Guynermer's NCAA Madness

[-Jrabbit]

According to Guynemer, there should be no conference tournaments, and only conference champions should be invited to the NCAA field. There are 31 conferences, so that's roughly half the size of the RL field. One fewer round. OK, I can live with that.

Here are the teams that would qualify for the NC-Double-Guy Tournament (RL seedings in parens) --

Guynemer’s NCAA Field

Ohio State (1)
Kansas (1)
Florida (1)
North Carolina (1) -- NOTE: tied with Virginia for ACC title
UCLA (2)
Georgetown (2)
Memphis (2)
Southern Illinois (4)
Nevada (7)
Brigham Young (8)
Xavier (9)
Gonzaga (10)
Winthrop (11)
Virginia Commonwealth (11)
Long Beach State (12)
Holy Cross (13)
Wright State (14)
Penn (14)
Oral Roberts (14)
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (15)
Central Connecticut St. (16)
Vermont (N/A)
East Tennessee St. (N/A)
Weber State (N/A)
Marist (N/A)
Toledo (N/A)
Delaware State (N/A)
Austin Peay (N/A)
Davidson (N/A)
South Alabama (N/A)
Jackson State (N/A)
(independent = Sorry, not a champion)

Missing in action: Half of the teams seeded #4 or better. But at least 7 of the top 8 got in...

Also of note: 10 teams who did not get into the RL tourney are locks for Guynemer's version. Highest RPI among those teams = Vermont (77).

Number of teams from the AP Top 25 in the field = 11.

Nice.

[-Jrabbit]

Presumably, then, those unlucky enough not to play in the Ivy League or Southland Conference would move on to Guynemer's NIT. For purposes of discussion, I've only listed teams with an NCAA seed of 8 or better who did not qualify for Guynemer's version. As it turns out, that's 22 out of the top 32 teams, inlcuding 7 out of the top 8 in the Midwest Region...

The field:

MIDWEST
Wisconsin (2)
Oregon (3)
Maryland (4)
Butler (5)
Notre Dame (6)
UNLV (7)
Arizona (8)

WEST
Pittsburgh (3)
Virginia Tech (5)
Duke (6)
Indiana (7)
Kentucky (8)

EAST
Washington St (3)
Texas (4)
USC (5)
Vanderbilt (6)
Boston College (7)
Marquette (8)

SOUTH
Texas A&M (3)
Virginia (4)
Tennessee (5)
Louisville (6)

Lowest RPI among these teams = 61 (Vanderbilt)
Number of teams from AP top 25 = 14

[snoopy369]

Isn't that why the NIT used to be the better tournament?

[-Jrabbit]

The NIT was an invitational -- inviting what they thought were the best teams. It was a de facto national championship, but there was no sanctioning organization. At the beginning, there wasn't an NCAA tournament at all IIRC.

The first national championship tournament, the National Invitation Tournament (NIT) in New York, started in 1938. College basketball was rocked by gambling scandals from 1948-1951, when dozens of players from top teams were implicated in game fixing and point-shaving. Partialy spurred by the association of the NIT with many of the cheaters, the NCAA basketball tournament surpassed the NIT in importance.

[Lord Avalon]

History
The first national championship tournament, in 1939, was conducted by the National Association of Basketball Coaches and sanctioned by the NCAA, which took over the tournament in 1940.

From 1939 through 1950, one team was chosen from each of the NCAA's eight districts. Four of them competed in a western tournament and four in an eastern tournament, with the two champions then playing for the national title.

The tournament expanded to 16 teams in 1951, with 10 conference champions automatically qualifying and 6 at-large teams chosen by a committee. The move to the "Final Four" came the following year, when the number of regional tournaments was increased from two to four.

In 1954, the number of teams grew to 24, with 15 conference champions and 9 at-large teams. The number varied somewhat until 1975, when a 32-team bracket was adopted and the selection committee was allowed to choose a second team from a conference as an at-large entry.

The field has grown twice since then, to 48 in 1980 and to 64 in 1988. The number of conference champions automatically qualifying is subject to change from year to year, but under NCAA rules they can make up no more than half the teams in the tournament. The others are chosen by a committee, with the help of a computer ranking system.

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/ncmbask.shtml

You'd think the NCAA Sports website would have something like this, but I found only a list of the champions.

[Guynemer]

Re: Guynermer's NCAA Madness

Originally posted by -Jrabbit

Nice.

Thanks. I think so too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC, Guy's playoff idea was only for NCAA football, but looking at it for men's basketball is kind of fun too .

[Guynemer]

I'm nothing if not consistent.

[Guynemer]

Re: Guynermer's NCAA Madness

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
(independent = Sorry, not a champion)

Are there I-A independants in basketball?

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
IIRC, Guy's playoff idea was only for NCAA football, but looking at it for men's basketball is kind of fun too .

No, Imran, he brought it up (in Grandpa Troll's tourney thread).
I merely document it and mock it.

@ Guynemer -- Yes, there are independents in 1-AA.

BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN 19-9
CENTENARY 14-14
TEXAS A&M CORP CHR 14-15
TEXAS PAN AMERICAN 10-20
INDIANA-PURDUE FT WAYNE 9-21
LIPSCOMB 8-20

[Guynemer]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, **** 'em. Honestly, they can't be arsed to join a conference?

[-Jrabbit]

It wasn't that long ago that DePaul, Notre Dame, and several others were independents.

This year, the indies all pretty much suck. But that's not really the point. If one of these teams was great, they would deserve consideration.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I'm nothing if not consistent.

Your more than Nothing Guy, your the ringer of the sacred COWBELL

Why

/me gets a little giddy has an idea..how about we call it The Cowbell Championships?

[Guynemer]

...and under my plan, it wouldn't be long until today's independants joined the rest of us in the 21st century.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
Your more than Nothing Guy, your the ringer of the sacred COWBELL

Goddamn right.