JB on Schein | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

JB on Schein

The whole point of making the tournament was that it was supposed to feel like an achievement. Keep expanding and the regular season becomes more and more meaningless. Yes, there will always be a few teams that feel like they got screwed over. That will happen no matter where the cutoff is.

How about we just get our program's shlit together so we don't have to worry about this.

Ummm…. There have been more than 100 new D1 basketball schools added since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Statistically speaking from a % participant standpoint, going to 96 teams now would be THE EXACT SAME ACHIEVEMENT as making the field in 1985.
 
Ummm…. There have been more than 100 new D1 basketball schools added since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Statistically speaking from a % participant standpoint, going to 96 teams now would be THE EXACT SAME ACHIEVEMENT as making the field in 1985.
Teams going D1 are schools like Lemoyne. Why should that move the needle? Can’t go based on percentages because it’s convenient to justify the argument. Should look at how many teams realistically have a fighting chance to compete for the championship or at least advance past the first weekend. That number hasn’t really changed.

I really don’t get the idea that more teams at face value should trigger any clause for expansion. Let’s not be champions for mediocrity because that’s all it will take to qualify if we go to 76, 84, 96, etc.
 
JB was on Adam Scheins radio show last hour. JB is going to be in the radio tonight doing the first 4 games.

He and Adam spent the whole time talking about the NCAA tournament. As he has said before, he think the tournament needs to be expanded. His suggestions is 8 teams and add games to the first 4.

He feels the 3 teams who should have been in the tournament this year were Pitt, SJU, and SHU. Also mentioned Indiana St, Providence and Wake Forest.

He feels, like most, that UConn has the best team but isn’t quite as good as last year. Named a few others with a good chance who I can’t remember other than UNC. His surprise team was Marquette if they’re healthy.

Like many, JB thinks the NET is garbage and has to be completely redone. He made one good point when he said the committee looks at the whole season now and needs to go back to giving some value to later in the season. Said you want the best teams in march playing in the tournament, not the best team in December. Feels strongly that with the portal and most teams having at least a few new players that some teams will get out of the gate slower while integrating new players besides freshmen. Good point.
Hmmmm.
Did he say which teams should not have made it in favor of his choices?
Didn’t think so.
 
Teams going D1 are schools like Lemoyne. Why should that move the needle? Can’t go based on percentages because it’s convenient to justify the argument. Should look at how many teams realistically have a fighting chance to compete for the championship or at least advance past the first weekend. That number hasn’t really changed.

I really don’t get the idea that more teams at face value should trigger any clause for expansion. Let’s not be champions for mediocrity because that’s all it will take to qualify if we go to 76, 84, 96, etc.
The distance between team 68 is 88 really isn't that big... in fact, i would argue the distance between team 15 and team 25 is actually far larger. Using your logic it raises the fair question: if the fear of expansion is too much mediocrity, why wouldnt you cut the tournament down to 32, or maybe even only 16 teams?
 
The distance between team 68 is 88 really isn't that big... in fact, i would argue the distance between team 15 and team 25 is actually far larger. Using your logic it raises the fair question: if the fear of expansion is too much mediocrity, why wouldnt you cut the tournament down to 32, or maybe even only 16 teams?
That ship sailed because because of money. Then you look at low-seeded teams like George mason that can make the final four and 64 seems like a good #. Adding more and more teams to division 1 doesn’t increase the quality… it just dilutes the pool. Whoever used the NFL analogy is out to lunch. The worst NFL team is still highly competitive with the other 32 teams. Lemoyne is not going to challenge anyone in the top 50.
 
Make the whole first round a play in. 32 protected seeds get a buy. The next next 64 play each other and the winners move on. That would give the NCAA two rounds of 32 games which is great! If you are the 97th team and you don't make it then do better, hard to complain at that point because you aren't that good.

I mean, does team 69 really have more room to complain? There's already plenty of mediocre teams in there. My vote is to scale it back to 64. Take 4 less at large teams and do away with this nonsense of the Tues/Wed "play in" games. "Yes, we won a play in game, and are now in the field of 64!!" Then again, that would be less tv money, and it's about money, not quality unfortunately.
 
There is just a lot more parity in College Basketball. It should be a pretty big deal as a power program to miss the tournament. If this thing ever gets to 128 this is what I imagine it looks like. Get FOX sports involved in the first weekend. 8 regional sites:
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast
Midwest
Southwest
Northwest
The Great Plains
The Great Basin

First weekend (Top 32 seeds host the subregional):
Thursday (1st round)
Friday (1st round)
Saturday (2nd round)
Sunday (2nd round)

Second Weekend (Regional Weekend)
Thursday (3rd round)
Friday (3rd round)
Saturday (Sweet 16)
Sunday (Sweet 16)

Third Weekend (Championship week)
Wednesday (Elite 8) (At final four site, Saturday sweet 16 winners play)
Thursday (Elite 8) (At final four site, Sunday sweet 16 winners play)
Saturday (Final Four)
Monday (National Championship)


Maybe it's time to drop the 'geographic' regional names and name them after famous coaches, like Wooden, Rupp, Knight, Krzyzewski, Boeheim (?)
 
That ship sailed because because of money. Then you look at low-seeded teams like George mason that can make the final four and 64 seems like a good #. Adding more and more teams to division 1 doesn’t increase the quality… it just dilutes the pool. Whoever used the NFL analogy is out to lunch. The worst NFL team is still highly competitive with the other 32 teams. Lemoyne is not going to challenge anyone in the top 50.
Lemoyne might not yet, but grand-canyon was just a lowly d-1 transition team and they've gone from a 15 seed to a 12 seed in 4 years, who is to say they arent the next dayton?
 
