Tom Izzo
- Thread starter friar10
- Start date
The problem is the big conference teams are way over-rated which means they will get in over a better mid-major team when you put a 'committee of experts' in a room. Additionally, the 64th best team might be some mediocre power five program that is better than St. Peters, but if St. Peters goes on a run to the Elite Eight, it'll be way more magical than if the 64th best team is Texas Tech. Lastly, if you want to keep everyone across the country invested in the tournament, you need broad representation...otherwise those of us (myself included) who went to smaller schools would quickly lose interest in the tournament.
Last edited:
To me, it is important that the best 20-30 teams make the tournament.
The 64th best team is probably 19-14 in a good conference, and a slightly sub-500 team in that conference. I could care less whether that team gets a shot.
It's way better to fill in the last 25-30 spots with smaller schools that give the tournament the chance for some magic.
I feel the same way about football. If you go to a 12 team playoff, it's less important to me that the 11th and 12th best team gets in as those teams will have plenty of flaws and losses, and i would rather ensure that a team or two outside the big conferences gets a shot.
So decide a better way to pick the teams then.
If the mid-major is better then get them in.
I don't care about "magical".
It's sports not the Oscar's.
If the 64th team is a "mediocre" Texas Tech, that better than a terrible St. Peters who is worse than TT.
Why bother with even looking at resumes.
Teams can just start "campaigning" for spots bases on how "magical" it will be if they get it.
is your opinion, fine....but sweet sixteen cinderellas are very rare, so are not the impetus to drive ratings. Anyhow, Izzo isn't saying anything contrary to conference's preference, and what's going on with the CFB playoff.
You are being ridiculous.
Every league gets 1 spot...I like that. Personally I would prefer regular season champ gets in as opposed to each league having a championship game where a terrible Brown almost makes it over a good princeton or yale team.
I went to a lacrosse school and when the committee selects which teams get into the tournament, it's always biased towards the schools in the better leagues where it's better to lose a bunch of games to a good team than to win games against mediocre teams. And if you are in a smaller league and have one off day, you are totally porked where a team in a good league (whether it's the best or worst team in the league) is allowed multiple off days because their schedule is 'tough'.
Bottom line for me is when you have people trying to make judgements about everyone's resume, you end up in a bad place. Let the little guys in and as we have seen more and more over the years, they can beat the 'big guys'
Bac ,you just like reality shows and not the top competition that you bitch for during the regular season. You're a hypocrite. As I said and I'm right, the NCAA's do not necessarily, by design , crown the best team in college basketball -- its a made for TV spectacle -- that's great but stop the BS. It's a great reality show.
And Izzo who's smarter and knows alot more about college basketball than the " experts" who think they do has a valid point about competition.
And Izzo who's smarter and knows alot more about college basketball than the " experts" who think they do has a valid point about competition.
Imagine thinking there's something wrong with the way this tournament is structured
Want an easily fixed horrific design of the tournament?
Why do 11-12 seeds not get a 1st round bye but 13/14/15/16 seeds do get a 1st round bye?
The whole point of seeds is to rank the teams in the field.
And the worst teams play more games - because they are worse.
So?
I get it - you like athletic competitions designed to maximize TV ratings.
Despite every other tournament (including every other conference tournament) being designed on the basic rules of athletic competition.
The post I responded intimated there was nothing wrong the structure of the tournament.
For those who don’t put “tv ratings” first, I pointed out an easily fixed flaw.
I like izzo a lot but this is a bad take. That said friar taking a shot at big ten. Don’t be a douchebag while making a valid point. Big ten will me more than fine.
Dumb position by Izzo, although that has nothing to do with him needing to retire or not.Izzo wants to do away with the automatic bid for smaller conferences. Time for Tom to retire . Kentucky/Oakland and a bunch of other great games don't happen if gets his way. Sorry Tom but the reason the Big 10 has not won a Championship in over twenty years is not because we need more teams from the bigger conferences. You need to do a better job recruiting and coaching.
