Looking Back at the Bubble

[Panther789]

Non-BCS teams that received at large bids:
- 6 teams
- 3 total wins (all from a team who was nowhere
near the bubble)

Xavier - Lost in Elite 8
St Joseph's - Lost in first round to Oklahoma
South Alabama - Crushed by Butler in first round
BYU - lost in first round to Texas A & M
Gongaza - lost in 1st round to Davidson
St Mary's - lost in 1st round to Miami

5 of the 6 non-BCS schools who got at-large bids lost in the first round, and 4 of those 5 lost to teams who failed to make the Sweet 16.

By my count 12 BCS teams received at-large bids and a seed of a 7 or above (falling in line with all of the schools above except Xavier). The BCS teams in this category went 9-12.

Here's hoping the non-BCS at-larges do better next year, as they have in the past.

EDIT: Please let me know if there are any errors in my calculations above.

[clenz]

Re: Looking Back at the Bubble

how much do you think this tournament will hurt mid-majors in the coming years for getting bids

[Matt Trump]

Re: Looking Back at the Bubble

how much do you think this tournament will hurt mid-majors in the coming years for getting bids

It won't. Bids are given based on performance in that year. Otherwise, Illinois State would have gotten in by your logic.

[Matt Trump]

Re: Looking Back at the Bubble

I don't get the point of this thread.

[Panther789]

Re: Looking Back at the Bubble

I don't get the point of this thread.

People on this board spent a good deal of time debating the at-large bids for the tournament. Most of these arguments centered around the BCS/mid-major debate.

At some point, I think it is worth looking back and comparing how those 2 groups did.

[Matt Trump]

Re: Looking Back at the Bubble

People on this board spent a good deal of time debating the at-large bids for the tournament. Most of these arguments centered around the BCS/mid-major debate.

At some point, I think it is worth looking back and comparing how those 2 groups did.

Right. But, I don't really see any point being made with the information provided.

[Panther789]

Re: Looking Back at the Bubble

Right. But, I don't really see any point being made with the information provided.

Clenz certainly got the point.

Of the non-BCS teams that were on or near the bubble, those teams had zero wins. Take from that what you want.

[jman2004]

Re: Looking Back at the Bubble

5 of the 6 non-BCS schools who got at-large bids lost in the first round, and 4 of those 5 lost to teams who failed to make the Sweet 16.

By my count 12 BCS teams received at-large bids and a seed of a 7 or above (falling in line with all of the schools above except Xavier). The BCS teams in this category went 9-12.

What exactly are you trying to say? Those 5 mid-majors that lost in the first round, lost to teams that didn't go any farther. What's your point? The top dogs (top seeds) were just that much better this year, mid-major or not.

And I don't know why you bring up mid-major "bubble" teams. Are you trying to downplay the success of mid-major schools in this tournament. WKU, San Diego, and Davidson all 3 won first round games, but none were an "at-large" or bubble team. What's your point?

And either way, it's not a matter of mid-major or BCS school. It's about respect. Mid-majors get none.