Did Purdue get a commit this evening?

[Wolegib]

my thought was if you cut the field, the NCAA tourney would still make just as much money, and they could stagger the games to have just as many games on TV. but the conferences would make more money because their games would then become more meaningful. I also believe if we're going to have play-in games, those play-in games should be for the last seed, not for the 7th or 11 seed. I know the reasons why, but I don't agree with them.

And part of Purdue's seeding problem last year was part Purdue's and part the BIg ten. as a conference, the BIg 10 fell short against the elite teams last year and Purdue was no exception. if Purdue had beaten Villanova, Louisville, or Iowa, or Michigan in the tourney, they would been a #2 or #3 seed and had the opportunity to play that next game at Indy rather than KC.

I know the different conference commissioners fight for the teams to get in and the seedings, but it seemed like the BIG 10 commish was more interested in getting teams into the tourney and compromised their seeding. Despite whatever their record is, the BIG 10 champion should be at least a #2 seed. Period !

 

[tjreese]

I like the concept of eliminating bias as well, but not convinced a random tournament is the best or good solution. Especially one eliminating ninety percent of conference participants. With the current setup, I enjoy the importance of the regular season. And how so many games even late in the season remain relevant for tournament seeding. As Matt Painter was quoted by poster Treed I believe, the regular season is months long preparation for tournament play. I like that.

No problem, but didn't understand the ninety percent of conference participants eliminated. It would be possible to have all teh teams in D1 play in the tourney if that was a desire...randomization wouldn't affect that. I think the season woudl be just as important because it is important today in the IHSAA. Coaches and players want to win...that is how they are wired...and they know that if they are not getting better the next opponent is and so I think the regular season would still be important and wouldn't change anything in preparing for the end of year tourney as you quoted above. Randomization will not happen though...I think that is a pretty good bet...

 

[tjreese]

my thought was if you cut the field, the NCAA tourney would still make just as much money, and they could stagger the games to have just as many games on TV. but the conferences would make more money because their games would then become more meaningful. I also believe if we're going to have play-in games, those play-in games should be for the last seed, not for the 7th or 11 seed. I know the reasons why, but I don't agree with them.

And part of Purdue's seeding problem last year was part Purdue's and part the BIg ten. as a conference, the BIg 10 fell short against the elite teams last year and Purdue was no exception. if Purdue had beaten Villanova, Louisville, or Iowa, or Michigan in the tourney, they would been a #2 or #3 seed and had the opportunity to play that next game at Indy rather than KC.

I know the different conference commissioners fight for the teams to get in and the seedings, but it seemed like the BIG 10 commish was more interested in getting teams into the tourney and compromised their seeding. Despite whatever their record is, the BIG 10 champion should be at least a #2 seed. Period !

It is hard to imagine any circumstance where the Big winner is worse than a 3 seed

 

[Inspector100]

So back to the original post and it is now 25 Sep 2017. The answer is: "Yes we did!"

 

[Wolegib]

he's not only a commitment, but also one of our best recruiters.

 

[BoilerAndy]

So back to the original post and it is now 25 Sep 2017. The answer is: "Yes we did!"

2 in 1 week.