Just invite all teams and get it over with. The NCAA tourney is fixed since it invites half, or more, of the teams in the major conferences and only the top one -- or maybe two, of the mid-major conferences.
I laugh every year when sixth place teams in major conferences are called "bubble" -- yet they get a #6 seed. What bubble?
Big money goes to the big conferences every year. It's FIXED so they get the cash -- and cash is what it takes to compete.
That said -- go UTEP Miners and UNC Tar Heels -- two schools on both ends of the food chain. Heck, UTEP can have a good team and good coach, but he would just be stolen by a bigger wolf. For example Gillispe who was show bigger dollars by Texas A&M, who in turn was shown even bigger dollars by Kentucky.
Teams that finish in the middle of a major conference are simply better than the majority of teams in other conferences. Any conference below the top 10, I'd pick Minnesota (who's not even on the bubble) to finish no worse than 3rd. That's not being "fixed", that's reality. (Of course, being good brings in more cash, which makes it easier to stay good. We can argue about how those conferences got to be in that position in the first place all day. The point is, they are - and the committee recognizes that by not taking, say, a 13-3 SWAC team ahead of an 8-8 ACC team. The 8-8 ACC team is almost certainly better.)
The real issue is that for a Midmajor team to make the tourney as an at large bid, they have to be a top 30 team. They have to at least be on the verge of being on the top 25 and even then its not guaranteed. A power conference team can get an at large even if they aren't even a top 50 team. It's a double standard... it's also why the committee doesn't care about RPI, because the computer doesn't factor in bias.
The point is, they are - and the committee recognizes that by not taking, say, a 13-3 SWAC team ahead of an 8-8 ACC team. The 8-8 ACC team is almost certainly better.)
Then why are the 13-3 SWAC teams beating the 8-8 ACC teams during nonconference play, and during the tourney? I am sure the 13-3 SWAC team would have gone 8-8 in the ACC too, since 8 wins in the ACC isnt that tough, 2 wins a piece at Florida State, Virginia, BC, NC State... Every conference has bottom feeders to pad the stats. Good teams are good teams and a good Mid Major team would probably finish in the top 5 of any power conference.
U idiot a 13-3 swac team wont finish in the top 5 of the big east,pac 10,big 10,acc,big 12, or SEC....If maryland or va tech was in the SWAC they would be 15-1 or 16-0 so quit talking your nonsense.
Eight wins aren't that tough in the ACC? Really. UVa's out of conference record was 10-3. BC? 9-4. UVa beat Vermont; UVa beat Drexel; UVa beat Arizona--in Arizona. UVa has Sean Singletary, who, if you haven't seen him, is certainly one of the best guards in the country--far better than the CBS Sportsline's all-hype, er, All-America candidate Eric Gordon (who is a fine player, but still a freshman, and still playing like a freshman). BC has Tyreese Rice, who can light up any team any night. Florida State beat Florida.
Yes, there are some head-shaking losses in there too (FSU lost to South Florida, GTech lost to Winthrop), but to say that 8 wins in the ACC is easy is absolutely insane. Your post loses all credibility. If Winthrop--a fine team, btw--had to play GT, FSU, Maryland, and UVa back-to-back-to-back-to-back, they'd come out 2-2 at best, and more likely 1-3. They'd be bottom feeders, and you'd be singing the same tune, different verse.
Personally, I hate seeing all the mediocre teams from the Big Ten, Big 12, etc. come in, get six through nine seeds, and then prove they're mediocre. I'd love to see them either get lower seeds or have to play their way to the second round against those small conference teams with a chip on their shoulder, but that ain't the way it happens. The winner of the SWAC probably IS a 12 seed.
The teams that really get shafted are the 14-15-16 seeds who won their conference and thus get the right to be destroyed by UNC, UT, et al. Really, the major conference teams should hold down those slots as "last team in", but ... THEY've already been destroyed by UNC, UT, et al, so what's the point?
Yeah, it's "fixed." David v. Goliath is more compelling than seeing Duke play Maryland yet again, and really, more fair--if we insist on having 64 teams. The NCAA tourney should NOT be a second round of the conference tourneys, or of the pre-season interconference games. I'd say cut the number of teams invited, but then you get the great team that loses its conference tournament left out ... hard to say what to do.
Then why are the 13-3 SWAC teams beating the 8-8 ACC teams during nonconference play, and during the tourney?
They aren't. (I intentionally used a ridiculous example, because the SWAC is always the worst conference in the nation - Alabama State is leading the conference and hasn't beaten anyone with an RPI above #260.)
Besides, anything can happen in one game. And yet in nearly 200 tries, you can count the wins by 15 and 16 seeds on one hand. 13s and 14s lose about 90% of the time. It's not until the 12s that you see teams that aren't severely overmatched.
I'm all for teams that finish well in the better mid-major leagues (MVC, A-10, and depending on the year possibly the MWC, WAC, CUSA, Horizon, WCC, or MAC) getting in. But don't pretend 13-3 in the worst leagues is equivalent to 8-8 in the best. It's closer to 3-13, and frankly I'd be surprised if Alabama State managed a record that good in any of the major conferences.
Your 13-3 SWAC team this year: Alabama State University. Their out-of-conference record: 4-6, with quality wins over Bellvue and Oakwood College. Best OOC loss: by three, to Auburn. 8-8 big conference teams played: 2; defeated: 1-- they took down SMU in an early season tournament. SMU; woo-hee.
Second and third in the SWAC: Mississippi Valley State (11-6) and Jackson State (10-6). Their respective OOC records: 2-9 and 2-11. They played LOTS of big conference teams, top to bottom. Here are some results:
Creighton beat MVS by 30; BYU beat JSU by 39; Baylor beat JSU by 24; Pitt beat MVS by 33; Washington State beat MVS 71-26; Cal beat JSU 117-74; Baylor beat MVS by 32; Louisville beat JSU by 31; Montana (!) beat MVS by 7, and Northern Arizona beat MVS by 9.
I think that takes care of the SWAC argument, and if you take the time to actually research how the small conferences do against the big conferences in H2H match-ups, you'll find more of the same. For every Gardner-Webb triumph over Kentucky, there are ten stompings of UNC-Asheville by Wake Forest. They play a lot, and the small conferences lose a lot--and the big conferences get derided by people like you for "loading up on cupcakes." So please, stop now.
