|
Post by valporun on Aug 29, 2010 0:04:33 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't mind the double bye format, because the teams that want the double bye do what they must to earn it, and that's by winning games. IF a HL team can't win games, then they don't deserve a double bye.
Also, for those that want every team, or more teams in the NCAA tourney, that's what the conference tourneys pretty much do...weed out the undeserving teams. We don't need to water down "The Big Dance" with teams that don't deserve to be there because they didn't win their way in. The NCAA just needs to realize that the 64/65 or 68 team format can work, its just a matter of how to properly put the right teams in those play-in games, and that's where it should be the bubble teams from the big conferences, rather than the small conference schools that become the stepladder speed bump that gets Duke, Michigan St., Kentucky, and the big name schools that end up #1 seeds on the way to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Aug 29, 2010 0:53:11 GMT -5
To be honest, I don't mind the double bye format, because the teams that want the double bye do what they must to earn it, and that's by winning games. IF a HL team can't win games, then they don't deserve a double bye. Also, for those that want every team, or more teams in the NCAA tourney, that's what the conference tourneys pretty much do...weed out the undeserving teams. We don't need to water down "The Big Dance" with teams that don't deserve to be there because they didn't win their way in. The NCAA just needs to realize that the 64/65 or 68 team format can work, its just a matter of how to properly put the right teams in those play-in games, and that's where it should be the bubble teams from the big conferences, rather than the small conference schools that become the stepladder speed bump that gets Duke, Michigan St., Kentucky, and the big name schools that end up #1 seeds on the way to the Sweet 16 or Elite 8. It may be apropos of very little, but I was just thinking the other day about the very legitimate position held by some that the NCAA tournament already includes just about everyone in Div. I, namely that the Conference tourneys are an extension of the NCAA tourney, sort like the IHSAA sectionals used to be to the IHSAA Field of 64 back when it was all one class (I guess it might still be valid now). Just one flaw in that picture: if one is going to take that position, then one should also take the position that we should get rid of all at-large bids because the tourney starts in the "sectionals" and the whole thing is "win or go home", so if you don't win your conference tourney, you shouldn't be able to advance beyond that. I don't know if I would like that or not, but it seems to be logically consistent with the contention that we don't need to expand the NCAA tourney to include more teams because everyone already is included. Just food for thought...
|
|