Lemoyne might not yet, but grand-canyon was just a lowly d-1 transition team and they've gone from a 15 seed to a 12 seed in 4 years, who is to say they arent the next dayton?
I think you have to step back and ask why schools are moving to D1. It all gets back to money in one form or another; one thing we can agree on, it's not because a school like LeMoyne is sitting on a hotbed of athletes just looking for an opportunity to compete at the highest level. There isn't a seismic shift across the country where kids are putting down their video games and spending all afternoon in their driveway practicing and improving their skills. The high school ranks are not being flooded by better basketball players.

The primary driver of these so-called Cinderellas that you mentioned is the now-constant attrition and talent skimming at the highest levels of D1. These newcomer schools are more competitive simply because there is more parity and less stability with the P4 conferences; it's not because we're adding talent-rich new schools. There's a reason a 16 finally beat a 1. When you look at it like that, the tournament expansion is just a celebration of mediocrity and the glorification of TV money. You just have to be mediocre, tread just above .500 in a P4 conference and you'll punch your ticket. Making the dance will feel like making a bowl game. Meh, whatever. Everyone makes it. Losing games in the regular season will take on less and less importance. It's just another kick in the nuts to what used to make college basketball unique and cherished.

Participation trophies. Everyone's a winner.
 
Teams going D1 are schools like Lemoyne. Why should that move the needle? Can’t go based on percentages because it’s convenient to justify the argument. Should look at how many teams realistically have a fighting chance to compete for the championship or at least advance past the first weekend. That number hasn’t really changed.

I really don’t get the idea that more teams at face value should trigger any clause for expansion. Let’s not be champions for mediocrity because that’s all it will take to qualify if we go to 76, 84, 96, etc.
There were mediocre teams that made it in 1985. Auburn was 19-12 and 8-10 in the SEC that year and made the sweet 16. Kentucky was 16-12.

Mid major teams are a lot better now. Growing the tournament to 96 will be like having a 64 team tournament then.
 
There were mediocre teams that made it in 1985. Auburn was 19-12 and 8-10 in the SEC that year and made the sweet 16. Kentucky was 16-12.

Mid major teams are a lot better now. Growing the tournament to 96 will be like having a 64 team tournament then.
I’d like to see a breakout of all years to get a better picture. I think it’s easy to have confirmation bias, myself included, when we cite one or two examples.

For now I stand by my general hypothesis that adding teams has only increased the mediocrity pool in D1 while the number of elite teams shrinks due to NIL and roster instability… and the tournament should not be expanding just to let more mediocre teams in.
 
There were mediocre teams that made it in 1985. Auburn was 19-12 and 8-10 in the SEC that year and made the sweet 16. Kentucky was 16-12.

Mid major teams are a lot better now. Growing the tournament to 96 will be like having a 64 team tournament then.

There is more population, more foreign players, more good players and more good teams. Also, the attention the sport gets on the tube and on the internet grows and grows. More and more people are playing the game with better coaching at an earlier stage.
 
There is more population, more foreign players, more good players and more good teams. Also, the attention the sport gets on the tube and on the internet grows and grows. More and more people are playing the game with better coaching at an earlier stage.
And less players taking the chance to rush declaring for the NBA with NIL money.
 
I mean, does team 69 really have more room to complain? There's already plenty of mediocre teams in there. My vote is to scale it back to 64. Take 4 less at large teams and do away with this nonsense of the Tues/Wed "play in" games. "Yes, we won a play in game, and are now in the field of 64!!" Then again, that would be less tv money, and it's about money, not quality unfortunately.
I understand that view and get the logic but with 32 AQ's (mostly from small conferences) the number really isnt the 69th school complaining its more like the 45th school complaining which in college basketball is a pretty decently ranked team.

Somebody mentioned having a bye for the 32 AQ's and then have an opening round of 64 to play in. I like that thought, if you don't win your conference, you don't get a bye and it truly is 64 best teams at large.
 
first 4 sucks...unfair disadvantage to those teams to have to play an extra game on short rest...they should get rid of that

every team should have to play the same amount of games, imo

EDIT i like the 32 AQs getting a buy...makes the conference tourneys even more meaningful...and in general amking things more meaningful should be the idea
 
Teams going D1 are schools like Lemoyne. Why should that move the needle? Can’t go based on percentages because it’s convenient to justify the argument. Should look at how many teams realistically have a fighting chance to compete for the championship or at least advance past the first weekend. That number hasn’t really changed.

I really don’t get the idea that more teams at face value should trigger any clause for expansion. Let’s not be champions for mediocrity because that’s all it will take to qualify if we go to 76, 84, 96, etc.
well US population has gone from 240 million to 340 million since 1985 - so...makes sense there would be more teams/schools/etc
 
Kill the NIT, rename it the "bubble 32". Have 32 teams at the MSG play 32->16->8->4 so three rounds in six days. The final 4 of the bubble 32 will take up one spot per region. The NCAA selection committee will only select 60 teams, leaving 4 spots open for the final 4 of the bubble 32. The two tournaments are scheduled in concert to make sure the timelines work. Transfer portals for teams inside both tournaments will remain closed as long as their season is not over.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,963
Messages
4,740,376
Members
5,934
Latest member
bspencer309

Online statistics

Members online
238
Guests online
1,128
Total visitors
1,366


Top Bottom