Last Four In thing...

[Mike_S]

With BC (for now at least) on the good side of the bubble, I think we should be aiming higher.

Being among the last four in means a play-in game against another decent major team (someone like Memphis). Then travel to another site for a game only 2 or three days later against a 5 seed.

Winning all the way through the 4/5 game in the ACC quarters would likely get BC out of the play-in game, and would make the NCAA anticipation much better. Not to mention the chances of a good run.

They've played MUCH better on defense for most of the last 5 games or so. If they keep that going they have a shot.

[twballgame9]

The improvement of the defense cannot be overstated.

[joemack13]

I thought the defense steadily improved throughout the season, which was very nice to see. It was the offense completely disappearing that killed us. Our defense started to look much better only a few games into ACC play

[DallasEire]

Don't forget the ridiculous upsets that always accompany the mid-major tournaments. Being in the "last four in" is a recipe for being left out when some shitbag team like Coastal Carolina runs the table.

The aim better be to win the next three.

[bluefishskip]

BC wins the next 3 (including beating the team with a Bye in the Quarterfinals), they should safely be in.
Win only the next 2 and it could go either way justifiably

I used to post some stuff on Conte Crib over on EA, but cancelled my membership over there due to the cost. I heard from someone over there saying that my stuff was being requested again, so maybe i'll put something together soon (that's to you bignick)

[BCEagles25]

Don't forget the ridiculous upsets that always accompany the mid-major tournaments. Being in the "last four in" is a recipe for being left out when some shitbag team like Coastal Carolina runs the table.

The aim better be to win the next three.

This. Mid-major tourneys ruin everything, and since this year's NCAA is down I expect to see a ridiculous amount of upsets.

[31southst]

I don't understand how VT is considered safer than BC across the board. I know their record is slightly better (19-9 vs. 18-11) but their OOC schedule is horrendous. I also know head-to-head isn't the best metric when picking from more than two teams but we did beat them twice. Am I missing something here?

[branchinator]

I don't understand how VT is considered safer than BC across the board. I know their record is slightly better (19-9 vs. 18-11) but their OOC schedule is horrendous. I also know head-to-head isn't the best metric when picking from more than two teams but we did beat them twice. Am I missing something here?

Nope. They've also had an easier ACC schedule. It's the Duke win that's skewing everything.

[dtwalrus]

Last 4 in by no means equals a play-in game. Don't confuse the final four at large bids with the 65-68 best teams in the tourney.

Pretty sure the play-in games have always and will always be made up of auto bids from the lower conferences. Last four in could still mean a 12 seed.

[bluefishskip]

Couple Things:

1) The New Play-In games are NOT meant for teams 65-68. They are in combination with the lowest mid-majors AND the Final at-large bids. So to say they are for teams 65-68, that is not correct.

2) BC vs. VT........Virginia Tech "had" an advantage over BC going into Tuesday Night's game in Blacksburg, with a high profile win and at the time a 9-5 ACC Record. The "experts" probably assumed they'd beat BC to go 10-5 and basically be in. VT losing to BC was very damaging and basically (in my opinion) neutralized their Duke win, which is their only top 50 win all season (BC only has 1 as well...Texas A&M). Right now, VT's resume is very much at best equal to or worse than BC's.
BC: 1-5 vs. Top 50 (not good), 7-10 vs. Top 100 (not very good), 4-6 Road Record (not great), 4-6 in last 10 (also not good), SOS 18 (excellent), RPI 38 (high side of bubble, but still bubble)

VT: 1-6 vs. Top 50, 7-6 vs. Top 100....here are the 2 kickers that fail VT.....12-3 vs Teams 101 and above...and SOS 90. THREE losses to sub 100 RPI teams (Virginia twice and GA Tech). 4-5 Road record doesn't help them either.

Bottom Line: VA Tech is "IN" off the Duke win......but when the dust settles and a new perspective is taken on VA Tech, they are in some trouble......but then again, when you examine the entire bubble, there are some weak teams that are going to get into the tourney this year, thanks especially to the expanded field.

