1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

So you really think the NCAA is kinder to mid-majors these days?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Alma, Mar 14, 2007.

  1. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    But the NCAA tournament isn't -- or shouldn't -- be some sort of referendum on BCS schools vs. mid-majors. It's one thing to like to see those matchups, but it's another thing entirely to *expect* the NCAA to create them. And how intriguing would Butler vs. Illinois or Arkansas be, anyway? Butler's supposed to be a 5 seed, how much is it going to gain against either of those opponents? Hard to rage against the machine when you've got the higher seed.
     
  2. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    The reason, I figure, the tournament seems so boring this is year is because there hasn't been a true upset special. For the talk about keeping the mid-majors down, what actually happened was a few mid-majors particularly distinguished themselves this year and got rewarded with higher seeds. So a Butler or Southern Illinois or Nevada that would normally be an upset-minded No. 12 now is a higher seed. Those three teams weren't a shock to win their first-round games, because by seeding, they were expected to. In fact, by seeding, at a minimum Southern Illinois is expected to make the Sweet 16.

    Plus, all the focus on mid-majors (bracket busters, mid-majors toughening their schedules) makes it less likely a true out-of-nowhere team is going to make a splash.
     
  3. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Agree with what you're saying re: referendum, but there are guidelines the NCAA has to follow to create brackets. No regular-season repeat matchups, no conference rivals until the Elite Eight, etc. So why would it be a problem to examine this with mid-majors? If they're only going to get six at-large berths, sending two home first round guaranteed because of matchup alone doesn't sit well with me.

    Forget Butler, that's not where I rage against the machine. It's that Old Dominion played Butler, so you know one is going home like that, as opposed to maybe ODU springing an upset elsewhere to advance like Butler to the second round. Because of that matchup, it's one less chance for a mid-major to sneak a team through to the next week.
     
  4. chester

    chester Member

    That, and the fact there haven't been many truly great games. VCU-Duke, BYU-Xavier, maybe Virginia Tech-Illinois or Miami-Oregon. Still, most of the game have been rather uninteresting if you ask me (which nobody did). Hopefully the second round will be better.
     
  5. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    TA&M-CC beating Wisconsin would be the ultimate wtf shocker, because I'd be willing to venture that 90 percent of casual fans had no idea they had D-I sports. But now teams like ODU and Winthrop are feted -- in the ESPN poll they did of all the possible at-large teams, the only three that were voted in as NCAA teams were Illinois, West Virginia and ODU. We're so conditioned to expect the 12 over 5 that when it doesn't happen like this season, THAT'S the upset.
     
  6. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    I think VCU and Winthrop are perfect examples. Right now the mid-majors are slotted for 13-16, yes the NCAA slots teams. If Arkansas or Illinois were the last teams in, they should have been a 16 seeds, not 12s, but majors don't go in that low.
    But Winthrop and VCU had a chance to win this year because they went in at 11s. Where they had a chance. The 13-16 games become better games as well since you'll have major conference teams that are battle-tested, used to the media exposure and travel.
    You might actually see a 16 beat a 1 that way.
     
  7. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    So you punish Kansas or North Carolina by making them play Arkansas or Stanford in the first round? Come on.

    The point of seeding the weakest teams at 16 is to give the 1s the easiest path. The 1s earned it.
     
  8. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    Yeah, I'd be pissed as hell if I was a 1 getting Arkansas while the 2 seed got like Belmont.
     
  9. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    The answer to this isn't in seeding at the NCAA tournament level. The seeding is done just right. Your No. 1s and 2s shouldn't be punished so maybe Belmont gets rewarded for "working real hard." The change has to be made in legislation at the NCAA level, where somehow mandates come down that Duke has to travel to UNC Wilmington every once in a while for a game. You're on crack if you say Weber State would have had a 21-13 record playing in the SEC like Arkansas did.

    Butler earned a No. 5 seed by playing well against a great non-conference schedule. They were treated like a major conference team in the seeding process and seeded accordingly.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page