The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Discuss the MVC hoops season here.

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby Stickboy46 » March 14th, 2017, 11:19 am

glm38 wrote:
Stickboy46 wrote:
Wufan wrote:I'd be totally okay with the selection committee using KP or other similar metric to select the at-larges. A really good system would be to give each conference (32) the auto-qualifier, grant the next 28 highest ranked schools a bid, and then allow the committee to grant 8 teams the play-in game. The committee then seeds the schools either by analytics or some other method.


I wish they would use the play in game properly. It in no way shape or form should EVER be 4 power conference teams like this year. Use it for a mid major that is right outside the cut line, that didn't have 20 built in opportunities for good wins. Pair them with a middling P5 team that "won more good games" with 5 times the chances and let the mid major play its way into the tourney.


+1. If you did it this way it would also generate more interest than matching 2 middling P5 teams IMO.

Most K State fans I know are pissed off they are in the play in game. Not because they felt like they should be in, but because it makes it harder to fire their coach because they "got in". I'm sure the ratings are going to be horrible.
Stickboy46
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 21st, 2015, 9:24 am

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby BirdsEyeView » March 14th, 2017, 12:00 pm

glm38 wrote:
Stickboy46 wrote:
Wufan wrote:
I'd be totally okay with the selection committee using KP or other similar metric to select the at-larges. A really good system would be to give each conference (32) the auto-qualifier, grant the next 28 highest ranked schools a bid, and then allow the committee to grant 8 teams the play-in game. The committee then seeds the schools either by analytics or some other method.


I wish they would use the play in game properly. It in no way shape or form should EVER be 4 power conference teams like this year. Use it for a mid major that is right outside the cut line, that didn't have 20 built in opportunities for good wins. Pair them with a middling P5 team that "won more good games" with 5 times the chances and let the mid major play its way into the tourney.


+1. If you did it this way it would also generate more interest than matching 2 middling P5 teams IMO.


Now we are cooking with oil. Way better than tonight. I doubt I'll tune in.
BirdsEyeView
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:51 pm

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby Majik45 » March 14th, 2017, 12:19 pm

I always thought the "play in" games should be the last 8 at large teams, not 4 of the 16 seeds. If you are barely making the tourney, you deserve to play in.

For those that did not know, Former Bradley coach Jim Les is stuck playing with his UC Davis squad in the first play in game tomorrow night.
Majik45
MVC Role Player
MVC Role Player
 
Posts: 153
Joined: March 2nd, 2011, 4:07 pm

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby bleach » March 14th, 2017, 2:44 pm

If they would just apply one standard it would be fine. You must be over .500 in your conference if you don't get the automatic bid!
bleach
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 671
Joined: January 8th, 2011, 9:26 am
Location: SW Missouri

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby CaliRdBrd » March 14th, 2017, 3:44 pm

bleach wrote:If they would just apply one standard it would be fine. You must be over .500 in your conference if you don't get the automatic bid!



If you did this, Wake, K-Sate, Xavier and Ok State would be sitting at home and I'd be absolutely OK with that.

Another caveat...if you win the regular season, that's the auto-bid
CaliRdBrd
MVC Role Player
MVC Role Player
 
Posts: 153
Joined: January 11th, 2012, 12:13 pm

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby SubGod22 » March 14th, 2017, 4:00 pm

CaliRdBrd wrote:
Another caveat...if you win the regular season, that's the auto-bid


That will never happen. Conference tournaments aren't going to go away and there has to be something to play for. And there's no way you risk giving two bids to most conferences because of it.

But the having to finish at least .500 in conference should absolutely be a standard, and I don't think too many people would take issue with it.
www.wheatshockers.com

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation for freeloaders.
User avatar
SubGod22
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 769
Joined: August 11th, 2010, 9:37 am
Location: Outside the Dub

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby bleach » March 14th, 2017, 5:54 pm

SubGod22 wrote:
CaliRdBrd wrote:
Another caveat...if you win the regular season, that's the auto-bid


That will never happen. Conference tournaments aren't going to go away and there has to be something to play for. And there's no way you risk giving two bids to most conferences because of it.

But the having to finish at least .500 in conference should absolutely be a standard, and I don't think too many people would take issue with it.


No one except the P5s which might as well be everyone.
bleach
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 671
Joined: January 8th, 2011, 9:26 am
Location: SW Missouri

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby TheAsianSensation » March 14th, 2017, 6:57 pm

You'll never see the over .500 rule ever implemented for this simple reason: bubble talk would vanish. Every team over .500 in a major conference would get a bid, period. The narrative would become that every single power conference team makes the field at 10-8 or better...no matter how good their resume is.

