NYT takes shots at Gophers

Donate To GopherHole

An all mid-major final four would probably have bad TV ratings. People like to see David beat Goliath, yes. But if there are 4 Davids in the final four, you're missing a Goliath to beat. Sure, the Davids beat Goliaths to get there, but that doesn't really matter all that much.
 

I don't think we were "routed" by Xavier, beaten but not routed. I think the Gophs should print this article for some bulletin board material.
 

i agree with saskatchenwan, we were not really routed. We were close until probably the last 5 minutes or so when our shots weren't falling. We had 10 blocks in the first half for crying out loud. And while i agree mid-majors have a tough time making the tournament because or perceptions, i disagree that the tournament should be expanded. Jay Bilas brought up a great point a couple of weeks back that the conference tournaments are like the start of an expanded ncaa tournament. If this NYT writer believes that minnesota is a 'middling' team (which i don't necessarily disagree with), he SHOULD be arguing that the tournament should be decreased in size, right?
 

RodentRampage said:
An all mid-major final four would probably have bad TV ratings. People like to see David beat Goliath, yes. But if there are 4 Davids in the final four, you're missing a Goliath to beat. Sure, the Davids beat Goliaths to get there, but that doesn't really matter all that much.
Click to expand...

Yeah, without the Goliath, people wouldn't care.

They are clearly underseeded in some cases. Northern Iowa was ranked most of the year if I recall, but yet only a 9 seed. I'm sure Kansas is wishing they hadn't underseeded them right now lol. I thought Cornell should have been higher than a 12, like a 9 or 10, they've shown to be a quality team. But you also see often though, when they try to seed these teams higher, they don't seem to get as far. Gonzaga seemed to advance further when they were a lower seed then when they were a higher seed. If Northern Iowa was given a 5 seed, would they still be playing? I know they beat the #1 overall, but I'm just saying, the dynamics would be totally different.
 


From the NYT article:
"While that may not be a majority opinion, the four days of upheaval in college basketball showed that Minnesota does not need to be in the field. Nor does the eighth-place team in the Big East, or the seventh-place team in the Big 12."

first, that should be "did not need to be in the field". Hopefully, that changes for next year and beyond.

the reason for expansion beyond just conference winners was because of multiple top 10 teams in the "power conferences" ie 1974 NC State #2 Maryland #3. NC State won the ACC tournament, Maryland couldn't be invited to the NCAA tournament even though it was ranked well ahead of many other teams participating in the tournament that year

Expansion is a non sequitur. You're getting toward the center of the bell curve making it more difficult to chose between the last teams in and first teams out. Unless expansion goes to, say, 256 - so that we're well on the other side of the curve. This year suggests maybe 65 teams was a bit much to try and fill. I think the first outs would have been Illinois, Mississippi State and Virginia Tech - all power conferences

two of the more memorable "lower" seeds to win that come to mind were 6 seed NC State in 83 and 8 seed villanova in 85.

last mid major to be ranked #1 going into the tournament I think would be 56, San Francisco. Last mid majors to win Texas Western 66 (UTEP) and Loyola 63. If you're trying to crown a national champ, adding more mid majors goes against the data

I like watching the underdog win as much as the next guy. I just don't see data suggesting the process used today is flawed (more so than suggested alternatives)

got to listen to Mychal Thompson on LA sports radio last week. Nice to hear he still bleeds maroon and gold. But, he does sound a lot like the click and clack npr car guys to me.
 

1) we were definetely not routed....it was tied at half and close for a long time
2) is it really march madness or a final four with 4 mid-major conferences.... i mean that make the final four no different than like the WCC conference tournament
 

I'm glad I wasn't the only one bothered by the word routed. I really wasn't impressed with that article. The overuse of St. Mary's and Northern Iowa as examples really bothered me. They make it sound like there are a ton of really talented mid majors that would have done damage in the tournament. That's two good teams. That's like saying NBA teams should draft way more international players because of Dirk and Parker. There's a reason that not that many non power conferences teams get bids.
 

Didn't care for the article at all. That's all. It's become more and more popular to root on the mid-major teams that people are advocating for an enlarged tourney to see what other mid-major programs can offer. A couple of upsets in the NCAA tourney does not validate an enlarged field IMO. Who were the Final Four teams last year? When was the last time a mid-major made it to the Final Four?
 



George Mason was the last mid-major in the Final Four (in 2006).

Come on, man. Mid-major success is exciting, except when you're on the business end of their success. Or when your team enters and exit the dance with a resounding thud. Like our beloved Gophers.

Also, we didn't get routed. But that was a pretty forgettable performance, to say the least.
 

GopherOhana said:
From the NYT article:
"While that may not be a majority opinion, the four days of upheaval in college basketball showed that Minnesota does not need to be in the field. Nor does the eighth-place team in the Big East, or the seventh-place team in the Big 12."

first, that should be "did not need to be in the field". Hopefully, that changes for next year and beyond.

the reason for expansion beyond just conference winners was because of multiple top 10 teams in the "power conferences" ie 1974 NC State #2 Maryland #3. NC State won the ACC tournament, Maryland couldn't be invited to the NCAA tournament even though it was ranked well ahead of many other teams participating in the tournament that year

Expansion is a non sequitur. You're getting toward the center of the bell curve making it more difficult to chose between the last teams in and first teams out. Unless expansion goes to, say, 256 - so that we're well on the other side of the curve. This year suggests maybe 65 teams was a bit much to try and fill. I think the first outs would have been Illinois, Mississippi State and Virginia Tech - all power conferences

two of the more memorable "lower" seeds to win that come to mind were 6 seed NC State in 83 and 8 seed villanova in 85.

last mid major to be ranked #1 going into the tournament I think would be 56, San Francisco. Last mid majors to win Texas Western 66 (UTEP) and Loyola 63. If you're trying to crown a national champ, adding more mid majors goes against the data

I like watching the underdog win as much as the next guy. I just don't see data suggesting the process used today is flawed (more so than suggested alternatives)

got to listen to Mychal Thompson on LA sports radio last week. Nice to hear he still bleeds maroon and gold. But, he does sound a lot like the click and clack npr car guys to me.
Click to expand...

Loyola IL was a strong basketball program in 1940's - 50's - 60's.

San Francisco was West Coast powerhouse in 1950's and NOT mid major program.

Texas Western (UTEP) was indeed "mid major" in 1966.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom