|
Post by rick on Apr 1, 2010 17:06:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Apr 2, 2010 8:01:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Apr 2, 2010 8:05:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Apr 2, 2010 8:18:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Apr 2, 2010 8:45:57 GMT -5
100% against it.
Any argument for expansion, especially one that says it would just basically absorb the NIT field is awful.
Just what I would love to see... a 15-15 UNC team that got smoked over and over during the season would be IN?
Oh and how riveting these first round games would be.
Who is going to rush home from work or play hooky to sit down and watch a South Carolina/Washington State or UNLV/ETSU matchup?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 2, 2010 9:40:02 GMT -5
I love this change. It will give many more Cinderella opportunities, especially to teams that got off to a poor start but finished strong and didn't have the RPI to make the cut but who probably could beat many other teams with better RPI's. The first round bye is great. It rewards the regular season performance. A double bye would work even better. The 33 seed will play the 96 seed, and so on. More good teams will make the second round, which is really the best field of 64 teams. The first round will be like a massive play-in to see who makes the 64 team dance. Those bubble teams who were better than conference champions in sorry conferences will most likely make the dance as they should because they are better than those who made it by way of auto bid. And the auto-bid teams from weak conferences get a chance to prove how good they are in the first round. The weak auto-bids will get culled from the final 64 teams and those teams who make it to the second round will have proved on the court that they belong which is much better than the way it is currently done by expert bureaucrats who often leave out teams that should not have been left out and include teams that should have been left out. I actually agree with Bobby Knight and think a 128 team field would be the best way to select the best 64 teams. Let em' play. After one night of games, the field is set. And those 16 seeds that NEVER win will be gone, as they should. They aren't good enough to play in the place of better teams that got the bubble shaft. The best 64 teams should play in the tournament. Let the losers go to a CBI or some other boring tournament if they need a boost in self-esteem.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Apr 2, 2010 9:55:51 GMT -5
From how I'm reading into it, with that first round being the Tuesday-Wednesday before the traditional Thursday-Friday start, all 347 D-1 teams had better plan for their spring break/quarter break to come during that week, otherwise a lot of these schools could have athletes missing almost a full week's worth of classes because the NCAA doesn't care that these basketball teams are made up of STUDENT-athletes.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Apr 2, 2010 10:06:57 GMT -5
So the NCAA is about to solve the problem they’ve had for so long. The problem that so many times the 96th ranked basketball team is really the best in the land, but they get overlooked by the media and other teams.
Finally, that injustice soon will have a chance to rectified.
Until a 16 beats a 1 regularly, leave it alone! We don't need 30 more "16s."
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Apr 2, 2010 10:08:51 GMT -5
The best 64 teams should play in the tournament. Let the losers go to a CBI or some other boring tournament if they need a boost in self-esteem. That is precisely the way it is now... Why do teams 65-96 need to get a "boost in self-esteem?"
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 2, 2010 10:39:30 GMT -5
The best 64 teams should play in the tournament. Let the losers go to a CBI or some other boring tournament if they need a boost in self-esteem. That is precisely the way it is now... Why do teams 65-96 need to get a "boost in self-esteem?" First of all, I think the field of 64 should be determined on the court. What better way to select the 64 than among the top 128 teams? You end up after one day of games with the best teams in the country. After reseeding after the first round, you should have teams that are more likely to be competitive than they are now. The sixteen seeds will likely not be the worst teams who got ahead of those who were kicked out of the bubble process. For the first time in history, a 16 seed will have a shot at an upset because the teams who survive the first round are not likely to be the same teams that would have made up a 16-seed - those who got the auto bid because they were in a lowly conference and won their conference championship but have no business playing ahead of teams left out that would have most likely destroyed these auto bid teams. I want the best 64 teams in the country in the dance, period!! Those who argue that a team from each conference should make it to the dance are the ones who are being politically correct and insisting that these teams, which have no business being in the tournment, should get the opportunity and experience of the dance. Phooey! Let the best 64 teams in the country play. Better teams will emerge; better, more excitilng games will be played, and teams that should not have been excluded will have the opportunity to demonstrate why not by beating those horrible otherwise 16 seeds and will play against a one seed which will be an intersting game to watch. Who watches 1-16 matchups? Not me. But if a bubble team plays in the first round against an otherwise 16 team and kills them (very likely), then the field of 