1 hour ago, TheDeuce said:

Exactly this. 

I agree, their non-con schedule shouldn't be ignored, but neither should the rest of the season. If games in November matter that much, the system is grossly flawed. 

Exactly SEC teams won 89% of non-conference games but only .500 in conference games! 

59 minutes ago, Jumper_Dad said:

How would you cut it back? Eliminate automatic quailifiers from small conferences or eliminate some number of at-large invites?

I’m not sure we’ve ever seen an organization in sports reduce the size of a tournament, so I’m not suggesting that. My point is that each year, we end up nitpicking a group of 4-6 teams that underperformed.

My biggest issue with the tournament selection process has always been the inequities between the haves and have-nots. Teams from power conferences aren’t penalized as much for their wins and losses compared to teams from lower-ranked conferences. The process has shifted from focusing on who you’ve beaten to who you’ve played. I don’t have a solution, but this is the fallout of expanding the field as much as it has been.

59 minutes ago, Jumper_Dad said:

Exactly SEC teams won 89% of non-conference games but only .500 in conference games! 

Completely unacceptable.

2 hours ago, bugatti said:

The real answer is there are too many teams in the tournament.

Nah.  It's perfect the way it is.  The yearly debate on who made it and who didn't is fun.  The first weekend are the best 4 days in sports.

9 minutes ago, REALSPORT said:

Nah.  It's perfect the way it is.  The yearly debate on who made it and who didn't is fun.  The first weekend are the best 4 days in sports.

If you think 68 teams is perfect, what do you think about college football?  When it was 2, 4, and now 12?

17 hours ago, bugatti said:

The real answer is there are too many teams in the tournament.

 

17 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

How would you cut it back? Eliminate automatic quailifiers from small conferences or eliminate some number of at-large invites?

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I think 64 teams was the perfect number. They should never take away automatic qualifiers so basically eliminate the current "last four in," meaning no tournament this year for Texas, Xavier, San Diego State, and...North Carolina!

16 hours ago, theguru said:

If you think 68 teams is perfect, what do you think about college football?  When it was 2, 4, and now 12?

I go back to 64 teams.  No need for games in Dayton.  It didn't really solve the issue of who should or shouldn't be in.  

Unless they go to 352 teams, regardless of the "number" there will always be talk about somebody getting in or being out that shouldn't.

 

18 hours ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

I agree 100% cut it down or do away with conference tournament and seed the conference winners and add a weekend or 2 if needed and let everyone play in it and split the money with everyone and may help schools that don't have much NIL money. I am not really for that before 10 people quote me. lol

Tongue in check, sort of. LOL
256 team NCAA tournament.  Just adds 2 more rounds.
96 team NIT

Everybody's playing.  No more conference tournament.

16 hours ago, theguru said:

If you think 68 teams is perfect, what do you think about college football?  When it was 2, 4, and now 12?

I would have been happy with 8, but 12 works.  They need to revisit the playoff schedule as well as seeding and byes.  Of course, I'm a Buckeyes fan so it's understandable that I would like how it went.  ?

24 minutes ago, No Hiding Here....BC 21 said:

Tongue in check, sort of. LOL
256 team NCAA tournament.  Just adds 2 more rounds.
96 team NIT

Everybody's playing.  No more conference tournament.

This. 

Everybody should be in the playoffs. 

Wait.... Wrong forum. 

So, to get off our annual griping of how the tournament teams are selected and seeding snubs, who do you believe will cut down the nets?

Until a team proves to me NBA talent doesn't win titles in college, I will lean that direction and pick Duke to win it all.

2 minutes ago, bugatti said:

So, to get off our annual griping of how the tournament teams are selected and seeding snubs, who do you believe will cut down the nets?

Until a team proves to me NBA talent doesn't win titles in college, I will lean that direction and pick Duke to win it all.

I've got Florida.

8 minutes ago, Randy Parker said:

I've got Florida.

That's what my head is telling me, but it feels too trendy. That's a silly reason not to pick a team, though.

12 minutes ago, bugatti said:

So, to get off our annual griping of how the tournament teams are selected and seeding snubs, who do you believe will cut down the nets?

Until a team proves to me NBA talent doesn't win titles in college, I will lean that direction and pick Duke to win it all.

There's no way I can pick Duke, and it's because of their games against Louisville. 

In the first game, with a fully healthy Duke roster, a depleted Louisville team was leading at the half, eventually giving up the lead and Duke won by 11. 

Does Duke have loads of talent? Of course they do, but right now I'd pick Auburn, Alabama, Houston and Florida to win it all before I'd pick Duke. 

22 minutes ago, bugatti said:

So, to get off our annual griping of how the tournament teams are selected and seeding snubs, who do you believe will cut down the nets?

I think Florida, Houston, or Alabama. I don't like how Auburn finished. I don't trust Duke being so freshman heavy and what to make of Flagg's injury.