Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Basketball Topic:  RE: March Madness Topic:  RE: March Madness Author Message FJC31 General User Member Since: 3/31/2022 Post Count: 2,304 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 4/29/2026 1:34:35 PM  100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records. A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney. I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason? Back to Top FearLeon General User Member Since: 3/12/2005 Post Count: 5,136 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 4/29/2026 1:44:37 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: FearLeon wrote: 100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. It's just getting harder and harder to care as much. NIL/Portal has turned mid-majors into JUCO programs. We will always be lucky to have decent/good players to stay for two years. And if we catch lightning in a bottle with a great player, he's gone after one year. And now expanding the NCAA Tournament to 76 teams is just gross. Congrats to the 16-16 Auburn's of the world getting those extra bids. Like I said...it's getting harder and harder to care as much as a mid-major alum and fan. Imagine how weirdly abusive you'd be to underperforming OU basketball players if it weren't so hard to care. Don’t worry BLSOS. While I am frustrated with the current state of college hoops, I will always point out the recruiting hits and misses with this program. #BleedGreen #TrentIsGOAT #NoMissesAllowed #NoOtherTeamInAmericaFlexesLikeOhio #11Months Back to Top Bobcat1996 General User Member Since: 1/2/2017 Post Count: 1,222 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 4/29/2026 7:20:10 PM  FJC31 wrote: 100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records. A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney. I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason? Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer! Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,803 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 4/30/2026 8:36:01 PM  Bobcat1996 wrote: FJC31 wrote: 100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records. A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney. I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason? Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer! You probably ain’t wrong Back to Top Kinggeorge4 General User Member Since: 12/22/2004 Location: Guysville, OH Post Count: 1,086 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 5/1/2026 7:47:57 AM  BillyTheCat wrote: Bobcat1996 wrote: FJC31 wrote: 100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records. A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney. I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason? Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer! You probably ain’t wrong Absolutely agree, it is not to get more mid-majors in. GO BOBCATS GEORGE Back to Top FishBates General User Member Since: 3/6/2026 Post Count: 160 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 5/1/2026 8:26:14 AM  FJC31 wrote: 100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records. A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney. I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason? Bart Torvik SOS: Belmont ranked roughly 309th overall, with a non-conference SOS ranking 341st. If lots of MAC teams played Louisville, Wisconsin, Purdue...those games can be had. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 15,700 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 5/1/2026 10:35:03 AM  Kinggeorge4 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Bobcat1996 wrote: FJC31 wrote: 100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records. A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney. I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason? Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer! You probably ain’t wrong Absolutely agree, it is not to get more mid-majors in. Intentions and consequences aren't always the same thing. I think the rule of unintented consequences may be in play here. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top Bobcat1996 General User Member Since: 1/2/2017 Post Count: 1,222 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 5/1/2026 8:25:08 PM  OhioCatFan wrote: Kinggeorge4 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Bobcat1996 wrote: FJC31 wrote: 100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records. A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney. I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason? Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer! You probably ain’t wrong Absolutely agree, it is not to get more mid-majors in. Intentions and consequences aren't always the same thing. I think the rule of unintented consequences may be in play here. Look back at the 2026 last four out in the big dance. More power four schools unfortunately. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 15,700 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 5/1/2026 11:15:04 PM  Bobcat1996 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: Kinggeorge4 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: Bobcat1996 wrote: FJC31 wrote: 100%Cat wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious but I'm still a little surprised they said it out loud: "The primary driver of this move hasn't been money, but rather access for at-large bids for power conferences." Because they don't have enough bids already. Because we have to have sub-.500 power conference teams in the field. I've always said if you finish .500 or lower in your conference you aren't a good team. Auburn, Oklahoma, and Indiana were considered snubs this year despite posting 7-11 (Auburn and Oklahoma) and 9-11 (Indiana) conference records. A minimum requirement should be at least .500 in your conference. That's the only way imo it prevents from watering down the field. If anything, some of those spots should go to Mid-Major regular season conference winners but lost in conference tourney. I think Belmont is a great examples of that for this past season. Belmont's Net ranking was 64. What's the point of this measuring tool if it isn't even applied to the postseason? Adding more teams to the NCAA tourney will equate to a few more SEC, Big 10, and ACC schools getting in the big dance. The Rich get richer! You probably ain’t wrong Absolutely agree, it is not to get more mid-majors in. Intentions and consequences aren't always the same thing. I think the rule of unintented consequences may be in play here. Look back at the 2026 last four out in the big dance. More power four schools unfortunately. But, this adds eight more teams, not just four. Who will those four teams play, and what are odds that they will win? This may get complicated and the results might not be what those additional P4 schools expect. All I'm saying is that intentions don't always play out the way the plotters of those plans intended. Time will tell. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top JSF General User Member Since: 1/29/2005 Location: Houston, TX Post Count: 6,580 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 5/2/2026 3:01:42 AM  This is pure wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe tournament expansion will benefit mids. "Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season. My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8 Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 7,823 Status: Offline     RE: March Madness    Posted: 5/4/2026 2:16:13 PM  JSF wrote: This is pure wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe tournament expansion will benefit mids. Ding ding. The NCAA had to do something to appease the power conferences or face the real possibility they might break away and form their own version of the tournament. Of the 8 new available spots given, I'd be shocked if the mids got more than 1 or 2 a season. Last Edited: 5/4/2026 2:16:28 PM by GoCats105 Back to Top Showing Replies:   151 - 161  of 161 Posts Jump to Page:   < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 315 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 315 Guests 0 Registered Users There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2026 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties