Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

[TeaJackrabbit]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

My prediction on how the season plays out after looking at what everyone has done and looking at the remaining schedules...

1.) Oakland 18-0
2.) ORU 14-4
3.) IUPUI 13-5
4.) SDSU 12-6
5.) NDSU 8-10
6.) UMKC 7-11
7.) SUU 5-13
8.) IPFW 4-14

9.) Centenary 6-12
10.) WIU 3-15

Summit Tourney:

1.) Oakland vs 8.) IPFW
4.) SDSU vs. 5.) NDSU

3.) IUPUI vs. 6.) UMKC
2.) ORU vs. 7.) SUU

If the above holds true, it would be awful for SDSU. Not only would we have to play NDSU first round (rival, they'll have second most fans in the Arena, etc.) but we would have to play heavy fave Oakland in round two. Not good. And for the lower bracket, how happy would they be to not only have the Dakota schools out of their bracket, but also not have to face Oakland until the title game.

[filbert]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

I was thinking the other day if having two tourneys would work. Not the NCAA's and the NIT but moreso maybe a power conference tourney deciding the NCAA champion and then a low/mid-major tourney, giving them some sort of second-tier title. Of course it's all about money and you wonder how the lesser tourney would be attended/watched on TV.

You mean like "The University Division" and "The College Division". . .

or "Division I" and "Division II?"

Back to the future!

In my opinion what makes the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament special and different from any other sports championship is that the little guys actually get to have a chance against the big guys. Take away the little guys and you have the BCS football "championship."

Ugh.

[AugieJackFan]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

A great point was made on the ORU board. ORUJason talked how one year Missouri State who's Conference (MVC) RPI is always in the Top 10, didn't get an at-large bid when they lost in the finals of the MVC tournament. Missouri St had just 5 losses and an RPI in the 30's.

It's weird, the NCAA doesn't want to have mid or small major teams in the Big Dance, but when they do get in and do well it's all they want to talk about. 9 out of 10 people would probably say they love March Madness so much b/c of the "little guy".

Everyone loves the little guy but the big boys bring fans and sell tickets.

[TeaJackrabbit]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

Everyone loves the little guy but the big boys bring fans and sell tickets.

True...in a way. I think the small teams bring alot of people too...if not only just their fans but in fans who want to cheer for David.

But look how CBS markets it. You won't see many promos without the Scott Drew shot or other mid-majors playing "Cinderella".

[AugieJackFan]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

True...in a way. I think the small teams bring alot of people too...if not only just their fans but in fans who want to cheer for David.

But look how CBS markets it. You won't see many promos without the Scott Drew shot or other mid-majors playing "Cinderella".

I love the little guy as much as anyone it is what gives the tournament so much flavor and makes it special but it's not where the money is. The money comes from the big schools bringing lots of fans and selling tickets.

[AugieJackFan]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

True...in a way. I think the small teams bring alot of people too...if not only just their fans but in fans who want to cheer for David.

But look how CBS markets it. You won't see many promos without the Scott Drew shot or other mid-majors playing "Cinderella".

On a side note it's too bad Valparaiso left the Summit League for the Horizon. Everyone remembers that Bryce Drew shot and that team it certainly gave the Midconn (Summit League) some name recognition. Last year’s Summit final was probably the best final of all the conferences that didn’t hurt. The Summit League may have the most upside of all the conferences. If I was buying stock in any conference I’d put most of my money in Summit League stock.

[zooropa]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

I love the little guy as much as anyone it is what gives the tournament so much flavor and makes it special but it's not where the money is. The money comes from the big schools bringing lots of fans and selling tickets.

Big money comes from TV not tickets, and TV money comes from office pools and office pools are predicated on picking the upsets.

...

So, I would argue that eliminating the 'Cinderella' eliminates TV viewers which reduces ad revenue (the REAL moneymaker) which etc., etc.

[AugieJackFan]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

Big money comes from TV not tickets, and TV money comes from office pools and office pools are predicated on picking the upsets.

...

So, I would argue that eliminating the 'Cinderella' eliminates TV viewers which reduces ad revenue (the REAL moneymaker) which etc., etc.

If you look at the Nielsen TV ratings the year George Mason made the Final Four in 2006 was the 2nd lowest ratings in the history of the Final Four. People love the little guys in the early round upsets but want to see the big guns in the end.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/15...1975-2007/2844

[mitchellrabbit]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

Might be a moot point if the NCAA expands the tournament, which I think they will--they won't be able to turn down the extra $$$ that ESPN/ABC/Disney will throw at them (and that CBS will have to match, or not . . .)

