# MWC only 2 teams



## copper (Sep 11, 2008)

When many projected us to get 4, we only got 2 and barely at that. BYU got the snub again this year with an 8 seed. Another first round lost here we go... 

Utah got a respectable 4 seed. 

USU got the snub with an 11 seed

At large births for non "power" schools reached a low not seen in many years. only 4 got in with BYU being one of them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Actually Utah is a 5 seed not a 4 seed, but SDSU got hosed big time. As did Utah State.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Actually Utah is a 5 seed not a 4 seed, but SDSU got hosed big time. As did Utah State.


SDSU was the #1 hosed team on the list; at least USU has a very short trip. Being that close and a high seed may be a blessing in disguise in getting some fans there and not having an 8 seed where you play #1 after only one win; just a thought.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2009)

I think BYU's seed is more than fair. They basically got the same seed as last year when they won the MWC championship outright, and then lost to UNLV in the MWC tourney final. They also had better non-conference wins last year. Of course, they lost to Texas A&M in the first round of the tourney so if I were a BYU player or coach I would be excited for the chance to redeem that loss.

I too think SDSU got hosed, while Utah got better than they deserve. I can see a 6/7 seed, but not a 5.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I think BYU's seeding is about right. Utah's is a little high, but when Dr. Hill is on the selection committee, that happens. I think both have a decent shot at winning their first game. After that they are out. As for SDSU - who cares? The reality is that only about 6-8 teams have a legitimate shot at winning this thing. I do love the tourney - it is the best sporting event in the country. If the tourneyment were reduced to 16 teams, the results would not change significantly. If any team with anything higher than a 4 seed makes it to the eliete eight, I'll come back and say I am totally full of crap.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

34 at large berths in the NCAA tournament and only 4 go to non BCS teams?? Sorry guys, but that's pathetic. Not only did the MWC get snubbed, but every other mid major league in the country as well......... :x


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Snubbed or not. Which mid-major team that didn't get in to the tourney, do you think has a legitimate shot at winning the tournament? I'm as hard-core BYU fan, and I honestly don't think they stand a snowballs chance in he** of winning. Heck, if they can finally win a first round game, that would be cool enough. Every mid-major conference champion gets in. Why should a team not good enough to win a mid or lower level conference get a chance in the tourney? I'm just sayin.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Gotta disagree with you here Gary. If a legitimate chance of winning the tournament is the criteria for selection into the big dance, then you would have to eliminate every team below an 8th seed.......since that is the lowest seed ever to win the tournament. The charm of the NCAA tournament is to watch the David's go up against the Goliaths. Who can forget Weber State's incredible run from a few years back, Davidson's run last year, or George Mason's tournament from a couple years ago. None of these teams really had a legitimate shot at the title going in, but their inclusion is what makes the tournament exciting.

I seen a stat where teams from the big money BCS leagues with an at large berth and a double digit seed, win 35% of their first round games. Consequently, the same double seeded at large berth's given to non BCS schools have closer to a 40% winning percentage. This indicates to me that increasingly excluding non BCS schools from participating in the tournament is a trend in the wrong direction. I fail to see where NCAA basketball is benefitted as a result.

By choosing primarily schools from the BCS conferences, you continue to concentrate the money the tournament generates to these leagues. That gives them an increasing advantage in facilities and recruiting. Gone are the days of a mid major team ever competing for the title, like Indiana State (Larry Bird) in 1979, UNLV in the mid 80's, or Utah more recently. 

Sorry Gary, but I still like rooting for the little guy.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Excellent post Kevin!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Don't get me wrong. I love cheering for the little guy. And I absolutely agree that it is good for the Tournament. That said however - the little guys that win their conference DO get to play. And this year, 4 mid-majors that didn't win their conference get to play too. I know that is down from other years. The teams you mentioned as the little engines that could - all won thier conferences. I'm a believer however - that in any collegiate national championship contest - a team that doesn't even win their own conference, should not be able to win the NATIONAL championship. The year Nebraska's football team played Miami for the national title when they didn't even win their division of the Big 12 was a disgrace. If it were up to me, the title tournament would be a straight up, Tournament of Champions. No at large bids at all. But that's just me.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Gary, the teams that received at large bids over the likes of SDSU, do they have a chance at winning the whole thing? If not, and I say they don't, then why should they get to play a few extra games over a SDSU? BYU has no chance of winning the tourney, but I surely don't want them to sit at home and not enjoy the 'rewards' of a pretty good season.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

You hit it exactly pro. SDSU should not get in. They finished 4th place in their conference in the regular season, and 2nd in the conference tournament. In a purely free-market concept here, they have not proven that they deserve to play for the national title. Neither have my BYU Cougars - even though they were conference co-champions. They lost in their conference tournament. To me, the National Championship Tournament is not about rewarding teams "of a pretty good season." It is about finding out which team is the best. They can feel good about a pretty good season, but know that they were not the best their conference had to offer. Use that as motivation for next year. 

AND there is a tournament for the non-champions - Its the National Invitational Tournament. Its a place for teams that couldn't win their conference but still had a "pretty good season." Non -conference champions do not belong in the national championship discussion.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

So, you're for not inviting any "at-large" teams. Got it. 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> So, you're for not inviting any "at-large" teams. Got it. 8)


Exactly.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

So UConn, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Ohio State, UCLA, and Michigan State should be in the NIT. :? :roll: Sorry, I have to disagree strongly!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Are any of those teams the best in their own conference?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Are any of those teams the best in their own conference?


One which day of the week? :wink: Three of them are #1 seeds, and another is a #2 seed, yet you're saying they shouldn't be in the tourney. I would all but Ohio State have decent odds of making it to the Elite 8, which we all know means once you're there it's anyone's to win/lose.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

See, that is the tough part about it. On any given day, any of those teams might beat another. But over a season, playing home-and-home with every team in their conference, the best team rises to the top and wins the conference. Not for a one-game showing, but for a level of consistency and excellence proven over an entire season. So put a team that has done that into a one-game against a non-champion and maybe they have an off day. Maybe they get jobbed by the refs. Maybe they eat some bad sushi the night before and the whole team gets food poisoning. And that erases a season-long endeavor and some team that placed 5th in the Pac 10 beats them. That's messed up. 

Make it a tournament of champions. Straight up. If you had to include Regular season AND conference tournament champions, I guess I could go with that. Heck, if it is champions only, let it be double elimination. But no at-large bids. Because there-in comes the point of contention - who gets in? Why does a 7th place ACC team get in but not a 2nd Place WAC? 

Perhaps that would make the NIT a VERY interesting tournament and make it relovent. Way back when, it was considered THE tournament over the NCAA. And that would be fine. 

I just don't see how a team that finishes 2nd, 3rd, or in some case 7th or 8th in their conference should even be allowed to play in the national championship tourney at this point. Their entire body of work does not support that.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Duke shouldn't be allowed just because they're Duke. The rest of em... let em play. :lol: Oh... and the Jazz should be allowed to step down and play. That might be a road game they could win. :shock:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Duke shouldn't be allowed just because they're Duke. The rest of em... let em play. :lol: Oh... and the Jazz should be allowed to step down and play. That might be a road game they could win. :shock:


That depends. Will the game be officiated by Pac-10 refs?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Gary, two #11 seeds have made it to the Final Four; LSU in 1986 and George Mason in 2006. Two #8 seeds made it to the Final game; UCLA in 1980 and Villinova in 1985 (NCAA champions that year). Part of what makes the college basketball tourney the best in ANY sport IMHO is that any team can get hot and make a run. To do what you are saying would make it boring and how would I justify all the research I do filling out my brackets?  The Cinderella Team concept/possibility is what makes this so much fun. Take that away and just do it like college football does. :evil:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I love the cinderella story as much as the next guy. But to me, adding all the at-large teams makes it EXACTLY like college football. It becomes a beauty pagent dominated by the big conferences. The current system favors the 7th place Big East team over the MAC champion. I think a pure Tournament of Champions would be just as compelling. The mid- or less- major champions - those on your bracket that have 14, 15, and 16 by their name - they would still be included. They would still have their story. But throwing in teams like Arizona - finished 6th in the PAC-10 with a stunning conference record of 9-9. And they get a shot? Michigan finished *8th *in the Big 10(11?) but still gets a shot at the National Title? That's messed up. Take those teams out of it. Including teams like that is just as crappy as the BCS in football - it takes away from finding the national champion and focuses on making money and keeping that money in the big - 6 conferences. Nothing more.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

So, George Mason making it to the Final Four in 2006 was all about making money for the BCS conferences? :? What I like is that a team get get on a roll late in the season, or get healthy and make a deep run into the tourny. Teams like George Mason and Nova back in 1985 add to the drama and excitement. Take teams like that out of the equation and the tourny is mundane basketball. I watch because one can never know which team is going to "shock the basketball world". A team with a power ranking as high as SDSU DESERVES an invite!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Teams like George Mason and Villanova are great. I love when they make the runs that they do. It is like Utah beating Bama. Its great. 

But consider this. For every game a team plays in the tourney, their conference gets a share of the revenue. So the Big 12 has 8 teams in. So right there, they will get 8 shares regardless of win/loss. That is roughly twice the amount George Mason brought to their conference for their run to the final 4. So say that half of the Big-12 teams win their first round game. 4 more shares. You can see where that is headed. 

So here comes the selection committee. Controlled by the big 6 conferences (BCS). And anyone is amazed when only 4 non-BCS schools get at large bids? Really? Every at-large given to a mid or less- major conference, is a share of money lost. It is about controlling and keeping the money. They sprinkle in a few lesser teams because it does collect interest to see if David can kill Goliath. But if there were any kind of actual respect given to those schools, they wouldn't have double-digit seedings.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Can't argue with that. 8) I still like the format better than any other out there.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Can't argue with that. 8) I still like the format better than any other out there.


Truth is, I do too.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

OK. Now that the first two rounds are over, I'm looking at the sweet 16 bracket. In the East and South regions, the 1 through 4 seeded teams are all through, so the tournament went as it was suppossed to. The West has 1,2,3, and 5 seeds thanks to Purdue beating the UW - the 4 seed, but still pretty darn close. The Midwest has 1,2,3, and 12 seed (Arizona) in the sweet 16. So much for the little guys making a splash. And of the four non-BCS at large teams? Visibly absent. 14 of the sweet 16 went as seeded. 

Though I gotta admit, I did love watching Cleveland State lay the wood to Wake Forest. It was a beautiful thing. But in the end - it is the power conferences that are dominating the tourney.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Utah State represented the Beehive state best...Utah State...hahahahaha...
Utah looked like it was the chess club on the court and BYU...well BYU just didn't belong...maybe BYU can set up a game with SLCC to make themselves feel better... :lol:


----------



## stick_man (Sep 10, 2007)

I don't like the idea of a "tournament of champions". What happens when a team has a key player (or 2) injured just as the season starts and they drop a two or three games right off the bat? Then the injured player(s) return and the team really starts to click? Say one the first two games was lost to the eventual winner of the regular season for the conference? Maybe, even the eventual winner having lost the second game to the referenced team? Different teams seem to gel at different points of the season. Look at Air Force. They are usually pretty strong early season and then fade out down the stretch. Look at Utah this year. With 2 games left of the regular season, they had a 2-game lead over second place BYU and New Mexico. Then they ended up losing both of those games and got lucky to get past TCU and SDSU in the conference tourney.

As short as the college season is, droppng one or two games early in the season can cost you the conference title. The best team at the end of the season is not always the best team at the start or even at the mid-point of the season. Taking only the conference champions would knock a lot of very good teams out of the tourney that would probably have a better chance of winning the NC than would many of the conference champions.

My vote: Keep the tourney format as it is but eliminate the politics of the BCS and that associated BS.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Conference tournaments are a joke...I wouldn't go to the ACC conference tourney...much less the MWC tourney if you gave me the tickets...meaningless titles...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

MWC tourney is awesome...tons of fun to watch. Teams are literally playing for the opportunity to go on. Teams like SDSU and Utah State need to learn from Utah....strong schedules make a huge difference. Neither SDSU, BYU, nor Utah State were hosed by the selection committee...none of them played a schedule worthy of note. 

March Madness is fun because cinderallas have a chance...even if it is minute and no seed lower than an 8 has ever won! The point is that they have a chance....something not available in college football!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

they're so awesome that there are empty seats right behind the bench!!! Woohoo! :roll: The proof is in the pudding...


