• 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.

MVC coaches questioning BracketBuster?

at least a couple dozen decent "mid-majors" get a TV game they otherwise would NOT have gotten because of the BracketBuster...
MANY have been MVC teams over the years......

Anytime you can be involved in anything that is directly affiliated with ESPN and gets you 12-15 games on their network of channels...I think you have more to gain than to lose...

There are people like me who get tired of seeing a Duke game, a Kansas game, or a Big East game every single hour of prime time & Saturdays....if we back out of BB, then they'll just replace the games that had the MVC teams with Rutgers vs. USF or Providence vs. West Virginia

That column makes it sound like the Valley getting one bid is somehow connected to BB -- but it's not at all...the Valley getting one bid is due to bad scheduling by Valley teams and failure to win decent non-conference matchups
 
tornado does have a valid point. There are 2 sides to BracketBuster. One is the resume-enhancing side that I often discuss. But the other side has nothing to do with the NCAA tournament - it's exposure. Getting a national TV game you otherwise don't get.

However, I'd argue the Valley no longer needs BB for exposure purposes anymore either. The MVC has its own Sunday night slot on ESPNU, and they'll get a few other national games as well. Every preseason Valley contender gets several national games a year now - Bradley got 4 national games this year for being the 5th team of a predicted 5-team breakaway at the top of the MVC in preseason. I don't think the Valley needs the BB boost anymore from that perspective.
 
I don't mind the BB but WHY 80 teams or whatever it is....why not "earn" it and make it for the top 20 teams......those are the ones most likely on a bubble and can use the resume enhancing game they might not otherwise get.
 
dogsrus said:
I don't mind the BB but WHY 80 teams or whatever it is....why not "earn" it and make it for the top 20 teams......those are the ones most likely on a bubble and can use the resume enhancing game they might not otherwise get.
Click to expand...

probably because teams want to complete their schedule before the season starts...
if they leave a blank date open hoping to do well enough to "earn" a BracketBuster game, then they have a good chance of falling short and ending up with an open date that they could have scheduled a game.
 
tornado said:
probably because teams want to complete their schedule before the season starts...
if they leave a blank date open hoping to do well enough to "earn" a BracketBuster game, then they have a good chance of falling short and ending up with an open date that they could have scheduled a game.
Click to expand...

right, and especially on a saturday this late in the season..which is still a problem because on our second to last saturday, we are playing UT-M

Yuck
 
tornado said:
at least a couple dozen decent "mid-majors" get a TV game they otherwise would NOT have gotten because of the BracketBuster...
MANY have been MVC teams over the years......

Anytime you can be involved in anything that is directly affiliated with ESPN and gets you 12-15 games on their network of channels...I think you have more to gain than to lose...

There are people like me who get tired of seeing a Duke game, a Kansas game, or a Big East game every single hour of prime time & Saturdays....if we back out of BB, then they'll just replace the games that had the MVC teams with Rutgers vs. USF or Providence vs. West Virginia

That column makes it sound like the Valley getting one bid is somehow connected to BB -- but it's not at all...the Valley getting one bid is due to bad scheduling by Valley teams and failure to win decent non-conference matchups
Click to expand...

Great point. The BB is way down the list of reasons why the MVC is basically a one-bid league again. Not only does Bradley need to step up and compete again, so does the MVC as a whole. The two are related in some ways.
 
tornado said:
probably because teams want to complete their schedule before the season starts...
if they leave a blank date open hoping to do well enough to "earn" a BracketBuster game, then they have a good chance of falling short and ending up with an open date that they could have scheduled a game.
Click to expand...

And while we talk about the impact on the resume, the financial impact of not having a game when you could've scheduled a home game in November and pocketed a little extra profit is non-negligible.
 
TheAsianSensation said:
And while we talk about the impact on the resume, the financial impact of not having a game when you could've scheduled a home game in November and pocketed a little extra profit is non-negligible.
Click to expand...

That's secondary to not being competitive enough to capitalize from it.

If you're good, you get a good game and most likely a 2nd good game.

Since BU's been in it, we've only received a "good" game once. And this is year 7 or 8.
 
srw said:
right, and especially on a saturday this late in the season..which is still a problem because on our second to last saturday, we are playing UT-M

Yuck
Click to expand...

And right now somebody from UT-M is saying...."we are playing BRADLEY.....YUCK."

:)
 
squirrelgotdead said:
That's secondary to not being competitive enough to capitalize from it.

If you're good, you get a good game and most likely a 2nd good game.

Since BU's been in it, we've only received a "good" game once. And this is year 7 or 8.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. Yes - the "good" game you refer to was VCU on tv. But I think the Western Kentucky game was a good game. And your comments suggest we were good only 1 year. That also is just not true. The year we went to the Sweet 16, we got hosed with the Tenn Tech matchup.

Here's a list of our opponents the year we played them in the BracketBuster with their RPI and ours in (#).

