This bugs me every year when the media (both print and broadcast use that term now for any mid major wins a game in the ncaa tourney.

Cinderella was never used for a regular season champ of any conference that
won a game in the ncaa tourney.

It was for a term for a team from any conference (power or otherwise) that had a below .500 in conference and then won their
conference tourney and went to the ncaa tourney and one a game or two.

The NCAA basketball comm. is getting as bad as the Football Playoff committee as far as at large bids to mid majors

(03-18-2017 08:30 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  This bugs me every year when the media (both print and broadcast use that term now for any mid major wins a game in the ncaa tourney.

Cinderella was never used for a regular season champ of any conference that
won a game in the ncaa tourney.

It was for a term for a team from any conference (power or otherwise) that had a below .500 in conference and then won their
conference tourney and went to the ncaa tourney and one a game or two.

The NCAA basketball comm. is getting as bad as the Football Playoff committee as far as at large bids to mid majors

us old fogies saw this coming for moons....

I won't watch another game now....

....been done with 'espenis leveraging' for some time now....

This doesn't bother me as much as when the talking heads starting labeling teams....Is Boston College, Rutgers, Clemson, etc "Power teams"? WKU has a better history then most teams in SEC besides UK and FLorida....Is Gonzaga still a "mid major"? Wichita, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, MTSU, etc....Where does it stop with these talking heads? I called out Jay Bilas on twitter to define who are the so called "power teams" and or "mid majors" Would really laugh when he labels Wichita a mid major and they pay their coach over a million dollars..Now I have noticed ESPN, CBS are the big kick of "bluebloods" now....So they are rooting for about 7 teams to go all the way so we can get used to another term to entitle a program...Have also heard high majors now, mid majors, low majors, lower majors.....Lets let ESPN define these terms for us so we all know.....Really derogatory to me when they kick around these terms....

(03-18-2017 09:10 PM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Now I have noticed ESPN, CBS are the big kick of "bluebloods" now....So they are rooting for about 7 teams to go all the way so we can get used to another term to entitle a program...Have also heard high majors now, mid majors, low majors, lower majors.....Lets let ESPN define these terms for us so we all know.....Really derogatory to me when they kick around these terms....

Its all BS .....Cinderella doesn't belong at the dance, Only the Blue Bloods should advance, What is a mid major? Power 5 , G5.

IT IS ALL BS THESE ARE ALL DIV 1 PROGRAMS.

Use to love college basketball watched parts of every game on most nights. Had a room with 3 TVs and two VCR...

don't laugh 8 years or so no one had DVRs.

I had each TV turned to college basketball and recorded two and before the RPI became something every site has. I ran my own, back when their was only Gerry Palm and pomeroy back in 2002-05. The last few years I hardly watch college basketball unless it had something to do with Western (conference).

Today bottom feeder programs rose to be better than schools with rich history of basketball...at least in perception and to espn babies they have. Could see the writing on the wall in woman's basketball 10 years ago. CUSA has three schools with championships and many F4s yet it like that history does not exist.

With the rise of big dollar contracts espn started protecting their money by making those that were not every day fans thinking those bottom feeders in the P5/BCS were better just because of the conference. Not a damn thing we can do about it . So I just basically stopped watching espn.

Tonight in the Northwestern game you could hear them pulling for them against the Zags. The Zags are also a product of espn and one of their babies. But in a different way. The Zags were built up because the west had a huge void when UCLA and most of the west tanked. But if they have to choose...

a bottom feeder P5 school is still going to be who they pull for

Then on top of that the PG for Northwestern was a Indiana St commit till the Former Duke player (forgot his name) who coaches Northwestern talked him into flipping. We are talking about a program that is making their first NCAA trip....

yet the talking head doing this game said..."sorry, MVC and Indiana St but this kid is BIG TIME" and made the right decision with Northwestern. So by just being a P5 school they are now big-time

I still enjoy Western so till a point in time that no longer becomes enjoyable I will still spend my money and time. But could honestly care less on what else is going on in college basketball

I'm done for the year(or longer) with NCAA Div. I.

So the highest seeds that can get into the 16 are Xavier, Rhode Island, and USC all at 11. Not exactly Cinderellas, but given that RI hasn't been to the dance in 18 years I'd say they qualify. But still as an 11 seed someone expected them to do well. If it's expected, by other than their fans, it's not Cinderella.

We are on the verge of zero at large bids to NP teams. They are not only squeezing us out of the NCAAs but the NiT as well. We will be relegated to the CBI and CIT.

(03-19-2017 11:36 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  We are on the verge of zero at large bids to NP teams. They are not only squeezing us out of the NCAAs but the NiT as well. We will be relegated to the CBI and CIT.

Yep agree with Guns and you on this, you can see the trend as every year passes...ALso the teams that consistently over come conferences not with ESPN will eventually join them like Wichita who will be in the AMerican next season......ALso even sicking reading nation writers like Dan Wolken who moan about Greg Marshall taking up for "mid majors" with comments like just join a power conference team already....

So what do we do? Should so called non power conference teams just say screw it and say we dont need the power conference teams and see how the moan when they dont have 15 home games a season and just make up our own national tournament?

(03-18-2017 08:30 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  This bugs me every year when the media (both print and broadcast use that term now for any mid major wins a game in the ncaa tourney.

Cinderella was never used for a regular season champ of any conference that
won a game in the ncaa tourney.

It was for a term for a team from any conference (power or otherwise) that had a below .500 in conference and then won their
conference tourney and went to the ncaa tourney and one a game or two.

The NCAA basketball comm. is getting as bad as the Football Playoff committee as far as at large bids to mid majors

What about Villanova in 1985?

10- 8 in conference.

didn't win their tourney.

From a P5 conference.

(03-20-2017 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-18-2017 08:30 PM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  This bugs me every year when the media (both print and broadcast use that term now for any mid major wins a game in the ncaa tourney.

Cinderella was never used for a regular season champ of any conference that
won a game in the ncaa tourney.

It was for a term for a team from any conference (power or otherwise) that had a below .500 in conference and then won their
conference tourney and went to the ncaa tourney and one a game or two.

The NCAA basketball comm. is getting as bad as the Football Playoff committee as far as at large bids to mid majors

What about Villanova in 1985?

10- 8 in conference.

didn't win their tourney.

From a P5 conference.

jfc fit....the chances of that happening are the same today as then....

how did Vandy fare this year???

you argue in isolation son.....