Early entrants:
Wes Johnson declared today
Devin Ebanks declared last night
Lance Stephenson
Dominique Jones
Who else?
Graduated Out of Eligibility (notables):
Hayward
Andy Rautins
Arinze Onuaku
Stanley Robinson
DaSean Butler
Deonta Vaughn
Jerome Dyson
Gavin Edwards
Edgar Sosa
Jerry Smith
Luke Harangoudy
Jermaine Dixon
Hamady Naidye
Anthony Mason Jr.
Scottie Reynolds
Top 50 recruits coming in:
Fab Melo - Syracuse (Scout ranking - 7)
Justin Coleman - Louisville (25)
Vander Blue - MU (27)
Dion Waiters - Syracuse (28)
Roscoe Smith - UConn (32)
Jayvaughn Pinkston - Nova (35)
Nate Lubick - GTown (37)
Plus several Undecided.
Villanova is going to have a solid team again. Cheek, Wayns, and Yarou are all going to be awesome as sophomores, Stokes, Fisher and King are also going to be solid returning players. Villanova is going to be tough again next season.
If Monroe stays, the GTown team will stay completely intact.
Pitt and Nova will be really tough.
UConn could land one of the top recruits that is still undecided. Even with a top recruit, they may spin their wheels for one more year.
Syracuse loses 3 starters (just like the year before). And like last year, I think they are the biggest unknowns to begin the season. It's just impossible to know what Boeheim has on his bench because he doesnt ever play more than 7. My friends that are alums say James Southerland (a freshman this year) might be one of the best players on their team next year). Odd.
I think the Big 12, SEC, and ACC are losing more talent than the Big East.
Quote from: bilsu on April 12, 2010, 02:23:25 PM
I think the Big 12, SEC, and ACC are losing more talent than the Big East.
and the big 10/11 has no talent. :D
Quote from: goodgreatgrand on April 12, 2010, 12:50:43 PM
My friends that are alums say James Southerland (a freshman this year) might be one of the best players on their team next year). Odd.
That's what this thread doesn't take into account. How many players that have had limited roles on these teams could emerge as great players next year? Did anyone outside of Milwaukee think that Jimmy Butler would be a difference maker this season? What about DJO, who wouldn't be mentioned as a top 50 recruit because he's a JuCo? And were all those guys on that list top 50 when they arrived? Was Dominique Jones? Hayward? Rautins? Just because you don't know who some of the top players will be next year doesn't mean they aren't already here in the conference.
'Cuse does win for coolest college basketball player name...Fab Melo. Dude sounds like he is from the future.
Mike Rosario and Greg Echenique plan to transfer out of Rutgers. Patrick Jackson also left the program.
Herb Pope and Jeremy Hazell have declared for the draft from Seton Hall. Robert Mitchell was kicked out of school there and I believe Jeff Robinson is leaving too.
Jordan Dumars is transferring from South Florida to Michigan.
Quote from: reinko on April 12, 2010, 02:51:57 PM
'Cuse does win for coolest college basketball player name...Fab Melo. Dude sounds like he is from the future.
Close. He's from Brazil. And his real name is Fabricio De Melo.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 12, 2010, 03:34:31 PM
Close. He's from Brazil. And his real name is Fabricio De Melo.
Is that Portuguese for "seed of Melo", as in Anthony?
Bully for us, then and it looks like an even softer bubble next year.
With a 96 team field, we should never miss another tourney again, period.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 12, 2010, 06:45:25 PM
With a 96 team field, we should never miss another tourney again, period.
So if we start missing the tournament in the future, should the coach be fired since we should never miss it again?
I'm simply asking.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 12, 2010, 07:28:54 PM
So if we start missing the tournament in the future, should the coach be fired since we should never miss it again?
I'm simply asking.
Depends. If you are talking about a high D-1 program then no. To fire the coach is simply not enough. Capital punishment Iran-style is far more appropriate.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 12, 2010, 07:28:54 PM
So if we start missing the tournament in the future, should the coach be fired since we should never miss it again?
I'm simply asking.
If the number of at-large bids is going to expand by 75%, then yes, any head coach of Marquette who misses the tournament should be fired. If not after one miss, most definitely two misses. It probably means 1-2 years at 12-16th in the BE. That should be unacceptable for Marquette given the resources the university has poured into the program.
Quote from: warrior07 on April 13, 2010, 07:47:19 AM
If the number of at-large bids is going to expand by 75%, then yes, any head coach of Marquette who misses the tournament should be fired. If not after one miss, most definitely two misses. It probably means 1-2 years at 12-16th in the BE. That should be unacceptable for Marquette given the resources the university has poured into the program.
Even if there is the prerequesite that a team must finish over .500 in conference?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 13, 2010, 08:02:31 AM
Even if there is the prerequesite that a team must finish over .500 in conference?
They don't have that prerequesite now. Are they considering that?
I can't possibly see a prerequisite of a .500 record, since we've seen teams get in to the Dance in the past with sub-.500 records (like Georgia Tech this year). My guess is that you will see automatic bids given to regular season champions, which will probably mean an extra 10-12 automatic bids since most regular season champs are already in. And of the additional 20 or so at-large bids, most will go to the typical BCS conference teams. This year, it would have been teams like Seton Hall, Illinois, Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, Texas Tech, and Mississippi getting the at-large bids.
Looking at the NIT field, I have to think that even North Carolina would get in ahead of a lot of teams that might be more deserving, because they will bring in more money. A 5-11 record in the ACC might not be worth much, but don't kid yourself into thinking this move by the NCAA is about anything other than money. People will watch teams like UNC, Arizona, Illinois, and other big name teams even in down years. All they care about are money and ratings. Why else would Duke get such an easy road to the Final Four? Love them or hate them, people watch the Dukies. Don't think the selection committee wasn't cognizant of that fact.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 13, 2010, 08:39:05 AM
I can't possibly see a prerequisite of a .500 record, since we've seen teams get in to the Dance in the past with sub-.500 records (like Georgia Tech this year). My guess is that you will see automatic bids given to regular season champions, which will probably mean an extra 10-12 automatic bids since most regular season champs are already in. And of the additional 20 or so at-large bids, most will go to the typical BCS conference teams. This year, it would have been teams like Seton Hall, Illinois, Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, Texas Tech, and Mississippi getting the automatic bids.
Looking at the NIT field, I have to think that even North Carolina would get in ahead of a lot of teams that might be more deserving, because they will bring in more money. A 5-11 record in the ACC might not be worth much, but don't kid yourself into thinking this move by the NCAA is about anything other than money. People will watch teams like UNC, Arizona, Illinois, and other big name teams even in down years. All they care about are money and ratings. Why else would Duke get such an easy road to the Final Four? Love them or hate them, people watch the Dukies. Don't think the selection committee wasn't cognizant of that fact.
You seem to use the term "automatic bids" to mean different things in your post. I think you meant at-large bids when mentioning Illinois, VaTech, et al?
Either way, there's not a chance they'll give auto bids to the regular season champs and do away with the conference tournament$.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 13, 2010, 08:06:54 AM
They don't have that prerequesite now. Are they considering that?
I've heard the idea thrown around, but I don't know how much truth there is to it. Personally, I'd like to see it - sort of like being "bowl eligible" in football.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 13, 2010, 09:21:52 AM
You seem to use the term "automatic bids" to mean different things in your post. I think you meant at-large bids when mentioning Illinois, VaTech, et al?
Either way, there's not a chance they'll give auto bids to the regular season champs and do away with the conference tournament$.
They could however grant two automatic bids to each conference - one to the regular season champ and one to the conference tournament winner. I think that if expansion to 96 happens, this is an absolute must.
Quote from: TJ on April 13, 2010, 09:29:08 AM
They could however grant two automatic bids to each conference - one to the regular season champ and one to the conference tournament winner. I think that if expansion to 96 happens, this is an absolute must.
