Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="freescooter, post: 3907205, member: 1023"] Given all the brand names going down to really lesser known programs, this might be the time to rethink the analytics generated selection process. I actually have thought it was badly unbalanced for a long time largely because all the models give way to much weight to strength of schedule. There have even been a few studies that confirm this. My ideas on this are to limit the number of bids to any conference to roughly 1/3 of the members, which would allow additional mid-majors to participate. As we have seen, many of theses teams can flat out play. And too often a top team from a mid-major league gets bounced as a result of getting upset in a league tournament. In the Big 10 or New Big East that doesn’t matter but in some lesser leagues it does mostly because the committee wants to give 6 or even 8 bids to teams that aren’t really that good And haven’t really earned anything. the other positive is that it will make late season games in major conferences very important, almost like playoff games, If you are in 5th place in the NBE in mid-February, you darned well better win your remaining games if you want a bid. Heres the thing, these mid major upsets are what makes March madness But won’t change the final outcome. But in the end, over the last 20 years, only one team seeded higher than a 4 has one it all, and since seeding started, the highest seed to win was Villanova as an 8 over Georgetown almost 40 years ago. So it really doesn’t matter that much who fills the 9-12 lines, which is where these 6 and 7 teams from big leagues typically go. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach