• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

UNI victory starts up ugly anti-midmajor talk

tornado

tornado

New member
You knew it was bound to happen.

--a lowly school from the Valley knocks off Kansas - everyone's favorite and it causes people to go berserk as their brackets get messed up...

Then this morning...this Yahoo Sports article using the example of the UNI win (among other upsets)...
as a talking point on why the NCAA should be expanded!

Think of it...some lowly team that they think really doesn't deserve to be in the same gym as a #1 seed...let alone the same tournament -- and UNI has the arrogance to actually beat Kansas!!

The single thing that irks these people is...
"watching double-digit seeds win this week" mess up the "productivity in offices across the country"...
Do we really need a reminder that the..."tournament already is sprinkled with weak teams"
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-timdahlberg-032010&prov=ap&type=lgns
 
This writer actually suggests that all the upsets by midmajors mean nothing, and are just a "tease", since only once recently (George Mason in 2006) did any of them make it to the Final Four. And no team lower than an 8th seed (Rollie Massimino's Villanova in 1985) has ever won the tournament.
He uses this argument, as others have to actually suggest the tournament be shrunk to just 16 teams!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/366349-dont-buy-in-to-the-mid-major-hype-it-is-one-big-tease

but writers and people like him are deluded think that this tournament is just for him. It's not, it is for the NCAA, and it is to make money- lots of it. That's why more teams, especially the non-majors, need to be included. Just getting into the tournament and playing 1 game and going home gets more than a million dollars for a team's conference. That is why getting multiple teams into the conference is so important, because it guarantees a lot more money for that conference. And that's why just having the chance to pull an upset, like Bradley and Wichita State did in 2006, and like UNI did yesterday, are so important to the midmajor conference teams, because it increases the revenue the conference earns tremendously. Just by winning yesterday, UNI will earn at least an extra $1.5 million for the MVC, and that amount will increase by a similar amount with each win. Since the MVC splits it's share of the NCAA Tournament revenues evenly, it means Bradley will get an extra $150,000 from yesterday's UNI win. That kind of money isn't such a big deal to a school like Kansas and their $80 million athletic budget, but it means everything to schools like Bradley.
This is why midmajors fight so hard to be a part of this tournament, and why the big schools would rather not see them at this time of the year. It is the real reason behind the plan to expand to 96 teams, and have the midmajors and also-rans fight between themselves for the first round or to so most get eliminated before they get matched against the top ranked schools.
But if a school like Bradley (and every other school not in the BCS) ever has a prayer of climbing up a notch or two on the basketball ladder they need to be involved, and they need to play in and win some of these NCAA games. With the winnings, they stand a better chance of improving facilities, and recruiting better to improve. Sure, they'll never win 6 in a row to take the national championship. Nobody from Bradley expects that. Just a chance to play in the game, and get a small share of the pie.
Too bad some people like the writer above don't understand that.
 
tornado said:
and plus...
some of these little guys actually ARE good...this upset stuff is not just a fluke
Click to expand...

In addition to UNI, St. Mary's is a case in point. That's a fun team (emphasize TEAM) to watch, and the tournament wouldn't be the same without them.

The Sportscenter talking point of the morning....UNI is "the first MVC champion since the Stone Age to advance to the Sweet 16." Everyone was using it -- OK, they didn't say Stone Age, but some commentators used it twice in the same minute. They ignored the accomplishments this decade of the likes of BU, Wichita, and SIU because they hadn't won the conference title. Who dragged up that stat? Whereas if we were a "power conference," they'd use it the other way to show the depth of talent in the conference.

It's part fun watching them deal with this, and part maddening.
 
Da Coach said:
Since the MVC splits it's share of the NCAA Tournament revenues evenly, it means Bradley will get an extra $150,000 from yesterday's UNI win. That kind of money isn't such a big deal to a school like Kansas and their $80 million athletic budget, but it means everything to schools like Bradley.
Click to expand...

That's the equivalent of finding 10 new donors for the Scholarship Society -- no easy feat!
 
The so called mid majors or Cinderella teams that pull off huge upsets are the main reasons why this tournament is so successful in the amount of listeners or viewers that follow it , it would be a very boring tour. if all the favored teams won, I guarantee you that all the fans across the country that were watching or listening to the UNI-Kansas game that are not Kansas fans were pulling for UNI to win that game.
This is what makes this tour. so special, it gives teams a once in a lifetime opportunity to beat a team that all the experts say that you have no chance of winning, that is why you play the games.
 
I really didn't read the article as anti-midmajor. I read it as anti-expansion. And I am against 96 teams. Honestly I expected more fallout from the talking heads on 'the network' yesterday, but they were very complimentary of UNI. Pleasantly surprising.
 
tornado said:
You knew it was bound to happen.

--a lowly school from the Valley knocks off Kansas - everyone's favorite and it causes people to go berserk as their brackets get messed up...

Then this morning...this Yahoo Sports article using the example of the UNI win (among other upsets)...
as a talking point on why the NCAA should be expanded!

Think of it...some lowly team that they think really doesn't deserve to be in the same gym as a #1 seed...let alone the same tournament -- and UNI has the arrogance to actually beat Kansas!!

The single thing that irks these people is...
"watching double-digit seeds win this week" mess up the "productivity in offices across the country"...
Do we really need a reminder that the..."tournament already is sprinkled with weak teams"
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-timdahlberg-032010&prov=ap&type=lgns
Click to expand...

I don't think we are reading the same article here. That article was definitely against expansion.

"watching double-digit seeds win this week" mess up the "productivity in offices across the country"...
Click to expand...
And this was an especially large stretch to try and make the point that you want to make. The two quotes you tried to tie together there were not at all connected in the actual sentence: "If you’ve been too busy watching double-digit seeds win this week to pay much attention to the future of a tournament that each March slows productivity in offices across the country, listen up now."
 
BradleyBrave said:
I really didn't read the article as anti-midmajor. I read it as anti-expansion. And I am against 96 teams. Honestly I expected more fallout from the talking heads on 'the network' yesterday, but they were very complimentary of UNI. Pleasantly surprising.
Click to expand...

I am against the 96 team expansion as well. Technically most schools are in the running... All those schools have to do is to win their conference tournament.
 
Da Coach said:
This writer actually suggests that all the upsets by midmajors mean nothing, and are just a "tease", since only once recently (George Mason in 2006) did any of them make it to the Final Four. And no team lower than an 8th seed (Rollie Massimino's Villanova in 1985) has ever won the tournament.
He uses this argument, as others have to actually suggest the tournament be shrunk to just 16 teams!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/366349-dont-buy-in-to-the-mid-major-hype-it-is-one-big-tease
Click to expand...
Bleacher Report is a whole bunch of blather, not exactly a reliable source. That being said, I read the article twice to make sure I didn't miss anything, and nowhere do I see an argument that the tournament should be shrunk to 16 teams.
 
I am against expansion unless it is to 68 teams, then I really don't care. Just have 4 play in games. It will never go back down though so no worry of that, way too much money involved. 96 teams water it down, makes the brackets less appealing to fill out, and makes deciding who gets a bye way too important. Most likely it would be the "mid-majors" that suffer if byes had to be decided upon.

On the subject of the "mid-majors" ruining the tourny, what makes the tournament great is the little guys advancing. Why do people love filling out the brackets? Because no one knows who is going to advance, and it makes it a lot of fun to see who was right. I remember a couple years ago all number 1's made it, it was the most boring bracket and tournament ever. Everyone loves the underdogs, it is what makes the tournament great. They haven't ruined it, they have made it the great sporting event it is.
 
BUfan14 said:
I am against expansion unless it is to 68 teams, then I really don't care. Just have 4 play in games. It will never go back down though so no worry of that, way too much money involved. 96 teams water it down, makes the brackets less appealing to fill out, and makes deciding who gets a bye way too important. Most likely it would be the "mid-majors" that suffer if byes had to be decided upon.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I think the 4 play-ins would add a nice little 'warm up' heading into Thursday's madness, especially if it involved bubble teams rather than the type of teams it involves now.
 
tornado said:
yes-- in 1960, Bradley was not only the 2nd place team in the MVC, they were arguably the 2nd best team in the country (AP & UPI both had them ranked #4),
and they were left out of the NCAA and had to play in the NIT.
Basically the same also happened in 1959 & 1960

http://www.nmnathletics.com//pdf4/21005.pdf
Click to expand...

But back then you usually had to win your conference to make it to the NCAA, and the NIT was still considered a major tournament.
 
I think that they have pretty much made up their minds to expand to 96 teams because of the extra revenue. I do not like the idea of first round byes as I believe every team should have to play the same amount of games unless they are actually playing there way into the tour.
 
tornado said:
You knew it was bound to happen.

--a lowly school from the Valley knocks off Kansas - everyone's favorite and it causes people to go berserk as their brackets get messed up...

Then this morning...this Yahoo Sports article using the example of the UNI win (among other upsets)...
as a talking point on why the NCAA should be expanded!

Think of it...some lowly team that they think really doesn't deserve to be in the same gym as a #1 seed...let alone the same tournament -- and UNI has the arrogance to actually beat Kansas!!

The single thing that irks these people is...
"watching double-digit seeds win this week" mess up the "productivity in offices across the country"...
Do we really need a reminder that the..."tournament already is sprinkled with weak teams"
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=ap-timdahlberg-032010&prov=ap&type=lgns
Click to expand...

I don't think that Yahoo article was really that bad. He didn't specifically cite mid-majors, just more lower seeded teams where he could have also implied teams like Illinois and Arizona St. There are many lower ranked BCS teams that would probably have little chance to win a championship this year as well, especially in a 96 team tournament. While Digger and Dickie V. might think this year's North Carolina team should have been in the tournament, I don't think even they would give them much of a chance. So I think Tim's article was implying the same thing, both lower seeded mid-majors and majors.

However, one could interpret the article in a different way as well, and that is these lower seeded teams don't deserve to be in even if they are all capable of winning a game or two. Not many people believe UNI, St. Mary's and even Butler might go much farther, but that's why they play the games. And even a 13 seed is capable of going pretty far as Bradley did in 2006, and an 11 seeded George Mason did that same year. So on that level, yes, Tim is off base, but not as blanantly as some who show disdain even when teams "have the audacity to knock off overall number one seeds"!
 
Da Coach said:
This writer actually suggests that all the upsets by midmajors mean nothing, and are just a "tease", since only once recently (George Mason in 2006) did any of them make it to the Final Four. And no team lower than an 8th seed (Rollie Massimino's Villanova in 1985) has ever won the tournament.
He uses this argument, as others have to actually suggest the tournament be shrunk to just 16 teams!
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/366349-dont-buy-in-to-the-mid-major-hype-it-is-one-big-tease

but writers and people like him are deluded think that this tournament is just for him. It's not, it is for the NCAA, and it is to make money- lots of it. That's why more teams, especially the non-majors, need to be included. Just getting into the tournament and playing 1 game and going home gets more than a million dollars for a team's conference. That is why getting multiple teams into the conference is so important, because it guarantees a lot more money for that conference. And that's why just having the chance to pull an upset, like Bradley and Wichita State did in 2006, and like UNI did yesterday, are so important to the midmajor conference teams, because it increases the revenue the conference earns tremendously. Just by winning yesterday, UNI will earn at least an extra $1.5 million for the MVC, and that amount will increase by a similar amount with each win. Since the MVC splits it's share of the NCAA Tournament revenues evenly, it means Bradley will get an extra $150,000 from yesterday's UNI win. That kind of money isn't such a big deal to a school like Kansas and their $80 million athletic budget, but it means everything to schools like Bradley.
This is why midmajors fight so hard to be a part of this tournament, and why the big schools would rather not see them at this time of the year. It is the real reason behind the plan to expand to 96 teams, and have the midmajors and also-rans fight between themselves for the first round or to so most get eliminated before they get matched against the top ranked schools.
But if a school like Bradley (and every other school not in the BCS) ever has a prayer of climbing up a notch or two on the basketball ladder they need to be involved, and they need to play in and win some of these NCAA games. With the winnings, they stand a better chance of improving facilities, and recruiting better to improve. Sure, they'll never win 6 in a row to take the national championship. Nobody from Bradley expects that. Just a chance to play in the game, and get a small share of the pie.
Too bad some people like the writer above don't understand that.
Click to expand...

Wow! What's wrong with this guy?! Unlike that Yahoo article mentioned above, this guy is truly arrogant! He's a typical BCS cheerleader who thinks it's a God-given right for the BCS teams to win it all. Well I got news for him, maybe something he forgot....

They have to earn it! :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top