College Sports (Basketball)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#79      
I always get frustrated by the champions games or whatever they are called early in the season. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and Michigan State I think. This should be revised to be based on who has won the championship the most in, for example, the past 25 years.

Uconn, 5 times
Florida, 3 times
Duke, 3 times
Unc, 3 times

That's over 50% for those 4 schools.

Only 1 of their annually rewarded teams even qualifies based on long term success. Isn't it time for a change?
 
#80      
I always get frustrated by the champions games or whatever they are called early in the season. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and Michigan State I think. This should be revised to be based on who has won the championship the most in, for example, the past 25 years.

Uconn, 5 times
Florida, 3 times
Duke, 3 times
Unc, 3 times

That's over 50% for those 4 schools.

Only 1 of their annually rewarded teams even qualifies based on long term success. Isn't it time for a change?
Should just be the last 4 champs

Michigan, Florida, UConn, Kansas
 
#81      
I always get frustrated by the champions games or whatever they are called early in the season. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and Michigan State I think. This should be revised to be based on who has won the championship the most in, for example, the past 25 years.

Uconn, 5 times
Florida, 3 times
Duke, 3 times
Unc, 3 times

That's over 50% for those 4 schools.

Only 1 of their annually rewarded teams even qualifies based on long term success. Isn't it time for a change?
The B1G says no.
 
#82      
I always get frustrated by the champions games or whatever they are called early in the season. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and Michigan State I think. This should be revised to be based on who has won the championship the most in, for example, the past 25 years.

Uconn, 5 times
Florida, 3 times
Duke, 3 times
Unc, 3 times

That's over 50% for those 4 schools.

Only 1 of their annually rewarded teams even qualifies based on long term success. Isn't it time for a change?
Or make it a rematch of the Final Four.
 
#83      
I always get frustrated by the champions games or whatever they are called early in the season. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and Michigan State I think. This should be revised to be based on who has won the championship the most in, for example, the past 25 years.

Uconn, 5 times
Florida, 3 times
Duke, 3 times
Unc, 3 times

That's over 50% for those 4 schools.

Only 1 of their annually rewarded teams even qualifies based on long term success. Isn't it time for a change?
As somebody else said yesterday, the days of that sort of thing standing in for cold, hard cash are over, the "blue bloods" can't just warehouse all the top players anymore.
 
#87      
I always get frustrated by the champions games or whatever they are called early in the season. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky and Michigan State I think. This should be revised to be based on who has won the championship the most in, for example, the past 25 years.

Uconn, 5 times
Florida, 3 times
Duke, 3 times
Unc, 3 times

That's over 50% for those 4 schools.

Only 1 of their annually rewarded teams even qualifies based on long term success. Isn't it time for a change?

How about the Final Four teams from the previous season all play each other in an MTE. Winners of the games play for the championship, losers play for 3rd. Make it an annual charitable event. Same conference opponents on opposite sides. If they do play, it doesn't count against conference record.
 
#89      
How about the Final Four teams from the previous season all play each other in an MTE. Winners of the games play for the championship, losers play for 3rd. Make it an annual charitable event. Same conference opponents on opposite sides. If they do play, it doesn't count against conference record.
The issue there is tournaments try very hard to avoid conference matchups in non-conference, so having both Michigan and Illinois in an MTE would be avoided (if anything they'd go with the 4 1 seeds since that actually works out this year).
 
#95      

I think the implication is additional at-large teams pitted against each other in an expanded play-in. I was hoping more of the worst autobid teams would play each other to help make the round of 64 more interesting (it might not actually get better teams in as the 15 or 16 seed, but it would reduce the number of spots for those really bad autobid teams, bumping the 12 and 13 seeds onto the 13 and 14 seed lines, etc)
 
Last edited:
#97      
Why? It is a complete money play, and it would simply mean more bubble teams play in play-in games on Tues/Wed. I don't see how this fundamentally makes the tourney worse.

Sure it makes the last teams in (more) super flawed, but I have enjoyed the at-large play in games. I am all for adding eight more of those games.

As long as the best teams don't have to play more games, then it is fine by me. I simply do not like the 16v16 games (the quality of those games have not matched the at-large play in games). I personally think AQ teams should be exempt from play in games.
 
Last edited:
#100      
Jeez. The NCAA right now:

Scrooge Mcduck Trump GIF
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back