SWAC Basketball Vs. The NCAA


MightyDog

MightyDog

Well-Known Member
It has been mentioned that SWAC Basketball is weak. I don't buy into any of the argument that we are not a good conference. But I can tell you that nobody wants to be the first to lose to a SWAC Team.

But did you know that 32 teams lose in the frist round each year during March Madness. In addition, some of the at large bids did not do well in the tournament. Even America's Team lost (Duke).

But I do say that because we meet the criteria to receive the automatic bid. We should never allow this to happened to the SWAC again. If they make rules for conferences with automatic bids they should abide by them.

I understand the split in the money and the shares everyone gets. But we can still make our case.
 
What's the point of this. The NCAA considers all 65 teams making the tournament. The first game of the tournament is Tuesday and is called the Opening round. SO yes, the SWAC does have an automatic bid and Alcorn made the tournament and lost in the Opening round. Start your discussion from there.
 



Lewis by your statement is the reason we are going to dominate the SWAC. You have to be a thinker rather than a follower. What I am talking about may be too deep for you. You must read all the threads to keep up with what is going on. After seeing several reports in the media the playin game is not mentioned. There were some folks on the board talking about the level of SWAC basketball. But it appears that because their teams are no longer a power everyone should buy into the way they think. I watched all the teams that came into Elmore and saw some road games. I tell you that if a team does not go out a play hard nose basketball in the SWAC they will end up with a loss.

All I am saying is AAMU will never be afraid to challenge Bull isht
and I will never accept it under current conditions.

Just like being on the job, when you get qualified the rules change. Then you have to start over again.

Again, you must be a thinker and not a follower. Join the Dawgpound and we will show you the light.
 
Mighty Dog, Mack of the SWAC<br>This is the sports board so I will keep it serious. I am already a thinker, no need to join the dawgpound for that. I am not following the predominate line of thinking here on this board. If we want to address the NCAA, we have to understand (not necesarily agree with) thier line of thinking. We (some posters here) think Alcorn did not make the tourney. The NCAA doesn't think that way. The NCAA point of view is that we received our automatic bid. An automatic bid does not mean that you "automatically" don't have to play in the opening round game. You can't just follow the thinking on this board, you have to think about how the NCAA views this. So going to them with the attitude that we don't have an automatic bid won't get you anywhere. <br>Finally, I saw several SWAC games this year, the SWAC ain't what it used to be. This has nothing to do with Southern not being good this year. I said the same thing a few years ago when Southern was in the Championship game in Biloxi.
 
I think I understand the meaning of this thread. Forgive me if I do not. :o :o :o

Anyway, I am with Lewis on the automatic bid and the level of play in the SWAC.

Originally posted by Lewis
.....
Finally, I saw several SWAC games this year, the SWAC ain't what it used to be. This has nothing to do with Southern not being good this year. I said the same thing a few years ago when Southern was in the Championship game in Biloxi.
Click to expand...

I have not seen as many SWAC games the last few years as I use to see. But I agree Lewis. The SWAC of today is not what it use to be during the late 70s. Among the players who starred in the SWAC were former SU coach Tommy Green and present Houston Rocket assistant Larry Smith. Frankly, the SWAC is not what it was during the mid-nineties. Then Southern, Jackson State and TSU won huge games out of the conference in the post-season as well as during the regular season.

Sure, the games between SWAC teams maybe competitive. But are the SWAC schools as competitive with teams outside of the conference as they are with teams inside the conference? In general I do not think so.

Forgive me if I missed something.

:o :o :o
 
Originally posted by Lewis
<br>Finally, I saw several SWAC games this year, the SWAC ain't what it used to be. This has nothing to do with Southern not being good this year. I said the same thing a few years ago when Southern was in the Championship game in Biloxi.
Click to expand...

The above is the type of thinking that I am trying to point out. I watched some great athletes each time I attend a SWAC game. I will never accept the fact that we don't have a great conference.

I have been watching SWAC Football for years and kept up with the basketball program. I cannot and will not stand for someone trying to tell me that we are not a great conference. I don't care about what was but what is now is important. I would like to see a more positve attitude.

I said that in the first round 32 teams lose. Now what is the point of a playin game? If a rule places our conference at a disadvantage then I for one would like to do something about it. I am under the impression that we have teams with automatic bids and atlarge bids. However, I respect your opinion that the present structure is ok. But again, I don't agree with it. The NCAA is made up of people who think their solution is the best.

I can come up with procedures just as those folks who are making the rules. Rules change everyday and the NCAA need to take a look at the playin game. Why playin and face a #1 seed?
 
I've thought about the play in concept and don't totally get it either. At first I was ok with it. I tried to convince myself that Alcorn was in the opening tournament game but then I didn't feel that way when the other games started and were broadcast as the first round of play. If these games were the first round of play, then how could Alcorn also be considered the opening game. This lead me to wonder why a team has to play for the right to make it into the bracketing of 64 teams if they have an automatic bid to the tournament (the 64 teams that play). What makes their bid less "automatic" then the other teams with automatic bids. Seems to me that the play in game would fairer and more interesting for 2 at large teams to match up and play for the right to get into the tournament as the lowest seeded at large team (this would be their last opportunity to make it to the tournament). This could be a pretty profitable game since there are some really great teams sitting on the bubble hoping to make it in.
 
Originally posted by momof2ym
Seems to me that the play in game would fairer and more interesting for 2 at large teams to match up and play for the right to get into the tournament as the lowest seeded at large team (this would be their last opportunity to make it to the tournament). This could be a pretty profitable game since there are some really great teams sitting on the bubble hoping to make it in.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of thinking I am talking about. As supervisor, I would come up with an idea, but in the end outstanding employees would make an idea better. I did not think about an at large team in the playin game, but I think our ADs should take this idea and run with it.
 
First, I want the best for our conference. I never said if I agree or disagree with it. I am saying that if you want to deal with the NCAA on this, you have to understand HOW THEY VIEW IT. So I will address some of the concepts (and misconcepts) made in this thread.<br><br>
1) The NCAA tournament is 65 teams, not 64.<br>
2) The NCAA defines what an automatic bid is, not us. The NCAA has defined an automatic bid means your conference can choose a team to be 1 of the 65 teams in the tournament. An automatic bid has nothing to do with seeding. Seeding is a totally different issue. <br>
3) Most of you want the fact that we have an automatic bid to mean that we have some type of advantage in seeding, but it doesn't work that way (But we need to understand what we are argueing for, if that is what we want). <br>
4) Another example of how automatic bids and seeding have nothing to do with each other, if we follow the line of thinking that automatic bids should be a factor in seeding, then all 1 seeds should be teams with automatic bids. But look at this year, Maryland and Duke were no. 1 seeds and both were at large teams, NC State got the automatic bid from the ACC, Kansas was an at-large bid also (Oklahoma got the automatic bid from the Big 12). The only No.1 seed that was automatic bid was Cincinati. SO GET IT THRU YOUR HEADS. SEEDING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTOMATIC BIDS.<br>
5) If you seed a 65 team tournament, the 64 and 65 teams would play, and the winner plays the number 1 seed. THAT IS JUST BASIC TOURNAMENT SEEDING and has nothing to do with black or white, big or small, etc. IF we had a tournment of 65 HBCU's, and seeded it correctly, team 65 would play team 64 and the winner would play the top seed.<br><br><br>
So for example, this statement:
Seems to me that the play in game would fairer and more interesting for 2 at large teams to match up and play for the right to get into the tournament as the lowest seeded at large team (this would be their last opportunity to make it to the tournament).
Click to expand...
goes totally against the concept that automatic bids and seeding have nothing to do with each other. Let me break it down further, play for the right to get into the tournament they are already in, the lowest seeded at large team seeding has nothing to do with at large.<br><br>Now, where does the SWAC fall in terms of strenght of conference. Right now, not very good, THAT IS JUST FACTS, whether your emotions want to believe it or not is another issue. IF I had to bet my house, I am sorry, the SWAC would be around 63,64 or 65. I don't like it, but it is reality.
 
Lewis,

Your concepts is correct, but this is an incorrect state.

But look at this year, Maryland and Duke were no. 1 seeds and both were at large teams, NC State got the automatic bid from the ACC
Click to expand...

Duke won the ACC automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament by virtue of their win over North Carolina State in the ACC Tournament CHampionship Game.

Sun. Mar 10 1:00 p.m. Duke -91, Def. North Carolina State -61
ACC CHAMPIONSHIP
 
Originally posted by Lewis
First, I want the best for our conference. I never said if I agree or disagree with it. I am saying that if you want to deal with the NCAA on this, you have to understand HOW THEY VIEW IT. So I will address some of the concepts (and misconcepts) made in this thread.<br><br>
1) The NCAA tournament is 65 teams, not 64.<br>

Lewis, a long time ago I was downtown with my Dad and I asked him to buy me an I cream Cone. He said, I cannot go into that place. I asked, he said you don't understand. We don't have any misconcepts, what we have is the the NCAA taking adbvantage of us.

