Stryker
Well-known member
Precisely. It is a nationally televised game on ESPN against a Big10 team. The disrespect stinks, but the exposure is better than any MVC game Bradley has played in this year.
-
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.
NIT game- Wisconsin 81 Bradley 62
- Thread starter Da Coach
- Start date
Precisely. It is a nationally televised game on ESPN against a Big10 team. The disrespect stinks, but the exposure is better than any MVC game Bradley has played in this year.
If we'd beaten Arkansas, Auburn and/or Liberty, we would have had a home game. In fact, it's not out the realm of possibility we'd received an NCAA at large birth. When you don't an opportunity to play a lot of games against Quad 1 and Quad 2 teams, it's critical to win the ones you do play. The NIT is no longer based on past history or attendance.
Btw, Bradley's 8:30 pm time slot on ESPN is ideal for the widest exposure.
The only basketball competition at that time is the second First Four game (Pitt vs. Miss. State) on TruTV, and a couple other NIT games- Villanova-Liberty on ESPN2, and Yale-Vanderbilt game on ESPNU.
I'd rather he explain why only 8 Big Ten teams made the NCAA Tourney. I mean, his selection committee left out half his old league! (Sarcasm intended.)
Mikovio
Active member
I'm a bit miffed we didn't get the home game, especially considering we had the higher NET. But all in all I'm happy with a primetime B1G game on ESPN. I think a lot of people especially in the Midwest will see the games that are on and want to see BU-Wisconsin. So it's a good opportunity and I hope our guys are up for it!
battlebasset
Member
Seeing alot on this thread about disrespect. Maybe, maybe not. Win tonight and that argument carries alot more weight. Would like to see a repeat of 1982, when Versace was upset that Bradley didn't get an NCAA bid, and they win the whole thing. Nothing succeeds like success.
Dubl R 1
Well-known member
My question is, what are NCAA and NIT invites SUPPOSED to be about? Forget the $$ money aspect...we all know that's what it IS about..but what does the NCAA officially say they are about. Is it a REWARD for season's success, or is it about getting the "best" teams to the tournaments?
I think those are 2 vastly different things. I think it should be a reward for what you did in the regular season, but the committee always talks about they wanted to make sure they got the "best teams".
My feeling is if you are one of the "best teams" in college basketball, but had a 17-14 season, and were under .500 in conference play, surely you underachieved. I doubt that was the goal for a team that people consider one of college basketball "best" teams. Maybe you underachieved for several reasons (injury, bad coaching, turmoil,), but the fact still exists you shouldn't be REWARDED for that kind of record and effort.
We should be putting in teams that accomplished something, overachieved, and did something above and beyond to "earn" a right to play for a championship.
I would like for the NCAA to pick teams on that aspect, the reward for doing something, not "who can beat who"....that's beside the point.
That would be like me and Jordan in a free throw contest, and he makes 8 and I make 9, but they go ahead and move Jordan on because they think/know he's better than me, despite the fact I did more in the round than he did??? does that make sense? That seems to be the NCAA selection process.
Tommy
Well-known member
I'd take you every time, Dubl R!
In my opinion, the post season conference tournaments, have made the regular season irrelevant in a manner similar to the NBA and NHL. If you’re not from a Power conference, all that matters is the post season conference tournament. I would like to see, but it won’t happen, post season conference tournaments eliminated and put all D1 teams in the NCAA Tournament. This would eliminate the non conference scheduling problems as the mid majors would have an opportunity to beat the big boys in the NCAA Tournament.
Stryker
Well-known member
The more I think about it the more I am in favor of getting rid of the conference tournaments or reducing their impact on the post season tournaments.
Lets be real here. The conference tournaments mean basically nothing for the power5 teams. The selection committee already knows 95% of the power teams that will get in before the conference tournament and barring an extreme run like Uconn in 2011 it won't change the comittee's thoughts on which power5 teams are in the ncaa tournament. The only thing it may effect is the seeding.
Then we get everyone else. In the MVC, the regular season conference champ has had a 38% chance of winning the conference tournament over the past 20 seasons. So more likely than not, unless the regular season champ has a great non-conference performance, the MVC is one bid league and the conference champ is left out of the ncaa tournament just like this year. Either way more often than not the best team in the league all year misses the tournament because of the conference tournament. This leads to fewer expected wins from the mid-major/low-major teams in the ncaa tournament since their best conference team is missing.
To me it makes more sense for the regular season champion to get the auto-bid. However, that makes the conference tournament meaningless and the regular season champ wouldn't participate most likely. So yeah. I don't know what the solution is here, but the current system just isn't great. Mid major conferences also have the ability to get two teams if they have a team with an at-large resume and that team doesn't get the auto-bid.
Canton BU fan
Member
With more Division 1 teams seemingly every year maybe expanding the NCAA tournament again and auto bids for conference Champions while still auto for conference tournament Champions. Also, get rid of the play in games. I hate that. Either in the tournament or not.
Looks like plenty of tickets still available-
https://uwbadgers.evenue.net/cgi-bi...gc=&dataAccId=987&locale=en_US&siteId=ev_wisc
https://uwbadgers.evenue.net/cgi-bi...gc=&dataAccId=987&locale=en_US&siteId=ev_wisc
houstonbrave
Well-known member
Hopefully we get a good number of BU fans for the game
formerlybis
New member
Hey, folks, I'm a badger fan checking in. My daughter graduated from Bradley, so I have a lot of fondness for the school, and a picture posing with Kaboom from her graduation. I'm amazed I still had an active account here from those days.
Whoever thought it'd be a sellout doesn't know much. The students are on spring break and it's a late Tuesday night tip-off that no one had on their schedule. Plus, the fanbase is just disappointed with the team, not just because of the record, but because their hearts have been ripped out by numerous close game losses. They actually have won some of those close games, but the losses sting way worse than the wins uplift.
I'd have been okay playing this in Peoria. The MVC is always a tough slog, but no longer a multi-bid league with the defections like Loyola. One-bid leagues suck for fans of those teams, especially one like Bradley that wins the regular season. You should have been rewarded with a home game, even if it wasn't against UW - Liberty got one.
The other Badger fan in this thread was accurate. Nearly every game UW plays is close, regardless of opponent, good or bad. It's really more of an 8-man rotation these days with the backup PG having played more lately (the other two are a big and a wing). While Hepburn may still be the leading scorer, Essegian has really been the primary scorer for the latter half of the B10 season. UW does like to post either Crowl or Wahl and have them back down the opponent near the rim, but with your interior defense, I suspect the Badgers might be more perimeter-oriented tonight.
Well, good luck. Feel free to hit me up with any questions.
Whoever thought it'd be a sellout doesn't know much. The students are on spring break and it's a late Tuesday night tip-off that no one had on their schedule. Plus, the fanbase is just disappointed with the team, not just because of the record, but because their hearts have been ripped out by numerous close game losses. They actually have won some of those close games, but the losses sting way worse than the wins uplift.
I'd have been okay playing this in Peoria. The MVC is always a tough slog, but no longer a multi-bid league with the defections like Loyola. One-bid leagues suck for fans of those teams, especially one like Bradley that wins the regular season. You should have been rewarded with a home game, even if it wasn't against UW - Liberty got one.
The other Badger fan in this thread was accurate. Nearly every game UW plays is close, regardless of opponent, good or bad. It's really more of an 8-man rotation these days with the backup PG having played more lately (the other two are a big and a wing). While Hepburn may still be the leading scorer, Essegian has really been the primary scorer for the latter half of the B10 season. UW does like to post either Crowl or Wahl and have them back down the opponent near the rim, but with your interior defense, I suspect the Badgers might be more perimeter-oriented tonight.
Well, good luck. Feel free to hit me up with any questions.
Stryker
Well-known member
I was kind of thinking along those lines as well. Maybe expand it, every conference gets two-auto bids, and have the regular season champs get some kind of bye or something. idk,
Nashville Cat
Member
Thanks for the objective thoughts. Don't be a stranger next year as we'll appreciate your input.
Fan since 88
Member
I have not seen this yet, but maybe it is out there already. If so, feel free to disregard or delete this post.
Since we have two tournaments with 96 teams, why not just one tournament with 96 teams?
Top 32 seeds get a bye, bottom 64 play in. Why or why not?
Since we have two tournaments with 96 teams, why not just one tournament with 96 teams?
Top 32 seeds get a bye, bottom 64 play in. Why or why not?
That is a good thought. I have seen a few other similar suggestions in the last several years (see articles below). In fact, the NCAA seriously considered expanding the field to 96 teams in 2010, exactly like you described, with the 32 top teams receiving a bye. However, they eventually settled on the expansion to 68 teams instead, and it has remained that way since 2011.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2010/news/story?id=5047800
https://caneswarning.com/2022/03/24/jim-larranaga-proposal-96-team-ncaa-tournament/
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/366880-expansion-to-96-teams-is-real-march-madness
https://athleticdirectoru.com/artic...o-96-teams-in-the-ncaa-basketball-tournament/
https://www.si.com/college/2023/03/14/ncaa-tournament-march-madness-expanded-bracket-daily-cover
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ion-why-96-teams-would-have-been-a-good-thing
https://mwwire.com/2020/08/16/field-of-96-a-proposal-for-an-expanded-ncaa-tournament/
Tommy
Well-known member
Because that makes too much sense 88. Don't bring your crazy talk here! (honestly though, they'd just fill it with the rest of the power conference teams that weren't in the first 64!).