Show some balls, Tournament Committee -- Duke -v- Kentucky in play-in game

Trying to parse my argument here, but I don't think it will be a travesty if Missouri State doesn't make it and I'm around the MVC a lot. One quality win and numerous choke jobs at home to the contenders in the conference, plus its BracketBuster home loss to Winthrop (good-to-excellent team, but if MSU is a legit NCAA at-large team, they should take care of business), plus a loss to UNI at home keeps them deservedly out in my opinion, especially considering what's happened in the other conference tourneys.

On the other hand, Jersey Guy's point is pure bullshit. The SEC is not light years ahead of the MVC and Missouri State would not struggle to break .500 in that league, unless you make the argument that they fit in with the parity of the SEC, in which case damn near every SEC team struggled to break .500. The SEC is a grinder, so is the MVC, most people just don't recognize it yet.

I think Missouri State got hosed last year, but I don't think that's the case this time. Ironically, the MVC was probably better from top-to-bottom this year, but it was too good for its own good. Not enough teams can make good enough arguments to get the Valley its numerous at-large bids.

They need to be like the Colonial, I guess. Four good teams surrounded by a couple of average teams, with a few more utter horseshit teams. That's the formula for multiple bids.

 

Expanding the field to 65 was idiotic... The tournament is almost perfect. DON'T FUCK WITH IT!!!

 

Or the teams need to be like Nevada. They need to play absolutely nobody, have a shitty conference, and get so many non-quality wins that there is no way they can be denied the tournament at 27-4.

By the way, I think if Winthrop had not won its conference and was a bubble, Missouri State would be its quality win. I understand that the game was at Missouri State, but all this bullshit about how they should have taken care of business at home is making me sick. Winthrop is fucking 28-4. Undefeated in their conference... I'm pretty sure they've proven themselves.

If you want to make the argument that Missouri State shouldn't be in, that's fine, but quit making the argument that a loss to Winthrop (home or away) is the reason they shouldn't make it. They shouldn't have lost at home to Northern Iowa but a lot of schools in the MVC shouldn't have lost to teams they ended up losing to. It's a league of parity.

 

I mean if you're committed to the play-in concept, have the weakest eight teams do a quadruple-header at one site (or one game at four sites). Winners get a No. 1 team. That way all the No. 1 seeds get teams who played on Tuesday.

I used to be a proponent of using play-in games to decide the 12 seeds, but then you give the 5s an unfair advantage over the 4s -- would you rather be a 5 playing a 12 that just played, or a 4 playing a 13 that has more rest?

 

"This bullshit that they should have taken care of business at home is making me sick."

What? Winthrop is a good team, but they ran the table in a shitty conference and their profile is not different than Missouri State. So how is that a forgivable home loss for a team that you're arguing deserves an at-large bid? If you're an at-large, you take care of business in those games. If you don't, you've creating justifiable doubt for the committee.

How many free passes does Missouri State get? They have ONE, repeat, ONE big win. When the chips were down in the MVC, they failed every single time. That does NOT equate to an at-large bid, especially when there's been upsets in other conferences.

This is not a MVC-gets-screwed thing, this is a MSU-screwed-itself thing. They made their own bed.

 

I'd like to congratulate Winthrop for winning the Big South, a conference that stands about a half-step above a really good high school league.

 

Point taken.
I should have said "non-majors"
There are always non-major teams in the play-in game. It shouldn't have to be like that.

 

The reason I brought it up was that this time last year, people were waxing poetic about how "mid-majors" like Hampton and Niagara shouldn't be forced to the play-in so big, bad majors got higher seeds. For there to be a mid-major, there has to be a high and low too. Small sticking point on my end.

But if you want to be fair about it, the two worst teams should be the ones in the play in, just as the bottom four should be the 16 seeds. It happens that yes, they tend to come from the lowest-ranked conferences (what if Baylor had gone all the way, though?)

 

Duke's seeding was bullshit. I may purchase a Virginia Commonwealth shirt and make the drive up to Buffalo.

 

You're giving the Big South far too much credit.

 

SWAC in the 64 hizzle!