I said that to say this you are right with the rule, just like buying the ice cream. My question is who said 65 teams make up the NCAA Tournament? How did we get to 64 and a play in game? Was it before of after HBCUs were provided an opportunity to play? What was the rationale from HBCUs playing in the tournament?

2) The NCAA defines what an automatic bid is, not us. The NCAA has defined an automatic bid means your conference can choose a team to be 1 of the 65 teams in the tournament. An automatic bid has nothing to do with seeding. Seeding is a totally different issue. <br>

Right again, but it so happens an additional conference qualified for the automatic bid. Now the rule change and a group of folks got together and decided on how it is going to be. Therefore, the rule does not favor the SWAC, but we will allow them to have this playin game. Can you just see how decisions are made.

3) Most of you want the fact that we have an automatic bid to mean that we have some type of advantage in seeding, but it doesn't work that way (But we need to understand what we are argueing for, if that is what we want). <br>

Shouldn't have to argue with the automatic bid, either we get it or no one plays or just send us the check. Now suppose one of power atlarge teams was seeded for the playin game and seeded as the 16th team after winning. Then you may have Temple playing Duke instead of a 16th seed.


4) Another example of how automatic bids and seeding have nothing to do with each other, if we follow the line of thinking that automatic bids should be a factor in seeding, then all 1 seeds should be teams with automatic bids. But look at this year, Maryland and Duke were no. 1 seeds and both were at large teams, NC State got the automatic bid from the ACC, Kansas was an at-large bid also (Oklahoma got the automatic bid from the Big 12). The only No.1 seed that was automatic bid was Cincinati. SO GET IT THRU YOUR HEADS. SEEDING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTOMATIC BIDS.<br>

Lewis good try but the panther fan explained this. But why not seed based on win and losses? Not who you beat but win and losses. They cannot do this because the games may not be interesting.

5) If you seed a 65 team tournament, the 64 and 65 teams would play, and the winner plays the number 1 seed. THAT IS JUST BASIC TOURNAMENT SEEDING and has nothing to do with black or white, big or small, etc. IF we had a tournment of 65 HBCU's, and seeded it correctly, team 65 would play team 64 and the winner would play the top seed.<br><br><br>

In the SWAC tournament, we seeded according to record. I am not an open minded person to agree with you on black and white issues as long as institutional racism exist.

I don't like it, but it is reality.
Click to expand...

Lewis, I don't like it and it does not have to stand
 
Originally posted by Lewis
3) Most of you want the fact that we have an automatic bid to mean that we have some type of advantage in seeding, but it doesn't work that way (But we need to understand what we are argueing for, if that is what we want).
Click to expand...


I think I may not have been clear on what I was trying to say. I wasn't suggesting that the at large team would be the lowest seed in the tourney. I understand that they are on the bubble in terms of making the tourney but that they usually take some of the middle seeds and aren't seeded low. When I mentioned lowest seeded, I was refering to where the at large teams would be placed in the tourney. Instead of taking up 2 spots for the 2 lowest seeded at large teams, they would go to a play in game and then the winner would take that 1 spot. I also understand that there are 65 teams in the tourney; but, to me that is purely academic. When I look at most of the tournament charts that are out there, you don't see Alcorn's name anywhere on them because there are 64 brackets and the winner of the play in game is penciled in. I know that the opening game is part of the tourney but its very easy to overlook that fact.

I'm not saying that you are wrong because you are totally correct in how the tournament is set up. I thought that the idea of this thread was to think out of the box on ways that this could be changed. Of course, it most likely will stay as it is because this approach would benefit the smaller conferences even though they would still most likely be a 16th seed and face the #1 team in the nation. The current structure is set up to allow the big conferences to get as many teams in as they can.
 
First, Thanks Panther Fan for the correction, but the point is still the same. Seeding has nothing to do with automatic bids.<br><br>We are at the point now where we can have a better discussion of the issue. Most of what you are saying to me is a mirror of what you are complaining about. How can we twist this thing up to the advantage of HBCU's. It's one thing to want what is fair, it's another to just be mad cause you don't have an advantage.<br><br>momof2ym<br>
I know that the opening game is part of the tourney but its very easy to overlook that fact.
Click to expand...
You can't conviently overlook that. They are not going to seed that 1 game differently. Once you make the field of 65, it does not matter anymore how you got your bid. You want to separate at large teams, then play 1 game in the tourny, then reseed the teams.
I wasn't suggesting that the at large team would be the lowest seed in the tourney.
Click to expand...
But if you put the in the opening round game, that is exactly what you are doing, whether you want to call it that or not. The Opening round game is the 2 lowest seeds. ANYTHING DIFFERENT, You would be doing what you are accusing them of. Bottom line, I agree with the NCAA that seeding should have nothing to do with automatic bids or at-large bids. If you change this, you can't just change it in one place, and it would totally change the tournment. I'll address Might DOg in another post.
 



