Feinstein - "Big Ten commish is Darth Vader"

[BCPanther]

I don't know Newsy...

Being on that committee really doesn't have much to do with basketball knowledge, it is about prestige. Look at Bob Bowlsby, he is a wrestling guy, not a basketball mind. I would think that it would be fairly easy for the NCAA to influence those committee members that don't have great basketball knowledge, or at least steer them to the criteria that they want used...

And I would not put anything past the NCAA...

[Matt Trump]

Like I said, you guys are implying that the NCAA is systematically "eliminating" the mid-majors, probably at the behest of CBS.

For that to be true, an awful lot of mid-major people would have to be complacent in this, AND keep quiet about it even after the leave the committee. That defies logic.

They aren't "eliminating" them they are just making it hard for them to advance in the tourney. Getting in and getting appropriate seeds are 2 different things.... They keep giving themselves an easy out. Keep putting the mids against one another and eventually they knock one another out.

[Newsbreaker]

They aren't "eliminating" them they are just making it hard for them to advance in the tourney. Getting in and getting appropriate seeds are 2 different things.... They keep giving themselves an easy out. Keep putting the mids against one another and eventually they knock one another out.

So explain this to me, if you are legitimately a 5 seed, and you get an 11 seed, how is that having to play a 7 seed is somehow making it hard for you to advance...you're really as good as a 5 right, how is playing a 7 making it hard on you?

[Matt Trump]

So explain this to me, if you are legitimately a 5 seed, and you get an 11 seed, how is that having to play a 7 seed is somehow making it hard for you to advance...you're really as good as a 5 right, how is playing a 7 making it hard on you?

Thats not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to having Creighton v Nevada in the first round so the NCAA can get rid of one mid-major without the chance of getting one of the high profile teams knocked out early. Same with SIU v Holy Cross, Butler v Old Dominion, and Xavier v BYU.

[Newsbreaker]

By the same token, all the "big six" teams are then playing each other, knocking some of them out as well. In fact, the "half full" way of looking at it is that by pairing mid-majors against one another, it guarantees that several of them will make it into the round of 32.

There is a very mid-major centric attitude going around here, which seems to bring an idea that we 'deserve' or somehow have a 'right' to play a 'major' conference team in the first round. That's just not true.

[Khan4Cats]

By the same token, all the "big six" teams are then playing each other, knocking some of them out as well. In fact, the "half full" way of looking at it is that by pairing mid-majors against one another, it guarantees that several of them will make it into the round of 32.

There is a very mid-major centric attitude going around here, which seems to bring an idea that we 'deserve' or somehow have a 'right' to play a 'major' conference team in the first round. That's just not true.

The easy reply to that is that, while a few mid-majors are guaranteed to advance, more big conference schools are as well. If they had paired mid versus big, there's a chance that the mids might win. In fact, in the mid versus big match-ups, that is what has happened (SIU over VT, Butler over Maryland, UNLV over Wisconsin) Most of the mids eliminated have been by other mids (Nevada over Creighton, Memphis over Nevada, Butler over ODU).

Thanks for at least providing someone who's willing to drink the major conference kool-aid.

[Newsbreaker]

Thanks for at least providing someone who's willing to drink the major conference kool-aid.

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.

The point I've been making in all these threads is this...if you're looking for an injustice, if you have a chip on your shoulder (and there is a bit of that going around on this site at any given time) then you're going to be able to arrange the facts in such a way to find your injustice. That doesn't mean you're looking at things accurately, but rather with an agenda.

[Khan4Cats]

Perhaps there is a bit of a chip on the shoulder attitude. There is nothing wrong with that and it certainly does NOT invalidate ones arguments in pointing out inconsistencies and discrepancies in the selective application of precedent by secretive committees.
Oh, I'm sorry, maybe we should all just bow down and ignore these convient coincidences that appear to benefit a group of haves at the expense of the have nots. Some may choose to constantly cower in lower status and accept whatever crumbs may be tossed their way, I believe in standing up for equity and fairness until everyone gets what is deserved and has been earned, whether that is some arbitrary rule that conferences must have balanced representation in football playoffs or that somehow being associated with one particular conference automatically entitles you to a certain status in basketball.

[Newsbreaker]

Nobody is "cowering" in "lower status." It's just not happening. Finding an inequity where none exists, however, does not make one justified.

There are no coincidences.

[Khan4Cats]

There are no coincidences.

Therefore, it is intentional.

[Newsbreaker]

Therefore, it is intentional.

Ahhh, exactly what I thought you would say. No, not intentional at all. One of my favorite "movie" lines of all-time is that there are no coincidences, and when you see one, check your premises as one of them is wrong.

You are only willing to examine one of your premises, leading you to a specific conclusion. That error is yours.

[GonzoCat]

This reminds me very much of the "battle of wits" between Westley and Vizzini in "The Princess Bride".

Newsbreaker is playing the part of Vizzini.

[Newsbreaker]

This reminds me very much of the "battle of wits" between Westley and Vizzini in "The Princess Bride".

Newsbreaker is playing the part of Vizzini.

[Khan4Cats]

Nah, I'm just trying to up the number of posts I have. There's just no hope of catching News though as I would have to reply to every thread and get the last word in.

[Newsbreaker]

Nah, I'm just trying to up the number of posts I have. There's just no hope of catching News though as I would have to reply to every thread and get the last word in.

Losing in quality AND quantity. Maybe there is another measure you can strive to achieve in.

By the way, claiming superiority on a message board over post counts is like losing the special Olympics 100 meter dash three times in a row, then claiming it's okay because the other kids are handicapped.