Should a team be in the dance w/a losing conference record?
- Thread starter leggs
- Start date
I dunno. If a team can’t win half of their conf games do they deserve it. Has any teams made a sweet 16 w a losing conf record? My gut says no but too lazy to dig for an answer
Sure, why not?
36 losers get invited every year.
Season gets graded as a whole after conf winners. If you want a gifted spot, zfg about your 12-6/10-8 in some pansy ass weak conference. Esp with unbalanced conference schedules.
Supposed top coaches, padding their resumes with 200+ ranked teams, then point to their "20 wins", 10 in-conference, as a reason they should be allowed in.
Weak af.
36 losers get invited every year.
Season gets graded as a whole after conf winners. If you want a gifted spot, zfg about your 12-6/10-8 in some pansy ass weak conference. Esp with unbalanced conference schedules.
Supposed top coaches, padding their resumes with 200+ ranked teams, then point to their "20 wins", 10 in-conference, as a reason they should be allowed in.
Weak af.
Ah.....You must have discovered Jaime Dixon's book on how to get to 20 wins......He used to do that exact shit in the old Big East to get to 20 wins. Cost his ass in the tourney tho, always bounced early.
Sure.
What if a team played 12 top 20 teams OOC and went 10-2, and then went 8-10 in conference play? Seems like their body of work should get them in, no?
Very rarely does it make sense to enforce absolute rules like "you must be .500 or above in conference play." Context is always needed.
What if a team played 12 top 20 teams OOC and went 10-2, and then went 8-10 in conference play? Seems like their body of work should get them in, no?
Very rarely does it make sense to enforce absolute rules like "you must be .500 or above in conference play." Context is always needed.
Definitely not. But with watering down by taking 64+ teams they have no choice. There are too many instances where the best teams don't even make the Final Four. In the beginning the ACC was the first conference to award the lone representative to be their own conference post season champion. There were times when the regular season conference champ to make the 16 team field. There are 351 division basketball team with over 25 some byes. (I think 31) Today March Madness is merely The Annual NCAA Fund Raiser.
The NCAA tournament has very little to do with crowning the best team.
It's all about crowning a champion of a 6-game single elimination tournament.
It's all about crowning a champion of a 6-game single elimination tournament.
Yeah, but I'll take it over the bull shit farce they call the college FB playoffs.
I'm okay with it, provided they have quality wins and they played well in the out of conference season. OOC games account for more than 40% of the regular season, anyway. It should be fairly represented in the body of work. You could certainly make an argument for Texas A&M, TCU, Oklahoma, and Alabama... Someone like Notre Dame might have some appeal if Bonzie Colson returns and they're able to win a few more games, showing that they are a far more competitive team with his presence.
Not necessarily, but a great OOC shouldn't overvalue a team losing 8 or 9 straight to close the conference season, especially with no injuries in play. If you go 7 -11 In your league, and lose the last 9 of your last 10, you don't deserve a bid.
Why a hard and fast line when we can, and should, evaluate a teams' body of work with context, as is currently done? Solution to a non-existent problem.
And if you're going to use some kind of metric, why conference wins when conferences are not equal? Use KenPom or betting lines, FFS.
If only the tournament field was selected by people with the ability to contextualize this information. Huh, imagine that.
67 by my count.. winksiesNot to be that guy, but don't 63 losers get invited every year?
Mental images are a hell of a thing for males.
"Don't need to touch, just need to see them"
I needed to cull the talk a bit. Laughing
I am perfectly okay with being a message board 3.
Similar threads