Tom Izzo Wants NCAA to Look Into Eliminating Automatic Bids for Mid-Major Programs
The Michigan State coach has tournament losses to Nevada, George Mason, Memphis and Middle Tennessee on his resume.www.si.com
Took a shot at big ten because I see this as a much bigger issue. Football teams getting pissy because Villanova and UCONN are winning championships. Nobody can tell me conn who were the number one seed in whole tournament did not get screwed. Big ten champ, Big twelve champ and sec champ all in their bracket. Now with the sec puking on themselves in the 1st round I expect this unfortunately to go even further.
It’s a terrible take. His defending point would only be true with respect to a handful of schools. Country doesn’t give a damn whether Auburn or Yale is playing in the Sweet 16. Duke vs Kansas instead of an Oakland vs Yale match up. Yes. But you don’t get more Duke vs Kansas from his model. Instead you get NC State be Oregon. Who cares?
Have to respectfully disagree I think the country loves seeing a team that is not even getting scholarships beat a team with superior athleticism.
Seriously? UConn has a cakewalk to the elite 8. I’d rather play Illinois than the other remaining seeds. They win one legit game and they’re in the final four. Cry me a river.
Huh? What point of mine are you disagreeing with? I am agreeing that those games should continue and that the power 5 replacements in Izzo’s proposed alternative (NC State, etc. would not generate more national interest even in the later rounds).
However - Duke vs Kansas type later round match ups are always more followed than Oakland vs Yale types in later rounds. That’s not debatable - history says the following is poor when 2 cinderellas play eachother. An Oakland vs Yale game in a late round would to be one of the lowest followed games by default because neither team has a national following and neither are huge schools with a large number of their own fans.
The problem with Izzo’s argument though is that the incremental different on the rare occasion that you get an NC St vs Oregon late match up instead of Oakland vs Yale - wouldn’t come close to making up for the lost viewership from casual fans who don’t follow as much in round 1 and 2. Nobody is going to care that much if NC State upsets a top team except their own fans.
Last edited:
Yeah your right the big name teams matching up are usually better games. But don't think anyone minds seeing the ivy league teams winning if they can also. Two teams years in a row now. Think Princeton might even have won two last year.
Not the point , point is they were the highest seed that ended up with the winner from three top conferences. Doesn't matter if you think Illinois good or not. Sure it looks better now because auburn got upset. BTW I happen to hate Uconn.
You are usually pretty reasonable, so I am surprised at this. The “winner” from the three top conferences is completely irrelevant as the tournament winner wasn’t the best or highest seeded team from any of those conferences. I also don’t understand why you think removing autobids from small conferences would hurt the Big East (the Big East is a power conference, doesn’t need its autobid, and almost certainly would’ve been better off this year if there were no autobids). Finally, I don’t understand how this would supposedly help the Big Ten win a championship because any of the bottom teams of the top 64 would have virtually no chance of winning the championship.
I don’t like Izzo’s idea but literally none of the reasoning above makes sense to me.
People were saying Iowa state had a claim to a one seed they should have been in the bracket with North Carolina. Illinois is probably the second best big ten team obviously they could not put Purdue there and even though Auburn got beat they were thought to be a very strong sec team. I agree automatic bids won't hurt Big East. I love tournament the way it is and do not want to see teams like Georgia and Xavier with five hundred records in the tournament. But like everything today greed will win out.
Actually it does matter.
Aren't all the teams seeded and then just put in the bracket.
So who cares if Illinois won the Big Ten Tournament. Their team/resume is their resume.
Why should they move teams around after they have already been seeded?
Also it's funny to bemoan having the SEC champ in one sentence and then saying they were bad in the next.
So what's the problem with UConn having them in the bracket?
While I agree with you, I think it’s too late for that. They never should’ve added these play-in games several years ago. A few years ago when we lost to Notre Dame in the play in game, we absolutely deserve to be in the main draw.
I'll take your word for it I can't remember what I had for breakfast this am. I'm ok with the play in games. But don't want any more team added think it's fine the way it is now.
