Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Uspshoosier

Bracketology and Team Resumes

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, RoadRage said:

If teams just eliminated a couple of non-conference games from their schedule, every team could be in the tournament. There are 353 Division 1 basketball teams, in two games you are down to 88.

You'd have to figure in some bye games to make it work out, but why not let everyone have a shot?

Every team is already in the tournament, it is called conference tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Not all leagues have all the teams in their conference tournaments.  Ivy League has only takes the top 4 

The tournament is my favorite sporting event and don't like it when people want to change the format.  To me 64 was the perfect number because it took away byes and every team had to play the same amount of games to win the championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

The tournament is my favorite sporting event and don't like it when people want to change the format.  To me 64 was the perfect number because it took away byes and every team had to play the same amount of games to win the championship.

64 was really nice. But so was 11 Big Ten teams... So was 16 conference games... But they love their money and ruining the product. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

64 was really nice. But so was 11 Big Ten teams... So was 16 conference games... But they love their money and ruining the product. 

Actually 10 teams in the big ten was perfect while playing 18 conference games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Didn't the Big Ten only okay 16 in the early 2000s? Probably was 18. I just remember 16 oddly I guess. 

Back in the day it was a round to in schedule where you played every team twice. At one time every team had a travel partner. It was so much easier  to keep track of the schedule. IU travel partner was OSU and if IU played at UM on Thursday then OSU would be at MSU. On Saturday it would be the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

Back in the day it was a round to in schedule where you played every team twice. At one time every team had a travel partner. It was so much easier  to keep track of the schedule. IU travel partner was OSU and if IU played at UM on Thursday then OSU would be at MSU. On Saturday it would be the opposite.

It was definitely better before all this now. Conferences can be too big. People have to lose. And the bottom ends up being multiple bad teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

It was definitely better before all this now. Conferences can be too big. People have to lose. And the bottom ends up being multiple bad teams. 

Yo me the top of the conference back then was way better than what we see today but the bottom of the league is better now. The difference between the top and the bottom of the league is a lot closer today. Back in the day you pretty much had 4 easy wins a year against NE and UW.  It seemed like you had 3 tiers with 4 at the top 4 in tbe middle and two way down below

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IU Scott said:

The tournament is my favorite sporting event and don't like it when people want to change the format.  To me 64 was the perfect number because it took away byes and every team had to play the same amount of games to win the championship.

You have a lot not to like.....people have been changing the format since 1939

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2021-03-14/march-madness-history-ultimate-guide

I like the tournament the way it is, but I don't like all the politics that gets played in the selection process. 

Edited by RoadRage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

It was definitely better before all this now. Conferences can be too big. People have to lose. And the bottom ends up being multiple bad teams. 

12 of the 14 Big Ten teams are in the 100.  The other two are at 107 and 142.

Meanwhile, between 1980-1 and 1989-90.  Northwestern was 31-149 in conference, Wisconsin was 46-134.  That's winning percentages of 17% and 26%.

Do we have anything today that compares?

The last ten years, Nebraska is 60-126....winning percentage of 32%.  Northwestern is 59-127.  No team is below a 30% conference winning percentage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

Back in the day it was a round to in schedule where you played every team twice. At one time every team had a travel partner. It was so much easier  to keep track of the schedule. IU travel partner was OSU and if IU played at UM on Thursday then OSU would be at MSU. On Saturday it would be the opposite.

IMO, since you cna't play everyone twice now, 20 games is simply too many.  I'd cut it back to 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Didn't the Big Ten only okay 16 in the early 2000s? Probably was 18. I just remember 16 oddly I guess. 

There was an 18 game conference schedule from 1974 until 1996.  In the 1996-7 season they reduced it to 16.  It went back to 18 in 2007-8 and changed to 20 in 2018-9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

12 of the 14 Big Ten teams are in the 100.  The other two are at 107 and 142.

Meanwhile, between 1980-1 and 1989-90.  Northwestern was 31-149 in conference, Wisconsin was 46-134.  That's winning percentages of 17% and 26%.

Do we have anything today that compares?

The last ten years, Nebraska is 60-126....winning percentage of 32%.  Northwestern is 59-127.  No team is below a 30% conference winning percentage.  

Yea I really don't care what the NET says. Penn State and Northwestern sucked. Everyone except maybe then, were completely fine with it. Now Northwestern, Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland and Minnesota are bad teams. I'm talking actual products that get out on the floor. Not what crappy numbers they get bumped up because everyone you play is better than you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Yea I really don't care what the NET says. Penn State and Northwestern sucked. Everyone except maybe then, were completely fine with it. Now Northwestern, Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland and Minnesota are bad teams. I'm talking actual products that get out on the floor. Not what crappy numbers they get bumped up because everyone you play is better than you. 

It's not NET.  And I don't care what your opinion is if you can't back it up with anything but your 'eyes'.

If you think the bottom of the Big Ten wasn't bad in 1980s and 1990s, you weren't watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

IMO, since you cna't play everyone twice now, 20 games is simply too many.  I'd cut it back to 18.

I agree because I don't like 20 conference games.  I like to see what the big ten record is in the tournament since we went to 20 game schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on track to bracketology.

Loyola plays Northern Iowa in the semifinals on the MVC tomorrow. My opinion is that if they get to the MVC final, they could snag an at large berth even if they lose.  So as an IU fan, I’m rooting for them to either lose tomoorow or win the next two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Yea I really don't care what the NET says. Penn State and Northwestern sucked. Everyone except maybe then, were completely fine with it. Now Northwestern, Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland and Minnesota are bad teams. I'm talking actual products that get out on the floor. Not what crappy numbers they get bumped up because everyone you play is better than you. 

Today's bottom two or three teams have more talent than those UW and NW teams of the 80's. On the other hand the top of the conference doesn't have the talent level of the top teams back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

It's not NET.  And I don't care what your opinion is if you can't back it up with anything but your 'eyes'.

If you think the bottom of the Big Ten wasn't bad in 1980s and 1990s, you weren't watching.

I'm not saying it wasn't bad. But I don't care how bad or "good" the bottom of the league is. Those teams don't matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×