menu
Logo
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: March Madness
Page: 7 of 7
FJC31
General User
FJC31
Member Since: 3/31/2022
Post Count: 2,346
FJC31
mail
FJC31
mail
Posted: 4/29/2026 1:34 PM
settings_applications edit_note
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records.

A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney.

I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason?
FearLeon
General User
Member Since: 3/13/2005
Post Count: 5,142
mail
FearLeon
mail
Posted: 4/29/2026 1:44 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
It's just getting harder and harder to care as much.

NIL/Portal has turned mid-majors into JUCO programs. We will always be lucky to have decent/good players to stay for two years. And if we catch lightning in a bottle with a great player, he's gone after one year.

And now expanding the NCAA Tournament to 76 teams is just gross. Congrats to the 16-16 Auburn's of the world getting those extra bids.

Like I said...it's getting harder and harder to care as much as a mid-major alum and fan.
Imagine how weirdly abusive you'd be to underperforming OU basketball players if it weren't so hard to care.
Don’t worry BLSOS.

While I am frustrated with the current state of college hoops, I will always point out the recruiting hits and misses with this program.
Bobcat1996
General User
B1996
Member Since: 1/3/2017
Post Count: 1,226
B1996
mail
Bobcat1996
mail
Posted: 4/29/2026 7:20 PM
settings_applications edit_note
FJC31 wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records.

A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney.

I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason?
Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer!
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,823
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 4/30/2026 8:36 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat1996 wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records.

A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney.

I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason?
Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer!
You probably ain’t wrong
Kinggeorge4
General User
Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Guysville, OH
Post Count: 1,087
mail
Kinggeorge4
mail
Posted: 5/1/2026 7:47 AM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records.

A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney.

I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason?
Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer!
You probably ain’t wrong
Absolutely agree, it is not to get more mid-majors in.
FishBates
General User
FB
Member Since: 3/6/2026
Post Count: 191
FB
mail
FishBates
mail
Posted: 5/1/2026 8:26 AM
settings_applications edit_note
FJC31 wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records.

A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney.

I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason?
Bart Torvik SOS: Belmont ranked roughly 309th overall, with a non-conference SOS ranking 341st.

If lots of MAC teams played Louisville, Wisconsin, Purdue...those games can be had.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,740
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 5/1/2026 10:35 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Kinggeorge4 wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records.

A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney.

I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason?
Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer!
You probably ain’t wrong
Absolutely agree, it is not to get more mid-majors in.
Intentions and consequences aren't always the same thing. I think the rule of unintented consequences may be in play here.
Bobcat1996
General User
B1996
Member Since: 1/3/2017
Post Count: 1,226
B1996
mail
Bobcat1996
mail
Posted: 5/1/2026 8:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records.

A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney.

I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason?
Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer!
You probably ain’t wrong
Absolutely agree, it is not to get more mid-majors in.
Intentions and consequences aren't always the same thing. I think the rule of unintented consequences may be in play here.
Look back at the 2026 last four out in the big dance. More power four schools unfortunately.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,740
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 5/1/2026 11:15 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat1996 wrote:expand_more
I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud:

"The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences."

Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field.
I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records.

A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney.

I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason?
Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer!
You probably ain’t wrong
Absolutely agree, it is not to get more mid-majors in.
Intentions and consequences aren't always the same thing. I think the rule of unintented consequences may be in play here.
Look back at the 2026 last four out in the big dance. More power four schools unfortunately.
But, this adds eight more teams, not just four. Who will those four teams play, and what are odds that they will win? This may get complicated and the results might not be what those additional P4 schools expect. All I'm saying is that intentions don't always play out the way the plotters of those plans intended. Time will tell.
JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,588
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 5/2/2026 3:01 AM
settings_applications edit_note
This is pure wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe tournament expansion will benefit mids.
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,831
GC105
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 5/4/2026 2:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
JSF wrote:expand_more
This is pure wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe tournament expansion will benefit mids.
Ding ding. The NCAA had to do something to appease the power conferences or face the real possibility they might break away and form their own version of the tournament. Of the 8 new available spots given, I'd be shocked if the mids got more than 1 or 2 a season.
Last Edited: 5/4/2026 2:16:28 PM by GoCats105
Showing Messages: 151 - 161 of 161
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
MAC News Links
chevron_left
Friday, June 5, 2026
chevron_right



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)