Small Schools in NCAA

[Kid Rock]

Anybody else out there that had their small school qualify for the NCAA Tourney?

Looks like a slaughter at the hands of Maryland in Round 1 for me.

[PK]

Lafayette made it twice in recent years out of the Patriot league. Both times I remember they were a 15 seed, allowing them to be humiliated by a number 2 rather than a number 1.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Last year, my 30,000-student small-school went. 14th seed, lost to somebody.

My brother has tickets to Albuquerque. I'm too busy to make it. Plus, they've gotten rather expensive for 1st rounders.

[Actuary321]

A local sportscaster suggested that the NCAA just do away with conference championship week and expand the NCAA tourney an extra week. With a Tuesday-Wednesday play in round, they could easily accomidate all 324 D1 schools. Then we would be able to see if any of those 14-16 seeded automatic bids really deserve to be there.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

The easiest way to eliminate conference tournaments is to not go to them and to stop watching them on TV. And tell your 100 million friends the same.
That would get rid of most of them, leaving the Big East, ACC, Big 12, and Southeast.
Teams could use the extra week to schedule tougher opponents. Or have more of those "conference showdowns" like the ACC-Big10 matchups.

[3rookie]

I actually enjoy the weaker conference tournaments, but hate the major ones. I'll watch Georgia State/Florida Atlantic play before I watch Kentucky/Georgia in the SEC tournament. The major conference tournaments are outdated.

No way does the field get expanded; who wants to see Duke play the last place team in a weak conference. It's just an opportunity to get injured. The NCAA screwed up by adding a 65th team (should have one less at-large team), and now people can argue for upwards to 96 or 128 teams.

[Kid Rock]

One down, six games to go.

First nominee for 2002-03 Player of the Year, Prosper Karangwa.

[Rockhound]

I like the idea that any team can get in the tourney by winning their conference. And it's not like they are taking the spot of any team that could have won the whole thing anyway. The Butler's of the world aren't going to be National Champions even if they get in.

[Mick Fan]

No way does the field get expanded; who wants to see Duke play the last place team in a weak conference.

If the tournament expanded to "all" teams, the #1 team in the country would play the #256 team. Some possible matchups (using collegerpi.com)

Kansas vs. St. Mary's (8-20).
Cincinnati vs. S. Utah State (9-16).
Maryland vs. Robert Morris (12-18).
Duke vs. Florida International (8-20).

The NCAA screwed up by adding a 65th team (should have one less at-large team), and now people can argue for upwards to 96 or 128 teams.


I also fear this happening. Right now, about the top 50 teams make the NCAAs. If you have to complain about not being the 34th at-large team, you probably don't deserve to be playing for the national championship. I don't want any more expansion.

[Steve White]

Not my alma mater, but I'll be rooting for 13th seed Davidson against Ohio State tomorrow. It's certainly small. I lived in the town for 10 years (my mother still does), and took their freshman calculus course since the local high school didn't offer calculus.

[Abducens]

>>The Butler's of the world aren't going to be National Champions even if they get in.

The problem is that the Butlers (and Ball States) of the world don't set their sights on winning the championship or even making the Final Four, they, like the small schools who shut them out, only want to win a game and make some impact on the tournament's outcome.

Now you have this joke of a play-in game, where colleges actually get rewarded for being dinky backwaters. Siena is now the first school with a losing record to win a so-called "NCAA tournament game" since the 1950s. How impressive for them, beating mighty Alcorn St.

The fact is, the midmajors like the MAC, et al., get squeezed because they're good enough to occassionally knock off a big name, and not bad enough to be no-name underdog that the media can slobber over. Allowing more teams from midmajors is a no-win proposition for the selection committee. That's just the way it is.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Abducens on 2002-03-14 10:07 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

What? you mean after a Butler-like team wins one game, they then give up?

I don't think so. Try telling that to Gonzaga.

[Abducens]

I had thought to edit to say "one, maybe two" games. That's about all the small and midmajors hope for.

The smalls because that's all they can accomplish, the midmajors because they get crappy seeds and are forced to inordinately claw their way up. I'm sure the debate goes something like:

MAC: Give us more respect.
NCAA: Look, we give you the automatic and that team almost always loses right away.
MAC: That's because you put them down at #14!

Look at what happened in 1996 when E. Michigan was actually given a respectable 9 seed (who'd they beat to reach the round of 32 that year anyway?). Then I think they beat the #1 seed - Kansas? Maybe they only just hung with them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Abducens on 2002-03-14 11:43 ]</font>

[Kid Rock]

Didn't Valpo make the Sweet 16 as a 13 or 14 a couple of years ago?

[Abducens]

>>Didn't Valpo make the Sweet 16 as a 13 or 14 a couple of years ago?

Yeah... I think they even made the round of 8 that year. Miami of Ohio made Sweet 16 in 1999, I think E. Michigan too in 1996. But you don't remember these stories. The NCAA would rather invite the 20 schools per year that nobody knows anything about, on the bet that 1 or 2 will make it that far.

Then the media gets to play John Cougar Mellencamp songs while giving the school its first national coverage in its history. Now, when Miami of Ohio squeaked through to the Sweet 16, nobody visited Oxford, Ohio or asked Wally Szczerbiak which barn he was born in. People knew Miami could really play, and nobody really cared much.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Abducens on 2002-03-14 11:50 ]</font>

[Griffin 1]

On 2002-03-14 11:49, Abducens wrote:
>>Didn't Valpo make the Sweet 16 as a 13 or 14 a couple of years ago?

Yeah... I think they even made the round of 8 that year.

Sweet 16 in 1998.

And most members of the media mispronounced their name the whole time.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Griffin on 2002-03-14 19:29 ]</font>

[wally world]

How did they pronounce it?

[Kid Rock]

If I had to guess, I would say Val-PO-ray-so. It is spelled ValpAraiso.

[Actuary321]

On 2002-03-14 11:30, Abducens wrote:
I had thought to edit to say "one, maybe two" games. That's about all the small and midmajors hope for.

The smalls because that's all they can accomplish, the midmajors because they get crappy seeds and are forced to inordinately claw their way up. I'm sure the debate goes something like:

MAC: Give us more respect.
NCAA: Look, we give you the automatic and that team almost always loses right away.
MAC: That's because you put them down at #14!

Look at what happened in 1996 when E. Michigan was actually given a respectable 9 seed (who'd they beat to reach the round of 32 that year anyway?). Then I think they beat the #1 seed - Kansas? Maybe they only just hung with them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Abducens on 2002-03-14 11:43 ]</font>

I guess a 6 for Gonzaga was not what they wanted huh? Maybe they should have settled for 11 or 12.

[Abducens]

>>If I had to guess, I would say Val-PO-ray-so. It is spelled ValpAraiso.

They said Valpa-RISE-o when it is Valpa-RAY-so. Nice to see Gonzaga crap out. It just supports my argument that teams full of pretty white boys are almost always overrated.

[Abducens]

>>I guess a 6 for Gonzaga was not what they wanted huh? Maybe they should have settled for 11 or 12.

Actuary321, I am not sure what you mean in reply to me. The only thing I can figure is that you think Gonzaga is in the MAC? Not the case.

[Kid Rock]

There is a big difference in being #16 and being #14. A look at the fact a #1 has NEVER lost to a #16 should indicate that the best 4-5 teams in the country are far superior to the next 8-10 teams.

I think #15 teams have won 4 times in the last 12 years. Number 14 teams have had relatively decent success, including my school in 1989 (woohooooo). We could not have beaten Duke that year, but getting Stanford was terrific, even if they had Todd Lichti and Adam Keefe.

A small conference should have their team placed as high as #14 occasionally. On paper, you can hardly tell the difference between Alcorn State, Siena, Holy Cross and McNeese State, UCSB, and Central CT (except this year Siena had losing record). If your conference NEVER wins at #16, you can hardly blame them since other top teams had very little success agaiunst #1 seeds during the year. #3 and #4 seeds may have lost 8-9 times during the year.

[DukeBlue]

Kid Rock, was that Siena beating Stanford in 1989 in Greensboro?

[Kid Rock]

yup,yup

[Actuary321]

On 2002-03-18 09:59, Abducens wrote:
>>I guess a 6 for Gonzaga was not what they wanted huh? Maybe they should have settled for 11 or 12.

Actuary321, I am not sure what you mean in reply to me. The only thing I can figure is that you think Gonzaga is in the MAC? Not the case.

No, I know Gonzaga is not in the MAC. I was being more general. I had heard that Gonzaga was complaining about being as low as a #6. Just as your example with the MAC. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

[wally world]

Interesting side note - Valparaiso got a junior point guard to commit early a day or two ago by the name of Jimmie Miles. They also apparently have a couple of other studs on their way to Valpo as well. One recruiting analyst quoted in the paper I saw said that this point guard was one of his top 30 recruits in the country, and the other two guys were in his top 50. That gives Valpo 3 top 50 recruits, and although it is still very early, gives them one of the top 5 recruiting classes in the nation right now, according to this guy. Pretty impressive.

Expect to see Valpo in the tourney for a number of years to come.