How I would fix Bracket Busters

by **MVCfans** » February 17th, 2011, 7:14 pm

For the first time, several MVC coaches have spoken out publicly for their dislike of the Bracket Busters as it currently exists. I think if the MVC is going to particpate again, changes need to be made. My suggestions are as follows:

1) Bracketbuster games will be played after the conference tournaments. Presently, the MVC tournament ends one week before Selection Sunday and 2 weeks before the NCAA Tournament begins.
2) Automatic qualifiers will be exempt from the Bracket Busters
3) Any team generally considered a "lock" or ranked in the Top 25 can opt out of the Bracket Buster. In theory, a loss can only hurt these teams and they shouldn't be forced to participate.
4) Any team with a legitimate chance of an at large for the NCAA or NIT (sub 75 RPI) will be chosen.
5) Games will be played sometime Wed--Saturday before selection Sunday as chosen by conference commissioners.

If these changes were to occur, there might be 5 games that could truly be called "Bracket Busters". I believe that if these suggestions were instituted, more mid-major conferences would be willing to participate. I understand that not all conference tournaments end at the same time as the MVC, but perhaps a significant adjustment to BB would make other leagues reconsider.

Coaches might be more open to a Bracket Buster that doesn't interfere with the end of the conference season or the conference tournament. Teams with no chance of post-season play wouldn't have to worry about traveling cross-country to play a game with little interest and no impact on their season.

The only games that would be played are those that might actually impact whether or not a team makes the NCAA tournament.

Just a thought.

**Sponsor**

by **DUBulldog** » February 17th, 2011, 7:34 pm

The MVC tourney might end a week before Selection Sunday, but a lot of the other conferences have their tournaments the same week as selection Sunday. I'm not sure how many teams would be available to play that week.

by **bleach** » February 17th, 2011, 7:41 pm

That would put games in competition with major tourneys and ESPN wouldn't by that. Many Mid-majors don't play their conf tourneys early enough to allow it.
Another thing, how would you know what to schedule? If you want to participate you'd have to leave a space open. If you don't you'd be over the limit.
Good idea but not logisticly possible.

by **BirdmanBB** » February 17th, 2011, 7:47 pm

BCS conferences would !@#$ a brick. I know televised games are a big deal for lower conference, but I would say the MVC gets its fair share of televised games regardless, so who cares about ESPN, lets get more mid majors in.

by **MVCfans** » February 17th, 2011, 8:53 pm

The fact that the MVC tournament ends earlier than most is a problem, no doubt, but I think most of the mid-majors conclude sometime in the next couple of days. If you could get a couple of conferences who could accommodate this type of scheduling around their conference tourneys in the first year, why not agree to it. Again, the only teams who would have to play a bracket buster would have a legitimate chance to benefit themselves by winning. I think Creighton and Missouri State would have relished one more chance after losing in the MVC tourney over the last several years. If WSU or MSU sits on the bubble at the end of the season this year, wouldn't a game with Butler or George Mason be treat as a "play-in" game of sorts for the dance?

Again, I understand the logistical problems of my "fix". I think the biggest issue would be that schools would have to be willing to hold back from scheduling one game (probably a home guarantee game) in the event that they qualified for the Bracket Buster. I'm not sure an AD would be willing to risk it for the financial aspect alone. Nevetheless, if the MVC is going to continue to participate in this event, I would hope that our Athletic Directors and MVC officials would consider all possibilities rather than simple continuing with the status quo.

by **Snaggletooth** » February 17th, 2011, 9:12 pm

MVCfans wrote:
Coaches might be more open to a Bracket Buster that doesn't interfere with the end of the conference season or the conference tournament.

Doesn't matter what the coaches think, or whether they are open to it or not. Bracketbuster is Elgin thing and the MVC will participate.

If the MVC really wants to get better matchups in BB - they actually need to win games non-conference games. Until then, the coaches really need to quit whining.

by **ihsi** » February 18th, 2011, 8:59 am

I like Elgin but I think he needs to be proactive. When your own coaches and athletic directors are now publicly stating that they don't like the event, it's time to end the MVC association with BB. Looking over the schedule I'm not sure there is a single game that will make the difference between a team getting in or being left out. Yet there are more than 100 teams playing in the event - for what?

by **BirdmanBB** » February 18th, 2011, 10:14 am

I think Elgin is being proactive. He got us the MWC challenge. He can't make a RPI scheduling requirement anymore (taking this away was the downfall), but he did put the non-con sos into the tie breaker scenarios (mainly a direct shot at us redbirds). Hopefully this will get teams to schedule a little better and get us more chances at winning quality games.

I suppose it doesn't necessarily hurt us to keep the bracketbuster, but we aren't using it correctly. It should be a tool to help get our 3rd best team a game that can propel them into the NCAA tourney, not our 1st or second.

If we continually send 3 teams to the NCAA tourney, I don't care what they call us for being in the bracketbusters, that's proven success.

I think many teams have made it clear that they are tired of playing these one and done and two for one scenarios with High Major/BCS teams (major complaint being that the valley can bring enough crowds/more cash in for a home game than a buy game so its hurting schools not to do this). I know a lot is on the coaches, but what Elgin needs to do is help our conference teams get more quality non-con games that get our schools a return. If this means getting another "challenge" going then so be it. I think it would be great to get a challenge going with the CUSA.

by **ihsi** » February 18th, 2011, 10:21 am

When conceived, BB was proactive. I agree that the MWC challenge is great (who knows how long it will last). However, BB has virtually no value for any of the participants and I am concerned that Elgin has so much personally invested that he won't let it die when the conference should do just that.

by **BirdmanBB** » February 18th, 2011, 10:27 am

ihsi wrote:When conceived, BB was proactive. I agree that the MWC challenge is great (who knows how long it will last). However, BB has virtually no value for any of the participants and I am concerned that Elgin has so much personally invested that he won't let it die when the conference should do just that.

The greatest thing that he could have done is said we are no longer participating in the bracketbusters, but we are starting up a challenge series with MWC. I don't think we would have had many complaints. So I think if he replaces it with something else, I don't think there will be huge issues. Then again, if you are going to try and replace it by doing something earlier in the non-con, then why not just do that as well and also keep the bracketbusters. If half of our teams are top 75, then I would say at that point there is no benefit.

So for example, if we have teams in the bracketbuster that have good RPI's and need another good game, but there are not enough good teams to go around, then it is time to leave. Right now, I would say there are probably 3-4 qualit games. That's 6-8 quality teams out of 100+. I guess the odds are what bothers me so much.