April 2, 201016 yr I do not like the idea of expansion. To me if you are not one of the 65 top temas in the country then you are not going to win the championship. I do not think any team left out would still be playing if they had made the tournament. This type of expansion is not the worst route they could take, but I still just think that they are watering down the field.
April 2, 201016 yr Looks like that will not be an issue. One round added and the top 8 seeds get a first round bye. The 2nd week will go from Tuesday to Sunday? Yes please... I'm in the minority with you GT. I personally don't see anything wrong with the change. You're basically just having 32 play in games for the right to play the 1-8 seeds. IMO, it makes it a little more exciting and assures when the round of 64 starts, you have the best 64 teams there. How can people not like that?
April 2, 201016 yr I do not like the idea of expansion. To me if you are not one of the 65 top temas in the country then you are not going to win the championship. I do not think any team left out would still be playing if they had made the tournament. This type of expansion is not the worst route they could take, but I still just think that they are watering down the field. I disagree. I think Dayton could have made a run in the tournament. Just because you're one of the 65 teams in the tournament, doesn't mean you're one of the best 65 teams in the country. The automatic bid takes away from that in some cases. Do you honestly think a Dayton, Cincinnati, North Carolina, Ole Miss, or Virginia Tech couldn't have beaten their fair share of 9-16 seeds?
April 2, 201016 yr I disagree. I think Dayton could have made a run in the tournament. Just because you're one of the 65 teams in the tournament, doesn't mean you're one of the best 65 teams in the country. The automatic bid takes away from that in some cases. Do you honestly think a Dayton, Cincinnati, North Carolina, Ole Miss, or Virginia Tech couldn't have beaten their fair share of 9-16 seeds? You honestly think Dayton would still be playing. I did not say they could not make a run, I am saying that they would not still be playing. If you think Dayton could still be in then you did not watch Dayton enough this year. The teams you listed could have won a game, but would not have made a run at the NCAA crown. Those teams had chances to get into the NCAA tournament and did not. I do not see any of the teams you listed making it to Indy. You are talking about winning 1 game. I don't think you need to change the entire tournament so that some team who had an average season can feel good about 1 game.
April 2, 201016 yr Regular season won't amount to a hill of beans. There will be no big regular season games, and everyone will play for seeding instead of selection. I don't agree with it, but who am I to say.
April 2, 201016 yr I don't agree with it, but who am I to say. That's a key thing. You and I don't have to find funding for 20 non-revenue sports at the university. A little more money for universities can potentially go a long way.
April 2, 201016 yr That's a key thing. You and I don't have to find funding for 20 non-revenue sports at the university. A little more money for universities can potentially go a long way. Wow. I never looked at it that way before.
April 2, 201016 yr You honestly think Dayton would still be playing. I did not say they could not make a run, I am saying that they would not still be playing. If you think Dayton could still be in then you did not watch Dayton enough this year. The teams you listed could have won a game, but would not have made a run at the NCAA crown. Those teams had chances to get into the NCAA tournament and did not. I do not see any of the teams you listed making it to Indy. You are talking about winning 1 game. I don't think you need to change the entire tournament so that some team who had an average season can feel good about 1 game. When did I ever say they could win a championship or anything like that? :confused: My post was in reference to you saying "if you are not one of the top 65 teams in the country, you aren't going to win a championship." Do you honestly think Arkansas Pine Bluff, Lehigh, East Tennessee St, Vermont and Oakland are top 65 in the country? Adding the 32 teams assures that there won't be those 1-16 and 2-15 blowouts anymore. How could you not like that? If anything, this will create more intriguing matchups in the round of 64. Don't forget that this year was the weakest field ever in the history of the NCAA.
