Oral Robert's NCAA seed

[TXBison_Fan]

ORU was seeded 14 and will play Washington State in the first round. Seth Davis called an upset and said ORU would beat WSU. ORU was a good Mid-Con team, they beat Kansas. That should show a lot as to where the Bison can hope to be seeded. Texas Tech and Marquette are also in the tourney. The Bison played 2 NCAA teams, pretty impressive. Beat one of em, should have beat one of them. They were up by 4 on Tech in their own building. Bobby Knight said his team was lucky to win the game.

[NDSUFREAK10]

We should have won every "big" game....except for ISU.

[TheDoctor]

ORU was seeded 14 and will play Washington State in the first round. *Seth Davis called an upset and said ORU would beat WSU. *ORU was a good Mid-Con team, they beat Kansas. *That should show a lot as to where the Bison can hope to be seeded. Texas Tech and Marquette are also in the tourney. The Bison played 2 NCAA teams, pretty impressive. *Beat one of em, should have beat one of them. *They were up by 4 on Tech in their own building. *Bobby Knight said his team was lucky to win the game. *


It will be fun to see the Mid Con get an upset. What a hell of a #3 seed draw they got in Washington St.

[Gamehunter]

We should have won every "big" game....except for ISU.

and Minnesota :-[

Never thought I would see the day I was somewhat embarrassed to lose to UM in mens Bball. lol It's a sign of good things!

[NDSUFREAK10]

It sure is!

UM....ugh.

[Bison_Kent]

I am not sure if NDSU (and SDSU and IPFW) would benfit this year for Oral Roberts' victories. Does anyone know? I know that the whole Mid-Con would benifit finacially if ORU would win a game or more.

[IowaBison]

Yeah, the formula pays for teams, wins, over a period of years.

[NorthernBison]

Yeah, the formula pays for teams, wins, over a period of years.



On another thread somebody (Hammersmith maybe?) pointed out how the formula works (if that's the formula you're talking about). The question still remains though. The formula is how the NCAA divides up the tournament money among the conferences. The conferences have to decide how they split the money up amongst the members. I don't remember seeing how the Mid-Con plans to split NCAA money during the initial years for the new members.

[IowaBison]

Thanks for the clarification.

NDSU, SDSU, and IPFW are members of the Mid-Con today. I'd be stunned if we didn't see the same benefits as any other team.

[roadwarrior]

I don't think our membership in the Mid-Con starts until July 1st, 2007.

[thebluehatman]

Thanks for the clarification.

NDSU, SDSU, and IPFW are members of the Mid-Con today. *I'd be stunned if we didn't see the same benefits as any other team.
Actually road is correct on this one. Technically SDSU is an associate member currently of the Mid-Con for Swimming and Diving...But July 1st is what the Mid-Con says for official league membership joining day.

[Hammersmith]

I haven't heard how the Mid-Con splits up the money(if it does) or whether the new schools will jump straight in or be phased in.

Each win by ORU will net the Mid-Con about $1.1M over the next 6 years. I would think NDSU would receive at least some of that, if not a full share.

The formula(a bit simplified) is:
1 point for appearing in the tourney
1 point for each win through the elite eight
combine the previous 6 years to determine total points

Mid-Con distribution for 2007: 6 points (0-6 in last 6 tourney appearances)


edit: If you want to see how one school can make a difference, look at the CAA over the last 6 years. 1-2-1-1-1-6. Thank you George Mason. GMU's run equaled the previous 5 years of the CAA's points and will earn the CAA an extra $5.3M.

[IowaBison]

Thanks for the clarification.

NDSU, SDSU, and IPFW are members of the Mid-Con today. I'd be stunned if we didn't see the same benefits as any other team.
Actually road is correct on this one. Technically SDSU is an associate member currently of the Mid-Con for Swimming and Diving...But July 1st is what the Mid-Con says for official league membership joining day.

thanks for the clarification. I think my argument still applies (although in this case NDSU gets nothing).

[TXBison_Fan]

Was the commitee drunk when it filled out the bracket?? How did Syracuse not get in? Drexel? There was only 6 mid-majors this year, down from eight. I guess getting to the final four doesn't get you jack squat. This just shows the comittee is an engine for the BCS conferences. All I gotta say is we better win the conference tourney?? Has the Mid-Con ever got an automatic bid?

[BisonCountry]

Was the commitee drunk when it filled out the bracket?? How did Syracuse not get in? Drexel? There was only 6 mid-majors this year, down from eight. I guess getting to the final four doesn't get you jack squat. This just shows the comittee is an engine for the BCS conferences. All I gotta say is we better win the conference tourney?? Has the Mid-Con ever got an automatic bid?

The tourney winner gets the automatic bid...what I think you might be asking is have they ever gotten an automatic bid plus an at large bid? That I don't know.

[NDSUguy]

Was the commitee drunk when it filled out the bracket?? How did Syracuse not get in? Drexel? There was only 6 mid-majors this year, down from eight. I guess getting to the final four doesn't get you jack squat. This just shows the comittee is an engine for the BCS conferences. All I gotta say is we better win the conference tourney?? Has the Mid-Con ever got an automatic bid?

No, I don't think that they were drunk. Last year the "mid-majors" got 8 bids. People last year said that number was way too high. Now it's too low? Historically speaking mid-majors have gotten anywhere between 6 and 12 bids.

Also, Syracuse is in a BCS conference.... This year there were many teams with like records and wins/losses versus other ranked/contending teams. I don't think that there were any big tragedies.

Also, there has never been an at-large bid in the Mid-Con.

[Hammerhead]

Aren't there like 70 teams with more than 20 wins this season? I say expand the field to 128. :D

[TaTonka_31]

There were over 100 teams with 20 wins this season. I agree, expand the tournament to 128. That is still only about 33% of all D1 teams. Jim Boeheim was pushing for expansion today and pointed out how 50% of all the BCS football teams get a bowl game.

Going to 128 in basketball doesn't seem unreasonable at all. It is just one more day of games. Who wouldn't like that?

[valpotx]

Was the commitee drunk when it filled out the bracket?? *How did Syracuse not get in? *Drexel? *There was only 6 mid-majors this year, down from eight. *I guess getting to the final four doesn't get you jack squat. *This just shows the comittee is an engine for the BCS conferences. *All I gotta say is we better win the conference tourney?? *Has the Mid-Con ever got an automatic bid?

No, I don't think that they were drunk. *Last year the "mid-majors" got 8 bids. *People last year said that number was way too high. *Now it's too low? *Historically speaking mid-majors have gotten anywhere between 6 and 12 bids. *

Also, Syracuse is in a BCS conference.... *This year there were many teams with like records and wins/losses versus other ranked/contending teams. *I don't think that there were any big tragedies.

Also, there has never been an at-large bid in the Mid-Con.

There have been a few at-large bids for the Mid-Con in the past; look at 1990 & 1991:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Continent_Conference

[valpotx]

I haven't heard how the Mid-Con splits up the money(if it does) or whether the new schools will jump straight in or be phased in.

Each win by ORU will net the Mid-Con about $1.1M over the next 6 years. I would think NDSU would receive at least some of that, if not a full share.

The formula(a bit simplified) is:
1 point for appearing in the tourney
1 point for each win through the elite eight
combine the previous 6 years to determine total points

Mid-Con distribution for 2007: 6 points (0-6 in last 6 tourney appearances)


edit: If you want to see how one school can make a difference, look at the CAA over the last 6 years. 1-2-1-1-1-6. Thank you George Mason. GMU's run equaled the previous 5 years of the CAA's points and will earn the CAA an extra $5.3M.

I believe you will only receive the money once you are a full member in the conference, so starting next season.

[mikelsch]

The tourney should be expanded from 65 to 68 teams, and not anymore than that. This would be beneficial in a couple ways...

- Would allow 3 more quality at-large teams into the field
- Would increase the number of first round (a.k.a. "play-in") games to 4. *All 4 games could be played on the same day at the same arena on Tuesday. *This would help create more of a tourney atmosphere for those relegated to this round. *Also, should put these games at a more appealing location than the traditional site -- Dayton, OH. *Maybe somewhere like Las Vegas.

[bisonaudit]

I'm opposed to expanding the field.

The only purpose is to let more big conference teams into the tournament. It's just a giant money grab.

If you can't finish in the top half of your conference (I don't care if it's the MAAC or the Big 12) you have no business playing for the National title.

[mikelsch]

I'm opposed to expanding the field.

The only purpose is to let more big conference teams into the tournament. *It's just a giant money grab.

If you can't finish in the top half of your conference (I don't care if it's the MAAC or the Big 12) you have no business playing for the National title.

I mostly agree with not expanding the tourney. *Although, I think it is stupid to only have 1 opening round game. *I think it detracts from the tourney, especially for the 2 teams that get stuck playing that game. *It just doesn't have that "big tourney" feel, and most people ignore the game. *So either they should eliminate 1 at-large spot (unlikely), or they should add 3 more teams to give a total of 4 opening-round games.

[NDSUstudent]

I am all for expansion, good teams are getting left out and expansion will be nothing but a positive thing. It should be to no more then 128 teams though, really I would like to see the last 4 teams in match-up against the last 4 out and battle it out for the 4 12 seeds. I think it is a joke that teams like Florida A&M might not even get their shot at playing Kansas in front of a national audience because they lose in a play in game. They won their conference and deserve that big game.

[mikelsch]

I am all for expansion, good teams are getting left out and expansion will be nothing but a positive thing. It should be to no more then 128 teams though, really I would like to see the last 4 teams in match-up against the last 4 out and battle it out for the 4 12 seeds. I think it is a joke that teams like Florida A&M might not even get their shot at playing Kansas in front of a national audience because they lose in a play in game. They won their conference and deserve that big game.

Don't you think letting that many teams in would make the regular season less relevant? *There are maybe 5-10 teams every year that could make a case at getting in. *Letting in too many teams would make the tourney too long and water down the product with average teams. *The tourney is great the way it is, I wouldn't tweak it too much. *

[NDSUstudent]

That is why I am for just adding three more teams and making the last 4 in and last 4 out play for the 12 seeds. I don't think that would dilute anything too much, I think there are at least 4 teams who belong in(App St, Drexel, Syracuse and Missouri State). I wouldn't be completely for 128 because I think it might do as much damage as it does good.

[RodentiaX1]

The tourney should be expanded from 65 to 68 teams, and not anymore than that. This would be beneficial in a couple ways...

- Would allow 3 more quality at-large teams into the field
- Would increase the number of first round (a.k.a. "play-in") games to 4. All 4 games could be played on the same day at the same arena on Tuesday. This would help create more of a tourney atmosphere for those relegated to this round. Also, should put these games at a more appealing location than the traditional site -- Dayton, OH. Maybe somewhere like Las Vegas.

68 makes sense, having four play-in games makes the field more symmetrical. Plus it does make it appear more part of the tournament rather than the current perception that the play-in game isn't really part of the tournament.

[gatewayrabbit]

The tourney should be expanded from 65 to 68 teams, and not anymore than that. *This would be beneficial in a couple ways...

- Would allow 3 more quality at-large teams into the field
- Would increase the number of first round (a.k.a. "play-in") games to 4. *All 4 games could be played on the same day at the same arena on Tuesday. *This would help create more of a tourney atmosphere for those relegated to this round. *Also, should put these games at a more appealing location than the traditional site -- Dayton, OH. *Maybe somewhere like Las Vegas.

68 makes sense, having four play-in games makes the field more symmetrical. Plus it does make it appear more part of the tournament rather than the current perception that the play-in game isn't really part of the tournament.

Good discussion, but here are my $0.02. I think the tournament should go back to 64 teams.

1. Why do we play the regular season? If Syracuse wanted in the tournament they should went on the road in their non-conference season and played tougher teams.

2. Essentially every team (except for the Ivy League and a few conferences i.e. the Big East who doesn't let every team into the conference tournament) has a chance to play their way into the Big Dance. Syracuse, West Virginia, Drexel, Missouri State, and K-state all had a chance to play in their repective conference tournaments.

3. Right now we essentially have five 16 seeds. One of those 16 seeds used to be a 15 seed in the old format and one of the 15 seeds would be a 14 seed in the old format and so on. With us being in the Mid-Con, a league that historically is a 13-16 seed league, why would we want to expand the field?

There are plenty of at-large bids. No matter how many teams are in the tournament there will always be a "bubble team" that doesn't make it and will be upset.

[bisonaudit]

I agree Gateway.

The only reason we're at 65 is because a new conference met the auto-bid criteria and the big conferences didn't want to lose an at-large bid and therefore a slice of the monetary pie.

[BisonMav]

I also agree Gatewayrabbit. The conference tournaments already give these bubble teams a chance to get into the tournament. In reality you could say starting with the conference tournament, most teams are already in the Big Dance until they lose. NCAA money is the only thing lacking.

[skolbrother]

expansion would cheapen the experience. when you make the dance it should feel like a huge deal not a watered down kissing your sister feel.

[TaTonka_31]

Question: Does letting everyone compete in post season at the high school level ruin high school basketball? No, it is a new season and everyone is excited.

I wouldn't like to let all D1 teams at the college level in, but expanding to 128 is still only a third of the schools. It would be just one more round and make the tournament twice as exciting.

Another reason I would like to see it go to 128 is because there are at least that many good teams. Over 100 won 20 games this year. Can all 128 of these teams win the National Championship? No, but every year there are only maybe 10 to 15 teams that are truely capable of winning the six games needed to win the championship anyway. Why not expand the field and create more "cinderella" chances. That is what creates all the appeal in this the biggest sporting event in the United States.

Another reason would be that the 129th through the 161st teams would be happy to be in the NIT. None of the teams past 128 would ever have much of a beef about not being selected to the field of 128. More important would be that very few people would listen to them if they complained about not getting in.

[Shawn-O]

I also agree Gatewayrabbit. *The conference tournaments already give these bubble teams a chance to get into the tournament. *In reality you could say starting with the conference tournament, most teams are already in the Big Dance until they lose. *NCAA money is the only thing lacking.

I agree 100%. If anything, ratchet back to 64. This is why the tournament finals in the lower conferences are so fun and intense.

[NDSU_grad]

Question: *Does letting everyone compete in post season at the high school level ruin high school basketball? *No, it is a new season and everyone is excited. *



But now with almost every conference (I know the Ivy League doesn't have a tournament, not sure about the Patriot) having an end-of-season tournament everybody does have a shot.

[bisonaudit]

Conference tournaments are a part of the post season. *The only teams in DI who don't participate in the post season already are the bottom of the Big East who fail to qualify for their conference tourney, and whoever doesn't win the Ivy League as they don't have a conference tournament, choosing to auto qualify the regular season champion instead.

If you want to equate this to high school, you've already got 6 teams in the championship tournament from the Big East. It's like a class A regional already (virtually meaningless). By adding teams to the NCAA tourney you're only further eroding the importance of the conference tournaments.