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> .. Teams like SDSU and Utah State need to learn from Utah....strong schedules make a huge difference. Neither SDSU, BYU, nor Utah State were hosed by the selection committee...none of them played a schedule worthy of note.
> 
> That is a true story- though USU dumped Utah and played the best of any Utah team in the tourney.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> they're so awesome that there are empty seats right behind the bench!!! Woohoo! :roll: The proof is in the pudding...


Obvioulsy, you have never been to the MWC tournament. :roll:


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I had a friend that got FREE tickets to like 3 games...remember that time that you could get FREE tickets to a Rolling Stones concert or to the AFC championship...umm...no...

Let me tell you...those MWC tournament seats...they're really burning up! :roll: 
I think it might cross my mind to go to Mamma Mia at Mandalay Bay with my girlfriend across town before I go to a free MWC tourney game...
Actually I can guarantee you that I would rather go watch the guy at BassPro catch the 8lbs largemouth with the hook-less lure for 3 hours straight than go to the MWC tourney...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> Let me tell you...those MWC tournament seats...they're really burning up!


How right you are....
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/03/11/4046590.htm

The fact is that average attendance for the tournament is higher than what Utah or Utah State draw for regular season games...and the championship game is much higher than any team in the state. MWC regular season games average about 2,000 less fans per game than do conference tournament games Also, tournament games for the MWC are among the highest attended college basketball tournaments in the country. The MWC conference tournament is nothing short of a blast....but, for all I care, don't go. That just allows me a better chance at good tickets.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

stablebuck, I gather from your comments you are not a college basketball fan, so why are you talking about college basketball? :? :roll:


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Naw I love competition and I love watching good competition! But I had no desire watching MWC basketball this year or really any other conference besides the Big East, ACC, or Big 12 because those were the only conferences that can compete this year.
I have no desire to watch my youngest nephew play basketball either...well maybe one game to fulfill my uncle duties...but after that I gotta come up with an excuse for not going  
You know what I'm saying?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> You know what I'm saying?


Nope.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

hahaha...then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

You think it's a chore to go watch family play ? You have a long ways to go.
I used to go watch a nephew wrestle ever chance I got and he was terrible.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I guess you've reached the peak of humanity Packfish...everyone take a bow! :roll: 

Thank you for stating the obvious  That's why I'm 26, single, and no kids. I think I'm doing alright, but I'll let you know how it goes!!!

Thank you for your concern!


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

That's why I'm 26, single, and no kids.

That explains it.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

stablebuck said:


> You know what I'm saying?


You're the guy who goes to out of conference games to watch the other team right? I hear you... I'm the same way, except I don't go to ANY basketball games, just football. :lol: I'd go to Utes baseball games to watch whoever if I could get tickets online. I think you have to actually go down to FC Field though to get them. Anyway, I agree on the local stuff... I watch the NBA games but won't ever watch Jazz stuff on KJZZ. Its almost "American Idol audition - like" to me.... I think I might be able to start watching some of the college hoops now though, especially since Duke just got it handed to them.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> stablebuck said:
> 
> 
> > You know what I'm saying?
> ...


He is busy working on a shed trap, no time! :shock: :lol: 26 single and no kids, please tell me your secrets I screwed up somewhere along the lines and ended up married with one kid, **** it. :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

jahan said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > stablebuck said:
> ...


Naw the shed trap has taken a backseat to practicing with the bow...sorry to disappoint y'all :lol:

Ahh...you'll be alright...as long as your child is male...then you have a democratic/misogynistic (he-man/woman-hater club) advantage over the wife...haha

I have a special ability to inadvertently piss off the woman in the relationship enough where she packs her things no later than a year into it...they aren't bold enough to get off the pill before then...haha

It's gonna backfire on me eventually, but so far...so good!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> stablebuck said:
> 
> 
> > You know what I'm saying?
> ...


There's just such a huge disparity in NCAA basketball and the NBA this year. You've got the Big East, a few teams from the Big 12, a Big Ten team, and an ACC team...then you've got everyone else. You've got the Lakers, Celtics, Magic, and Cavaliers...then you've got everybody else. It's really kind of pointless THIS YEAR to tune in to any other competition. There are some up and coming teams but just not good enough this year to make a difference.


----------