April 2, 201016 yr When did I ever say they could win a championship or anything like that? :confused: My post was in reference to you saying "if you are not one of the top 65 teams in the country, you aren't going to win a championship." Do you honestly think Arkansas Pine Bluff, Lehigh, East Tennessee St, Vermont and Oakland are top 65 in the country? Adding the 32 teams assures that there won't be those 1-16 and 2-15 blowouts anymore. How could you not like that? If anything, this will create more intriguing matchups in the round of 64. Don't forget that this year was the weakest field ever in the history of the NCAA. They are not 1 of the best 65 teams, but they earned their right to be there. Just like UNC, VT, Dayton, cincy, & Ole Miss had a chance to do. I don't think everyone and their brother needs to be allowed in the tournament. You should have to earn your way in. I don't see how adding several teams that have had average seasons to a CAHMPIONSHIP tournament strengthens the tournament. Looks like you are watering down the tournament to me.
April 2, 201016 yr Obviously they are going to do this, but I do believe it will provide much less interest in the regular season-it is already diminished. The conference titles are already nearly irrelevant-too much emphasis on the conference tournaments. That leaves a significantly watered down NCAA tournament. Nobody will be fooled by this and ratings will continue to decline. The reality is this tournament is not nearly as popular as it was at one time. Too many games are televised, and the significance of each game goes way down. Add in the previously stated fact of when it all washes out usually the big guns are all that are left. Even here in 2010 folks talk about the suprise of Butler and Michigan State in the Final Four, but the reality is both were Top 20 teams going in to the tournament by the NCAA rating methodology. I think somewhere in between what they do in football and basketball is the way to do it.:bunny: Let's not turn this into the WNBA...those are basketball games too, but who cares?:confused:
April 2, 201016 yr They are not 1 of the best 65 teams, but they earned their right to be there. Just like UNC, VT, Dayton, cincy, & Ole Miss had a chance to do. I don't think everyone and their brother needs to be allowed in the tournament. You should have to earn your way in. I don't see how adding several teams that have had average seasons to a CAHMPIONSHIP tournament strengthens the tournament. Looks like you are watering down the tournament to me. You say they're watering down the tournament but isn't letting these automatic bids in that are going to lose by 15+ in the first round watering the tournament down? And all the analysts agree that letting the extra 32 teams in isn't watering the tournament down, but rather making it tougher for the higher seeds, so how is it being watered down? And you can attribute several teams' "average seasons' to playing in a tough conference. Do you honestly think Duke would've been a 1 seed if they played in the Big East? Or what about Ohio St as a 2 seed? Vanderbilt and Maryland were both considered one of the top 3 teams in their conference this year and "lowly Cincinnati" beat them by 10+. A teams' conference schedule has a lot to do with some of these average seasons that you're speaking of.
April 2, 201016 yr They are not 1 of the best 65 teams, but they earned their right to be there. Just like UNC, VT, Dayton, cincy, & Ole Miss had a chance to do. I don't think everyone and their brother needs to be allowed in the tournament. You should have to earn your way in. I don't see how adding several teams that have had average seasons to a CAHMPIONSHIP tournament strengthens the tournament. Looks like you are watering down the tournament to me. I think they are watering down their overall product with this move. A good chuck of the additional 32 slots will go to the power conferences. Teams that are at least .500 and are in a power conference will most likely get in now. The drama of the regular season and the conference tournament will drop. The teams on 'the bubble' will be no-names that are in the mid-majors and lower-tier conference. So fans will not follow the late season and conference tournaments as closely. The buzz and excitement will be less during that time while everyone waits for the 'Big Dance' to start.
April 2, 201016 yr Sorry for the mis information. Still just curious as to how many NIT teams were sub .500 in their conference. IDK this just doesn't feel right. Maybe I'm just resistant to change? Seven of the NIT participants had losing conference records: Texas Tech 4-12 UNC 5-11 NCSt 5-11 St. John's 6-12 Cincy 7-11 UConn 7-11 N'Western 7-11
April 2, 201016 yr Seven of the NIT participants had losing conference records: Texas Tech 4-12 UNC 5-11 NCSt 5-11 St. John's 6-12 Cincy 7-11 UConn 7-11 N'Western 7-11 Notice that these 7 teams came from the top 4 conferences this season: Big East- 3 teams ACC- 2 teams Big 12- 1 team Big 10- 1 team
April 2, 201016 yr 96 teams in the field does such a better job finding the best team this season than the BCS football system does. We all know that Duke, Butler, Kansas State and WVU is better than Kentucky.:rolleyes:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.