2004 #279 N Illinois (#152)
2005 #75 W Ky (#142)
2006 #135 Tn Tech (#33)
2007 #44 VCU (#38 )
2008 #178 Wi-Milwaukee (#105)
2009 #214 Loyola (#98 )
2010 #146 Drexel (#105)
currrently for...
2011 #290 Tenn-Martin (#237)

Hmmmph... now looking at those RPI #'s... we REALLY got hosed in '06. And except for the W Ky game, we got teams with a worse RPI EVERY year. Jeezle-pete... maybe we DO need to get out of this thing. :-o :lol:
 
TheAsianSensation said:
And while we talk about the impact on the resume, the financial impact of not having a game when you could've scheduled a home game in November and pocketed a little extra profit is non-negligible.
Click to expand...

The financial impact of making the NCAA Tournament is far greater than any non-conference home game against a bad team.

Heck, playing those type of games early in the season (home, non-conference against bad teams) is the reason the MVC is in the spot it is.

It's short-sighted, IMO, to think about a pay day against a SWAC team versus the potential of a resume-boosting BB game.

The only catch is that you have to be a good enough team to be in contention for an NCAA bid.

If not, you probably still end up with a game that's better (RPI-wise) than that SWAC home pay day game.
 
MacabreMob said:
That's just not true. Yes - the "good" game you refer to was VCU on tv. But I think the Western Kentucky game was a good game. And your comments suggest we were good only 1 year. That also is just not true. The year we went to the Sweet 16, we got hosed with the Tenn Tech matchup.

Here's a list of our opponents the year we played them in the BracketBuster with their RPI and ours in (#).

2004 #279 N Illinois (#152)
2005 #75 W Ky (#142)
2006 #135 Tn Tech (#33)
2007 #44 VCU (#38 )
2008 #178 Wi-Milwaukee (#105)
2009 #214 Loyola (#98 )
2010 #146 Drexel (#105)
currrently for...
2011 #290 Tenn-Martin (#237)

Hmmmph... now looking at those RPI #'s... we REALLY got hosed in '06. And except for the W Ky game, we got teams with a worse RPI EVERY year. Jeezle-pete... maybe we DO need to get out of this thing. :-o :lol:
Click to expand...

BU didn't get hosed. They hand-picked several of those games, plus they necessarily set pairings a month out - you never know how a team will play that month.

In 2006, BU was pretty far down the MVC list when the pairings were set at the first of Feb. If you recall, the run started near the middle of February. BU was 6-5 in the MVC when the pairings were set.

Tenn Tech was 10-4 in their league at the beginning of Feb.
 
dogsrus said:
And right now somebody from UT-M is saying...."we are playing BRADLEY.....YUCK."

:)
Click to expand...

Funny sad and true. I suppose the only "positives" of playing us are, we played @ Duke, beat USC and Creighton, so its not as bad as playing ISU.

Wait, BU lost to ISU :(
 
dogsrus said:
And right now somebody from UT-M is saying...."we are playing BRADLEY.....YUCK."

:)
Click to expand...

Actually, Dogs...we are quite possibly the best non-conference opponent ever to visit there, or at least in a generation. The best team I could find the last seven years to visit there was Evansville.

This could be a big game for them.
 
I would think the MVC staying with it for now, would be good due to the reasons mentioned--national games, some buzz, occassionally being used for bubble-tying, etc. However, the onvious thing that should go is the "return game" concept. That frequently jacks-up scheduling, and really is not needed since it does not add anything to the teams schedules--all the BB teams can easily schedule one another when and if they choose, why lose scheduling felxibility and get forced into a return game for no apparent reason?
 
ghunt said:
I would think the MVC staying with it for now, would be good due to the reasons mentioned--national games, some buzz, occassionally being used for bubble-tying, etc. However, the onvious thing that should go is the "return game" concept. That frequently jacks-up scheduling, and really is not needed since it does not add anything to the teams schedules--all the BB teams can easily schedule one another when and if they choose, why lose scheduling felxibility and get forced into a return game for no apparent reason?
Click to expand...

Because just about everyone who isn't the MVC actually needs that scheduling help. They actually need these games to fill out the schedule and get potential quality games for next year's non-con.
 
TylerDurden said:
BU didn't get hosed. They hand-picked several of those games, plus they necessarily set pairings a month out - you never know how a team will play that month.

In 2006, BU was pretty far down the MVC list when the pairings were set at the first of Feb. If you recall, the run started near the middle of February. BU was 6-5 in the MVC when the pairings were set.

Tenn Tech was 10-4 in their league at the beginning of Feb.
Click to expand...

RPI on Feb 1st 2006
#54 Bradley
#115 Tenn Tech


Yea... we got hosed.
 
I don't call drawing down being hosed if you're only 9-7 or whatever we were.

Hosed implies some great injustice was done. If we had been better, we would have drawn better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top