[RedBaron67]

Don't forget the ridiculous upsets that always accompany the mid-major tournaments. Being in the "last four in" is a recipe for being left out when some shitbag team like Coastal Carolina runs the table.

The aim better be to win the next three.

BC wins the next 3 (including beating the team with a Bye in the Quarterfinals), they should safely be in.
Win only the next 2 and it could go either way justifiably

I used to post some stuff on Conte Crib over on EA, but cancelled my membership over there due to the cost. I heard from someone over there saying that my stuff was being requested again, so maybe i'll put something together soon (that's to you bignick)

This is really all that needs to be said. Win two and we're on the bubble and probably a play-in if we make it; win three and we're in and probably avoid a play-in.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't understand how VT is considered safer than BC across the board. I know their record is slightly better (19-9 vs. 18-11) but their OOC schedule is horrendous. I also know head-to-head isn't the best metric when picking from more than two teams but we did beat them twice. Am I missing something here?

Well they beat a tope 5 team so that is always going to help. Also, VTs OOC is not that bad if you look at the actual games and not just the overall SOS score. They played Kansas St., Purdue, Oklahoma St, Penn St, UNLV and Miss St in non conference games. Compare that to our decent non conference opponents: A&M, Cal, Wisconsin, Providence, Umass, South Carolina. What hurts their SOS is they have 5 games against teams with rpis over 250 and two over 300. We only have 2 over 250, but now we are comparing whose shitty opponents are worse. So are we better because we beat Bucknell & St Francis, and they beat South Carolina upstate and Longwood? This is one of the flaws with SOS. Playing a really crappy team drags your number down, but playing teams that are only a little bad does not.

[EagleDave]

BC is in with a win over Wake ( ), and either a 1st or 2nd round win in the ACCT. A loss in any of the aforementioned situations means that they'd better pray every single mid-major tournament goes according to plan in which the favored team has an at-large resume.

[eepstein0]

BC is in with a win over Wake ( ), and either a 1st or 2nd round win in the ACCT. A loss in any of the aforementioned situations means that they'd better pray every single mid-major tournament goes according to plan in which the favored team has an at-large resume.

2 Wins over Wake and a loss to Clemson/VT puts you in a play-in game. WIn 3 and we're destined for an 11 seed.

[pick6pedro]

Last 4 in by no means equals a play-in game. Don't confuse the final four at large bids with the 65-68 best teams in the tourney.

Pretty sure the play-in games have always and will always be made up of auto bids from the lower conferences. Last four in could still mean a 12 seed.

Don't confuse your hopes with facts.

[EagleDave]

Of course the alternative to all this is we could lose to Wake this weekend and then be excited about our #1 seed in the NIT!

[cvilleagle]

Don't forget the ridiculous upsets that always accompany the mid-major tournaments. Being in the "last four in" is a recipe for being left out when some shitbag team like Coastal Carolina runs the table.

The aim better be to win the next three.

It's going to be less severe this year, because of the general shittiness among mid-major teams. There are more conferences this year that have very little chance of 2 bids, because they don't have even one team that would qualify as an at-large.

I know this is just an example that you gave off-hand, but for example if Coastal Carolina wins out, they're in, but that doesn't really cause any problems because the Big South is so terrible - none of the other teams is taking an at-large. If Coastal Carolina loses, they're probably not getting an at-large. They'll be like 28-5, but they won't have the numbers to justify it.

[pick6pedro]

Don't forget the ridiculous upsets that always accompany the mid-major tournaments. Being in the "last four in" is a recipe for being left out when some shitbag team like Coastal Carolina runs the table.

The aim better be to win the next three.

It's going to be less severe this year, because of the general shittiness among mid-major teams. There are more conferences this year that have very little chance of 2 bids, because they don't have even one team that would qualify as an at-large.

I know this is just an example that you gave off-hand, but for example if Coastal Carolina wins out, they're in, but that doesn't really cause any problems because the Big South is so terrible - none of the other teams is taking an at-large. If Coastal Carolina loses, they're probably not getting an at-large. They'll be like 28-5, but they won't have the numbers to justify it.

I agree. Outside of maybe the Colonial, Horizon, WCC and MVC, I would worry more about an MSU winning the Big Ten (could happen), BAMA winning the SEC (sure, why not?), or Duquesne/Drexel winning the A-10 (probably not) because the projected champion in most cases would not make the tourney unless they win their conference.

[Eagledom]

speaking of the tournament....this whole new play-in system just doesn't make sense. There is going to be one or two 10-12 seeds that have to theoretically play more games than the other 10-12 seeds, not to mention more games than teams seeded LOWER than them. I understand that they didn't want just 16 seeds as play in games, but the new system is completely unfair.

[claver2010]

speaking of the tournament....this whole new play-in system just doesn't make sense. There is going to be one or two 10-12 seeds that have to theoretically play more games than the other 10-12 seeds, not to mention more games than teams seeded LOWER than them. I understand that they didn't want just 16 seeds as play in games, but the new system is completely unfair.

Agreed if they wanted to expand, make 8 16 seeds have 4 play-in games.

Problem with that is that no one was watching the games in Dayton.

[pick6pedro]

I think it makes plenty of sense and doesn't seem unfair for teams that barely earned their way in and have such slim chances of advancing far to have to play one more game. You have to play one more game than a 14 seed? Boo-hoo - win more games Coach Greenberg!

What I don't get is them playing in Dayton and then having to travel for a game 48 hours (or less) later. I was pretty shocked that this wasn't already the case. Have the play-in games be at the site where the advancing team will play again.

[RedBaron67]

speaking of the tournament....this whole new play-in system just doesn't make sense. There is going to be one or two 10-12 seeds that have to theoretically play more games than the other 10-12 seeds, not to mention more games than teams seeded LOWER than them. I understand that they didn't want just 16 seeds as play in games, but the new system is completely unfair.

It makes perfect sense if you understand what enlargement of the tournament is mainly about: MONEY. The high-majors want more of their teams in to get a larger slice of the pie to cover the expenses they incur in being high-majors; the mid- and low-majors insist on keeping their automatic bids. The new system allows in a few more high-majors at the bottom of the at-large list, but relegates them to play-ins so that the automatic-bid teams won't be required to eliminate members of their own group as they were in the 65-team format. In practice, there will be some upsets, but most years there will be three or four more high-majors in the round of 64, which means a little more of the tournament pie for the high-major conferences. They still want more, of course, but the non-high-majors are the NCAA D1 majority, so the 68-team format represents the current balance point of conflicting political and economic pressures within the NCAA. Like most political compromises, it's somewhat illogical, but it makes sense in terms of the priorities of the parties involved.

[MilitantEagle]

speaking of the tournament....this whole new play-in system just doesn't make sense. There is going to be one or two 10-12 seeds that have to theoretically play more games than the other 10-12 seeds, not to mention more games than teams seeded LOWER than them. I understand that they didn't want just 16 seeds as play in games, but the new system is completely unfair.

It makes perfect sense if you understand what enlargement of the tournament is mainly about: MONEY. The high-majors want more of their teams in to get a larger slice of the pie to cover the expenses they incur in being high-majors; the mid- and low-majors insist on keeping their automatic bids. The new system allows in a few more high-majors at the bottom of the at-large list, but relegates them to play-ins so that the automatic-bid teams won't be required to eliminate members of their own group as they were in the 65-team format. In practice, there will be some upsets, but most years there will be three or four more high-majors in the round of 64, which means a little more of the tournament pie for the high-major conferences. They still want more, of course, but the non-high-majors are the NCAA D1 majority, so the 68-team format represents the current balance point of conflicting political and economic pressures within the NCAA. Like most political compromises, it's somewhat illogical, but it makes sense in terms of the priorities of the parties involved.

