they should bring back last 10 games

[CorduroyG]

i think how youre playing down the stretch should be a factor. i think it was jay bilas who said you should put teams in the tournament that actually have a chance to win some games. best wins and how youre playing down the stretch would be my deciding factors conparing bubble teams. oklahoma has stunk for 2 months, if they get in they are 1 and done. if cuse got in last year they had a chance to win a game or 2.

who has the best wins, who is trending up. i could care less about bad losses (unless u have a bunch of course), any team can have some bad nites

 

[Cusefan0307]

I think last 10 games is stupid. It should be your entire record no matter who is injured. They need to stop moving the goalposts. Just do your entire record like every other sport does. It isn’t hard.

 

[jdubs30]

NFL didn't re-seed the NFC playoffs when Wentz got hurt.

It should be the whole resume, all 33 games. You can't overvalue 1/3 of them just because they were more recent.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Go to 72 teams. Play in game for each bracket. Quadruple header in Dayton, or Dayton and Vegas

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Wouldn't this really be of benefit to midmajors on the bubble beating up on their crappy conferences?

 

[longislandcuse]

Go to 72 teams. Play in game for each bracket. Quadruple header in Dayton, or Dayton and Vegas

I actually like this. It's already watered down at 68. Going to 72 just excites more fanbases and creates more revenue and interest.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Just out of curiosity, why is Dayton the place that always has the play in games?

 

[Chris02M]

Just out of curiosity, why is Dayton the place that always has the play in games?

Because they bid for it and it sells out

 

[TheCusian]

We’ve seen teams get significantly better over the season and we’ve seen teams go on runs. That’s why you weigh games later in the season heavier.

It’s the difference between “rewarding a team for thier season” vs “who are the best teams, right now”

 

[SWC75]

i think how youre playing down the stretch should be a factor. i think it was jay bilas who said you should put teams in the tournament that actually have a chance to win some games. best wins and how youre playing down the stretch would be my deciding factors conparing bubble teams. oklahoma has stunk for 2 months, if they get in they are 1 and done. if cuse got in last year they had a chance to win a game or 2.

who has the best wins, who is trending up. i could care less about bad losses (unless u have a bunch of course), any team can have some bad nites

NBA teams are what they are. College teams become what they are.

 

[Cusefan0307]

We’ve seen teams get significantly better over the season and we’ve seen teams go on runs. That’s why you weigh games later in the season heavier.

It’s the difference between “rewarding a team for thier season” vs “who are the best teams, right now”

We’ve also seen teams struggle at the end of the season make the final four like Syracuse twice this decade and teams like Duke last year who were hot and lost in the second round. That’s why it’s stupid.

 

[jncuse]

We’ve seen teams get significantly better over the season and we’ve seen teams go on runs. That’s why you weigh games later in the season heavier.

It’s the difference between “rewarding a team for thier season” vs “who are the best teams, right now”

I wonder if we would have made the 2016 NIT Final Four... because based on your comment we were not going to make the tourney in 2016.

 

[Cusefan0307]

We won the BET in 2005 and 2006. Lost in the first round both years. I bet if you did an analysis there’s no correlation to end of the season record vs tourney success.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Because they bid for it and it sells out

I was hoping there was more to it than that.

 

[SBU72]

i think how youre playing down the stretch should be a factor. i think it was jay bilas who said you should put teams in the tournament that actually have a chance to win some games. best wins and how youre playing down the stretch would be my deciding factors conparing bubble teams. oklahoma has stunk for 2 months, if they get in they are 1 and done. if cuse got in last year they had a chance to win a game or 2.

who has the best wins, who is trending up. i could care less about bad losses (unless u have a bunch of course), any team can have some bad nites

You say this until SU has another March swoon and goes 4-6 with a 22 -8 record then it should be the whole body of work.

 

[HOFCeluck]

What a great suggestion that coincidentally benefit syracuse this season (win over Clemson) and last season (deemphasize our terrible losses).

 

[Knicks411]

Is another reason Dayton gets it because they are relatively centrally located; making it easier to get to the sites for the next round? Or maybe I've just had that in my head all these years

 

[Sherman20]

i think how youre playing down the stretch should be a factor. i think it was jay bilas who said you should put teams in the tournament that actually have a chance to win some games. best wins and how youre playing down the stretch would be my deciding factors conparing bubble teams. oklahoma has stunk for 2 months, if they get in they are 1 and done. if cuse got in last year they had a chance to win a game or 2.

who has the best wins, who is trending up. i could care less about bad losses (unless u have a bunch of course), any team can have some bad nites

I don’t agree on making the last 10 games an official criteria. Teams hit slumps, and I think that’s too narrow of a snapshot. but the committee has to take into account complete collapses like ASU’s. The Kansas and Xavier wins were over THREE months ago. Teams figured them out. They have no inside play. In the three months since then, they’ve beaten exactly two other possible tourney teams—USC and UCLA. Both of those games came at home, and both of those teams are squarely on the bubble. Sorry, but ASU has to be out. Oklahoma is a bit different. They were at least losing to good teams during their slide. But they should probably be out too.

 

[CorduroyG]

I don’t agree on making the last 10 games an official criteria. Teams hit slumps, and I think that’s too narrow of a snapshot. but the committee has to take into account complete collapses like ASU’s. The Kansas and Xavier wins were over THREE months ago. Teams figured them out. They have no inside play. In the three months since then, they’ve beaten exactly two other possible tourney teams—USC and UCLA. Both of those games came at home, and both of those teams are squarely on the bubble. Sorry, but ASU has to be out. Oklahoma is a bit different. They were at least losing to good teams during their slide. But they should probably be out too.

yea it doesnt have to be last 10 games, just kind of a general trending up or trending down. if im comparing 2 teams with similar resumes, and team A has played well down the stretch, and team B has lost 11 of their last 15 games like oklahoma, im taking team A.

 

[SWC75]

We won the BET in 2005 and 2006. Lost in the first round both years. I bet if you did an analysis there’s no correlation to end of the season record vs tourney success.

Sometimes you peak a bit too early. Sometimes you bottom out at the right time.

 

[jncuse]

There have been some collapse teams in recent years... I remember Villanova when there was the 11 Big East teams.

But I don't remember a year with 2 teams in such a fast decline -- Oklahoma and Arizona St. The only reason they are still in it, because they played like legit top 5 schools before conference play.

 

[two3zone]

I agree, maybe not last 10 but like someone else mentioned a trend. A team trending up during their conference play and tourney seems like a better candidate that flamed out during the ooc.

Personally, because of so many snubs for good teams over the years. Let everyone in, the best teams will still end up in when it matters.

 

[SWC75]

I agree, maybe not last 10 but like someone else mentioned a trend. A team trending up during their conference play and tourney seems like a better candidate that flamed out during the ooc.

Personally, because of so many snubs for good teams over the years. Let everyone in, the best teams will still end up in when it matters.

There are 351 teams. Rank them mathematically, (not behind closed doors), have the bottom 190 teams play in the first round to get down to 256, then a round of 256, then a round of 128 and you wind up with 64 teams that won their way there. That's just three extra rounds which could be done over a couple of weeks in on-campus sites. then got to the neutral sites and hand out the prediction sheets. Is it the best way to do it? Maybe. Could it be done? Sure it could.

 

[721Comstock]

There are 351 teams. Rank them mathematically, (not behind closed doors), have the bottom 190 teams play in the first round to get down to 256, then a round of 256, then a round of 128 and you wind up with 64 teams that won their way there. That's just three extra rounds which could be done over a couple of weeks in on-campus sites. then got to the neutral sites and hand out the prediction sheets. Is it the best way to do it? Maybe. Could it be done? Sure it could.

Then what's the point of the regular college hoops season?
Playoffs seem pointless when EVERY team (or nearly so) gets in.

Nobody cares about watching North-East-Central-Directional-State-that-isn't-a-state vs. Sisters of the Poor.

I'd be up for an extra 4 at-large teams being added to the 68 we already have.
As it stands, no team that is "snubbed" (including us last year, this year, whatever) really has much of a reason to gripe, but with 4 more slots added, the fodder for being "snubbed" is reduced even further.

There's already the NIT & CBI for the teams that don't make the Dance.
That's plenty of post-season opportunities, for everyone remotely worthy of it.

 

[SWC75]

Then what's the point of the regular college hoops season?
Playoffs seem pointless when EVERY team (or nearly so) gets in.

Nobody cares about watching North-East-Central-Directional-State-that-isn't-a-state vs. Sisters of the Poor.

I'd be up for an extra 4 at-large teams being added to the 68 we already have.
As it stands, no team that is "snubbed" (including us last year, this year, whatever) really has much of a reason to gripe, but with 4 more slots added, the fodder for being "snubbed" is reduced even further.

There's already the NIT & CBI for the teams that don't make the Dance.
That's plenty of post-season opportunities, for everyone remotely worthy of it.

The regular season is about winning your conference as a goal in itself, beating you biggest rivals, having a better record than last year. And it would be the basis for the seedings.