Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

I've just watched two guys from ABC read the head of the NCAA selection committee the riot act for giving the MVC the same number of bids as the ACC. They simply can not fathom that a "mid-major" conference has an equal number of bids with a "power" conference. I fully realize that there are different talent levels in different conferences, but it seems totally, totally unfair to publicly deride the teams from the MVC a matter of minutes after they have been selected on national TV.

These media types need to realize that this is a collegiate sport and that their perceptions about who is a player and who is not don't necessarily reflect reality. Now, I'm sure there are many people out there who agree with these statements, but in my opinion, it shows a distinct lack of class, and it also shows me that the MAC is going to be a one-bid conference forever if these idiots have anythying to say about it.

I just made this comment in the UC thread.

Those two should be ashamed of themselves. (You know, the guys from CBS...)

Yeah it is funny to see the difference's biases between announcers of mid-major games and "big" leagues. Both of the guys doind the UT/Kent game last night were all over the MVC saying they deserved at least 5 bids and probably more.

Bein in Illinois and in the middle of the Missouri Valley conference I have gotten to watch several games. This team deserved to have 4 teams in, but I think Missouri State should have been in over Northern Iowa. UNI has taken a late season dump and MSU has been bringing it on. And yes, the CBS guys are asses, along with Digger Phelps on ESPN. At least the rest of the ESPN guys are raising questions about all of the at large bids.

Yeah, Packer and that other dumbass fail to realize two things:

1) The MVC teams' preconference slate looks weak because middle-of-the-pack Big 12 and Big 10 schools are afraid to schedule them. The RPI & Sagarin calculations account for schedule strength, and their rating were still high.

2) It doesn't make sense to simply compare conferences' records in the tournament, it makes sense to compare them under the same seedings. The mid-majors in 9-13 seeds actually fare better power conference teams seeded 9-13. The ACC, Big 10, Big East, and Big 12 have far better tny records because they field the 1-4 seeds. Why, Billy and Jimbo, would this be relevant to at-large selections from the bubble?

What the heck, if these two actually had mental horsepower, they'd be covering politics or business.

Yeah, each of the dozen times Packer mentioned "this doesn't make sense because history has shown that the power conferences perform better at this tournament than the mid-majors", I wanted to drive down the street and kick his bald ass.

Packer was horrible, and Nantz was worse.

Schadenfreude wrote:Packer was horrible, and Nantz was worse.

I think it's pathetic that a bunch of slackhammers on a message board understand the issues better than Packer and Nantz, who actually have the time and get paid to think about this stuff. Their lack of prowess makes me crazy.

Ooops, after posting in the BG hoops thread I found this one. ..


In my best winey Billy Packer voice I say to him: "If those teams (big schools shut out) wanted to make the dance they should have won their conference tournaments." --- thats the same line we get when we plead for multiple bids for MAC schools.

I think Packer was mostly pissy because the precious ACC only got four bids...

Bleeding Orange wrote:I've just watched two guys from ABC read the head of the NCAA selection committee the riot act for giving the MVC the same number of bids as the ACC. They simply can not fathom that a "mid-major" conference has an equal number of bids with a "power" conference. I fully realize that there are different talent levels in different conferences, but it seems totally, totally unfair to publicly deride the teams from the MVC a matter of minutes after they have been selected on national TV.

Everytime those two talked the MVC and ACC getting the same number of teams I just wanted to slap both of them, they should know it's not about your conference its about the best 34 at-larges. Lastly I love that they complained about the MVC and ACC getting the same number of teams, but it was fine the MVC and Big 12 got the same number of teams

Mike and Mike were discussing this on their show this morning. The question is:

What is the reason for granting an NCAA bid?

1. To reward a team for a successful season.
2. To only allow in teams with a chance to win multiple tournament games.

The selection committee obviously came down on the side of answer #1, and personally, I agree with them, as did Greenberg and Golic.

BGFalconfromCincy wrote:

Bleeding Orange wrote:I've just watched two guys from ABC read the head of the NCAA selection committee the riot act for giving the MVC the same number of bids as the ACC. They simply can not fathom that a "mid-major" conference has an equal number of bids with a "power" conference. I fully realize that there are different talent levels in different conferences, but it seems totally, totally unfair to publicly deride the teams from the MVC a matter of minutes after they have been selected on national TV.

Everytime those two talked the MVC and ACC getting the same number of teams I just wanted to slap both of them, they should know it's not about your conference its about the best 34 at-larges. Lastly I love that they complained about the MVC and ACC getting the same number of teams, but it was fine the MVC and Big 12 got the same number of teams

The Big 12 isn't any good.

Lord_Byron wrote:Mike and Mike were discussing this on their show this morning. The question is:

What is the reason for granting an NCAA bid?

1. To reward a team for a successful season.
2. To only allow in teams with a chance to win multiple tournament games.

The selection committee obviously came down on the side of answer #1, and personally, I agree with them, as did Greenberg and Golic.

Being a MAC fan, I, like all of you, have lived through numerous snubs. What bothered me about those snubs was that meritorious teams got passed over in favor of teams with weak profiles. I never saw it, necessarily, as a big school versus small school issue. Last year, for example, Buffalo got the shaft and Buffalo should have been in the tourney instead of UAB. This year, I think both Air Force and Utah St. are very questionable selections. Also, neither Texas A&M nor UAB did much. Each had exactly one good win. And, one win should not a season make. I think that Cincinnati got screwed worst of all, but I also think that Missouri St. and Creighton should have been in before AF or Utah St. How's that for stream-of-consciousness rambling?

I don't understand what it means to "reward a team for a successful season" since that is very subjective.

Is Missouri State now the team with the highest RPI ever not to get invited? Around #19?