Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The mid-majors have been crashing the BCS party in the NCAA Tournament. You see, a while back the NCAA mandated schools to have 13 scholarships instead of the old number which was 15. That leaves out two blue-chip players to go elsewhere. Eventually blue-chips trickled down to mid-major schools. Now we have four mid-majors making the Final Four in six seasons. Now I would be willing to bet that CBS will whine and so will the BCS schools and that scholarship number will go back to 15 or more. Mark it down.
The mid-majors have been crashing the BCS party in the NCAA Tournament. You see, a while back the NCAA mandated schools to have 13 scholarships instead of the old number which was 15. That leaves out two blue-chip players to go elsewhere. Eventually blue-chips trickled down to mid-major schools. Now we have four mid-majors making the Final Four in six seasons. Now I would be willing to bet that CBS will whine and so will the BCS schools and that scholarship number will go back to 15 or more. Mark it down.
As a huge fan of the Big East this sounds a lot like a whiney response. These teams won fair and square and honestly I find it fascinating to watch; actually moreso in many ways than a KY KS game.
KY should have no problem competing with these schools; are they (KY) somehow disadvantaged now?
Are the ratings hurting? I thought the Duke/Butler final was among the most watched ever; doesnt seem like America or CBS minds all that much...
As a huge fan of the Big East this sounds a lot like a whiney response. These teams won fair and square and honestly I find it fascinating to watch; actually moreso in many ways than a KY KS game.
KY should have no problem competing with these schools; are they (KY) somehow disadvantaged now?
Are the ratings hurting? I thought the Duke/Butler final was among the most watched ever; doesnt seem like America or CBS minds all that much...
Sorry but you are assuming too much. If you thumb through the college basketball thread on this forum, you will see the team that I pull for is a mid-major. I freaking dislike Louieville and hate UK even more.
I am actually sticking up for mid-majors by saying that CBS, the NCAA and BCS schools will make changes to quash the mid-majors. I guess I should have been more clear.
Sorry but you are assuming too much. If you thumb through the college basketball thread on this forum, you will see the team that I pull for is a mid-major. I freaking dislike Louieville and hate UK even more.
I am actually sticking up for mid-majors by saying that CBS, the NCAA and BCS schools will make changes to quash the mid-majors. I guess I should have been more clear.
Then my sincere apologies - guess everything isnt in a (screen)name
I have actually quite enjoyed these teams having success and to me part of what makes the NCAA Tourney the best sporting event in the US soup to nuts
Things are fine where they are at. If only College Football could do the same...
As for the Kentucky comment, the scholorships wouldn't have any effect as long as Calipari is there. He takes in players that would have in the past jumped straight from high school into the NBA. Thus, he get 5 new kids every year and the rest for the most part are just the "academic boosters".
Yeah - I don't see any issues really related to scholarships
It's a different game now - the higher scholarship total was more impactful when players stayed longer ..... if you had a roster full of 4 year players then a team like Duke would stash a guy like Nolan Smith until his junior year and then rely on him for larger minutes
Which takes it back to a part of the reason why I think the dynamic is changing a little bit. There is more development across the nation of basketball players. There are high level tournaments, travel teams, etc. The elite prospects will fall into the top tier programs and often don't stick around that long.
The guy who grades out a little lower can end up with the option of being a starter at a mid-major or a bench player at a major program
So if you are a strong mid-major program from a respected conference you can recruit some of these kids .... you get the right mix, get them to stick around and play team ball then they can offset some of the pure talent deficit they have
Plus in a tournament format momentum is so huge .... a lot of these teams had to have strong runs in their conference tournament to get in and if they can get that early upset under their belts they can be more dangerous
The public generally likes to see these stories and find them to be more compelling ....... it's also not like the major programs aren't there .... Duke, UNC & Kansas have won the last 3 championships ... the sweet 16 & elite 8 are very well represented by major programs
Also, lower seeds are still generally having a hard time making the run .... Mid-majors are just earning some higher seeds now which helps
Since expansion on four 15 seeds have won in the 1st round - most recently in 2001 .... a 14 seed has made the sweet 16 twice (most recently 1997) .... a 12 seed reached the elite 8 once in 2002 .....
An 11 seed has made the final 4 three times (2 of them from the CAA since 2006)
An 8 seed has made the finals once - that was the epic villanova upset
This year you'll have either an 11 or 8 play for the title ....... last year Butler was a 5 seed when they made it.
To me the biggest changes have been in the "one & done" player at many programs .... you don't have the same depth on teams like you used to and it's not because of the scholarship limits, it's because kids just aren't sticking around ..... combine this with higher seeding of Mid-majors and the improved overall landscape of development and you can create a more competative environment
If you are seeded 13-16 chances are you don't even make it out of the first round .... since expansion they are a combined 389-43 (roughly 90%)
I should have posted this earlier. It's part of a story and explains better then I can.
Another big factor was the NCAA’s reduction in the scholarship limit from 15 players per school to 13, which was enacted for the 1993-94 season and has spread the talent around to a larger pool of schools.
The result is that Kentucky (the same team that barely held off Princeton’s first-round upset bid) and Connecticut, this weekend’s two high-profile entries, each have two less players on scholarship than they would have had nearly 20 years ago.
That’s 24 fewer players in the SEC, with the same number applying to both the ACC and Big 12. In addition, there are the 20 players who aren’t on Pac-10 teams, the 22 missing from the Big Ten ranks and 32 that could have been playing for Big East programs.
Add it up and you get 146 players that have been sprinkled among the mid-major and low-major conferences. Given that recruiting isn’t an exact science to begin with, that constitutes a nice chunk of talent that has been allowed to develop in leagues like the Colonial, Horizon, Missouri Valley and West Coast, which spawned Gonzaga nearly a decade ago.
It's cool and I agree. It's too bad that VCU and Butler can't be on opposite sides of the bracket.
No, this is far worse for them because it guarantees that one will be in the final.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
