Future "Bracketbusters" Concept

[unipanther99]

This is interesting... Two games home and away in mid-February against like non-conference opponents.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... -february/

[BEARZ77]

This is interesting... Two games home and away in mid-February against like non-conference opponents.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... -february/

It'd come down to the mechanism for determining matchups. And w/o P-5 teams involved , the opportunity for really raising your profile would be nil. Basically it'd a Feb elimination tourney for decreasing the at large pool from the MM/LM teams. I'd be fun, but I doubt it'd get more bids .

[unipanther99]

Double-edged sword for sure... It gives a handful of marginal at-large teams a chance to play their way in or out. Having two games makes it much more interesting than bracketbusters used to be. Everyone has to go on the road at a time in the season when fans are paying attention.

Thinking about if this was in place this last season, would it have given MSU, Drake, or UNI a chance to play their way into an at-large possibility? Maybe, depending on the matchups.

And in years when we have a special team in the conference that the computers really like, it gives us the potential for a marquee TV match-up against a Gonzaga-like program.

[GoSIU88]

Worked pretty good for the Salukis for a few years.....

The 2007 game between the Salukis and Butler was a classic. #1 road team at #2 home team at sold out Hinkle Fieldhouse. Big time atmosphere....lots of maroon there that day. I sat in the third row right behind the Saluki bench.

Both teams got high seeds and made into the Sweet 16 that year.

oh, how I long for those days again....

[tribecalledquest]

MVC and mid major coaches can put together good schedules and shouldn't need a gimmick like this forced on them. But they are just afraid to do it.

[BEARZ77]

The games will be fun, but the only way this gets more bids is if these games matched mid level bubble P-5's against top level MM and LM teams. Then you're not eliminating each other, but showing why the top teams at the MM/LM levels deserve bids over the middle of the P-5 . That's if we win , of course. Give me that , and i'll get excited. Of course, why would the p-5's ever do that. Nah, this is just a way to eliminate more non p-5's from at large consideration.

[unipanther99]

The games will be fun, but the only way this gets more bids is if these games matched mid level bubble P-5's against top level MM and LM teams. Then you're not eliminating each other, but showing why the top teams at the MM/LM levels deserve bids over the middle of the P-5 . That's if we win , of course. Give me that , and i'll get excited. Of course, why would the p-5's ever do that. Nah, this is just a way to eliminate more non p-5's from at large consideration.

I think we are all for that, but there is a zero.zip percent chance of the power fives allowing their soft middle belly to be exposed in February.

If these games can replace low-major games and non-D1 games on schedules, I think it could be positive. And you know fans will be paying attention to the conference by conference records in this.

[BCPanther]

The games will be fun, but the only way this gets more bids is if these games matched mid level bubble P-5's against top level MM and LM teams. Then you're not eliminating each other, but showing why the top teams at the MM/LM levels deserve bids over the middle of the P-5 . That's if we win , of course. Give me that , and i'll get excited. Of course, why would the p-5's ever do that. Nah, this is just a way to eliminate more non p-5's from at large consideration.

I think we are all for that, but there is a zero.zip percent chance of the power fives allowing their soft middle belly to be exposed in February.

If these games can replace low-major games and non-D1 games on schedules, I think it could be positive. And you know fans will be paying attention to the conference by conference records in this.

The problem is it won't replace those games.

Most (not all) coaches will just say 'I can cut out the extra H-H in December, buy a game and then I'll get two more decentish games in February.'

This will do nothing but keep the non-P6 from getting more bids. If you're a bubble team they aren't going to care who you lost to, they're just going to see a February loss to another mid and automatically disqualify you, just like they did with BracketBusters.

[unipanther99]

Here's a guess at what potential matchups could have been if it was in effect for this year, sticking to Valley schools (old and new). And this assumes the AAC would participate.

After looking at this.. yuck. We can do better on our own.

Colorado St. at Loyola
Loyola at Houston

Murray St. at St. Mary's
Wyoming at Murray St.

Iona at Belmont
Belmont at San Diego State

VCU at Missouri State
Missouri State at St. Louis

Drake at Monmouth
Wofford at Drake

Buffalo at Bradly
Bradley at Morehead St.

Oral Roberts at UNI
UNI at Nevada

SFA at SIU
SIU at Colgate

Indiana St. at James Madison
Loyola Marymount at Indiana St.

UTEP at Illinois State
Illinois State at Cornell

Kent State at Valpo
Valpo at UMass

UIC at SE Missouri State
Rider at UIC

St. Francis (PA) at Evansville
Evansville at Central Arkansas

[BEARZ77]

The other thing with 2 games and being H/A, the likelihood of splits is high, meaning you might actually weaken the case for most teams. Again I think the games will be fun and I'd do it, but this isn't gonna increase bids . The only thing that will do that is head to head competition with teams that are likely to get bids , ie P-5 , and everything they've done in the last few years has made scheduling those games less likely. They have control of the only thing that can win the argument, playing and beating them, and they ain't playing much.