Bracketbusters Questioned by MVC Coaches

[TylerDurden]

Why doesn't it?

Because they don't get the games you're saying they could. This year's MSU schedule is a perfect example.

This game with Valpo is going to be their second-best non-conference RPI game.

If MSU were scheduling in a manner where that isn't the case then you would have a point. But they aren't and it's not limited to MSU.

I understand that the names of the opponents may not be sexy, but they're quality games for the top teams.

It's one thing to say that they can get the games (maybe you can), but it's another for them to actually get them (which they don't).

[Haha]

MSU played at Tennessee and OSU, Indy st at Purdue, Evansville at Butler, Etc

Granted some are via tourneys or some other means but take two games a year off the schedule due to bb and I'm certain most valley schools can find comparable match ups every year. Especially when you factor in that only around 2-3 teams the valley gets out of bb is going to be top 50 if that. I think this year it's one and thats gmu at UNI.

[Bryce44]

If the NCAA was really interested in creating interest they would replace the bracket buster weekend with a bracket setting weekend in which all conferences would participate. Schedule it the first weekend after the superbowl and have the top 2-3 teams in the major conferences play against each other and have the top mid majors play the other 4-5 ranked teams in the major conferences. This would give a better gauge on who should be selected and for the seedings. Plus it would be a great draw to focus attention on college basketball after the superbowl.

[Unsmooth Moment]

If the NCAA was really interested in creating interest they would replace the bracket buster weekend with a bracket setting weekend in which all conferences would participate. Schedule it the first weekend after the superbowl and have the top 2-3 teams in the major conferences play against each other and have the top mid majors play the other 4-5 ranked teams in the major conferences. This would give a better gauge on who should be selected and for the seedings. Plus it would be a great draw to focus attention on college basketball after the superbowl.

thats what I have always kind of wanted. Use every single conference and match everyone up comparably with RPI. Then the higher rated mid majors would get to play some of those bubble schools from major conferences. Example, using realtimerpi a "bracket buster" matchup could make #46 Michigan State vs #47 Wichita State. While #48 Missouri State plays #49 Florida State. There would be tons of mid major/major clashes and I think it would be a good indication of the cream rising to the top.

At the end of the day i still agree that bracket busters is better than no bracketbuster at all. Do I want to play #51 Valpo or #245 ISUr at the end of the season? I'll take Valpo

[Heinro]

Typically I really like the Bracket Buster game, it something different, and for possible tourney teams, a tourney level opponent. But for the MVC it is losing its luster.

ESPN is running a promo, it names almost every conference in it, but who's missing? MVC, how the hell do they promo the BB conferences without having MVC in the promo?

As a Shocker fan, I am extremely pissed about it this year. We get stuck playing VCU, who is the 3rd best team in their conference and wont be top 50 realistically. VCU is also coming off of 2 stompings on their home court, so if we don't whoop them it looks bad, if we do well they arent that good anyway. No offense to UNI, but I consider it a serious blunder that they have VCU coming to Wichita, and George Mason going to UNI. Who doesnt want to watch the 3rd best team from the MVC play the best team in the CAA and the best team in the MVC (debatable I know, so drop it) play the 3rd best team in the CAA? I could be very wrong, for the UNI and the MVC I hope I am, but I think ESPN has set themselves up for 2 blow outs.

On a slightly different note, I'm becoming a little frustrated with Elgin and not only because of the BB and the fact that he didnt make sure we got in the promo.
First off scheduling, how does ISU play SIU for the first time on the 16th conference game, how does WSU play Drake twice in the first month? In a league where every team plays each other twice, logically why would you not schedule every team to play each other in the first 9 and then the back 9 again.
Secondly TV, I think we have some good deals, but tv needs to be adjusted throughout the season. Why, when MSU, 1 in standings, plays at EU do they have SIU vs Drake on FSN? This isn't the only example. The good teams should be on tv for the betterment of the league, simple as that.
The RPI rule, which I think was pretty key to our success a few years ago, was also withdrawn. I may be alone but I think that has cost us a bid or 2, ISU the year Drake won the conference in particular.

Thats my rant.
:valley:

[Heinro]

If the NCAA was really interested in creating interest they would replace the bracket buster weekend with a bracket setting weekend in which all conferences would participate. Schedule it the first weekend after the superbowl and have the top 2-3 teams in the major conferences play against each other and have the top mid majors play the other 4-5 ranked teams in the major conferences. This would give a better gauge on who should be selected and for the seedings. Plus it would be a great draw to focus attention on college basketball after the superbowl.

The NCAA, nor the BCS wants to see Kstate get drilled by WSU, Virginia Tech get spanked by ODU, Mich St. get rolled by Cleveland St. because any excuse they would have of putting those teams in would be nonexistent.

I love the idea too, but its a pipe dream.

[Kip Dynamite]

On Cuonzo's radio show last night, he said that he thought the Valley needed to get out of the Bracket Busters as he believes it causes more harm than good. He said that as long as CUSA, A10, and the MWC don't participate than neither should the MVC. He said teams from the Valley have won more games in it than any other conference and where has it actually gotten them in the last 3 years? Thought it was time to move on and I completely agree with him.

[TylerDurden]

If the NCAA was really interested in creating interest they would replace the bracket buster weekend with a bracket setting weekend in which all conferences would participate. Schedule it the first weekend after the superbowl and have the top 2-3 teams in the major conferences play against each other and have the top mid majors play the other 4-5 ranked teams in the major conferences. This would give a better gauge on who should be selected and for the seedings. Plus it would be a great draw to focus attention on college basketball after the superbowl.

The NCAA doesn't have anything to do with regular-season scheduling.

[TylerDurden]

On Cuonzo's radio show last night, he said that he thought the Valley needed to get out of the Bracket Busters as he believes it causes more harm than good. He said that as long as CUSA, A10, and the MWC don't participate than neither should the MVC. He said teams from the Valley have won more games in it than any other conference and where has it actually gotten them in the last 3 years? Thought it was time to move on and I completely agree with him.

Ok, let's assume his position is correct and that it causes more harm than good (it is certainly a good thing for his team's resume this year, but I digress).

What are the alternatives?

Would he replace that game with a top 50 opponent or a 200+ opponent? Would they also have an opportunity for a national TV game and all-day coverage on ESPN?

That's the question.

The numbers say it's more likely to be close to 200+. Until that changes, the BB is a better option than the alternative for the top teams -- whether they admit it or not.

Again, I see some issues with the current BB, but it isn't nearly as bad as some folks like to think it is.

[MVCfans]

On Cuonzo's radio show last night, he said that he thought the Valley needed to get out of the Bracket Busters as he believes it causes more harm than good. He said that as long as CUSA, A10, and the MWC don't participate than neither should the MVC. He said teams from the Valley have won more games in it than any other conference and where has it actually gotten them in the last 3 years? Thought it was time to move on and I completely agree with him.

Ok, let's assume his position is correct and that it causes more harm than good (it is certainly a good thing for his team's resume this year, but I digress).

What are the alternatives?

Would he replace that game with a top 50 opponent or a 200+ opponent? Would they also have an opportunity for a national TV game and all-day coverage on ESPN?

That's the question.

The numbers say it's more likely to be close to 200+. Until that changes, the BB is a better option than the alternative for the top teams -- whether they admit it or not.

Again, I see some issues with the current BB, but it isn't nearly as bad as some folks like to think it is.

The issue I have is with timing and I think that is why the coaches dislike it as well. Give MSU a game with Valpo every December and I think both teams are very content. Stop the conference season right before the one game that will determine a conference championship and the response from coaches and fans alike will be quite different.