Mighty Dog, <br>I will start with your most illogical statement first.
<br>
In the SWAC tournament, we seeded according to record.
Click to expand...
That because everyone in the SWAC plays everyone else twice. WE DON'T USE OVERALL RECORDS, we use conference records. STRENGHT OF SCHEDULE in the confernce is the same for everyone.<br><br>
Lewis good try but the panther fan explained this. But why not seed based on win and losses? Not who you beat but win and losses
Click to expand...
First, I made a mistake about DUKE but the point is still the same and valid concerning maryland and kansas. Second, you would be the first one crying "instututional rasicm" when a SWAC team played 3 or 4 quality teams and another team that played nobodies but had a little better record got placed higher. THen you would be saying, "they should be looking at strenght of schedule". But the NCAA has been clear and consistint from top to bottom (from the #1 seeds on down) on this one. They are going to look at strenght of schedule. And it applies to everyone, not just HBCU's. And we will really suffer as long as we have a team as sorry as UAPB in our conference. (I am not trying to smack UAPB)<Br><br>
Shouldn't have to argue with the automatic bid, either we get it or no one plays
Click to expand...
There is nothing to argue about, we have an automatic bid, you just don't like the seeding.<br><br>
but we will allow them to have this playin game.
Click to expand...
How you gonna stop it???? You ain't gonna shut down the whole tournment because you don't like where your team is seeded.<br><br>
Was it before of after HBCUs were provided an opportunity to play? What was the rationale from HBCUs playing in the tournament?
Click to expand...
We first got into the tourny with at large bids, Remember Alcorn in the early 80's. You'd yelling at the top of your lungs if they did not give HBCU's a chance to participate. The NCAA eventually gave all Div. 1 confereces an automatic bid, including the SWAC and MEAC .<br><br>
I am not an open minded person to agree with you on black and white issues as long as institutional racism exist.
Click to expand...
You seem to not be open minded to anything you don't like, and you automatically use the broad term "Instutional rasicm" to label it. I don't think anything short of putting an HBCU in the the championship game and let the other 64 teams fight for the other spot would make you happy.<br><br>I will post tomorrow on what I think should happen.
 
Lewis do you understand what is institutional racism?

If not then I will tell you that blacks can become part of institutional racism. So when I use the term it is not the same as being a racist. Under this system everybody agrees because they think that this is the way it should be.

I have told you all time and time again that we are going to save the SWAC.

My attitude comes from my work experience and that is don't tell me what I want to hear, I want you to make it better. I know the NCAA can be better, I know the SWAC can be better, I know AAMU can be better. Now taking action on it is a horse of a diffrent color. We have to act on things. We cannot make anything better by not making an effort.

Our reference points are different, but we need to shake the tree and see what will fall. But sometimes we have to shake an apple tree and be so convincing that what fell is an orange.

What I am saying to you is this, we may not ever beat SU again, but it won't be from a lack of effort.
 
Yes, I understand Institutional racism. i just don't automatically use it as soon as I see something I don't like. Just because a black person doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they are part of instutional racism. It seems that you use that term on anyone that does not agree with you, black or white.
 
Man pleeze, i aint tryin to be stupid or nuthin but the sorriest or lowest ranking NCAA basketball team can probably beat any SWAC basketball team............. I mean the SWAC cant handle the NCAA in no kind of sports............. especially FOOTBALL, u bet not even say dat!
 
Originally posted by Lewis
Yes, I understand Institutional racism. i just don't automatically use it as soon as I see something I don't like. Just because a black person doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they are part of instutional racism. It seems that you use that term on anyone that does not agree with you, black or white.
Click to expand...

Lewis, you have to understand the context of usage. Any system can be broken down using the Whole-Part-Whole Theory. Lewis, as a board member, we have one section that is 99% black, but everytime a payraise comes up, I have to ask, what about this section. Every year the same answer, we forgot to include them.
I don't understand why I have to asked;), but if I accept the presentation these folks will not get a raise. I could just sit there and say nothing, but I signs of this kind of situation everywhere on a daily basis.

I would never accuse you of institution racism because you are a find fellow with a lot of promise. Now watch if they pull this crap when a bama team win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top