The Next Six Games

[mdn82 25,456]

Teams with better resumes. It’s not an earth shattering thing. Only a few teams a year the last few years have gotten in without reaching that. There’s normally only 1 or 2 a year and not any world beating teams. So it isn’t really changing the tourney any. You’ll just get some different play in games and some different double digit seeds.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I don’t think you realize that’s not true. You will have 5-10 at large most years that don’t qualify under your rules. It’s not 1 or 2 Joe. Just off the top of my head I know of at least 3 and I think 4 that didn’t hit 20 wins that were at large. Teams that don’t go .500 in conference usually have wins elsewhere so it’s a completely different pool. You are talking about a percentage of at large. Not 1 or 2 teams every year.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[NashvilleHoosier 3,634]

4 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Teams with better resumes. It’s not an earth shattering thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Great. Yet your system would reward a team in a mid-major with 20+ wins over a team with 19 wins and a better resume, completely contradicting the fact that a better resume actually matters. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,182]

Great. Yet your system would reward a team in a mid-major with 20+ wins over a team with 19 wins and a better resume, completely contradicting the fact that a better resume actually matters. 

But why should a team with 19 wins but 8-12 in conference get in over a mid major who dominated their conference, won 25 games but lost in their conference tourney? You’re only replacing a few teams who lose in the tourney anyways outside the two Syracuse teams that have won.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Uspshoosier 44,205]

But why should a team with 19 wins but 8-12 in conference get in over a mid major who dominated their conference, won 25 games but lost in their conference tourney? You’re only replacing a few teams who lose in the tourney anyways outside the two Syracuse teams that have won.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

More then likely you are replacing it with a mid major team that has 25 wins vs teams 200+ and 0 wins against teams in the field. Those teams with 19 wins at least have wins against the field. As I have said the last 4 years around this time when we go down this rabbit hole lucky for me I will never have to see a system that operates that way.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[NashvilleHoosier 3,634]

2 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

But why should a team with 19 wins but 8-12 in conference get in over a mid major who dominated their conference, won 25 games but lost in their conference tourney? You’re only replacing a few teams who lose in the tourney anyways outside the two Syracuse teams that have won.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Depends on what's actually in those records. Does the mid major that won 25 games have many, if any, high quality wins? The team that won 19, including 8 conference games, have any bad losses. It's likely that the mid major, with 25 wins has about 8 or so losses and some bad ones included in there. And if you take this year's IU team, we could very well end up at 19-12, 9-11 with no bad losses and many great wins. Its exactly why there shouldn't be any criteria like total wins set, so the true resumes can be compared and debated. 

That said, I'm all for increasing the amount of "play in" games. Add another site like Dayton and start including mid and low major teams that win their conference but don't secure the auto-bid through the conference tourney. And to be clear, I'm not simply advocating for expanding the tournament. There are plenty of mediocre bubble high majors included. Only expanding the play-in system to include those cases where a team dominates the conference through the season but loses in the conference tourney. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,182]

Depends on what's actually in those records. Does the mid major that won 25 games have many, if any, high quality wins? The team that won 19, including 8 conference games, have any bad losses. It's likely that the mid major, with 25 wins has about 8 or so losses and some bad ones included in there. And if you take this year's IU team, we could very well end up at 19-12, 9-11 with no bad losses and many great wins. Its exactly why there shouldn't be any criteria like total wins set, so the true resumes can be compared and debated. 
That said, I'm all for increasing the amount of "play in" games. Add another site like Dayton and start including mid and low major teams that win their conference but don't secure the auto-bid through the conference tourney. And to be clear, I'm not simply advocating for expanding the tournament. There are plenty of mediocre bubble high majors included. Only expanding the play-in system to include those cases where a team dominates the conference through the season but loses in the conference tourney. 

Honestly I believe that conference realignment has hurt college basketball more than people think. But I also believe a team like Stephen F Austin is as capable, of not more capable of winning a tournament game than say Oklahoma, Xavier or Syracuse. Last year I think had the most teams that wouldn’t meet the .500/20+ wins and it was like 6 teams or something. Year before it was like 5. It used to be less common and it’s really only something that has been happening the last few years.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[mdn82 25,456]

Honestly I believe that conference realignment has hurt college basketball more than people think. But I also believe a team like Stephen F Austin is as capable, of not more capable of winning a tournament game than say Oklahoma, Xavier or Syracuse. Last year I think had the most teams that wouldn’t meet the .500/20+ wins and it was like 6 teams or something. Year before it was like 5. It used to be less common and it’s really only something that has been happening the last few years.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

No, this is not a new thing. Go into the 90s. Pick a random year and tell me this is a new thing. I picked 1997, and I got 10 teams without even having to see who finished under .500 in conference. Joe, this is normal. It has been my whole life. That’s why before you were a glimmer of hope in your dads eye it was perceived 20 wins guaranteed you. Cause at 18 and 19 you were effectively on the bubble. Pick any year since the field went to 64 teams and show me the year that only 1 or 2 teams either had a .500 or under record or 19 or less wins got in. You cannot find a season that few of teams got in with those parameters.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,182]

No, this is not a new thing. Go into the 90s. Pick a random year and tell me this is a new thing. I picked 1997, and I got 10 teams without even having to see who finished under .500 in conference. Joe, this is normal. It has been my whole life. That’s why before you were a glimmer of hope in your dads eye it was perceived 20 wins guaranteed you. Cause at 18 and 19 you were effectively on the bubble. Pick any year since the field went to 64 teams and show me the year that only 1 or 2 teams either had a .500 or under record or 19 or less wins got in. You cannot find a season that few of teams got in with those parameters.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

That was 1997. There was actually a span in the 2000’s and 2010’s where it was just a few teams a year. The last couple years though there have been more. As a new trend has started. Like teams getting at large bids 4 games under .500 in conference like Ohio State and Oklahoma were last season. That’s not normal. That’s new. Am I dead set on that standard? No. Because I know it won’t happen. But I don’t have the accept the amount of mediocrity that is cheered for in college basketball. Trend over the last decade is that those teams don’t win in the tourney. Outside of Syracuse. So the tourney wouldn’t have been changed most years by replacing those teams.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,182]

No, this is not a new thing. Go into the 90s. Pick a random year and tell me this is a new thing. I picked 1997, and I got 10 teams without even having to see who finished under .500 in conference. Joe, this is normal. It has been my whole life. That’s why before you were a glimmer of hope in your dads eye it was perceived 20 wins guaranteed you. Cause at 18 and 19 you were effectively on the bubble. Pick any year since the field went to 64 teams and show me the year that only 1 or 2 teams either had a .500 or under record or 19 or less wins got in. You cannot find a season that few of teams got in with those parameters.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I’d even compromise on this. As long as a standard was set. So say it gets lowered from 20 games to 18 at the end of the regular and say... no worse than 2 games under .500 in conference before(or after if that’s best) conference tourneys.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[mdn82 25,456]

I’d even compromise on this. As long as a standard was set. So say it gets lowered from 20 games to 18 at the end of the regular and say... no worse than 2 games under .500 in conference before(or after if that’s best) conference tourneys.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Holy ****. If you are willing to compromise, then who am I to slow this momentous occasion?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[IUc2016 6,925]

Obviously finishing the season 1-3 is the bare minimum. I predicted 19-12 before the season started and if we finished with that it will get us into the tournament, albeit with a very low seed.

Finishing 2-2 is expected at this point and would show that this team has turned a corner and has progressed from its early BIG struggles. It would keep this team off the Wednesday games in the BIG tourney and probably an 8 seed in the NCAA. 

But man if this team could somehow finish 3-1, steal won of these games on the road and close out at home that is a lot of momentum going into post season. It would show real growth and improvement from last season and even within this season. Would be feeling pretty good about the direction of this program. 

Finish 4-0 and wow. It would be the most momentum this program has had in a LONG time. 

GO HOOSIERS. 