64 will be much less of a joke due to auto bids. And more teams from mid-major conferences will make the dance. Teams like the HL might have 3 or 4 teams make the dance with an expanded field. I think the NCAA will go to 96 teams and people like you won't like it but I'd bet that after a few years you will come to see that it is much better than the current system. The top 32 teams worked hard during the regular season and should be given a first-round bye as a reward for their hard work. So they won't have to play against cupcakes in the first round. The lower seeded teams will fight it out and there will be many upsets and there will be more teams like St. Mary's and No. Iowa who emerge and make some noise. And the second round [which I believe is the de facto first round of the best 64 teams] will be much more exciting as a field of 64 teams because only the best teams will emerge from the first round. That will make every game in the new second round (the real first round) much more exciting to watch because overall, the teams will be more evenly matched and the token conference champions who always lose will have been extracted in the first round leaving much better and competitive teams for the real dance which begins in the second round with the best 64 teams. Win-win. Fans will love it eventually. People just don't like change and can't see beyond their own prejudices so they whine about that change.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 2, 2010 10:40:45 GMT -5
From how I'm reading into it, with that first round being the Tuesday-Wednesday before the traditional Thursday-Friday start, all 347 D-1 teams had better plan for their spring break/quarter break to come during that week, otherwise a lot of these schools could have athletes missing almost a full week's worth of classes because the NCAA doesn't care that these basketball teams are made up of STUDENT-athletes. Just the opposite will happen. Look that the same number of teams currently including the NIT and NCAA and the accumulated travel, schedules, etc. It will be more efficient to include the 32 NIT teams in the dance.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 2, 2010 11:05:39 GMT -5
I'm tired of the old left-wing, hypocritical view that it's all about money. Yep, everything is about money. The more money the conference makes, the more money Valpo gets, the more money you make, the better your standard of living. EVERYONE wants to make more money. Nothing wrong with that. And it's not a legitimate argument against an expanded field. That's a stupid illogical argument based on bias and ignorance and a delusional, warped worldview - aka liberalism.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 2, 2010 11:14:58 GMT -5
So the NCAA is about to solve the problem they’ve had for so long. The problem that so many times the 96th ranked basketball team is really the best in the land, but they get overlooked by the media and other teams. Finally, that injustice soon will have a chance to rectified. Until a 16 beats a 1 regularly, leave it alone! We don't need 30 more "16s." The same arguments were made when they went from 32 to 64 teams. This will ruin the tournament they said. If they would have bought into this argument, St. Mary's and No. Iowa might not have even been in the dance this year much less make the sweet 16.
|
|
|
Post by valpo04 on Apr 2, 2010 11:16:19 GMT -5
I'm tired of the old left-wing, hypocritical view that it's all about money. Yep, everything is about money. The more money the conference makes, the more money Valpo gets, the more money you make, the better your standard of living. EVERYONE wants to make more money. Nothing wrong with that. And it's not a legitimate argument against an expanded field. That's a stupid illogical argument based on bias and ignorance and a delusional, warped worldview - aka liberalism. Trying to figure out who you are responding to... I guess you just wanted to get that out there. ...and not EVERYONE wants to make more money, shocking I know! The argument that it is about money isn't a stupid, illogical argument. If the NCAA wouldn't see financial gain from an expanded field I am willing to bet (see what I did there?) that it wouldn't be considered. I also find it humorous that you, of all people used the line: "people just don't like change and can't see beyond their own prejudices so they whine about that change."
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 2, 2010 11:18:18 GMT -5
I'm tired of the old left-wing, hypocritical view that it's all about money. Yep, everything is about money. The more money the conference makes, the more money Valpo gets, the more money you make, the better your standard of living. EVERYONE wants to make more money. Nothing wrong with that. And it's not a legitimate argument against an expanded field. That's a stupid illogical argument based on bias and ignorance and a delusional, warped worldview - aka liberalism. Trying to figure out who you are responding to... I guess you just wanted to get that out there. ...and not EVERYONE wants to make more money, shocking I know! The argument that it is about money isn't a stupid, illogical argument. If the NCAA wouldn't see financial gain from an expanded field I am willing to bet (see what I did there?) that it wouldn't be considered. I also find it humorous that you, of all people used the line: "people just don't like change and can't see beyond their own prejudices so they whine about that change." Me of all people? What change am I whining about? Please provide evidence and not just make a wild accusation. BTW, I was not responding to you although you do seem to be quite defensive about what I wrote.
|
|