Boeheim was just on Espn. Said KSU and Drexel should have been in and

[Bookcat]

Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.

Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse


who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.

[DrunkoMcGee]

Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.

Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse


who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.

The committee makes the decision.  Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in?  Yes.  Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it?  No.  Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford?  No.  Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all.  Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it. 

[Skycat]

That isn't what I said, now is it? Those play-in games would be played prior to the tourney, not on national TV, and the Tourney would stay at 64 teams. The quality of the product would be better, as well.

They would be administered by the NCAA tournament, because they would have to be.  Who else would oversee games played between champions of different conferences?  All you are doing is adding 7 additional play-in games to the one that currently exists.  Right now 65 teams are in the tournament, you'd have it be 72. 

That's fine, it might be time for that.  But call it what it is.  Expansion.

[kougar24]

And kougar, 10-6 in the Big 12 where 9 of those wins came against teams that aren't even good enough to make the NIT isn't as good as XX-0 in a smaller conference.  It just isn't.   

Please tell me you're f***ing joking. K-State, Tech, and OSU would all win any one of those sh***y conferences. I mean, I'd feel pretty f***ing good about our chances against Long Beach St. in a conference tourney.

[DrunkoMcGee]

And kougar, 10-6 in the Big 12 where 9 of those wins came against teams that aren't even good enough to make the NIT isn't as good as XX-0 in a smaller conference.  It just isn't.   

Please tell me you're f***ing joking. K-State, Tech, and OSU would all win any one of those sh***y conferences. I mean, I'd feel pretty f***ing good about our chances against Long Beach St. in a conference tourney.

Maybe you guys should go join the Big West Conference to see if that really is the case.  As it is, I'm all for rewarding the little guy who had a great season in their league rather than some middle of the road big guy that didn't come close to winning their league or their league tourney.

[jmlynch1]

Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.

Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse


who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.

The committee makes the decision.  Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in?  Yes.  Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it?  No.  Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford?  No.  Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all.  Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it. 

You keep talking about how certain teams don't have a shot at winning it all, which is absolutely false. Any team can win it and it is just a matter of time until an even higher seed (than previous winners) wins the NC.

[DrunkoMcGee]

Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.

Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse


who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.

The committee makes the decision.  Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in?  Yes.  Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it?  No.  Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford?  No.  Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all.  Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it. 

You keep talking about how certain teams don't have a shot at winning it all, which is absolutely false. Any team can win it and it is just a matter of time until an even higher seed (than previous winners) wins the NC.

Realistically, they don't have a shot.  Statistically, the chance is so minimal that it's ridiculous.  It's not just a matter of time before it happens.  There is a reason that a 16 seed hasn't ever won a game and there is a reason that when ku won as a 6 seed it was considered one of the biggest upsets in tourney history.  It's just such a statistical improbability that it takes a very strange chain of events for it to happen.  And that is just a 6 seed. 

[kougar24]

Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.

Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse


who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.

The committee makes the decision.  Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in?  Yes.  Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it?  No.  Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford?  No.  Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all.  Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it. 

You keep talking about how certain teams don't have a shot at winning it all, which is absolutely false. Any team can win it and it is just a matter of time until an even higher seed (than previous winners) wins the NC.

Realistically, they don't have a shot.  Statistically, the chance is so minimal that it's ridiculous.  It's not just a matter of time before it happens.  There is a reason that a 16 seed hasn't ever won a game and there is a reason that when ku won as a 6 seed it was considered one of the biggest upsets in tourney history.  It's just such a statistical improbability that it takes a very strange chain of events for it to happen.  And that is just a 6 seed. 

Someone call up all the 9 seeds and tell them not to show up, seeing as how they have no shot to win it all. 

Your argument as to why K-State should have been snubbed is getting more retarded by the post.

[DrunkoMcGee]

Adding more teams that were middle of the road in big leagues add nothing to the tourney.

Arkansas
Stanford
Florida State
Kansas State
Syracuse


who makes the distinction of which of these "middle of the road in big leagues" teams should get in and which should stay home bitching. That's all Im' saying...because Arkansas at least gets a shot at the national title...a nice reward for having such a middle of the road type of season.

The committee makes the decision.  Do Florida St, Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, West Virginia, and KSU have an argument that they deserve to get in?  Yes.  Do they have an argument that shows that they definitely are better than the teams that made it?  No.  Does it matter to the quality and the integrity of the tournament if one of those teams gets in instead of Arkansas or Stanford?  No.  Not one of those teams had exceptional years and not one of them had(or has in the cases of Ark and Stanford) a shot at winning it all.  Those are the filler teams and they all have very similar resumes and any of them can win a game or two, but that is about it. 

You keep talking about how certain teams don't have a shot at winning it all, which is absolutely false. Any team can win it and it is just a matter of time until an even higher seed (than previous winners) wins the NC.

Realistically, they don't have a shot.  Statistically, the chance is so minimal that it's ridiculous.  It's not just a matter of time before it happens.  There is a reason that a 16 seed hasn't ever won a game and there is a reason that when ku won as a 6 seed it was considered one of the biggest upsets in tourney history.  It's just such a statistical improbability that it takes a very strange chain of events for it to happen.  And that is just a 6 seed. 

Someone call up all the 9 seeds and tell them not to show up, seeing as how they have no shot to win it all. 

Your argument as to why K-State should have been snubbed is getting more retarded by the post.

My argument about KSU is that you weren't snubbed.  Your resume wasn't any better than the resumes that Syracuse, Drexel, Missouri St, and Florida St had.

My argument about the teams not having a shot to win it all is an argument against the ridiculous idea to expand the field.  Why in the world would it be good to expand the field to include more teams that can't win it all?

I'm sorry that you weren't able to follow the thread to see what I was arguing.