Of course, that just means that more sub-.500 teams from the "power conferences" will get picked over quality mid-majors . . .

if the start letting .500 teams in, it'll be a lot like the bowl games. ive lost interest in a lot of those bowl games were a team has 6 or 7 wins. id rather watch a mid major with a good record than a 14th place team from the big east.

[bub94]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

A great point was made on the ORU board. ORUJason talked how one year Missouri State who's Conference (MVC) RPI is always in the Top 10, didn't get an at-large bid when they lost in the finals of the MVC tournament. Missouri St had just 5 losses and an RPI in the 30's.

It's weird, the NCAA doesn't want to have mid or small major teams in the Big Dance, but when they do get in and do well it's all they want to talk about. 9 out of 10 people would probably say they love March Madness so much b/c of the "little guy".

The Summit will never get the 'goodwill' the big conferences get when it comes to the big dance. Big East, ACC, etc. will always get the close bubble teams. Those conferences have the name, their games are shown on the networks/sportscenter, and supposedly they are the best teams in the nation (just because they are in one those conferences). NDSU had a good year last year but they wouldn't have made the tourney (not stated as smack).

[TeaJackrabbit]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

The Summit will never get the 'goodwill' the big conferences get when it comes to the big dance. Big East, ACC, etc. will always get the close bubble teams. Those conferences have the name, their games are shown on the networks/sportscenter, and supposedly they are the best teams in the nation (just because they are in one those conferences). NDSU had a good year last year but they wouldn't have made the tourney (not stated as smack).

Oh, there is no question that ALOT of other conferences would get picked ahead of the Summit if teams had similar resumes. That's why I asked what does a Summit team have to do? I think a gaudy record (like 27-4), a good OOC schedule, 2-3 quality wins, winning the regular season and making it to the conference tourney final and having a decent RPI would only MAYBE get you in. However, it would get you in the NIT, which could be a great tourney for a low/mid major team.

I think, given their body of work so far, if ORU has a strong finish to the season (finishes 14-4 and 2nd in the Summit) and makes it to the title game in Sioux Falls that they could be a NIT team.

[HoboJack]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

In my opinion, no team in the Summit will get an at large until at least 1 team in the league has an NCAA tournament win in the previous decade.

On top of that, the whole conference will have to schedule better & win some games they shouldn't, at least on paper. We need to schedule middle of the road major conference teams & win, as opposed to scheduling top of the major conference teams & getting throttled.

[HoboJack]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

Might be a moot point if the NCAA expands the tournament, which I think they will--they won't be able to turn down the extra $$$ that ESPN/ABC/Disney will throw at them (and that CBS will have to match, or not . . .)

Of course, that just means that more sub-.500 teams from the "power conferences" will get picked over quality mid-majors . . .

I think it would be a mistake to expand the tournament further. Every eligible conference has an automatic bid right now, which means every team has a chance to contend. I hated the addition of the play-in game that every year allows 1 more team that finished in the middle of the pack of a major conference to be in the dance. I can't remember a single one of those teams that has made it to the sweet 16, let alone contend for a tittle. Any expansion would just allow more of these teams in, and force more of the lesser's conference champions to play the 1-2 seeds in the opening rounds.

The only way I would like to see an expansion is if the confence champs are seeded 1-32, and the rest of the field is seeded after that. Seed no. 33 might be the second best team in the country, but they will have to earn their way through the field. If you want a better seed, win your conference.

[bub94]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

I can almost see an increase in teams to 68 teams so each regional tourney has a 16-17 seed game. I don't think increasing it to 128 teams would fly.

[HoboJack]

Re: Will the Summit ever get two teams in the field of 65?

I can almost see an increase in teams to 68 teams so each regional tourney has a 16-17 seed game. I don't think increasing it to 128 teams would fly.

The problem I have with that is that most of the noteworthy upsets happen in the 14-3, 13-4, 12-5 parings. No 16 seed has ever won a game, and only a couple of 15 seeds. Typically the last at-large is placed around a 11-12 seed at worst, and usually in the 9-10 slots. If you add 3 more 17 seeds, that will push the 15's-16's, and so on and add 3 more in the 10-12 spots. It will weaken the tournament with fewer 'major' upsets, by teams that can grab the national spot light.

The tournament has the national following it does because every now & then a NC State, Gonzaga, Valpo or Sienna does the impossible, and everone wants to know how far they can go. How many people give a damn if a .500 PITT (just an example) team makes the sweet 16, unless they are fans of that school.

I'm a College basketball fan, so I'll sit down to watch a Purdue- Nortre Dame sweet 16 matchup. If you want my wife to watch, there will need to be more hype, which is the biggest reasons mid-majors are good for college basketball. Don't fix what isn't broken.