On the topic of money, can somebody explain how the conferences get paid for March Madness? Do they get a set amount or do they get paid based on the number of teams that make it? Also, do the conferences get paid more when their teams advance?

[Eagledom]

I think it makes plenty of sense and doesn't seem unfair for teams that barely earned their way in and have such slim chances of advancing far to have to play one more game. You have to play one more game than a 14 seed? Boo-hoo - win more games Coach Greenberg!

What I don't get is them playing in Dayton and then having to travel for a game 48 hours (or less) later. I was pretty shocked that this wasn't already the case. Have the play-in games be at the site where the advancing team will play again.

It's completely illogical for one 10 seed to have to play more games than another 10 seed, or for a 10 seed to have to play more games than an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seed.....but I'm SHOCKED that you disagree.

[pick6pedro]

I think it makes plenty of sense and doesn't seem unfair for teams that barely earned their way in and have such slim chances of advancing far to have to play one more game. You have to play one more game than a 14 seed? Boo-hoo - win more games Coach Greenberg!

What I don't get is them playing in Dayton and then having to travel for a game 48 hours (or less) later. I was pretty shocked that this wasn't already the case. Have the play-in games be at the site where the advancing team will play again.

It's completely illogical for one 10 seed to have to play more games than another 10 seed, or for a 10 seed to have to play more games than an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seed.....but I'm SHOCKED that you disagree.

Instead of crying about being unfair, you should strive to win more games. Problem solved. But I'm SHOCKED you're bitching.

[pick6pedro]

And I always thought it was condensation on the outside of my squeezed-morning-beverage glass...turns out they are tears.

[twballgame9]

I think it makes plenty of sense and doesn't seem unfair for teams that barely earned their way in and have such slim chances of advancing far to have to play one more game. You have to play one more game than a 14 seed? Boo-hoo - win more games Coach Greenberg!

What I don't get is them playing in Dayton and then having to travel for a game 48 hours (or less) later. I was pretty shocked that this wasn't already the case. Have the play-in games be at the site where the advancing team will play again.

It's completely illogical for one 10 seed to have to play more games than another 10 seed, or for a 10 seed to have to play more games than an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seed.....but I'm SHOCKED that you disagree.

You know who else it's unfair for? The other guys.

Oh, wait, you hated that guy.

[Eagledom]

I think it makes plenty of sense and doesn't seem unfair for teams that barely earned their way in and have such slim chances of advancing far to have to play one more game. You have to play one more game than a 14 seed? Boo-hoo - win more games Coach Greenberg!

What I don't get is them playing in Dayton and then having to travel for a game 48 hours (or less) later. I was pretty shocked that this wasn't already the case. Have the play-in games be at the site where the advancing team will play again.

It's completely illogical for one 10 seed to have to play more games than another 10 seed, or for a 10 seed to have to play more games than an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seed.....but I'm SHOCKED that you disagree.

Instead of crying about being unfair, you should strive to win more games. Problem solved. But I'm SHOCKED you're bitching.

This is the most retarded argument..."just don't be a 10 seed, then....win more games". And no one is "bitching". I am pointing out an illogical tournament setup....that is all. But I am not surprised that Mr. "I will argue if you say the sky is blue" chimed in with nonsense.

[pick6pedro]

I think it makes plenty of sense and doesn't seem unfair for teams that barely earned their way in and have such slim chances of advancing far to have to play one more game. You have to play one more game than a 14 seed? Boo-hoo - win more games Coach Greenberg!

What I don't get is them playing in Dayton and then having to travel for a game 48 hours (or less) later. I was pretty shocked that this wasn't already the case. Have the play-in games be at the site where the advancing team will play again.

It's completely illogical for one 10 seed to have to play more games than another 10 seed, or for a 10 seed to have to play more games than an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seed.....but I'm SHOCKED that you disagree.

Instead of crying about being unfair, you should strive to win more games. Problem solved. But I'm SHOCKED you're bitching.