[mdn82 25,456]

Obviously finishing the season 1-3 is the bare minimum. I predicted 19-12 before the season started and if we finished with that it will get us into the tournament, albeit with a very low seed.
Finishing 2-2 is expected at this point and would show that this team has turned a corner and has progressed from its early BIG struggles. It would keep this team off the Wednesday games in the BIG tourney and probably an 8 seed in the NCAA. 
But man if this team could somehow finish 3-1, steal won of these games on the road and close out at home that is a lot of momentum going into post season. It would show real growth and improvement from last season and even within this season. Would be feeling pretty good about the direction of this program. 
Finish 4-0 and wow. It would be the most momentum this program has had in a LONG time. 
GO HOOSIERS. 

If we finished 3-1, with who we would have to beat on the road to do so, I would hope we would have consideration for a 5 or 6 seed if we didn’t lose first game of BTT.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[IUc2016 6,925]

Just now, mdn82 said:

If we finished 3-1, with who we would have to beat on the road to do so, I would hope we would have consideration for a 5 or 6 seed if we didn’t lose first game of BTT.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Yeah it would be big time for this program. Although if this team goes 11-9 it probably puts them in an 8/9 matchup (against Ohio State or Michigan) in the BTT. That never works out well for IU lol

[mdn82 25,456]

Yeah it would be big time for this program. Although if this team goes 11-9 it probably puts them in an 8/9 matchup (against Ohio State or Michigan) in the BTT. That never works out well for IU lol

I know what you mean. The day IU wins the BTT is the only time in my life I have them losing in their first game of the tournament.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich 8,182]

Holy ****. If you are willing to compromise, then who am I to slow this momentous occasion?


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

A standard just needs to be set. But teams 4 games under .500 in conference? That just shouldn’t get into the tourney. And only 1 18-win team has gotten in recently. So sounds like a good compromise.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Uspshoosier 44,205]

A standard just needs to be set. But teams 4 games under .500 in conference? That just shouldn’t get into the tourney. And only 1 18-win team has gotten in recently. So sounds like a good compromise.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

That ship sailed in the 90’s with the committee. Iowa St and Florida St both got at-large bids in the 90’s with 4 games below .500 in conference


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Crazy about IU 154]

I remember when that happened I was so against teams with loosing records in conference getting selected. But watching the Big this year I believe they will win a lot of first round games. They are the best conference and Maryland should be a one seed.

[RaceToTheTop 23,572]

On 2/25/2020 at 11:49 AM, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

That was 1997. There was actually a span in the 2000’s and 2010’s where it was just a few teams a year. The last couple years though there have been more. As a new trend has started. Like teams getting at large bids 4 games under .500 in conference like Ohio State and Oklahoma were last season. That’s not normal. That’s new. Am I dead set on that standard? No. Because I know it won’t happen. But I don’t have the accept the amount of mediocrity that is cheered for in college basketball. Trend over the last decade is that those teams don’t win in the tourney. Outside of Syracuse. So the tourney wouldn’t have been changed most years by replacing those teams.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Not even going to teams with losing conference records, teams with less than 20 losses receiving at large bids has certainly anything but rare in the 2000s.  I picked 2005 and 2006 randomly.....in 2005, 4 teams with sub 20 win seasons were given at large bids.  In 2006, 5 were.

Secondly, under your requirements it would be better for power conference teams to cut back on the number of conference games in order to allow teams to schedule enough cupcakes to get to 20 wins.

 

[BGVille Hoosierfan 2,879]

If we finished 3-1, with who we would have to beat on the road to do so, I would hope we would have consideration for a 5 or 6 seed if we didn’t lose first game of BTT.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

IF we were to finish the regular season 3-1, I think we’d lock down a 7 seed and depending on how we do in the BTT (which every IU fan can predict how we’ll do), we could be in contention for a 6.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[mdn82 25,456]

IF we were to finish the regular season 3-1, I think we’d lock down a 7 seed and depending on how we do in the BTT (which every IU fan can predict how we’ll do), we could be in contention for a 6.
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I could definitely see that. I think that next road win if possible would do wonders for us. I personally would prefer a 6 over a 5. I am sure we will end up in Kentucky’s bracket and I want to play them this year.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app