Besides money, one of the biggest reasons for expansion is because there are too many automatic bids from small conferences. Theoretically doubling that number isn't going to accomplish much. Also, what is the incentive for the regular season champ to play in the conference tournament? They'd basically be playing exhibition games and likely mailing it in, thus weakening the tournament and potentially allowing an "unworthy" team to get an automatic bid.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 13, 2010, 09:44:39 AM
Besides money, one of the biggest reasons for expansion is because there are too many automatic bids from small conferences. Theoretically doubling that number isn't going to accomplish much. Also, what is the incentive for the regular season champ to play in the conference tournament? They'd basically be playing exhibition games and likely mailing it in, thus weakening the tournament and potentially allowing an "unworthy" team to get an automatic bid.
Fixed the one mistaken auto bid in my post. They won't do away with the conference tournaments, you are right about that. Way too much money there. I do think they will give auto bids to both conference tourney winners and regular season champions. Here are the additional automatic bids that would have gone out had this year been a 96-team tournament:
Team Conference Conf. W/L Overall W/L
Stony Brook America East 13-3 22-10
Campbell Atlantic Sun 14-6 19-11
Weber State Big Sky 13-3 20-11
Coastal Carolina Big South 15-3 28-7
Kent State Mid-American 13-3 24-10
Quinnipiac Northeast 15-3 23-10
Jackson State SWAC 17-1 19-13
South Dakota Great West 11-1 22-10Those are the only new automatic bids you would add in. First, South Dakota is separate from the rest because they would be in next year regardless. The Great West didn't get a bid this year as a new conference, but they were both regular season and conference tournament champs, so next year they would have received an automatic bid. So you are really only adding 7 teams as automatic bids that wouldn't have been in this year. Every other regular season conference champion received a bid to the Big Dance, whether through winning their conference tournament or through an at-large bid.
That means if they upped the field by the proposed 31 teams, you would be adding 24 at-large bids. It's not as if they'd fill the field with a bunch of nobodies. Of the teams above, only Weber State and Jackson State had losing records in their non-conference seasons. Everyone knows Weber State is capable of the occasional upset, so I'd say the only truly poor quality team added in by giving regular season champions automatic bids would be Jackson State. I'll admit I don't know the circumstances that led to them going from a 2-12 non-conference record to a 17-1 conference mark, maybe it was a player back from injury, or maybe they are just the best team in a bad conference, but if you allow this and only add one or two truly bad teams in exchange for the regular season having meaning for every team in the country, I think it's a worthwhile trade.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 13, 2010, 09:44:39 AM
Besides money, one of the biggest reasons for expansion is because there are too many automatic bids from small conferences. Theoretically doubling that number isn't going to accomplish much. Also, what is the incentive for the regular season champ to play in the conference tournament? They'd basically be playing exhibition games and likely mailing it in, thus weakening the tournament and potentially allowing an "unworthy" team to get an automatic bid.
Seeding...
Rather than having the bubble teams in/out of the tournament, bracketologists will probably be looking at the bubble around the cut off for first-round byes-the top 32 teams.
It seems that in future tournaments that teams will 1.) play well enough to ensure that they are going to be one of the tourney teams and once that is secured 2.) ensure that they have one of the top 32 spots locked up to avoid possibly playing 3 games in six days if they are fortunate enough to do so.
Quote from: brewcity77 on April 13, 2010, 11:13:45 AM
Fixed the one mistaken auto bid in my post. They won't do away with the conference tournaments, you are right about that. Way too much money there. I do think they will give auto bids to both conference tourney winners and regular season champions.
Why would you think that?
This is all about $$$ and increasing viewership. Adding a bunch of low-major conference champions isn't going to draw in the numbers. (Furthermore create the incentive for conferences to "toss" their regular season champion from the conference tournament.) Outside of possibly giving an auto bid to the Great West, I can pretty much guaranty you that all new bids will be to at-large schools, the majority of which will be from BCS conferences.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 13, 2010, 11:35:42 AM
Why would you think that?
This is all about $$$ and increasing viewership. Adding a bunch of low-major conference champions isn't going to draw in the numbers. (Furthermore create the incentive for conferences to "toss" their regular season champion from the conference tournament.) Outside of possibly giving an auto bid to the Great West, I can pretty much guaranty you that all new bids will be to at-large schools, the majority of which will be from BCS conferences.