This is the most retarded argument..."just don't be a 10 seed, then....win more games". And no one is "bitching". I am pointing out an illogical tournament setup....that is all. But I am not surprised that Mr. "I will argue if you say the sky is blue" chimed in with nonsense.

You should probably glance in a mirror every now and then.

Saying everyone controls their own destiny over a 40 game slate is retarded? Now I get it.

It's one thing to say it's unfair if you go 12-0 and don't make the NC game that is limited to 2 teams. It's another thing to say it's unfair when 1 or 2 games out of 40 allows you to move away from this huge, unfair penalty of having to play an extra game when it's highly unlikely you're 1) going anywhere in the tournament anyway and 2) questionable whether you deserve a shot at the title in the first place. But hey, it's really unfair to make these 12 loss teams play an extra game when someone who actually won their conference doesn't have to. Perfect logic.

It seems you have no qualms with making some teams play an extra game, so why the big deal that it's a major conference team when they were awarded a high seed because of the plenty-faulty system that sets it up in the first place? Let's just make the last 4 in 15/16 seeds so that everyone can be happy and receive their tournament participant ribbon! But no, because tradition lifts the power conference teams into a tournament they probably have no place in and a seeding they may or may not deserve, we should obsess over an extra game for a team seeded 3 slots higher. These aren't the top seeds, these teams are lucky to be there. Save your tears. Never change, OJ.

[Eagledom]

I think it makes plenty of sense and doesn't seem unfair for teams that barely earned their way in and have such slim chances of advancing far to have to play one more game. You have to play one more game than a 14 seed? Boo-hoo - win more games Coach Greenberg!

What I don't get is them playing in Dayton and then having to travel for a game 48 hours (or less) later. I was pretty shocked that this wasn't already the case. Have the play-in games be at the site where the advancing team will play again.

It's completely illogical for one 10 seed to have to play more games than another 10 seed, or for a 10 seed to have to play more games than an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 seed.....but I'm SHOCKED that you disagree.

Instead of crying about being unfair, you should strive to win more games. Problem solved. But I'm SHOCKED you're bitching.

This is the most retarded argument..."just don't be a 10 seed, then....win more games". And no one is "bitching". I am pointing out an illogical tournament setup....that is all. But I am not surprised that Mr. "I will argue if you say the sky is blue" chimed in with nonsense.

You should probably glance in a mirror every now and then.

Saying everyone controls their own destiny over a 40 game slate is retarded? Now I get it.

It's one thing to say it's unfair if you go 12-0 and don't make the NC game that is limited to 2 teams. It's another thing to say it's unfair when 1 or 2 games out of 40 allows you to move away from this huge, unfair penalty of having to play an extra game when it's highly unlikely you're 1) going anywhere in the tournament anyway and 2) questionable whether you deserve a shot at the title in the first place. But hey, it's really unfair to make these 12 loss teams play an extra game when someone who actually won their conference doesn't have to. Perfect logic.

It seems you have no qualms with making some teams play an extra game, so why the big deal that it's a major conference team when they were awarded a high seed because of the plenty-faulty system that sets it up in the first place? Let's just make the last 4 in 15/16 seeds so that everyone can be happy and receive their tournament participant ribbon! But no, because tradition lifts the power conference teams into a tournament they probably have no place in and a seeding they may or may not deserve, we should obsess over an extra game for a team seeded 3 slots higher. These aren't the top seeds, these teams are lucky to be there. Save your tears. Never change, OJ.

The liklihood that a team will "go anywhere" in the tournament should have NOTHING to do with how you set up the brackets. Giving one 10 seed a decided advantage over another 10 seed is illogical. And it doesn't matter that they "barely got in" or that they "probably won't go deep into the tourney anyway". The point is that is just doesn't make sense. 1 seeds are "rewarded" for their records and accomplishments by having the easiest path to the Final 4.....that's the whole purpose of seeding. A 2 seed has an easier path than an 8 seed, and so on and so forth. Once you make a lower seeded team play more games than a higher seeded team, you have thrown that logic out the window. Don't see how you can't grasp this.