Bubble talk is a big part of the industry. If you eliminate bubble discussion, you hurt the revenue stream. And if you implement that rule, you kill bubble talk (no one wants to listen to ISU bubble talk nationally, let's be honest).
http://bracketball.blogspot.com/ A national version of the world-famous TAS Bracketology. Spread the word
TheAsianSensation
MVCfans.com
MVCfans.com
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: April 6th, 2012, 7:23 am

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby TheAsianSensation » March 14th, 2017, 7:01 pm

SubGod22 wrote:
CaliRdBrd wrote:
Another caveat...if you win the regular season, that's the auto-bid


That will never happen. Conference tournaments aren't going to go away and there has to be something to play for. And there's no way you risk giving two bids to most conferences because of it.

But the having to finish at least .500 in conference should absolutely be a standard, and I don't think too many people would take issue with it.

One caveat: unbalanced schedules. I'm ok with the rule in spirit but it's going to cause some logistics in conference schedules.
http://bracketball.blogspot.com/ A national version of the world-famous TAS Bracketology. Spread the word
TheAsianSensation
MVCfans.com
MVCfans.com
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: April 6th, 2012, 7:23 am

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby MSUDuo » March 15th, 2017, 3:19 am

TheAsianSensation wrote:You'll never see the over .500 rule ever implemented for this simple reason: bubble talk would vanish. Every team over .500 in a major conference would get a bid, period. The narrative would become that every single power conference team makes the field at 10-8 or better...no matter how good their resume is.

Bubble talk is a big part of the industry. If you eliminate bubble discussion, you hurt the revenue stream. And if you implement that rule, you kill bubble talk (no one wants to listen to ISU bubble talk nationally, let's be honest).


It wouldn't vanish. The requirement is that you have to be over .500 not that all teams over .500 in conference get in.

Move the conference tournaments to the beginning of the year or something. Still makes money. A lot of the smaller conferences are doing themselves a grave injustice by not sending their best team to the Dance.
User avatar
MSUDuo
MVCfans.com
MVCfans.com
 
Posts: 1216
Joined: August 5th, 2010, 7:49 pm

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby TheAsianSensation » March 15th, 2017, 2:17 pm

MSUDuo wrote:
TheAsianSensation wrote:You'll never see the over .500 rule ever implemented for this simple reason: bubble talk would vanish. Every team over .500 in a major conference would get a bid, period. The narrative would become that every single power conference team makes the field at 10-8 or better...no matter how good their resume is.

Bubble talk is a big part of the industry. If you eliminate bubble discussion, you hurt the revenue stream. And if you implement that rule, you kill bubble talk (no one wants to listen to ISU bubble talk nationally, let's be honest).


It wouldn't vanish. The requirement is that you have to be over .500 not that all teams over .500 in conference get in.

Move the conference tournaments to the beginning of the year or something. Still makes money. A lot of the smaller conferences are doing themselves a grave injustice by not sending their best team to the Dance.


Yes, the requirement wouldn't say that all teams over .500 automatically get in....but it's going to be virtually impossible for any 10-8 team or better to NOT have one of the 36 best at-large resumes.

Conference tourneys at the start of the year won't make as much money. Anything from Nov-Jan gets smoked out by football.

Plus there's the fact that conference tournaments happen for all sports, at the end of the seasons. It's easy to discuss conference championships in terms of basketball...but this is how it's done for every sport.
http://bracketball.blogspot.com/ A national version of the world-famous TAS Bracketology. Spread the word
TheAsianSensation
MVCfans.com
MVCfans.com
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: April 6th, 2012, 7:23 am

Re: The Ballad of Illinois State, by Ken Pomeroy

Postby SubGod22 » March 15th, 2017, 2:51 pm

TheAsianSensation wrote:
MSUDuo wrote:
TheAsianSensation wrote:You'll never see the over .500 rule ever implemented for this simple reason: bubble talk would vanish. Every team over .500 in a major conference would get a bid, period. The narrative would become that every single power conference team makes the field at 10-8 or better...no matter how good their resume is.

Bubble talk is a big part of the industry. If you eliminate bubble discussion, you hurt the revenue stream. And if you implement that rule, you kill bubble talk (no one wants to listen to ISU bubble talk nationally, let's be honest).


It wouldn't vanish. The requirement is that you have to be over .500 not that all teams over .500 in conference get in.

Move the conference tournaments to the beginning of the year or something. Still makes money. A lot of the smaller conferences are doing themselves a grave injustice by not sending their best team to the Dance.


Yes, the requirement wouldn't say that all teams over .500 automatically get in....but it's going to be virtually impossible for any 10-8 team or better to NOT have one of the 36 best at-large resumes.

Conference tourneys at the start of the year won't make as much money. Anything from Nov-Jan gets smoked out by football.

Plus there's the fact that conference tournaments happen for all sports, at the end of the seasons. It's easy to discuss conference championships in terms of basketball...but this is how it's done for every sport.


Plus the conference tournaments for basketball mean nothing if they're not playing for anything. At that point, they fail to make any money as well.
www.wheatshockers.com

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Unemployment insurance is a prepaid vacation for freeloaders.
User avatar
SubGod22
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 769
Joined: August 11th, 2010, 9:37 am
Location: Outside the Dub

PreviousNext

Return to Missouri Valley Conference Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahunte1, Jsnhbe1Birds and 13 guests