Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

It was just announced on ESPN. No BG, no Ball State, no Miami. Does anyone know what gives? What's the deal? Will AA just go dark for the night?

I think we are guaranteed a match-up on 2/18 and the games listed are just the "marquee" games that will be on ESPN stations rather than ESPN regional as we were last year.

This site:
http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/columns/ ... 060128.htm

Predicts we will see the Penguins.

Okay cool, thanks for the info. I guess we're not "marquee" enough to warrant the scroll on ESPN2.

This site:
http://www.collegehoopsnet.com/columns/ ... 060128.htm

Predicts we will see the Penguins.

That wouldn't bust anything

Youngstown State huh? Well, at least it's a home game for us against a D-I team. I was actually hoping we could get a random team from another part of the country just to spruce up the schedule with a new and different type of team, and to give us a decent road trip to somewhere different next year. But when you are having the kind of season we are having, beggars can't be choosers.

We get Fairfield?

Everyone was hoping for UIC or Drake maybe. We've gotten a VERY respectable opponent in Wichita St the last 2 years.

And the darling...ahem...of the MAC get Samford? Samford and Sons?

I really don't think the Buster has proved anything anyway IMHO.

redhawkforlife wrote:
I really don't think the Buster has proved anything anyway IMHO.

This the same sentiment that I have gotten from the Bracket Buster. Admittedly I don't truly understand its purpose, but if impressions mean anything, the name would indicate that these games are somehow intended to impact at-large bids to the NCAA Tournament.

My question is, when the NCAA selection committee has shown no indication that they will ever issue an at-large bid to a MAC team, why the heck are there so many MAC teams involved in the Bracket Buster? I've always been kind of amused by this...

BGSU33 wrote:Youngstown State huh? Well, at least it's a home game for us against a D-I team. I was actually hoping we could get a random team from another part of the country just to spruce up the schedule with a new and different type of team, and to give us a decent road trip to somewhere different next year. But when you are having the kind of season we are having, beggars can't be choosers.

I suppose with the "non-marquee" match ups they are looking at saving money and schedule regionally.

Incidentally one of my most bizarre Falcon hoops memories comes from an early 1990s BG-Youngstown State match up. Ed Colbert punched a guy at midcourt and knocked his tooth out, Colbert was ejected and there were some interesting and tense moments in the tunnel following the contest.

I was quick to inspect the court following the game to find the blood which brought up memories from my father skating on the ice at the cleveland arena following games and seeing the blood from a barons-pittsburgh hornet fight. . .

Bleeding Orange wrote:

redhawkforlife wrote:
I really don't think the Buster has proved anything anyway IMHO.

This the same sentiment that I have gotten from the Bracket Buster. Admittedly I don't truly understand its purpose, but if impressions mean anything, the name would indicate that these games are somehow intended to impact at-large bids to the NCAA Tournament.

My question is, when the NCAA selection committee has shown no indication that they will ever issue an at-large bid to a MAC team, why the heck are there so many MAC teams involved in the Bracket Buster? I've always been kind of amused by this...

At the very least (and unfortunately perhaps the very most, too)... it gives us two guaranteed games vs. D1 opponents (bracket buster plus the "payback game".) When the alternative is possibly only playing an NAIA school, I'll take it.

I liked the Bracket Buster in theory, but it's never done anything it was set out to do. It loses all meaning when there are 40 games or whatever involved in it as well.

The only way it would make any sense is if they always matched up the highest RPI teams or something like that. Even still a win against another mid-major team isn't going to propel you into the NCAAs. The only way to "bust the bracket" would be if they could get some big name schools into the tourney, but that would never happen as they wouldn't have anything to gain from it.

In the end it's just a way for us to get a guaranteed D1 OOC game...cannot complain too much about that.

I'd like to see leagues get togethor and scale it out. Instead of one game late in the year, perhaps we could have 4 games through out the year. We could have one game with teams from MVC, Horizon, Mountain West, etc. There could be conf v. conf standings. This would help schools manage filling out their schedules with decent teams and promote inter-conference rivalries on the mid-major level.

The only way it would make any sense is if they always matched up the highest RPI teams or something like that.

I think they did that this year with Northern Iowa and Bucknell - that's a nice match-up.

BleedOrange wrote:I'd like to see leagues get togethor and scale it out. Instead of one game late in the year, perhaps we could have 4 games through out the year. We could have one game with teams from MVC, Horizon, Mountain West, etc. There could be conf v. conf standings. This would help schools manage filling out their schedules with decent teams and promote inter-conference rivalries on the mid-major level.

That would be a great idea. It would be feasible too if the MAC moves to a 16 game conference schedule instead of the gauntlet 18.

A setup like that would truly be a bracket buster because you would have so much better data to decide which conferences are the most deserving of getting multiple bids.

If the buster is supposed to propel you into the field of 65 it sure hasn't helped Miami - and they have played decent opponents in the past.

Really, it's a bunch of doodie the way it is setup now.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming....man does the West suck this year!!!

When the Bracket Buster was first introduced, it was a limited field of the better mid-major talent that provided the type of match-ups that supported its introduction and upstart. Now, with the expanded field in the event, it's not as genuine of a concept as it was when it was first introduced. However, in BG's case, it's helped give us a D-I home game which has been very helpful considering our scheduling troubles. Now we’re not getting the marquee match-ups we’d like to have (and we won’t unless we eventual develop into a “Bracket Buster” type team), but I’ll take any D-I school, even a provisional D-I team, over D-III or NAIA schools.