 non-conference games. 5 of them, Missouri, Wichita, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Arkansas made the NCAA tournament. The other 3 weren't even D1 teams. No in between for them!
But I'll bet in the end that helped them in the tournament.
"What, we are playing Ohio State? Yeah, we've played teams like them before. No big deal."
"Oh, so now it's Florida? Yeah, still no big deal."
And now they get Arkansas again, a team that they were beating by double digits before they fell apart in the 2nd half. "Still no big deal."
Let me clarify. A team like pedst being rewarded for losing to a ton of teams that were perceived to be good makes no sense.
Losing to good teams doesn't mean you are good; nor does beating bad teams.
There should be no reward for losing
Who did you play snd who did you beat should be the evergreen criteria.
You beat a bunch of soup cans and lose to better conference teams - either let out of the field or get a play in game at best
you play a challenging slate ans win a few of those - get better seeding
Lose those - left out of the field
But, he’s wrong about EVERYTHING.
Football? Check
Basketball? Check
Current Events? Check
Politics? Check
Olympic Sports? Check
You Name It? Check
Nobody could be wrong that consistently without trying, right?
I remember talking about the 20-game ACC schedule when it was announced. I said then and repeat now, none of these conferences are helping themselves by playing fewer games against the rest of the country.
I never liked the consideration of "OOC Record" being an NCAAT seeding factor, as opposed to full resume, but I think based on the fact that these leagues keep hoarding more and more revenue by increasing their conference schedules deserves a reaction from the NCAA.
I am hoping post-COVID that the NCAA really rethinks and restructures their CBB season. They need to encourage more major OOC games, and IMO they need to hold them in more than just November and December.
I never liked the consideration of "OOC Record" being an NCAAT seeding factor, as opposed to full resume, but I think based on the fact that these leagues keep hoarding more and more revenue by increasing their conference schedules deserves a reaction from the NCAA.
I am hoping post-COVID that the NCAA really rethinks and restructures their CBB season. They need to encourage more major OOC games, and IMO they need to hold them in more than just November and December.
Yeah, I agree. But if you play well and lose to a good team that says more about your team than playing poorly while beating some schlub.
On the other hand, if you play a bunch of good teams and lose to all (or almost all) of them just shows that you are good at losing.
For years I've said P6 conferences should only play each other...minus 1-2 "buy" games. No one watches or attends games when these teams plays cupcakes....and if everyone's doing it, there is no argument that it would put schools at a disadvantage for playing such a tough schedule.
Like Pitt's 31 game schedule should be
20 ACC
Duquesne
RMU
WVU
4 tourney exempt
Big Ten
Big East
SEC
Pac 12
If Pitt (or any team) goes 16-15 then 1-1 in the conference tournament, they have a shot to get in. Need to do something to get people to watch college hoops before January
What does a team gain from playing 20 ACC games? Why not 26? Why not 30?
If the ACC (or any other league) wants to prove they are the best conference, they need to go out and beat other conferences' teams. Virginia was pretty clearly going to win the ACC this year if they had played 16 games or 26.
Look at what happened with the weird MLB schedule last year. The Pirates were atrocious (.317) and the Tigers were also awful (.397) and because the other teams kept beating them all year, 7 teams from the Central divisions made the playoffs, and ALL 7 lost in the first round.
If I were with the NCAA, I'd kill the November NIT Tip-Off and replace it with a high-level 4-team exempt event held in each of December, January, and February. You have 6 "power" leagues, so you could get two power teams to headline every month and have them all represented evenly.
I'd also consider a new rule that would allow up to two "conference challenge" events per league to be exempt as long as every team in the smaller conference participates. The second challenge would only be exempt if held in January or February (as is done with the B12-SEC challenge).
I dont disagree. One of my ideas years ago was to have each major conference host a November 8-eam tournament consisting of its team plus 1 from the other P6 leagues plus A10 and American
ACC: Greensboro
Big East: MSG
Big Ten: Chicago
Pac 12: Vegas
A10: Brooklyn
Big 12: KC
SEC: Nashville
American: Memphis
Right now there is way too much variability in these for-profit early season tournaments. You might get 3 good teams and 5 mid-majors in the same tournament.
I think a lot of those events will be dead or dying after COVID. It is going to be harder for any of those events to sell tickets and so many of the schools are going to be strapped for cash, there might not be so much incentive to fly your team all over the country to play against crappy teams.
The rules were also changed so some of those tournaments have to change their format anyway. I expect you'll see more of those fake tournaments like Pitt held where 4 teams just go play at a school for a weekend.
That's also why I suggested the NCAA scrap their November event. There are plenty of events at that time and attendance is sparse and the games are at terrible times for TV. Move the NIT games in Dec/Jan/Feb when people are actually watching basketball and draw some eyeballs.
Those events are huge moneymakers run by for-profit companies. They are no different than bowl games (well except their results actually count). They make money off their TV deal plus sponsors. They've always been poorly attended but they dont need to sell tickets. The people must watch Kansas play Vanderbilt in front of 267 people in some Carribean gym.
They make money because ESPN or FS1 pays them. If ESPN pays Pitt or someone else to run an event at the Pete, the teams don't care. They only put them in Cancun or Orlando because they can attract vacationers and sponsors. Maui claims they bring in $10M+ in annual revenue because of their event.
Is there really a justification to travel to Mohegan Sun to play the "Hall of Fame Tip-Off"? There's a reason the Alaskan Shootout is dead now.
Hey, I'm all for it. Lets say the conferences get into this business like I said. Well, ESPN or whoever has to buy the rights for the ACC Invitational Tip-off in Greensboro with Duke, Michigan, Florida, VCU, Texas, USC, Cincinnati, and Georgetown. The ACC keeps all that money and divides it between its members.
They aren't going to do anything like this, but if they did and the ACC picked Greensboro someone at the ACC offices should be taken out back and shot.
🔫