First, the Great West is getting an automatic bid. No question to that. The only reason they didn't this year is because the NCAA committee doesn't give automatic bids to first year conferences. C-USA went through the same thing back in its inception year.
I think that giving 24 at-large bids to BCS conferences is more than enough. There's been plenty of cries that the regular season doesn't have enough meaning. If you listen to the Dan Patrick show, it's pretty much discussed every week from January to March. How much interest would anyone have had in seeing Quinnipiac play Robert Morris in the Northeast Conference season finale this year? Pretty much zero. But if you know that Quinnipiac can secure a berth in the NCAA tournament, the game would get more viewership from hardcore hoops fans. ESPN especially would be able to find a lot more worthwhile games. Look at how many of the conference tournaments get airtime. If the regular season meant an automatic bid as well, that would increase the ability for the NCAA to showcase some of these smaller conferences and try to prove to people that there is a legitimate reason for the expanded field beyond simply money.
Think of it as a lovely catch-22 for the NCAAs to use. They push some of the late-season smaller conference games because they mean automatic berths under the guise that these teams are earning their way in, thus validating the 96-team field. As they do so, they make more money. Then when the tournament starts, they have a broader interest because they've added the 24 at-larges from BCS conferences, but also satisfied the little guy by making their tournament more "fair", thus getting higher ratings from both fans of the BCS conferences and fans of the smaller schools. They argue its competitive balance, but make money hand-over-fist at the same time.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 13, 2010, 11:35:42 AM
Why would you think that?
This is all about $$$ and increasing viewership. Adding a bunch of low-major conference champions isn't going to draw in the numbers. (Furthermore create the incentive for conferences to "toss" their regular season champion from the conference tournament.) Outside of possibly giving an auto bid to the Great West, I can pretty much guaranty you that all new bids will be to at-large schools, the majority of which will be from BCS conferences.
If they expand and all it does is add 28+ mediocre BCS schools to the field, then it will have gone from a terrible idea to a colossal failure. I understand your point about money, and you're probably right, but that would be an absolute disaster in my opinion.
The best teams should get at-large bids, and after Miss St, Illinois, and VA Tech the next best teams were not in BCS Conferences.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 13, 2010, 09:44:39 AM
Theoretically doubling that number isn't going to accomplish much.
You really can't emphasize this enough. We're adding 31 at-large bids to the current 35 (?) at-large bids. In other words, we're increasing the number of at-large bids by almost NINETY percent. I agree that the number of automatic bids these days suggests we need more at-large bids. No doubt about it. But NINETY percent more?
Quote from: TJ on April 13, 2010, 11:51:54 AM
If they expand and all it does is add 28+ mediocre BCS schools to the field, then it will have gone from a terrible idea to a colossal failure. I understand your point about money, and you're probably right, but that would be an absolute disaster in my opinion.
The best teams should get at-large bids, and after Miss St, Illinois, and VA Tech the next best teams were not in BCS Conferences.
The best teams will get the bids. That is why you won't see regular season champions from bad conferences. A quick look at Pomeroy rankings shows that over half of the teams that would be next in line for those bids would be BCS schools and a bunch would be mid-majors. Very few would be from smaller conferences.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 13, 2010, 12:23:30 PM
The best teams will get the bids. That is why you won't see regular season champions from bad conferences. A quick look at Pomeroy rankings shows that over half of the teams that would be next in line for those bids would be BCS schools and a bunch would be mid-majors. Very few would be from smaller conferences.
I think that for this expansion they'll simply dissolve the NIT into the NCAA Tourney, which is why I think the regular season auto-bids will be granted. However, that's certainly not guaranteed. We'll see soon enough...
And my last post was responding to your statement about getting majority BCS schools in - which I thought meant that they would put in teams based on school size/conference & results instead of just based on results (i.e. North Carolina in the NIT this year). If they really do take the next 31 best teams, which undoubtedly will include many mid-majors, then we're back to just a terrible idea ;D.